US Wants To Nuke Russia & China Without Retaliation

Article from Infowars.com, the original article can be found here.

According to Russian Lieutenant General Viktor Poznikhir, the US is surrounding Russia and China with missile defense systems in order to launch a “sudden nuclear strike” and prevent any retaliation. 

The US has said recently it’s installing anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and Romania to prevent Iran from attacking Europe and in South Korea to prevent North Korea from attacking South Korea and Japan.

Poznikhir is suggesting the real reason for these systems is to allow the US to launch a nuclear strike on Russia or China and prevent either nation from retaliating, as their own nuclear missiles would be shot down by the US government’s ABM systems — at least in a best case scenario.

From RT:

The United States is pursuing global strategic domination through developing anti-ballistic missile systems capable of a sudden disarming strike against Russia and China, according to the deputy head of operations of the Russian General Staff.

There is an obvious link between Washington’s prompt global strike initiative, which seeks capability to engage “any targets anywhere in the world within one hour of the decision,” and the deployment of missile launch systems in Europe and aboard naval vessels across the globe, Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir said at a news briefing on Wednesday.

“The presence of US missile defense bases in Europe, missile defense vessels in seas and oceans close to Russia creates a powerful covert strike component for conducting a sudden nuclear missile strike against the Russian Federation,” Poznikhir explained.

While the US keeps claiming that its missile defenses are seeking to mitigate threats from rogue states, the results of computer simulations confirm that the Pentagon’s installations are directed against Russia and China, according to Poznikhir.

American missile attack warning systems, he said, cover all possible trajectories of Russian ballistic missiles flying toward the United States, and are only expected to get more advanced as new low-orbit satellites complement the existing radar systems.

“Applying sudden disarming strikes targeting Russian or Chinese strategic nuclear forces significantly increases the efficiency of the US missile defense system,” Poznikhir added.

American ABM systems are not only creating an “illusion” of safety from a retaliatory strike but can themselves be used to launch a sneak nuclear attack on Russia.

In a blatant breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the standard land-based launching systems can be covertly rearmed with Tomahawk cruise missiles instead of interceptors – and the Pentagon’s denial of this fact, according to Poznikhir, is “at the very least unconvincing.”

Moreover, Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed in 1972 with the Soviet Union, allowed it to develop more advanced weapons that can now not only pose a threat to targets on the ground but in space as well.

“In February 2008, the Pentagon demonstrated the possibility of engaging spacecraft with its ABM capabilities,” Poznikhir said. “An American satellite at an altitude of about 250 km was destroyed by a Standard-3 missile, an earlier modification, launched from a US Navy destroyer.”

“Given the global nature of the ABM ships’ deployment, the space operations of any state, including the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, are under threat.”

Russia has repeatedly voiced its concerns over the risk American ABM systems pose to the global balance of power and thus peace and stability, but has consistently been sidelined.

“Within the framework of cooperation, we also proposed jointly to develop a missile defense architecture for Europe, which could guarantee security against the impacts of nonstrategic ballistic missiles,” said Poznikhir.

“However, all Russian initiatives were rejected.”

“In this regard, Russia is compelled to take measures aimed at maintaining the balance of strategic arms and minimizing the possible damage to national security as a result of the United States’ ABM systems expansion.”

“This will not make the world a safer place,” he warned, urging Washington to engage in a constructive dialogue instead of dully repeating that the systems are not aimed at undermining Russia’s or China’s national security.

Seems like a very reasonable theory.

Of course, it’s completely psychotic to want to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia or China and hope you can shoot down every last one of their thousands of nuclear missiles just to maintain US dominance over the world, but the neocons controlling our foreign policy are insane.

#NOWARINSYRIA: IF YOU DON’T WANT WORLD WAR III IN THE MIDDLE EAST YOU NEED TO LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD NOW

Article from End of the American Dream.

We are closer to the start of World War III than we have been in decades.  In part 3 of this series of articles, I discussed the fact that President Trump’s team was preparing a “military response” in Syria and that a “coalition” is being formed to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power.  Well, as I am writing this article the missiles have started flying.  Cruise missiles from a U.S. Navy vessel in the Mediterranean Sea have hit multiple targets inside Syria, and many fear that what we have just witnessed could be the beginning of a broader conflict.

Trump should not have done this, because according to the U.S. Constitution the president needs the approval of Congress to go to war.  Fortunately there are still a few members of Congress that still care about the Constitution and that are bold enough to point out this fact.  One of those members of Congress is U.S. Senator Rand Paul

Earlier on Thursday, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) announced he would oppose any military action without a vote in Congress.

“The President, if he decides to do something in Syria, he would come to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. Short of Congress voting on it, I’m opposed to illegal and unconstitutional wars,” Paul told Fox News radio show ‘Kilmeade and Friends’.

Now that the missiles have started flying, it may be too late to stop this war from happening.

But that does not mean that we shouldn’t try to stop it.  Now is the time to raise our voices and to let Donald Trump know that we do not want this war.

And what is especially tragic about all of this is that Donald Trump is taking us to war because of a misunderstanding.  Rand Paul’s father, former presidential candidate Ron Paul, is among many that believe that there was “zero chance” that Assad would have deliberately used chemical weapons against those innocent people…

Pointing out that the prospect of peace in Syria was moving closer before the attack, with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the run, Paul said the attack made no sense.

“It looks like maybe somebody didn’t like that so there had to be an episode,” said Paul, asking, “who benefits?”

“It doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases – I think there’s zero chance he would have done this deliberately,” said Paul.

As I discussed in part 1 of this series, the incident in Syria’s Idlib province on Tuesday was almost certainly a false flag attack that was designed to pull the United States and other western powers into the war.

And since I wrote that article, more evidence that this was a false flag attack has continued to emerge

Evidence which has emerged in the aftermath of the attack at Khan Sheikhoun indicates that not only was the nature of the attack misreported by the media, but that certain individuals on the ground in Syria may have had foreknowledge of the attack up to several days before it happened. On April 3rd, 2017, an anti-Assad journalist tweeted that the next day he would be launching a media campaign to cover airstrikes on the Hama countryside, including the use of chemical weapons. It is not clear how the reporter was able to know that chemical weapons would be used an entire day before the attacks occurred.

Observers further noted that on April 1st, 2017, a doctor on the ground in Khan Sheikhoun, Dr. Shajul Islam, had received several shipments of gas masks in the days running up to the chemical incident. The revelations on Twitter fueled speculation that opposition figures were aware of the chemical attack days before it actually happened, contesting the narrative that the Syrian government was responsible. Daily Mail has reported that Dr. Shajul Islam was at one point sought by the British government in connection with the abduction of two journalists in Syria, and security services have stated that Islam and his brother may have had ties to ISIS executioner “Jihadi John.”

In addition, it is very interesting to note that the “White Helmets” were ready and waiting with their cameras to film the attack when it happened.  The White Helmets are funded by George Soros and they have been closely affiliated with al-Qaeda in the past.  They very much want to see Assad removed from power, and so they would greatly benefit from the U.S. getting involved in the war in Syria.

And let us not forget that it turned out that Assad had absolutely nothing to do with the infamous “chemical attack” that he originally got the blame for in 2013

The narrative for the August 2013 attack in Ghouta, which Barack Obama cited as the pretext for a long awaited U.S. attack on government targets in aid of jihadist rebels, completely collapsed after it emerged that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

The United Nations’ Carla Del Ponte also said that evidence suggested rebels had used sarin nerve gas.

As journalist Seymour Hersh reported in December 2013, intelligence officials told him that the entire narrative was a “ruse” and that “the attack was not the result of the current regime.”

If Donald Trump would have just waited until all the facts were known, it is quite likely that he would have seen that there was absolutely no need to attack Syria at all.  This is something that I discussed on the Alex Jones Show on Thursday, and hopefully we can spread this information far and wide before it is too late.

Because if the U.S. does something very foolish in Syria, there is a very real possibility that it could actually cause World War III to erupt.  I included the following quote in part 3 of this series, but I want to share it again because it shows how much is at stake.  According to The Intercept, one of the military options that has been presented to Trump is a “saturation strike” that would result “in Russian military deaths”…

The proposed strike would involve launching Tomahawk cruise missiles to overwhelm Russian air defense systems used by the Syrian military. The Russian government currently helps maintain the air defense sites and advises the Syrian military.

According to both U.S. military officials, the current proposal would likely result in Russian military deaths and mark a drastic escalation of U.S. force in Syria.

One U.S. military official said the decision to allow the strikes, which would kill Russians, signals a significant change in policy by the Trump administration. A decision by Trump to go forward with the plan would be a reversal from the Obama administration, which denied multiple air strike proposals  that would likely cause Russian personnel casualties in Syria.

I cannot even begin to describe how foolish it would be for Trump to make such a move.

Hopefully Trump will stop listening so much to his generals and will begin to listen to some common sense.

When Obama was considering military action against Syria in 2013, Trump strongly urged him not to do it

In one September 5, 2013 all-caps rant, Trump tweeted, “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!”

“Don’t attack Syria – an attack that will bring nothing but trouble for the U.S. Focus on making our country strong and great again!” Trump tweeted four days later.

During the presidential campaign, Trump also bashed Hillary Clinton for her disastrous foreign policy, tweeting, “Crooked Hillary Clintons foreign interventions unleashed ISIS in Syria, Iraq and Libya. She is reckless and dangerous!”

Trump was right on the money when he originally said those things, and hopefully he will go back and read those tweets and take his own advice.

We live at a time when the world is becoming increasingly unstable, and many of the things that I have been warning about for a very long time are starting to come to pass.

Nothing good is going to come out of an attack on Syria.  Other than “looking tough”, there is nothing to be gained for the United States, but there is so much that could go tragically wrong.

In 2013, the American people very loudly let Barack Obama know that they did not want a war with Syria.

If we want to stop a war with Syria in 2017, we need to be even louder than last time, because President Trump seems determined to act very quickly.

So if you do not want us to go to war with Syria, raise your voice right now, because tomorrow might be too late.

Syria Strikes “Cripple US-Russia Relations”

Responding to Trump’s unexpected military attack on Syria in which 59 cruise missiles were launched (of which only 23 allegedly hit their target), Russian President Vladimir Putin “regards the strikes as aggression against a sovereign nation,” his spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, noting that the president believes the strikes were carried out “in violation of international law, and also under an invented pretext.”

The Kremlin spokesman insisted that “the Syrian army doesn’t have chemical weapons,” saying this had been “observed and confirmed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a special UN unit.”

“It makes perfect sense that Assad would use chemical weapons he doesn’t have in a war he’s nearly won just to draw the west in to this war.”— from Twitter

The Russian president said he sees the US missile strikes as an attempt to distract attention from civilian casualties in Iraq, Peskov added.

“This step deals significant damage to US-Russian ties, which are already in a deplorable state,” Peskov said and added that the US has been ignoring the use of chemical weapons by terrorists and this is dramatically aggravating the situation, in Putin’s opinion.

“The main thing, Putin believes, is that this move [by the U.S.] doesn’t draw us nearer to the end goal in the fight with international terrorism and on the contrary, deals a serious setback to the creation of an international coalition in the fight with it,” Peskov said.

* * *

Other Russians took the opportunity to opine as well, led by Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov who said the US missile attack on a Syrian airbase is an act of aggression under a far-fetched pretext and is reminiscent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Quoted by Tass, the top Russian diplomat said “It is an act of aggression under a completely far-fetched pretext. This is reminiscent of the situation in 2003, when the US and the UK, along with some of their allies, invaded Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council and in violation of international law.”

“When speaking about the military intervention in Iraq many years after it happened, Tony Blair (who served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007) acknowledged that they had misled everybody,” Lavrov emphasized. “Now they did not even bother to provide any facts referring only to photos,” he noted. “They indulged in speculations on children’s photos, on evidence provided by various non-governmental organizations, including the so-called White Helmets, which staged various ‘incidents’ to instigate action against the Syrian government.”

Moscow will demand truth of Idlib events, Lavrov stressed. “It is regrettable that all these causes do more harm to the already damaged relations between Russia and the United States. Hope remains that these provocations will not entail irreversible effects,” Lavrov said.

Russian lawmakers also took to the microphone on Friday, warning that the U.S. airstrikes in Syria could lead to an escalation of conflict in the Middle East and dash any plans for a U.S.-Russian coalition against terrorism.

“It’s a new round of escalation in the Middle East. These ill-judged, irresponsible actions don’t contribute to global security, security in the Middle East,” Andrei Krasov, the first deputy head of the defense committee in the Russian lower house of parliament, told state news agency RIA. “Other military conflicts, an expansion of military conflicts, are entirely possible,” he added.

Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachev said the airstrikes meant the possibility of a broad antiterror coalition in Syria “bites the dust before it was even born.”

He said the aim of the U.S. strike was to “rubber stamp” responsibility on Mr. Assad’s for the chemical attack in Idlib province on Tuesday. “‘The walls of Trump’ are multiplying. And everything started so well. It’s a real shame,” said a post on the Facebook page of Mr. Kosachev, head of the international relations committee in Russia’s upper house of Parliament.

Another lawmaker, Mikhail Emelyanov, warned against the risk of clashes between Russian and U.S. forces. “The U.S. is being dragged into the war in Syria in the full knowledge that Russia is supporting Syria and our troops are there, which means it’s fraught with direct clashes between Russia and the U.S. and the consequences could be the most serious, even armed clashes and exchanges of strikes,” Mr. Emelyanov told Interfax news agency.

* * *

In immediate response, Moscow suspended its memorandum of understanding on flight safety in Syria with the US following the missile strike, calling the attack “a demonstration of force.” The Russian military has supported the Syrian government’s version of the events in Idlib, saying that Damascus attacked an arms depot where chemical weapons had been stockpiled by Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front militants.

“Without bothering to investigate anything, the US went forward with a demonstration of force, a military confrontation with a country that is fighting international terrorism,” the Foreign Ministry’s statement reads.

“Obviously, the cruise missile attack was prepared beforehand. Any expert can tell that the decision to strike was made in Washington before the events in Idlib, which were used as a pretext for a demonstration,” the statement reads.

The Memorandum on air safety was signed in October 2015, after Russia came to Syria to fight international terrorism at the invitation of the country’s government. The document of understanding was designed to prevent possible mishaps between the Russian and US Air Forces operating independently in the region.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry has condemned the attack as an example of the “reckless attitude” that has only worsened “existing world issues” and created a “threat to international security.”

* * *

Additionally, according to Tass, in response to the strikes, the Russian frigate Admiral Grigorovich armed with Kalibr cruise missiles will be deployed to the Tartus naval base in Syria. The Russian Black Sea Fleet’s frigate The Admiral Grigorovich, currently on a routine voyage, will enter the Mediterranean later on Friday, a military-diplomatic source in Moscow told TASS, adding that the ship would make a stop at the logistics base in Syria’s port of Tartus.

“The Russian ship armed with cruise missiles Kalibr will visit the logistics base in Tartus, Syria,” the source said.

The Admiral Grigorovich is currently near the Black Sea straits. It is scheduled to enter the Mediterranean at about 14:00 Moscow time. The ship left on a voyage after replenishing supplies at Novorossiisk and taking part in a joint exercise with Turkish ships in the Black Sea. Tass’s source said the frigate’s presence off Syria’s shores will depend on the situation.

Source: Zero Hedge