War with Russia- Cold or Hot?

War with Russia – Cold or Hot?

By Ken Meyercord

There’s much talk these days about a new cold war with Russia, but the prognostications may be way behind the facts. Our tense relations with Russia may have already gone from cold to tepid to hot. The evidence is hardly conclusive but is so disturbing it should be examined.

First, what’s clear. The United States and Russia are circling each other warily, posturing as if preparing to throw a punch. Last spring, Russian bombers appeared over the Caribbean for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union (which, I suggest, explains our improved relations with Cuba better than some fundamental change in American policy). Russia’s recent strike on targets in Syria by cruise missiles launched from the Caspian Sea clearly was meant to demonstrate their capabilities for our benefit. The presence of Russian submarines in the vicinity of underwater cables which carry most internet traffic to and from Europe has raised alarm bells in the Pentagon.

Less clear is whether any punches have actually been thrown in this macabre pas de deux. The idea may seem preposterous to those unwilling to speculate on what remains unseen and unreported; but, if you are not one of those, consider these suggestive developments. First, there have been a number of significant disruptions in computer systems in this country. As the crisis in Ukraine heated up in the summer of 2014 the State Department’s passport and visa issuing system failed. Then there was the simultaneous failure of the New York Stock Exchange, United Airlines, and the Wall Street Journal computer systems last July. Glitches or cyber attacks (probably in retaliation for similar attacks we carried out)? Who can say? Who would say?

More troubling are the possible tit-for-tat sabotaging of each other’s space programs. Just three days after the failure of the State Department’s system, a Russian rocket launch, which was to place a satellite in orbit as part of Russia’s attempt to build a global positioning system competitive with our own, failed spectacularly while the launch was being broadcast live on Russian TV. Then last May, another Russian rocket carrying a $200 million telecommunications satellite failed. Such failures can hardly be blamed on Russian ineptitude in space technology as we rely on their rocket engines for our own launches. By comparison, the European space agency has not suffered a launch failure in 12 years.

On our side, an Orbital Sciences Corporation Antares rocket, launched from Wallops Island, Virginia and destined for the international space station, failed on lift off in October 2014. Previously, there had been four successful launches of the rocket. Then last June, a Spacex Falcon 9 rocket, also heading for the space station, this time from Cape Canaveral, blew up in flight. It was the first Falcon 9 to fail in 19

Now the really scary part. Have we raised the ante by bringing down that Russian Metrojet over the Sinai, killing all on board (The object would have been to demonstrate our capability, not just kill some Russians)? If so, this would be a major escalation in this undeclared, unsuspected war in that previous sabotage did not result in loss of life. If no explosive residue is found on the wreckage, it means something other than a bomb or missile was used, increasing the possibility high tech weaponry was involved (Until that is known, I think I will avoid flying in American airliners).

The telltale signs of an onboard bomb would not negate my theory, but it would weaken it in my own mind as I believe we have more subtle means of bringing down a plane (Stay with me on this one until I’ve had my say as we now venture into Never Neverland). You all are familiar with crop circles. What do you suppose causes them? There are two popular explanations… and then there is mine.

First, the E.T. explanation: they are made by aliens. I cannot disprove this, nor can the believers prove it. Like any belief involving the extraterrestrial, it rests on faith. I don’t belief it, but I leave it up to you. If this explanation appeals to you, you probably need not read further.

The earthbound explanation is that they are made by pranksters out on a lark. Have you seen photos of these circles? Some of them are incredibly intricate and precise. Here’s one:

If you believe a couple of inebriates from the local pub could construct such a thing – overnight and in the dark – I encourage you to try to make one yourself. There are circles made by amateurs, but real crop circles display two distinctive characteristics: (1) the stalks are not bent down at the base (as they would be using the supposed rope-and-plank method) but bent midway up where nodules in the stalk have actually exploded; (2) the ground within and around the circles are strewn with tiny magnetized metallic

My explanation is that the circles are a product of advanced weaponry, probably space-based. We all know space is the new battleground and it would be naïve in the extreme to believe those engaged in developing Star Wars-like weaponry would tell us about it (Even Harry Truman didn’t know we were working on the bomb when he was Vice President). We do know it’s likely to involve lasers, microwaves, electromagnetic pulses, and the like. Crop circles may be the best indication of what our Dr. Strangeloves are up to (that almost all the circles – except the fake ones – appear in southwestern England, i.e., in the territory of our closest ally, lends credence to my suspicion the Pentagon is behind them). The circles suggest the development of a weapon capable of messing with a target’s electronics, setting a person’s blood a-boiling, or melting metal, such as an airplane’s fuselage. The reason they appear every year and are so intricate is perhaps because of a need to constantly recalibrate the weapon’s aim, like a sniper checking the aim of his rifle.

Before you object that the president can’t attack Russia without first obtaining congressional approval, remember that Obama planted the Stuxnet virus which damaged Iran’s centrifuges – clearly an act of war – without congressional authorization. Moreover, consider how the next war between superpowers is likely to start. With so much of a country’s potential firepower dependent on cyber and space components, there is a tremendous advantage to firing the first shot. For this reason, if the president wants to wage a war, it’s unlikely he will seek a declaration of war from Congress first, as this would invite, a preemptive strike by the enemy. If he doesn’t seek the concurrence of Congress and we win the war,,nobody is going to complain about his not having sought a declaration of war first. On the other hand, if we lose the war, there probably won’t be any of us around to reprimand him.

—————————————–

Ken Meyercord is a retiree living in the Washington, DC area where he can often be seen asking impudent questions of our nation’s foremost leaders on C-SPAN (see “Adventures in Think Tank Land” on YouTube). He recently published a memoir of the Vietnam War years, Draft-Dodging Odyssey, under

the penname “Ken Kiask”.