Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Peter Beter Newsletter 6 : Perspective: Soviet-American Confrontation The "Reverse Cuba" Missile Crisis Now Underway

Number 6
October 23, 1983

Note: Due to late-breaking crisis developments, editing of this issue was extended 2 days beyond the scheduled date of Oct. 21.


Perspective: Soviet-American Confrontation The "Reverse Cuba" Missile Crisis Now Underway

A superpower confrontation is underway between the U.S. and the USSR which is a mirror image of the:Cuban Mis­sile Crisis of 1962.     The Korean airliner incident of last month and its aftermath have produced results which were badly miscalculated by the Reagan Administration. Krem­lin leaders are convinced that the U.S. is bent on war, as stated with grave finality in an Andropov crisis declara­tion of Sept.  28.     In retaliation for impending Euromissile deployment by the U.S. , Soviet underwater-launch missiles are now being planted along America's shores.

Expanding Crisis: Lebanon, Persian Gulf, Korea

With the Lebanon War Powers Resolution safely signed, violence against U.S. Marines has rapidly escalated to the catastrophic terrorist attack of Oct.  23.     The Iran-Iraq war also is moving toward becoming a new arena of Soviet-U. S,  conflict.     Top South Korean officials impli­cated in the Korean airliner incident were killed in a bomb blast in Rangoon,  Burma,  arranged by the KGB.

Copyright © 1983, Audio Books, Inc.

Background references are indicated in parentheses { ), abbreviated as follows:
Ali    Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER® Cassette Tape #
ABl    AUDIO BOOK® Cassette Tape #
These tapes produced by Audio Books, Inc., may be ordered from NewsALERT.

Perspective: Soviet-American Confrontation

When Korean Air Lines Flight 007 flew into supersensitive Soviet airspace on Sept.   1 and was shot down,  those who had planned the incident expected it to shoot down arms control too (NewsALERT #3).     It has accomplished that purpose, paving the way for deployment of new U. S. nuclear missiles in Europe on schedule beginning in a few weeks.

But the Reagan Administration has made a grave miscalcu­lation by over-using the airliner incident as a propaganda blud­geon against Russia.     As a Soviet official was quoted in the Washington Post on Oct.  17:   "There is a very strong convic­tion here that you want to destroy us.     That is serious."
That is serious.     Serious enough that on Sept.  28 Soviet President Andropov issued a declaration on Soviet-American relations that signifies the onset of a major super-power con­frontation.     At this writing we are already in the midst of a still-escalating crisis which is like the 1962 Cuban Missile Cri­sis and the 1976 Underwater Missile Crisis rolled into one.

The "Reverse Cuba" Missile Crisis Now Underway

In the nearly four decades of the Atomic Age,  there has been only one publicly admitted nuclear confrontation between the super-powers.     That confrontation was, of course,  the Cuban Missile Crisis, which erupted 21 years ago this month in Octo­ber 1962.

That crisis arose out of the efforts of one super-power to deploy medium-range nuclear missiles on the other's doorstep. The missiles were Russian, the doorstep was Cuba, and the targeted super-power was the United States.     In response, the U. S. adopted a posture which explicitly threatened nuclear war rather than accept the presence of any of those missiles. The Soviet Union--which at that time was heavily outgunned by U.S. nuclear might--opted for survival and backed off.

Four months ago in our complimentary Interim News Alert #4 (which preceded the regular NewsALERT series) we report­ed that an exactly similar crisis was brewing again, but in re­verse.     This time the medium-range nuclear missiles to be deployed are American, the doorstep is Europe,  and the tar­geted super-power is Russia.     This time it is the U. S.  that is outgunned and is trying to tip the balance the other way. And this time it is Russia that is saying,  as the U.S. did 21 years ago, that not a single one of these missiles is acceptable.

This "Reverse Cuba" crisis is now upon us.     As of this writing it remains partially visible,  partially obscured,  yet it already surpasses the 1962 crisis in its actual scope. More about that in the "Expanding Crisis" topic of this NewsALERT.

The Reverse Cuba Crisis over deployment of U. S. missiles in Europe is taking place against the backdrop of collapsing arms control talks.     This is no coincidence: the two are inti­mately related.     President Reagan's hand-picked arms control chief,  Kenneth Adelman, has been presiding over a strategy of arms control talks that is designed to buy time,  look good to the public, but lead nowhere.

 He is fulfilling to the letter his publicly stated approach to arms control negotiations: "My pol­icy would be to do it for political reasons.   I think it's a sham." (N. Y.  Daily News column by Ken Auletta,  5/24/81)    The real goal is to make sure that the missile deployment proceeds.

Both Soviet and American public statements speak of seeking "equality" or a "balance" in European nuclear weapons, yet they propose going about it in opposite ways.

 The Russians have been offering ever since at least May 3 of this year to re­move and destroy large numbers of their own European mis­siles,  provided the U.S. does not deploy new ones.     In effect, they are conceding that their own nuclear power in Europe is greater than that of NATO, and offering to redress the imbal­ance by destroying most of their own weapons.

 The response of the Reagan Administration is that this won't do. Regard­less of what the Russians do (short of destroying ALL their missiles, which ignores the large British and French nuclear forces),  the U.S. insists on putting large numbers of new mis­siles in Europe aimed at the Soviet Union.     When the window dressing and public-relations imagery is peeled away from the various U.S. proposals made so far,  this insistence upon de­ploying the missiles is always the bottom line.

The reason these two approaches are so fundamentally in­ compatible is that the true,  strategic goal is not really "equal­ity" for either side.

 The European missiles are only part of a strategic equation which also includes secret weapons which are not discussed in public at all.     The Soviet Union today has a commanding advantage in the realm of secret weaponry, an advantage which began with Russia's surprise offensive to take military control of space in late 1977 (AL#26 on).     Because of this factor it is to Russia's advantage to de-emphasize conven­tional missile forces equally on both sides.      But by the same token,  the greater U.S. dependence upon missiles means that the only way to counter Soviet power is through sheer force of numbers. 

Thus,  the U.S. is not interested in any formula for nuclear "equality" that prevents deployment of new missiles.
This asymmetry in weaponry and strategy is made more acute--and much more dangerous--by the adoption of a "first strike" nuclear strategy by the U.S. Pentagon.     Dr. Beter first began reporting on this strategic shift in the summer of 1978 (AL#36, 37). 

Since then various hints about it have sur­faced from time to time,  such as the Defense Department spokesman's statement in January 1980 that America might "shoot first" in a nuclear war (AL#57); the Presidential Direc­tive shifting America onto a "counterforce" (i. e.  first strike) posture (AL#57); and new strategies for protracted nuclear war. This shift to a first strike posture is alien to American tradi­tion and values, but reflects the Bolshevizing of the Pentagon which has taken place over the past few years.

The prime Soviet weapon against a possible American first strike is its fleet of hovering weapons platforms called cosmo-spheres.     These machines, which could have been developed by the U.S. but were not (AL#32), began to be deployed in late 1977 and for awhile announced their presence by hair-raising air booms along the U.S. East Coast (AL#29).

 Hovering over U. S. missile sites,  cosmospheres could thwart a first strike by using their beam weapons to blast the missiles as they are launched.     But that is true only if there are enough cosmo­spheres to go around.     The Reagan Administration plan to de­ploy 572 new missiles in Europe is designed to help swamp out the cosmospheres through sheer numbers.     To the extent that there are more missile sites than the cosmospheres can patrol, an American nuclear first strike becomes increasingly feasible.

These are the reasons why the anti-Bolshevik new Kremlin led by Yuri Andropov is so adamant against agreeing to even a single new U.S. missile in Europe.   In their view, the missiles are quite simply a prelude to nuclear war.
The Korean airliner incident of Sept.   1 was staged and timed in a way designed to undercut arms talks and insure that there would be no delay in Euromissile deployment (NewsALERT #3).

But the Bolshevized Reagan Administration made an extreme miscalculation, both by staging the incident and by using it to hammer so hard at the Soviets throughout the month of Septem­ber.     In short, Reagan and his scriptwriters overdid it.

In late September there was a sudden massive increase in Soviet naval activity worldwide.     Then on Sept.  28 Soviet Pres­ident Andropov issued a major statement through the Soviet press agency,  Tass.     The seriousness of this event has been largely lost in the frothy daily reports which most Americans depend on for their news.     To begin with,  it was issued as a Declaration of the General Secretary of the Party--a format used only in crisis situations.    It began with the words:

"The Soviet leadership deems it necessary to make known. . . its assessment of the course pursued by the present United States Administration.     Briefly, it is a militarist course that poses a grave threat to peace. "    

The statement made many points, the most ominous of which is:

"Even if someone had il­lusions as to the possible evolution for the better in the policy of the American Administration, the latest developments have FINALLY DISPELLED THEM. "   (Our emphasis. )   

 This is not a statement of complaints to be resolved, but a gravely stated final judgment.

Andropov also said in his crisis declaration that in its re­sponse to American deployment of missiles in Europe, the So­viet Union's "words and deeds will not be at variance. " Those words for months now have warned that Russia's countermeas-ures will include weapons aimed at the U. S. itself.    A few days ago on Oct.   17, Soviet Gen. Nikolai Chervov made it more spe­cific in an interview with the German magazine Stern, saying Soviet nuclear missiles will be positioned "within 10 minutes" of the U.S.     American officials and news commentators inter­preted this to mean that Soviet missile subs would just move closer to our shores. 

But that is not what he meant at all.

In Interim News Alert #4 last June we called attention to the warning hints which had taken place in Swedish and Norwegian waters.     Sonar-evading minisubs created a sensation by inva­ding the most heavily defended waters,  prowling around at will, and leaving unscathed.     These are a more advanced version of the sonar-evading minisubs which were used 7 years ago to plant underwater-launch missiles (UWM's) inside America's territorial waters (AL#16).     Now they are at work again.

The Andropov crisis declaration of Sept.  28 was actually a declaration of covert war against the U. S.     Even though most of the Soviet missiles planted in our waters 7 years ago are still there,  they are considered unreliable.     Planting of new UWM's in our waters began on Sept.  28.     In 1976 the missiles were all short-range,  rocket-propelled models intended to hit coastal targets not far away.     Many of these are being planted once again. 

But now, in addition,  there is also a specially en­capsulated version of a brand-new Soviet cruise missile desig­nated SSCX4.     It has a 900-mile range, enabling it to reach any target in the U.S. except North and South Dakota, Minnesota and parts of surrounding states.     Due to this new threat the presidential nuclear war command airplane was recently moved to an inland location within this island of safety.     By Oct. 12 at least 73 UWM's had been planted. . . with many more to come.

Expanding Crisis: Lebanon, Persian Guif, Korea

Having triggered a faster-than-intended crisis buildup due to miscalculation, the new U. S. -based Bolsheviks are trying to regain control of events.     Their primary strategy for now is to deliberately multiply the arenas of crisis in an effort to throw the Kremlin off balance.     In this they are being assisted by their close allies, the radical Zionists who presently control the government of Israel.

At the same time, the Kremlin is no longer waiting to see what the Bolshevik-Zionist Axis will hatch next,  but is taking aggressive action of its own.     Two days ago on Oct.  21 it was announced that Soviet President Andropov was postponing a visit to Bulgaria.     This was not due to health problems as rumored:

although Andropov does have some chronic ailments, he is very much in charge.     He cancelled the trip for the moment as being in conflict with a crisis mobilization campaign now being direc­ted at the Soviet population.     He is also personally coordinat­ing the crisis decision-making now underway in the Kremlin.

Lebanon:   More Marines Sacrificed

In NewsALERT {14 last month we explained the reason why U. S. Marines were sent to Lebanon.     They are there in order to implement plans by which the U. S. is to be intentionally drawn into a new "Vietnam" in Lebanon.     Their mission is claimed to be that of "peacekeepers, " but the heavy constraints on their action make any such role impossible.     Instead, their role up to now is to serve as bait for fatal attacks designed to deepen American involvement beyond recall.

If we were only saying these things after the fact,  it would be just our word against the word of President Reagan and the rest of the U. S. Government.     But NewsALERT is simply con­tinuing the work carried on formerly by Dr.  Beter,   who gave warnings repeatedly and explicitly about the present situation over a year ago (AL #78, 79, 80).     No amount of rationaliza­tion or excuses can change one simple fact: Reagan's profuse assurances at that time that the Marines would not be in danger have been proven totally untrue, while Dr. Beter's warnings have been proven tragically accurate.

When Dr.  Beter was giving those unheeded warnings over a year ago, he also reported the key fact that the Israeli intelli­gence agency called the Mossad was manipulating events. For example, in August 1978 (AL#78) Dr.  Beter reported that the Lebanese President-elect,  Bashir Gemayel, was slated by Is­rael to be assassinated.     The following month the plan was carried out,   helping to set the stage for the Marines' open-ended deployment in Lebanon.     The slain president-elect was replaced by his less capable brother,  Amin, as president.

The Israeli Mossad continues its manipulation of events, in concert with the U. S. Pentagon and certain factions within the U.S. State Department.    While overrated in some ways, the Mossad deserves its premier reputation in one particular area: the infiltration and subversion of other power centers through out the Middle East. 

This has been going on ever since Israel was proclaimed a state, and today there are Mossad agents in sensitive positions from Morocco to Iran.    The Mossad is also extremely active in New York City, due to the presence there of United Nations headquarters.     This fact surfaced briefly in August 1979,  in the celebrated case of Israeli spying on then-U. S. Ambassador to the U. N. , Andrew Young (AL#49).

Wherever possible, undercover Mossad agents position themselves to play off radical versus more conservative fac­tions within power groups which they infiltrate.     In this way they are frequently able to raise or lower the level of conflict on at least a short-term basis.     When these moves are coord­inated with other steps taken by the Israeli government and by the U.S. , they can and do radically alter the course of events. This process has been used heavily over the past two months in Lebanon.

In NewsALERT #4 we described how the fatal attacks of Aug. 29 and Sept.  6, which took the lives of 4 Marines, triggered the writing of a War Powers Resolution on Lebanon.     (A more complete name is the "Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolu­tion. ")    Like the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution which was used as the authority for the Vietnam War, the new resolution was desired as authority for escalation to come in Lebanon.

While the sacrifice of several Marines was required in order to get the War Powers ball rolling,  actual passage was another matter.   Enough senators and congressmen were worried about the possible consequences to endanger passage of the resolution if major violence continued.     And so,  as the measure worked its way across Capitol Hill, the 3-week war calmed down. On September 26 one of Lebanon's never-ending ceasefires was proclaimed.     U. S.  officials immediately claimed that it was the Marines' presence that had brought it about,  supposedly by persuading Syria to back off.

It was a false ray of hope, but it reinforced the bogus "peace keeper" image of the Marines' mission.     Two days later the Beirut Airport even reopened to traffic for the first time since August 28,  further dramatizing the supposedly improved situa­tion.     That day the House of Representatives passed the Leba­non War Powers Resolution overwhelmingly (270-161). One
day later it also cleared the Senate (54-46).

The lid stayed on until Reagan could sign it,   thus preserving the fiction that it is all being done for peace.    Reagan signed it on October 12, but with a disclaimer.     In a crisis to come, he can still make use of a constitutional time bomb which was planted this past summer by the U. S. Supreme Court, which overturned the "legislative veto" power of Congress. Reagan & Co. will ride along as long as possible on the congressional authority granted by the Lebanon resolution.    But whenever it should become necessary,  the White House will be able to con­tinue its Lebanon strategy even if Congress objects. Hiding behind a constitutional confrontation, the White House will be able to continue regardless of the will of Congress--or of the American people.

Once the Lebanon resolution was signed by Reagan on Oct. 12,  the ceasefire had done its job.     Immediately it started un­raveling, as sniping attacks began on U.S. Marine positions. On Oct.  14 another Marine was shot to death, and on Oct. 16 still another, plus 3 more injured.

Over the past few weeks the talk in Lebanon has been of a so-called "national reconciliation conference. "    It would have the purpose of bringing all the warring factions together at a conference table to work out a new power-sharing formula to end the bloodshed.     The odds against success for such a con­ference are high, but not impossibly so: Lebanon was, after all, a peaceful place until de stabilization by outside forces began a decade ago. 

Therefore,  one thing which neither the present U. S. administration nor the Israeli government can afford is a successful Lebanese reconciliation conference. Something had to be done, because after weeks of bickering over a meet­ing site, all sides are now leaning toward meeting in Geneva.

For the radical Zionists who now run the Israeli government, bloodshed is always a favorite tool of policy. Former terrorist Menahem Begin has now been succeeded as Israel's Prime Min­ister by a quieter but even more radical terrorist--Yitzhak Shamir.     Shamir,  a member of the infamous Stern Gang killers in the 1940's and later a Mossad agent, has built his entire ca­reer on murder and intrigue.     Has he changed now?   As the Prophet Jeremiah said:   "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?   Then also you can do good who are ac­customed to do evil. "

Today news comes from Beirut of the inevitable terrorist attack on U. S.  Marines.   Early reports say nearly 150 Marines killed,  perhaps 70 wounded.     The Mossad has struck again.

Persian Gulf:   The Iraq-Iran War

A month ago in NewsALERT #4 we included a brief Crisis Alert concerning an impending new development in the Iraq-Iran war.     This development is a desperation move by Iraq to cripple Iran's oil-exporting capability, just as Iraq's capability is crippled already.     Should Iraq succeed,  Iran has threatened to close the Persian Gulf to commercial shipping altogether.
As we reported then, a key event to watch for was to be the delivery of 5 French Super Etendard fighters with Exocet mis­siles.     In NewsALERT #5 we reported that the delivery was being set in motion as of Oct. 7.

This initial move was from Landivisiau naval air base in Brittany to Bordeaux Airport on the southwestern French coast. Landivisiau is the base where some 30 Iraqi pilots and mechan­ics had undergone a 14-week crash course on flying and servi­cing the Etendards.

For the next ten days or so there were conflicting reports and rumors as to whether the delivery process had been com­pleted or not.     During that time agents of the Rockefeller Car­tel, which opposes the sale (NewsALERT #5) were still trying to block it.     They did not succeed.     On October 17 Secretary of State George Shultz spoke to reporters aboard his plane en route home from a meeting in Canada and said:   "The French have made their decision. "   He also hinted at an American tilt toward Iraq and against Iran by criticizing Iran's threats with­out commenting on Iraq's plans.

The 5 French jets are now in Iraq, having arrived there on Oct.   19.     Now Iraq is beginning its military push to shut down Iran's oil exports: yesterday it warned all shipping away from the Iranian port of Bandar Khomeini in the northern Persian Gulf,  claiming to have planted mines.

The plans for a Persian Gulf oil crisis are both economic (NewsALERT #5) and strategic in nature.

  There is a link be­tween today's terrorist attack on Marines in Lebanon and the Persian Gulf crisis now building.     Hours after the Lebanon disaster,  U.S.  officials are blaming Iran.     Bolshevik-Zionist agents are at work to manipulate Iran in desired directions (AL#52), and that manipulation is now designed to help lead toward a U. S. -Iran confrontation.    At the same time, Iran is to be pushed toward closer ties with Moscow, thereby convert­ing the confrontation into another arena of belligerence between Russia and America.     Iran's crucial importance in this regard was described by Dr.  Beter over 5 years ago (AL#37), and is once again destined for the headlines.

South Korea:   Bomb Blast in Burma

As discussed earlier in this News A LERT, the mounting cri­sis now developing between the United States and the Soviet Un­ion began nearly 2 months ago with the Korean airliner episode As we reported in NewsALERT #3,  the incident was arranged by the Korean CIA on behalf of its American counterpart. It was patterned closely after an almost identical mission in 1978, with one crucial difference.     This time the object was not the gathering of intelligence, but the death toll itself.

After the 1978 Korean airliner intelligence mission (AL#33), the Kremlin sent extremely blunt warnings to the South Korean government.     The warnings threatened the most extreme of consequences if there should ever be a repetition.

On Oct. 26,   1979, the Korean CIA assassinated President Park Chung Hee in an internal power struggle.     This led to a military coup which installed the current Korean President, Chun Doo Hwan.     Chun had the KCIA director who had master­minded the assassination executed in May 1980.

This sequence of events gave South Korea a new President, Chun, who had not been involved in the planning of the 1978 air­liner incident.     However, he surrounded himself with key aides who were career diplomats and officials, many with very close U.S. ties.      A number of these men were well aware of the 1978 incident's true nature,  and bore some responsibility for it.

Soviet President Andropov's veiled declaration of war on Sept.  28 was directed against every power that is joining in the U. So  Bolshevik campaign against Russia.     That includes spe­cifically South Korea.     As far as the Kremlin is concerned, the Korean airliner incident last month was an act of war, and requires that the warnings of 197 8 be fulfilled.
Andropov assigned the KGB, which he ran for fifteen years, the following task:   somehow the top leadership of South Korea which was implicated in both Korean airliner episodes was to be eliminated.     If possible,  President Chun was to be spared, since available information indicated that he was not personally involved in the planning of either incident.

The assignment was a difficult one.     It required that South Korea's top leaders be assembled all together,  except for Chun, and that the normally tight South Korean security be breached. The answer turned out to be a ceremonial visit by South Korean leaders to the Martyr's Mausoleum in Rangoon,  Burma. The Burmese were loath to let foreign security forces prowl around their revered shrine, which meant the South Koreans would have to depend upon Burmese security.

Early this month on Oct.  9, a powerful blast reduced the Martyr's Mausoleum in Rangoon to ruins.     Seventeen top mem­bers of the South Korean government were killed,  and over a dozen more injured.     Three Burmese were also killed and many more wounded.     But President Chun was not there: he had been scheduled to arrive at 10:30 a.m. , and the b]ast took place five minutes earlier.

In any operation like this one, the Russian KGB always cov­ers its tracks very carefully.     South Korea is blaming North Korea, and Burma has so far rounded up three "Koreans" (not specifying whether North or South) as suspects.     The KGB connection is unlikely ever to surface. . . but Andropov's assign­ment has been carried out.     The crisis keeps expanding.

Next scheduled issue:   Nov.  4, 1983

NewsALERT is published 24 times per year by Audio Books, Inc. Headquarters address: 1629 K St., NW, #5092; Washington, DC 20006.     For faster service write to: NewsALERT, P.O. Box 276, Savage, MD 20763.     Current sub­scription rates:    $45.00/year in U.S.A. & Canada;    $70.00/year other countries. Outside U.S.A. please remit by international money order in U.S. dollars.

Peter Beter Newsletter 6 : Perspective: Soviet-American Confrontation The "Reverse Cuba" Missile Crisis Now Underway

No comments:

Post a Comment