TOKYO: U.S. OPERATION MEETINGHOUSE, part 2; Obama's Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Gamble

BARE PEACE BID U. S. REBUFFED 7 MONTHS AGO
Abstract (Document Summary)...Japan's first peace bid relayed to the White House seven months ago.
Chicago Daily Tribune (1923-1963) - Chicago, Ill. Author: TROHAN, WALTER Date: Aug 19, 1945
Chicago Tribune Archives: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/doc/177107060.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Aug%2019,%201945&author=WALTER%20TROHAN&pub=Chicago%20Daily%20Tribune%20(1872-1963)&edition=&startpage=1&desc=BARE%20PEACE%20BID%20U.%20S.%20REBUFFED%207%20MONTHS%20AGO

Operation Meetinghouse in Tokyo March 9, 1945: Burning the Heart Out of the Enemy
http://www.wired.com/2011/03/0309incendiary-bombs-kill-100000-tokyo/
1945: In the single deadliest firebombing air raid of World War II, 330 U.S. B-29s rained incendiary bombs on Tokyo, touching off a firestorm that kills upwards of 100,000 people, burns a quarter of the city to the ground, and leaves a million homeless....as they switched from high-altitude precision bombing to low-altitude incendiary raids.
Tokyo was the first of five incendiary launched in quick succession against the largest Japanese cities. Nagoya, Osaka and Kobe were also targeted —Nagoya hit twice within a week. By the end of the war, more than 60 Japanese cities had been laid waste by firebombing...Operation Meetinghouse began an aerial onslaught so effective that the U.S. air command concluded by July 1945 no viable targets remained on the Japanese mainland....
Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, commander of the 21st Bomber Command, also argued that incendiary bombing would be particularly effective, because Japanese cities contained a lot of tightly packed, wooden structures that would burn easily when set alight. He was right. B-29 bombers for the Tokyo raid were stripped of their defensive weapons and packed with various incendiary explosives, including white phosphorus and napalm, a new gasoline-based, fuel-gel mixture developed at Harvard University. As opposed to the high-altitude precision bombing, which the Allies practiced with only mixed success over both Germany and Japan, incendiary raids were carried out at low altitudes between 5,000 and 9,000 feet. The attackers were helped by the fact that Japanese air defenses were almost nonexistent by that point in the war. In fact, only 14 B-29s were lost in the March 9–10 Tokyo raid.
As was done in Europe, pathfinder planes flying ahead of the bombers marked the target with a flaming X, guiding the attackers in. Tokyo was hit over a three-hour period by three bomber streams that dropped roughly 2,000 tons of incendiaries near the docklands and in the industrial heart of the Japanese capital.
Tokyo immediately burst into flames. The combination of incendiaries, the way they were dropped, windy weather conditions and lack of coordinated firefighting on the ground resulted in a firestorm similar to what occurred two years previously in Hamburg, and only a month before in Dresden. Temperatures on the ground in Tokyo reached 1,800 degrees in some places.

POST WW3 U.S. GLOBAL DOMINATION PUBLICLY DETAILED IN ITS ‘PAPRER OF RECORD’ ITS GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGY, ALREADY LONG OPERATIONAL, AND IS TODAY, NOW ON ITS LAST LEGS
NO RIVAL OR EQUIVALENT POWER THREATENING ITS NEW WORLD ORDER WAS PERMITTED,
The Pentagon Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival'
The New York Times March 8, 1992, Sunday
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1D7173AF93BA35750C0A...
http://www.princeton.edu/~ppn/docfiles/pentagon_1992.html

This Defense Planning guidance addresses the fundamentally new situation created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of the internal as well as the external empire, and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and influence. The new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States and its coalition allies over Iraqi aggression -- the first post-cold-war conflict and a defining event in U.S. global leadership. In addition to these two victories, there has been a less visible one, the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic "zone of peace".

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

There are three additional aspects to this objective:
First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.
Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.
Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world.

The second objective is to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems. These objectives are especially important in deterring conflicts or threats in regions of security importance to the United States because of their proximity (such as Latin America), or where we have treaty obligations or security commitments to other nations. While the U.S. cannot become the world's "policeman," we will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations. Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats from terrorism or regional or local conflict and narcotics trafficking....
 
It is improbable that a global conventional challenge to U.S. and Western security will re-emerge from the Eurasian heartland for many years to come. Even in the highly unlikely event that some future leadership in the former Soviet Union adopted strategic aims of recovering the lost empire or otherwise threatened global interests, the loss of Warsaw Pact allies and the subsequent and continuing dissolution of military capability would make any hope of success require several years or more of strategic and doctrinal re-orientation and force regeneration and redeployment, which in turn could only happen after a lengthy political realignment and re-orientation to aggressive political and economic control. Furthermore, any such political upheaval in or among the states of the former U.S.S.R. would be much more likely to issue in internal or localized hostilities, rather than a concerted strategic effort to marshal capabilities for external expansionism -- the ability to project power beyond their borders.

There are other potential nations or coalitions that could, in the further future, develop strategic aims and a defense posture of region-wide or global domination. Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor. But because we no longer face either a global threat or a hostile, non-democratic power dominating a region critical to our interests, we have the opportunity to meet threats at lower levels and lower costs -- as long as we are prepared to reconstitute additional forces should the need to counter a global threat re-emerge. . . .
 
REGIONAL THREATS AND RISK
With the demise of a global military threat to U.S. interests, regional military threats, including possible conflicts arising in and from the territory of the former Soviet Union, will be of primary concern to the U.S. in the future. These threats are likely to arise in regions critical to the security of the U.S. and its allies, including Europe, East Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and the territory of the former Soviet Union. We also have important interests at stake in Latin America, Oceania, and Sub-Saharan Africa. In both cases, the U.S. will be concerned with preventing the domination of key regions by a hostile power. . . .
 
Former Soviet Union
The former Soviet state achieved global reach and power by consolidating control over the resources in the territory of the former U.S.S.R. The best means of assuring that no hostile power is able to consolidate control over the resources within the former Soviet Union is to support its successor states (especially Russia and Ukraine) in their efforts to become democracies with market-based economies. A democratic partnership with Russia and the other republics would be the best possible outcome for the U.S. At the same time, we must also hedge against the possibility that democracy will fail, with the potential a regime bent on regenerating aggressive military power could emerge in Russia, or that similar regimes in other successor republics could lead to spreading conflict within the former U.S.S.R. or Eastern Europe....
For the immediate future, key U.S. concerns will be the ability of Russia and the other republics to demilitarize their societies, convert their military industries to civilian production, eliminate or, in the case of Russia, radically reduce their nuclear weapons inventory, maintain firm command and control over nuclear weapons, and prevent leakage of advanced military technology and expertise to other countries....
 
Western Europe
NATO continues to provide the indispensable foundation for a stable security environment in Europe. Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs. While the U.S. supports the goal of European integration, we must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO, particularly the alliance's integrated command structure....
 
East-Central Europe
The end of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the Soviet Union have gone a long way toward increasing stability and reducing the military threat to Europe. The ascendancy of democratic reformers in the Russian republic, should this process continue, is likely to create a more benign policy toward Eastern Europe. However, the U.S. must keep in mind the long history of conflict between the states of Eastern Europe, as well as the potential for conflict between the states of Eastern Europe and those of the former Soviet Union ... The most promising avenues for anchoring the east-central Europeans to the West and stabilizing their democratic institutions is their participation in Western political and economic organizations. East-central European membership in the EC at the earliest opportunity, and expanded NATO liaisons. . . .
The U.S. could also consider extending to the east-central European states security commitments analogous to those we have extended to Persian Gulf states....Should there be a re-emergence of a threat from the Soviet Union's successor state, we should defend against such a threat in Eastern Europe, if there is an alliance decision to do so.
 
East Asia and Pacific
...Defense of Korea will likely remain one of the most demanding major regional contingencies...Asia is home to the world's greatest concentration of traditional Communist states, with fundamental values, governance, and policies decidedly at variance with our own and those of our friends and allies.
To buttress the vital political and economic relationships we have along the Pacific rim, we must maintain our status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area to enable the U.S. to continue to contribute to regional security and stability by acting as a balancing force and prevent emergence of a vacuum or a regional hegemon....

Middle East and Southwest Asia
In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a strong role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security....
 We will seek to prevent the further development of a nuclear arms race on the Indian subcontinent. In this regard, we should work to have both countries, India and Pakistan, adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to place their nuclear energy facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. We should discourage Indian hegemonic aspirations over the other states in South Asia and on the Indian Ocean. With regard to Pakistan, a constructive U.S.-Pakistani military relationship will be an important element in our strategy to promote stable security conditions in Southwest Asia and Central Asia. We should therefore endeavor to rebuild our military relationship given acceptable resolution of our nuclear concerns...
 
Latin America
Cuba's growing domestic crisis holds out the prospect for positive change, but over the near term Cuba's tenuous internal situation is likely to generate new challenges to U.S. policy. Consequently, our programs must provide capabilities to meet a variety of Cuban contingencies which could include an attempted repetition of the Mariel boatlift, a military provocation against the U.S. or an American ally, or political instability and internal conflict in Cuba.

US FAILED WORLD ORDER
US CAPITALISM’ S EVERY MOVE IS COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY BECAUSE IT KNOWS ITS ENEMY & END IS REVOLUTIONARY CLASS WAR WITH OPPRESSED PEOPLES AND NATIONAL LIBERATION.
CHINA AND THE SOVIET UNION AS REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST STATES SEVERELY DISRUPTED THE POST WW2 U.S WORLD ORDER. BOTH EVENTUALLY REVERTED TO CAPITALISM -- AS LENIN AND MAO HAD WARNED WHEN CAPITALIST IMPERIALISM DOMINATES THE WORLD --- BUT NOW AS EXTREMELY TOO- SUCCESSFUL REBORN CAPITALIST IMPERIALISTS. THEY ARE THE FORBIDDEN RIVALS.
PLUS U.S. & ITS STATE TERROR PROXIESAKED ON JAPA, AL QAEDA, ISIS et al DEFEAT BY NATIONAL LIBERATION RESISTANCE, {aka “EXTREMIST, JIIHADIST MILITANT TERRORISTS”) FROM KOREA TO AFGHANISTAN.
THE WEAKER IT BECOMES, MIRED EVER DEEPER IN FINANCE CAPITAL’S INTERNAL AND GLOBALIZED CRISIS, THE MORE GROTESQUELY DESPERATE IT BECOMES, THE DEEPER IT DIGS ITS GRAVE.

US NUCLEAR WAR PLANS DID NOT END WITH ITS TERROR AND DESTRUCTION ON JAPAN AND ITS PEOPLE. TODAY IT IS FORCING ITS CLIENT STATE TO BE A “PARTNER” IN ITS PLANS THAT NUCLEAR WAR

THIS SPELLS OUT ALL THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE U.S. GLOBAL TERROR WAR GREENLIGHTED BY 911
U.S. Readiness for a Domestic Terrorist Attack
http://www.readbag.com/belfercenter-ksg-harvard-files-falkenrath
International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Spring 2001), pp. 147­186 © 2001 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Clinton Presidential Decision Directive 62, "Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas."
For Immediate Release May 22, 1998, Declassification Date: Match 18, 2014 http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-62.pdf
Critical Infrastructure
It is imperative the United States be adequately prepared to deal with attacks on critical infrastructure and cyber systems. As such, the President reviewed the recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection and has signed PDD-63, entitled Protecting America's Critical Infrastructures (PDD-63 is For Official Use Only). A white paper, entitled "The Clinton Administration's Policy on Critical Infrastructure Protection: Presidential Decision Directive-63," www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/htm/NSCSDoo3.html. outlines program to deal with threats to Nation's critical infrastructure.

Obama’s Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Gamble
Feb 1, 2015 By Stephen Young, senior analyst at Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/02/obamas-trillion-dollar-nuclear-w...
President Barack Obama will propose spending cuts for many federal programs in the 2016 budget request he’ll send to Congress Monday, but plans to develop and build new kinds of warheads rather than refurbish and rebuild the ones we already have.. By reducing the role they play in global affairs, we increase our security. U.S. reductions also enhance our efforts to eliminate North Korea’s limited arsenal, head off potential increases in China’s stockpile and limit Iran’s potential program... Rather than an asset that increases national security, nuclear weapons are now our greatest security liability...

new budget account will circumvent budget cuts
Pentagon to spend billions more for nukes
Defense One Today November 17, 2014 http://www.defenseone.com/management/2014/11/dod-spend-billions-more-nuk...
The Pentagon is facing hundreds of billions of dollars in nuclear-related bills over the next two decades to buy new bombers, submarines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles.... missions called the “nuclear triad” ...and much of the infrastructure at bases housing these weapons...The Pentagon is considering a radical change to the way funds nuclear forces by shifting money for ICBMs, nuclear bombers and nuclear submarines outside of the Defense Department’s budget and into a new account.....Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Friday that DOD would boost its funding for its nuclear projects 10 percent each year over the next five years. The Pentagon currently spends between $15 billion and $16 billion per year on nuclear projects...“There is much more we need to do leading to our nuclear modernization program in the next decade,” Hagel said. In addition to the money, Hagel pledged more troops, more trainers, more equipment and more leadership to the Pentagon’s nuclear forces, which have experienced decades of neglect and deterioration... Hagel called the nuclear deterrent “DOD’s highest priority mission. No other capability that we have is more important.” These changes come at a time when the U.S. and Russia, the world’s two largest nuclear powers are reducing their nuclear stockpiles....
Last decade, an Air Force B-52 bomber mistakenly flew with live nuclear weapons across the United States. The Air Force also mistakenly shipped Taiwan ICBM fuses instead of helicopter batteries... prompting then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates to order...review of Pentagon nuclear forces... recommendations of 2008 review –led by former James Schlesinger, former defense and energy secretary – included making the Air Force nuclear mission a higher priority...

Administration Minimum $400 billion Nuclear 'Modernization' project
9/15/12 http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-15/world/35497119_1_nuclear-s...
...Now, as the nation struggles to emerge from the worst recession of the postwar era and Congress faces an end-of-year deadline to avoid $1.2 trillion in automatic federal budget cuts over 10 years, the Obama administration is overseeing the gargantuan task of modernizing the nuclear arsenal. The timing does not fit with the nation’s evolving defense posture, either.
Over the past decade, the U.S. has moved away from nuclear deterrence and major military interventions to more precise tactics rooted in Special Operations forces strikes deemed more effective against today’s enemies. [see: ‘Top Secret America’: A look at Joint Special Operations Command' (from: “Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State,”

America’s nuclear tab nearing $660 billion, new report says
10/8/12 http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/08/america_s_nuclear_tab_n...
The report, released Oct. 7 by Ploughshares Fund group that advocates nuclear disarmament, says its estimate ranges from $620 billion, if defense spending stays below inflation, to $661 billion if defense spending keeps pace with inflation.“Our estimate includes costs to maintain and modernize the existing nuclear arsenal, pay for missile defense programs, support the environmental and health costs associated with past and current nuclear weapons programs, and continue nuclear threat reduction programs. What cannot be calculated are intelligence and other operating costs, such as aerial refueling missions..."

U.S. Keeps Nuclear First-Strike Strategy
April 6, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230462030457516626363251379...
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration new national nuclear-weapons strategy... the Nuclear Posture Review, leaving intact the longstanding U.S. threat to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear nations....Next month, Mr. Obama will try to use the first U.N. review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in five years to toughen the treaty and isolate... Iran and North Korea. "Release of nuclear posture review will set the stage," a U.S. official said...it will add that Washington "will continue to move" toward "making nuclear deterrence the sole objective" of the arsenal. The adjective "sole" has become a key measurement in diplomatic circles where U.S. nuclear forces have long been seen as an impediment to stopping nuclear proliferation.

Obama to Update Nuclear Complex Despite Fiscal Constraints, NNSA Chief Says
2/14/12 Global Security Newswire http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/obama-update-nuclear-complex-despite-fisc...
In November 2010 the White House released spending projections aimed at meeting President Obama’s plan to provide $85 billion for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal and associated infrastructure...A revised long-term spending plan is expected to be developed with the Defense Department and delivered later this year,

Obama and the Nuclear War Plan
Feb. 2010 by Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, . http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/publications1/WarPlanIssueBrief201...

Obama accused of nuclear U-turn as guided weapons plan emerges
4/21/13 by Julian Borger, The Guardian
President Obama appears to be reneging on vow to work towards nuclear disarmament after it emerged the administration was planning to spend billions on upgrading nuclear bombs stored in Europe to make the weapons more reliable and accurate. Under the plan nearly 200 B61 gravity bombs stockpiled in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey would be given new tail fins that turn them into guided weapons that could be delivered by stealth F35 fighter-bombers.
“This will be a significant upgrade of the US nuclear capability in Europe,” said Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of Nuclear Scientists. “It flies directly in the face of the pledges Obama made in 2010 not deploy new weapons.” Kristensen said the tail kit would give it a new mission and new capabilities..“What will be going back to Europe will be a guided nuclear bomb. Especially combined with F35 with stealth characteristics, that expands targets you can hold at risk from Europe... making nuclear weapons more ‘usable’.” The new B61, mark 12, will be a 50 kiloton weapon, like most of the “tactical” nuclear bombs currently in Europe. The older ones now stockpiled in the US, would be discontinued. Some European countries, led by Germany, have attempted to get US B61 bombs withdrawn from Europe on the grounds they serve no military purpose following the cold war represent a security risk...some eastern European allies fear it would symbolise a weakening of US commitment to defend them against Russia....