What's most interesting about this paper is the year in which it was published, 1996, which is 5 years after the breakup of the USSR. So who was the potential enemy that required this level of planning? As one indicator of the direction things were moving at the time take a look at this:
And as one indicator of the lack of insight western planners brought to the table:
"The program was credited for being one of the most successful disarmament programs in history, but its low set price for nuclear fuel caused Western companies to not invest in uranium refining capacity, resulting by 2022 in Russia's government-owned Rosatom becoming the supplier of about 50% of the world's enriched uranium, and 25% of the nuclear fuel used in the US."
The document looks like it was intended to impress someone, as opposed to describe an actual practical approach to the systems and concepts listed, but who were they trying to impress? My guess would be Congress. If you're going to run a Military Industrial Complex such as Eisenhower warned us about in 1961, then you have to impress the people who control the purse strings. That's my impression, because as an actual implementation plan the document is lacking in several key aspects.
First, where are you going to acquire the materials needed to implement the program? If Russia is no longer your prime adversary, that leave China as the new post-Soviet boogeyman. So, if western dominance is the objective, how does it make any sense to relocate most of your manufacturing capacity to China?
Read that carefully because it contains all the information you need to know about US capabilities in the area of advanced weapons systems, all of which depend heavily on these minerals. Also, as a former investor in mining exploration, I can tell you that there's no practical alternative to replacing China as a supplier of most of these materials. They simply aren't there in any western nation in amounts that make it possible to replace what China supplies. In much the same way as providence provided half the world's oil to the Gulf States, she provided most of the world's rare earth minerals to China.
Another indicator of the lack of awareness of the paper's authors is the availability of the expertise needed to design and engineer the proposed systems. By 1996 a noticeable shift in graduate degrees away from science and engineering in favour of business and economics was already in place, a trend which continues to this day. I recall articles in the Wall Street Journal about how mathematicians and physicists were being lured by Wall Street into abandoning their defence related work to focus on so-called 'quantative analysis' which was the current buzzword for using computer systems and algorithms to game the markets. The financial rewards were such that no civilian or military program could compete. Today we see the result in the need to import such experts on H-1B visas, many of whom come from, you guessed it, China.
So your potential enemy is not only supplying 70-80% of your strategic minerals, but a good portion of your research teams as well, which has obvious implications for espionage as well as military preparedness.
Like I said, this paper seems designed to impress the enablers in Congress, most of whom are lawyers and in no way qualified to understand the contents, most of whom probably didn't read it anyway. As long as it's thick, has lots of charts and a plethora of fancy words and concepts, it gets the job done, which is to keep the money flowing to the corporations who provide the systems, and who also generously employ the generals and congress creatures who support them once they retire from office.
Meanwhile, the vanquished enemy of the Cold War emerges from the ashes in 2000, and forges ahead with actual practical approaches to the problems listed in this paper, to the effect that they are now at least ten years ahead in their development, with no sign of slowing down. The evidence for this is in the performance of Russian vs, NATO systems in the present Ukraine conflict. To cite one example:
Bear in mind that it's Wikipedia's role to understate anything having to do with the Russian defence industry, but the basic facts are there. There's no defence against this type of missile, which obsolesces the aircraft carrier as a means of maritime power projection. Add to this the recent statement by Russia that, in response to supplying Russia's enemies with US weapons systems, they reserve the right to supply NATOs enemies with similar systems. This is a complete change in doctrine, where in the past Russia only supplied previous generations of their systems to foreign buyers, keeping the good stuff for themselves. Now nations such as Iran and China are being supplied with not only advanced missile defence systems, such as the S400, but also offensive systems such as the Kinzhal and similar platforms.
Many years ago Mao Zedong described America as a 'paper tiger' which at the time was arguably untrue, but today rings truer than ever. Still dangerous, mostly to her allies, but quite incapable of winning a conventional war against any but the most disadvantaged nations, such as Granada or Iraq. Of course winning isn't really the objective anymore. Protracted conflict enabling the arms industry to prosper is the real goal here, a goal which Russia and China are quite aware of, and doing everything in their power to disrupt. So far they are succeeding, which is why all the bellicose rhetoric and sheer panic coming out of Washington these days. People who are secure in their dominant position don't normally do that, they speak softly and carry a big stick.
thanks I will take a look at your shares! Just remember the source of that paper is canada.ca - well in all honesty I was provided with a screenshot off of canada.ca but had a hard time finding the actual post on that site so I pulled it up from another source. So bang on there! Just like all the other propaganda shoved down our throats these days!
The paper I'd really like to see, which is no doubt classified, is NATO's assessment of current Russian military capabilities, in particular the truth behind this incident which if true is a real game changer:
Again, did this actually happen as reported, or was it a psyop meant to convince Congress to up their spending on electronic warfare systems? it is, after all ,the MICs mandate to exaggerate threats in order to procure government spending.
Personally I think it did happen as reported, but that's just my opinion. I have to discount the fact that I'd be delighted if it were true, so in that sense I have to manage my expectations.
The lack of knowledge is shocking!! Was not the pandemic less than two years ago when sadly some immune compromised seniors fell victim? Surely tragedy but showed gaps in some healthcare and extra hours needed etc. Also showed us how useless the Federal government IS!!
A word about psyops, or 'psychological operations.' They are definitely a 'thing.' Past examples include inflatable tanks and plywood aircraft meant to deceive the enemy on military strength. This even includes driving a truck with loudspeakers at night blaring recorded tank noise to simulate a large movement of armour, or in WWI, projecting images of the Virgin Mary into fog clouds. I don't think the last one was very effective.
"Psyop" is now deeply embedded in the lexicon of the freedom movement and basically anyone who opposes the current tyranny. The problem is that it's often misapplied owing to a condition I call 'selective skepticism.' That is to say that some pundits are very selective about what they consider to be a psyop, and often overestimate their role, plus their own ability to detect them. Basically, since we know the powers that be use psyops, we tend to see them everywhere.
Knowing this, it's a relatively easy thing to mislead people into believing things that just aren't true. Take weather modification, for example. No doubt it is being explored and has had some limited success, but to get people worked up about the idea, for whatever purpose, I don't have to do very much apart from taking advantage of people's willingness to believe.
Most of us have seen the high altitude crisscross patterns of vapour trails in the skies above America's deserts that no commercial flight paths can explain. This is taken as prima facie evidence of 'chemtrails' but it could also be a psyop meant to create that impression. It wouldn't be hard to do. Pick the right day for atmospheric conditions, fly a training mission in that pattern and have people on the ground photograph it. That's all it would take, and the participants themselves don't have to be aware of what they're actually doing. to them, it's just a training mission.
I'm not saying this is the case, but a genuine skeptic has to at least consider the possibility. Same goes for the many examples of UFO encounters which Jacques Vallée talks about in his books on the subject. It's even possible Vallée is part of a larger psyop to discourage the idea that UFOs are real, as some of his critics have claimed. How can ordinary bystanders such as ourselves ever know? We're up against some very clever people who've been studying the subject for decades and the notion that we can out-think them is a bit grandiose IMO. This is not a popular viewpoint in the opposition camp, in fact to just frame the issue in these terms can get you accused of being a psyop yourself. I know, I've had it happen. Still, the point is valid if you're going to call yourself a skeptic.
A couple more examples. During the Cold War, intelligence reports suggested that the USSR was experimenting with "remote viewing" and had had some success. Really? Was this an actual program, or something designed to send US investigators down the garden path? Roswell NM. We're all familiar with that one. Was that an actual recovery of a crashed UFO, or a psyop meant to convince the USSR that we had acquired alien technology?
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." Shakespeare, right? Nope. Sir Walter Scott. See how easy it is to be misled?
What's most interesting about this paper is the year in which it was published, 1996, which is 5 years after the breakup of the USSR. So who was the potential enemy that required this level of planning? As one indicator of the direction things were moving at the time take a look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
And as one indicator of the lack of insight western planners brought to the table:
"The program was credited for being one of the most successful disarmament programs in history, but its low set price for nuclear fuel caused Western companies to not invest in uranium refining capacity, resulting by 2022 in Russia's government-owned Rosatom becoming the supplier of about 50% of the world's enriched uranium, and 25% of the nuclear fuel used in the US."
The document looks like it was intended to impress someone, as opposed to describe an actual practical approach to the systems and concepts listed, but who were they trying to impress? My guess would be Congress. If you're going to run a Military Industrial Complex such as Eisenhower warned us about in 1961, then you have to impress the people who control the purse strings. That's my impression, because as an actual implementation plan the document is lacking in several key aspects.
First, where are you going to acquire the materials needed to implement the program? If Russia is no longer your prime adversary, that leave China as the new post-Soviet boogeyman. So, if western dominance is the objective, how does it make any sense to relocate most of your manufacturing capacity to China?
Then there's this:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-rare-earths-dominance-focus-after-mineral-export-curbs-2023-07-05/
Read that carefully because it contains all the information you need to know about US capabilities in the area of advanced weapons systems, all of which depend heavily on these minerals. Also, as a former investor in mining exploration, I can tell you that there's no practical alternative to replacing China as a supplier of most of these materials. They simply aren't there in any western nation in amounts that make it possible to replace what China supplies. In much the same way as providence provided half the world's oil to the Gulf States, she provided most of the world's rare earth minerals to China.
Another indicator of the lack of awareness of the paper's authors is the availability of the expertise needed to design and engineer the proposed systems. By 1996 a noticeable shift in graduate degrees away from science and engineering in favour of business and economics was already in place, a trend which continues to this day. I recall articles in the Wall Street Journal about how mathematicians and physicists were being lured by Wall Street into abandoning their defence related work to focus on so-called 'quantative analysis' which was the current buzzword for using computer systems and algorithms to game the markets. The financial rewards were such that no civilian or military program could compete. Today we see the result in the need to import such experts on H-1B visas, many of whom come from, you guessed it, China.
So your potential enemy is not only supplying 70-80% of your strategic minerals, but a good portion of your research teams as well, which has obvious implications for espionage as well as military preparedness.
Like I said, this paper seems designed to impress the enablers in Congress, most of whom are lawyers and in no way qualified to understand the contents, most of whom probably didn't read it anyway. As long as it's thick, has lots of charts and a plethora of fancy words and concepts, it gets the job done, which is to keep the money flowing to the corporations who provide the systems, and who also generously employ the generals and congress creatures who support them once they retire from office.
Meanwhile, the vanquished enemy of the Cold War emerges from the ashes in 2000, and forges ahead with actual practical approaches to the problems listed in this paper, to the effect that they are now at least ten years ahead in their development, with no sign of slowing down. The evidence for this is in the performance of Russian vs, NATO systems in the present Ukraine conflict. To cite one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal
Bear in mind that it's Wikipedia's role to understate anything having to do with the Russian defence industry, but the basic facts are there. There's no defence against this type of missile, which obsolesces the aircraft carrier as a means of maritime power projection. Add to this the recent statement by Russia that, in response to supplying Russia's enemies with US weapons systems, they reserve the right to supply NATOs enemies with similar systems. This is a complete change in doctrine, where in the past Russia only supplied previous generations of their systems to foreign buyers, keeping the good stuff for themselves. Now nations such as Iran and China are being supplied with not only advanced missile defence systems, such as the S400, but also offensive systems such as the Kinzhal and similar platforms.
Many years ago Mao Zedong described America as a 'paper tiger' which at the time was arguably untrue, but today rings truer than ever. Still dangerous, mostly to her allies, but quite incapable of winning a conventional war against any but the most disadvantaged nations, such as Granada or Iraq. Of course winning isn't really the objective anymore. Protracted conflict enabling the arms industry to prosper is the real goal here, a goal which Russia and China are quite aware of, and doing everything in their power to disrupt. So far they are succeeding, which is why all the bellicose rhetoric and sheer panic coming out of Washington these days. People who are secure in their dominant position don't normally do that, they speak softly and carry a big stick.
thanks I will take a look at your shares! Just remember the source of that paper is canada.ca - well in all honesty I was provided with a screenshot off of canada.ca but had a hard time finding the actual post on that site so I pulled it up from another source. So bang on there! Just like all the other propaganda shoved down our throats these days!
The paper I'd really like to see, which is no doubt classified, is NATO's assessment of current Russian military capabilities, in particular the truth behind this incident which if true is a real game changer:
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28773/was-russian-su-24-fighter-able-to-disable-electronics-aboard-uss-donald-cook-and
Again, did this actually happen as reported, or was it a psyop meant to convince Congress to up their spending on electronic warfare systems? it is, after all ,the MICs mandate to exaggerate threats in order to procure government spending.
Personally I think it did happen as reported, but that's just my opinion. I have to discount the fact that I'd be delighted if it were true, so in that sense I have to manage my expectations.
Great links Cheri. Your on fire...Kman
The lack of knowledge is shocking!! Was not the pandemic less than two years ago when sadly some immune compromised seniors fell victim? Surely tragedy but showed gaps in some healthcare and extra hours needed etc. Also showed us how useless the Federal government IS!!
Interesting how you've managed to link this 'climate change' crisis to the health crisis...
glad to see the narrative is opening to more and more people!
A word about psyops, or 'psychological operations.' They are definitely a 'thing.' Past examples include inflatable tanks and plywood aircraft meant to deceive the enemy on military strength. This even includes driving a truck with loudspeakers at night blaring recorded tank noise to simulate a large movement of armour, or in WWI, projecting images of the Virgin Mary into fog clouds. I don't think the last one was very effective.
"Psyop" is now deeply embedded in the lexicon of the freedom movement and basically anyone who opposes the current tyranny. The problem is that it's often misapplied owing to a condition I call 'selective skepticism.' That is to say that some pundits are very selective about what they consider to be a psyop, and often overestimate their role, plus their own ability to detect them. Basically, since we know the powers that be use psyops, we tend to see them everywhere.
Knowing this, it's a relatively easy thing to mislead people into believing things that just aren't true. Take weather modification, for example. No doubt it is being explored and has had some limited success, but to get people worked up about the idea, for whatever purpose, I don't have to do very much apart from taking advantage of people's willingness to believe.
Most of us have seen the high altitude crisscross patterns of vapour trails in the skies above America's deserts that no commercial flight paths can explain. This is taken as prima facie evidence of 'chemtrails' but it could also be a psyop meant to create that impression. It wouldn't be hard to do. Pick the right day for atmospheric conditions, fly a training mission in that pattern and have people on the ground photograph it. That's all it would take, and the participants themselves don't have to be aware of what they're actually doing. to them, it's just a training mission.
I'm not saying this is the case, but a genuine skeptic has to at least consider the possibility. Same goes for the many examples of UFO encounters which Jacques Vallée talks about in his books on the subject. It's even possible Vallée is part of a larger psyop to discourage the idea that UFOs are real, as some of his critics have claimed. How can ordinary bystanders such as ourselves ever know? We're up against some very clever people who've been studying the subject for decades and the notion that we can out-think them is a bit grandiose IMO. This is not a popular viewpoint in the opposition camp, in fact to just frame the issue in these terms can get you accused of being a psyop yourself. I know, I've had it happen. Still, the point is valid if you're going to call yourself a skeptic.
A couple more examples. During the Cold War, intelligence reports suggested that the USSR was experimenting with "remote viewing" and had had some success. Really? Was this an actual program, or something designed to send US investigators down the garden path? Roswell NM. We're all familiar with that one. Was that an actual recovery of a crashed UFO, or a psyop meant to convince the USSR that we had acquired alien technology?
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." Shakespeare, right? Nope. Sir Walter Scott. See how easy it is to be misled?