CLINTON MEETS WITH YELTSIN ON THE ABM TREATY
President Clinton supposedly was begging Russian President Yeltsin for permission to modify the ABM treaty to allow the US to build an effective National Missile Defense (NMD). Reportedly Clinton was emphasizing the US was only trying to protect against terrorism--not against Russia. The media played upon the worn out excuse that a small, limited ABM system in the US might be of benefit to Russia. This is true, but the reason may not obvious to most.
ANALYSIS: There will be benefits for Russia all right, but they have nothing to do with decreased tensions or world peace. One reporter let the cat out of the bag, saying that the Clinton administration was offering Russia America's latest anti-ballistic missile technology in exchange for permission to build an ABM system. You can read this several ways. Since the Clinton administration has no intention of fielding an effective ABM system, there must be an ulterior motive in this negotiation. I believe the ulterior motive is to use the ABM negotiation as an excuse to give away more US technology to Russia. In order to obtain the permission to modify the ABM treaty (that Clinton doesn't really want), I'll bet that Russia will continue to play "hard to get" and the US will transfer the technology anyway.
Of course, if America is offering Russia Raytheon's Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) technology (our current ABM technology), Russia isn't interested. This kind of technology has no explosive warhead and attempts to make a pinpoint perfect kinetic hit on the incoming vehicle. Kinetic weapons are weapons that destroy by slamming a high density mass of metal alloy into an object--without explosion. The entire purpose of developing this technology is to make sure our ABM system can't catch or destroy missiles, while giving the impression that our government is doing something (spending billions) to safeguard the American people. All the while, one failed technology dominates the meager budget and leaves no room for other vastly more effective methods of killing missiles. The US won't let contractors build an effective anti-missile system simply because the PTB don't want the nation defended. That is why we keep spending billions on exotic but ineffective missile systems. Virtually all large US defense contractors have CEOs that are members of the CFR or in other ways committed to the NWO agenda. They are obviously compensated for their complicity. The EKV system failed to hit the target on its first 5 tests. Revisions were made and its latest test was reportedly successful. But new evidence has surfaced indicating that they cheated on the last test by putting a homing device in the target drone. In the future, it must hit 2 out of 4 targets in the next tests for Clinton to give the go-ahead on building the system. Whether it succeeds in rigged tests or not, the entire system is flawed and limited in its concept. Most notable is the prohibition for any ABM system to use satellites to guide and control the missile intercept. Requiring the missile to acquire the target only by its own only radar (with limited range, by design) guarantees that Russia can safely employ electronic jamming and deception on their new Topol M missiles to evade detection and destruction.
On the other hand, Russia would certainly be interested in the high tech guidance mechanisms Raytheon is using to provide the billion dollar kinetic bullet with accuracy. Russia does use explosive warheads which have the advantage of being able to kill a missile without having to hit it directly, but it wouldn't pass up any advanced technology to improve its missiles. Remember too that Russia already has a fully-capable ABM system already in place--in defiance of the very ABM treaty it so adamantly supports (to ensure compliance only by others).
Right after Clinton's reluctant agreement with the Republicans allowing the US to develop an ABM system, he secretly sent a cable to Moscow and China assuring them he had no intention of allowing such a system to be deployed. That is treason in and of itself. He did this to assure them so that they would continue to have the confidence to strike. The Russians are still paranoid about the possibility they are being set up for a trap after they make their first strike. Naturally Russia and China are horrified about a truly effective ABM system since all their future war plans involve using ICBMs against the US (or at least threatening to do so in order to gain capitulation). Clinton recently commissioned another retired Air Force yes-man, General Larry Welch, to head a commission to assess (or rather discourage and slow down) the progress of the NMD. Needless to say, his report placed great emphasis on the extreme challenges of the EKV system. He should have said "flaws." Naturally, like the predictable military yes-man that he is, rather than point out that the Pentagon should be looking at other currently available technology, capable of doing the job cheaper and more effectively, he could only warn them to "not move too quickly." Well, Raytheon certainly can't be accused of that. They are working with only one prototype, and due to failure to stockpile spare parts, are continually behind schedule. Watch how the current administration keeps trying to make sure that no ABM system is deployed until after 2005--they know something about this date that they aren't saying.
Table of Contents