[NYTr] Dangerous Crossroads: US Sponsored War Games

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by Dave Muller (southnews)

Global Research, October 6, 2007

Dangerous Crossroads: US Sponsored War Games

by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has announced the conduct of major war 
games under Vigilant Shield 2008 (VS-08).

Vigilant Shield 2008 (15 to 20 October, 2007) is designed to deal with
a "terrorist" or "natural disaster" scenario in the United States. The 
operation will be coordinated in a joint endeavor by the Pentagon and 
the Department of Homeland Security.

Yet, VS-08, which includes a massive deployment of the US Air Force 
resembles a war-time air scenario rather than an anti-terrorist drill. 
The VS-08 war games extend over the entire North American shelf. 
Canadian territory is also involved through Canada's participation in 
NORAD. (See Nazemroaya, October 2007)

These war games are being conducted at an important historical 
crossroads, amidst mounting US pressures and threats to actually
declare a "real war" on Iran.

VS-08 is predicated on the doctrine of preemptive warfare, with a vie
to protecting the Homeland. The war games are coordinated with 
anti-terrorist drills directed against presumed Islamic terrorists.

Moreover, the announcement by NORTHCOM of the VS-08 war 
games-anti-terror drills coincided with a declaration by the Bush 
administration in early September that military action against Iran is 
being contemplated at the highest echelons of the US government and 
Military:

"President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place 
America on the path to war with Iran, .. Pentagon planners have 
developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, ... Pentagon 
and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a 
carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a 
military showdown with Iran. (Quoted in The Sunday Telegraph, 16 
September 2007).

VS-08 is a large scale military exercise to be conducted over North 
America and the Northern Pacific Ocean, extending westwards towards the 
Far East borders of Russia and China:

"USNORTHCOMs primary exercise venues for VS-08 include locations in 
Oregon, Arizona and a cooperative venue with USPACOM in the Territory
of Guam. NORADs aerospace detection and defense events will take place 
across all the exercise venues, to exercise the ability to mobilize 
resources for aerospace defense, aerospace control, maritime warning, 
and coordination of air operations in a disaster area." (PNC, October
2007)

Both the war games under VS-08 as well as the domestic antiterrorist 
drills involve the participation of Canada, Britain and Australia:

"VS-08 and National Level Exercise 1-08 will provide local, state, 
tribal, interagency, Department of Defense, and non-governmental 
organizations and agencies involved in homeland security and homeland 
defense the opportunity to participate in a full range of exercise 
scenarios that will better prepare participants to prevent and respond 
to national crises. The participating organizations will conduct a 
multi-layered, civilian-led response to a national crisis."( See 
NORTHCOM Fact Sheet).

Pacific Shield 2007

Vigilant Shield 2008 will be preceded by another set of exercises 
organized by Japan. The Tokyo government will host a multinational 
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) Maritime Interdiction Exercise 
Pacific Shield 07(PS-07) in the eastern sea area off Izu Oshima, and 
at the Ports of Yokosuka and Yokohama (13-15 October, (See the Japanese 
government communique). The stated objective of the PS 07 exercises is 
to "prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)".
Australia, France, New Zealand, Singapore, the UK, and the US will be
participating in 'Pacific Shield 07'.

"Linked Exercises"

The administration is talking about "linked exercises", where war 
scenarios are conducted simultaneously and in close coordination with 
civilian anti-terrorist drills. This central concept --which underlies 
the "Global War on Terrorism"-- has a direct bearing on the conduct of 
the US led war in the Middle East. At the same time, the process of 
"domestic security" has become entrenched and integrated into military 
planning.

The 'linked exercises" provide an environment which favors the 
militarization of civilian institutions. They also impart the military 
with a further opportunity to interfere in domestic civilian law 
enforcement and judicial functions.

The conduct of the anti-terrorist exercise is intended to justify the 
need to retaliate against an illusive outside enemy (Al Qaeda), even if 
the US is not attacked.

But there are indications that the administration has envisaged from
the standpoint of military planning, for several years now, a scenario
of a second major terrorist attack on America . According to Pentagon 
officials referring to a classified military document:

"Another [second 911] attack could create both a justification and an 
opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known 
targets [Iran, Syria], according to current and former defense
officials familiar with the plan." (WP 23 April 2006).

The above Pentagon statement suggests that a "Second 911" attack 
characterised by a "mass casualty producing event" is part of military 
doctrine and planning. A real "false flag" attack or even the threat of 
a terrorist attack could be used as a justification to wage war on Iran.

In the month following the 2005 7/7 London bombings, Vice President
Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a 
contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type 
terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan 
is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.

Targeting Russia and China

VS-8 is based on a scenario of confrontation with Russia and China. The 
Bush administration has accused Tehran of supporting Islamic terrorism, 
while also pointing to the fact that Iran in fact has the support of 
both China and Russia.

While the contents of VS-08 have not been released, last year's
Vigilant Shield exercise (Vigilant Shield 07), which simulated the
outbreak of a major war, contemplated four hypothetical enemies: Ruebek
(Russia), Churya (China), Irmingham (Iran) and Nemazee (North Korea).

In last year's briefing documents of the Vigilant Shield 07 war games, 
the following scenario was contemplated by participants:

"Nemazee continues to develop nuclear and missile capabilities

 Southwest Asian country of Irmingham intent on uranium enrichment
program

 Western countries and United States seeking U.N. assistance to halt 
Irminghams enrichment program

 Eurasian country of Ruebek attempts to mediate Irmingham crisis by 
offering nuclear oversight while secretly supporting enrichment program

 Asian country of Churya will become concerned at increasing level of 
Ruebek-U.S. hostility"

(quoted by William Arkin, Washngton Post, October 2006)

The outcome of VS-07 was a limited attack by Ruebek and Nemazee on the 
United States.

"Minus 1 Day:
 Ruebek Expels US Mission

 Phase 2 / Execution: 10  14 Dec 06

 Pre-Attack I & W
 Imminent Terrorist Attack on Pentagon Suggests Pentagon COOP 
[continuity of operations plan]
 Nemazee Conducts 2 x ICBM Combat Launches Against United States
 Ruebek Conducts Limited Strategic Attack on United States"

quoted by William Arkin, Washngton Post, October 2006)

TOPOFF 4: Selective Propaganda directed at "Top Officials"

This year's VS-08 exercise combines the VS-08 hypothetical war scenario 
over the North American shelf with the conduct of major domestic 
anti-terrorist drills under TOPOFF 4.

The latter is a large scale anti-terror exercise for "top officials".
It includes the participation of senior decision makers from federal,
State and municipal governments, law enforcement, nongovernmental
bodies as well as representatives from the business community.

According to Denis Shrader, Deputy DHS Administrator in testimony to
the US Congress (October 3):

"The exercise will be executed with the participation of all
appropriate Cabinet-level secretaries or their deputies, and will
include the activation of all necessary operations centers to
accurately simulate a truly national response to these major terrorist
incidents. This will include the utilization of all five elements of
the National Operations Center and the FEMA Region IX and X Regional
Response Coordination Centers. In addition, the FEMA Emergency Response
Teams and Federal Incident Response Support Teams as well as DHS
Situational Awareness Teams will activate in each of the venues and
will simulate the establishment of a Joint Field Office in accordance
with the latest National Response Framework guidance."

This year's TOPOFF 4 exercises involves setting off fake radiological 
dispersal devices (RDD) or "dirty bombs" in Oregon, Arizona and the US 
Pacific island territory of Guam. According to Northern Command:

"The T4 FSE, based on National Planning Scenario  11 (NPS-11), begins 
as terrorists, who have been planning attacks in Oregon, Arizona, and 
the U.S. Territory of Guam successfully bring radioactive material into 
the United States. The first of three coordinated attacks occurs in 
Guam, with the simulated detonation of a Radiological Dispersal Device 
(RDD), or dirty bomb, causing casualties and widespread contamination 
in a populous area. Similar attacks occur in the hours that follow in 
Portland and Phoenix. A RDD is not the same as a nuclear attack. It is
a conventional explosive that, upon detonation, releases radioactive 
material into the surrounding area. Although it does not cause the type 
of catastrophic damage associated with a nuclear detonation, there are 
severe rescue, health, and long-term decontamination concerns
associated with a RDD."

TOPOFF 4 will involve the participation of some 15,000 federal, state, 
territorial and local officials in what is described as "a full-scale 
response to a multi-faceted terrorist threat". Canada, Australia and
the UK will participate in TOPOFF. Observers from some 30 countries
have also been invited.

"It will 'accurately simulate a truly national response to these major 
terrorist incidents' by emergency response teams, medical units, police 
forces and top government officials who will have to make difficult 
decisions to save lives." (quoted by AFP, 4 October 2007)

TOPOFF is a propaganda operation intended for at top decision makers. 
The objective is to build a consensus among key decision makers that 
America is threatened by Islamic terrorists, using an improvised
nuclear device.

These terrorists are, according to recent statements, supported by 
Tehran. The presumption is that the Islamic terrorists, rather than the 
US, UK or Israel, have the required military capabilities and
constitute a real nuclear threat.

These various anti-terrorist scenarios are intended to build a
consensus among key top officials in the US and its coalition partners
that the terrorist threat is not only real but the terrorists would be
attacking America in a "Second 911" as part of a broader process of
military confrontation, in which a number of enemy countries including
Ruebek, Churya and Irmingham would be involved.

We are not, however, dealing with a classical media disinformation 
campaign. While the TOPOFF exercise has been casually mentioned in
press reports, it is not the object of extensive media coverage. In
fact very few people are aware of these exercises.

With regard to TOPOFF, the consensus building process is "internal", it 
does not pertain to the public at large. The disinformation campaing is 
intended for key decision-makers within these various governmental and 
nongovernmental bodies. It includes more than 10,000 participants in 
important decision-making positions (federal and State officials, law 
enforcement, fire departments, hospitals, etc), who may be called to
act in the case of an emergency situation. These individuals in turn
have a mandate to impose the "Global War on Terrorism" consensus within
their respective organizations, --i.e. with their co-workers and
colleagues, as well as with the people working under their direct
supervision.

In other words, this consensus building process reaches out to tens of 
thousands of people in positions of authority. The antiterrorist agenda 
and exercises thus become a "talking point" within numerous
governmental and nongovernmental organizations.

In turn, the holding of these antiterrorist exercises supports the 
National Security doctrine of "preemptive war", --i.e. that America has 
to legitimate right to self defense by intervening in foreign lands 
including Iran and that America must defend itself against terrorists.

It also sustains the myth of WMD in the hands of terrorists, being used 
against America, when in fact the US is the largest producer of WMD, 
with a defense budget of more than 450 billion dollars a year.

The objective is to sustain the war and national security agenda --and 
of course the possibility of martial law-- within the governmental, 
nongovernmental and corporate business sectors. Ultimately, the 
objective is develop across the land, an unequivocal acceptance by key 
officials (and of their coworkers and subordinates), from the federal
to the local level, for an emergency situation, where civil liberties
and the rights of citizens would be suspended.

[Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best Americas 
"War on Terrorism" Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics 
at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on 
Globalization.]

(c) 2007 Michel Chossudovsky

                       ***

Global Research, September 27, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6918


US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran

by Michel Chossudovsky

In late August, reported by the Military Times, a US Air Force B-52 
bomber flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air 
Force Base in Louisiana with six AGM advanced cruise missiles, each of 
which was armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead. "... Missiles were 
mounted on the pylons under its wings. Each of the warheads carried a 
yield of up to 150 kilotons, more than ten times as powerful as the US 
bomb that leveled Hiroshima at the close of the Second World War." (See 
Bill Van Auken, Global Research September 2007)

The Military Times byline was "B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes
aboard". The issue was casually acknowledged by The Washington Post and
the New York Times. The reports quoted a US Air force spokesman. The
matter was offhandedly brushed aside. The incident represented an
isolated mistake and that at no time was there a threat to public
safety. (Ibid) :

"As far as is known, the incident marked the first time that a US plane 
has taken off armed with nuclear weapons in nearly 40 years. ...

.. The transport of weapons from one base to another, however, is 
normally carried out in the holds of C-17 and C-130 cargo planes, not 
fixed to the wings of combat bombers.

Someone had to give the order to mount the missiles on the plane. The 
question is whether it was a local Air Force commandereither by mistake 
or deliberatelyor whether the order came from higher up.

B-52s from Barksdale have been used repeatedly to strike targets in 
Iraq, firing cruise missiles at Iraqi targets in 1996 and 1998, and in 
the shock and awe campaign that preceded the 2003 invasion, carrying 
out some 150 bombing runs that devastated much of the southern half of 
the country.

Moreover, the weapon that was fixed to the wings of the B-52 flying
from Minot air base was designed for use against hardened targets, such
as underground bunkers.

Given the ratcheting up of the threats against Iran and the previous 
reports of plans for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against 
Iranian nuclear installations, there is a very real possibility that
the flight to Barksdale was part of covert preparations for a nuclear
strike against Iran.

If this is indeed the case, the claims about a mistake by a munitions 
officer and a few airmen in North Dakota may well be merely a cover 
story aimed at concealing the fact that the government in Washington is 
preparing a criminal act of world historic proportions by 
orderingwithout provocationthe first use of nuclear weapons since the 
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than sixty years ago. (Bill van 
Auken, op. cit).

In recent developments, Wayne Madsen (September 27) has suggested,
based on US and foreign intelligence sources, that the B-52 carrying
the advanced cruise missiles with bunker buster nuclear warheads was in
fact destined for the Middle East.

Is the B-52 Barksdale incident in any way related to US plans to use 
nuclear weapons against Iran?

Madsen suggests, in this regard, that the operation of shipping the 
nuclear warheads was aborted "due to internal opposition within the Air 
Force and U.S. Intelligence Community", which was opposed to a planned 
US attack on Iran using nuclear warheads.

Without downplaying the significance of the Barksdale incident, if 
Washington were to decide to use nuclear weapons against Iran, they 
could be launched at short notice from a number of military bases in 
Western Europe and the Middle East, from Diego Garcia in the Indian 
Ocean, from a submarine or from a US Aircraft carrier. Turkey has some 
90 B61 nuclear weapons which are fully deployed. (See details below).
It should be noted that, with regard to the Barksdale incident, the 150
kt. W-80-1 nuclear warheads mounted on the B-52s are not the type of
nuclear weapon contemplated by the US military for use in the Middle
East conventional war theater.

To grasp the seriousness of the "Barksdale incident", it is important
to understand the broader context of nuclear weapons deployment 
respectively by the US, NATO and Israel.

We are not dealing with a single aborted operation of deployment of 
nuclear weapons to the Middle East.

There are indications that a large number of US made nuclear weapons
are currently deployed in Western Europe and the Middle East including
Israel.

Coordinated Military Operation

We are dealing with a coordinated military operation in which US 
Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) plays a central role. The main coalition 
partners are the US, NATO and Israel.

There are four interrelated "building blocks" pertaining to the 
preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater:

1. CONPLAN 8022 formulated in 2004. CONPLAN integrates the use of 
conventional and nuclear weapons.

2. National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, entitled Nuclear 
Weapons Deployment Authorization issued in May 2004

3. The deployment of Israeli nuclear weapons directed against targets
in the Middle East

4. Deployment of Nuclear Weapons by NATO/EU countries, directed against 
targets in the Middle East

1. CONPLAN 8022

CONPLAN 8022 under the jurisdiction of USSTRATCOM sets the stage. It 
envisages the integration of conventional and nuclear weapons and the 
use of nukes on a preemptive basis in the conventional war theater. It 
is described as "a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, 
conventional, or information warfare capabilities to 
destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in 
the world." CONPLAN became operational in early 2004. "As a result, the 
Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on
long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and
presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)." (Robert S.
Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)

CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022 now consists of "an actual plan that the 
Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their 
submarines and bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005, 
For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, 
op. cit.).

"CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned 
strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'"

2. Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization: NSPD 35 (2004)

National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, entitled Nuclear 
Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued in May 2004.

The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully 
guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media 
nor even in Congressional debates. While its contents remains 
classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment 
of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in
compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

There are unconfirmed reports that B61-11 type tactical nuclear weapons 
have been deployed to the Middle East following NSPD 35. According to a 
report published in the Turkish press, the B-61s could be used against 
Iran, if Iran were to retaliate with conventional weapons to a US or 
Israeli attack (See Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear 
Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in 
BBC Monitoring Europe).

In this regard, NSPD-17 of December 2002 entitled National Strategy to 
Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, quoted in the Washington Times 
(January 31, 2003) points to possible use of nuclear weapons in 
retaliation, if US or allied forces are attacked:

"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the 
right to respond with overwhelming force  including potentially nuclear 
weapons  to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United 
States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." (emphasis added, 
this section quoted by the WT pertains to the classified version of
NSPD-17)

3. Israeli Nukes

Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major 
role in case the planned attacks on Iran were to be carried out. (For 
details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, 
Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the 
deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear 
warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 
12 October 2003) . Coinciding with the 2005 preparations to wage air 
strikes against Iran, Israel took delivery of two new German produced 
submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a 
"second-strike" deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI 
Data Base)

The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements
on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since 
October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. 
Currently it is touted in the form of a necessity of nuclear strikes. 
The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about 
such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite 
feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to stop Iran. (General 
Leonid Ivashov, Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack, Global 
Research, January 2007)

At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped 
a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at 
the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel 
would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military 
involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it".

"Rather than a direct American nuclear strike against Irans hard 
targets, Israel has been given the assignment of launching a
coordinated cluster of nuclear strikes aimed at targets that are the
nuclear installations in the Iranian cities: Natanz, Isfahan and
Arak.(Michael Carmichael, Global research, January 2007)

Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose"
to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former
National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS,
confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants [former] Prime
Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:

.."And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel 
statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may
do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or
even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it."

Beneath the rhetoric, what we are dealing with is a joint 
US-NATO-Israeli military operation directed against Iran and Syria, 
which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. US advisers in 
the Pentagon have been working assiduously with their Israeli military 
and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside
Iran ( Seymour Hersh,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )

In recent developments, at the September 2007 meetings of the Vienna 
based IAEA, a critical resolution, implicitly aimed at Israel, was put 
forth which would put Israel's nuclear program "under international 
purview." The resolution was adopted with the US and Israel voting 
against it.

4. NATO Nukes. Nuclear Weapons Deployment by Five Non-nuclear States

Several Western European countries, officially considered as 
"non-nuclear states", possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to
them by Washington.

The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five
non-nuclear NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands and Turkey, and one nuclear country, the United Kingdom.
These weapons are ready for delivery to "known military targets".

Source: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm

See Details and Map of Nuclear Facilities located in 5 European 
Non-Nuclear States

As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the 
US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 
thermonuclear B61 bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National 
Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005).

Consistent with US nuclear policy, the deployment of B61 nuclear
weapons in Western Europe, which dates back to the Cold war era, is
also intended for targets in the Middle East. Confirmed by "NATO strike 
plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the 
"non-nuclear States") could be launched "against targets in Russia or 
countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran" ( quoted in 
National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe ,
February 2005)

Confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under the
U.S. Freedom of Information Act):

"... The approximately 480 nuclear bombs [now 350] in Europe are 
intended for use in accordance with NATO nuclear strike plans, the 
report asserts, against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle 
East such as Iran and Syria.

The report shows for the first time how many U.S. nuclear bombs are 
earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear NATO countries. In times of war, 
under certain circumstances, up to 180 of the 480 nuclear bombs would
be handed over to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey
for delivery by their national air forces. No other nuclear power or 
military alliance has nuclear weapons earmarked for delivery by 
non-nuclear countries."

(quoted in http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm emphasis added)

In the post-Cold War era, the procedures governing the use of these 
EU/NATO nuclear weapons were redefined. The U.S. military made 
arrangements in the mid-1990s for the use of these nukes outside the 
area of jurisdiction of European Command (EURCOM). For EURCOM, this 
would mean responsibility for delivery of nukes within CENTCOM's 
(Central Command) area of jurisdiction, meaning that nuclear attacks on 
Iran and Syria could be launched from military bases in these 
non-nuclear EU/NATO countries:

The report also documents that the U.S. military in 1994 made 
arrangements for nuclear targeting and use of nuclear weapons in Europe 
outside European Command's (EUCOM) area of responsibility. For EUCOM, 
this means CENTCOM (Central Command) which incorporates Iran and Syria

. It is unclear whether [the] parliaments [of EU/NATO countries] are 
aware of arrangements to target and potentially strike Middle Eastern 
countries with nuclear weapons based in Europe.

(http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm

It is worth noting, based on recent information published by the 
National Resources Defense Council (August 2007), that the number of
B61 nuclear bombs in Europe has been reduced from 480 to 350, following
the removal of 130 bombs from the Ramstein airbase in Germany.

Source: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm

Nuclear Weapons' Double Standards. Where is the Nuclear Threat?

While these "non-nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing 
nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have 
capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran 
and Syria. To say that this is a clear case of "double standards" in
the process of identifying the threat of nuclear weapons is a gross 
understatement.

France's President Nicolas Sarkozy Endorses Bush's Pre-emptive Nuclear 
War Doctrine

France accuses Tehran of developing nuclear weapons against mountains
of evidence that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

The Sarkozy government favors a military operation directed against 
Iran. Ironically, these threats by President Sarkozy and his Foreign 
Minister Bernard Kouchner were formulated immediately following the 
release of the IAEA Report. The latter confirms unequivocally the 
civilian nature of Iran's nuclear program.

According to President Sarkozy in his September 26, 2007 address to the 
UN General Assembly:

"There will be no peace in the world if the international community 
falters in the face of nuclear arms proliferation  Weakness and 
renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war,"

France has also confirmed that it could use its own nuclear warheads 
estimated at between 200 and 300, on a preemptive basis. In January 
2006, (former) President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in 
France's nuclear weapons policy.

Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France's nukes should be 
used in the form of "more focused attacks" against countries, which
were "considering" the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could
be used in conventional war theaters, very much in line with both US
and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of 
nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week January 26, 2006).

Chirac's successor, Nicolas Sarkozy has embraced the US sponsored "War 
on Terrorism".

France supports the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the 
conventional war theater, broadly following the principles formulated
in the Bush Administration's nuclear doctrine, which allows the use of 
nukes (against Iran or Syria) for purposes of "self-defense".

A Note of Caution

The existence of war plans, which are currently in an advanced state of 
readiness, does not imply that war will occur.

But at the same time, these war plans and their consequences must be 
forcefully addressed. An all out war, which would engulf the entire 
Middle East Central Asian region, cannot be excluded.

Moreover, a political consensus in favor of a war directed against Iran 
is building up in the US. This war agenda is now supported by several
of America's European allies including Britain, France and Germany.

Public opinion is not informed due to a media blackout. The war on Iran 
using nuclear weapons is not front page news.

The legitimacy of the war criminals in high office remains intact.
There is visibly no mass movement against this war as occured in the
months leading up to the Iraq invasion. Moreover, concurrent with the 
development of the war agenda, the Western countries are developing 
their "Homeland Security" apparatus with a view to to curbing public 
protest against the war.

In the months ahead, we can expect the media propaganda war against
Iran to go into high gear with a view to galvanising public opinion in 
support of a military intervention.

It is absolutely essential that people in America and around the World 
take a firm position against a war, which in a very real sense
threatens the future of humanity.

[Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to 
spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader
Middle East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best Americas 
"War on Terrorism" Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics 
at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on 
Globalization.]

(c) 2007 Michel Chossudovsky

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/