The next month, August of 2008, the homeland security
secretary, Michael Chertoff. toured Alaska’s Arctic
shores with the same US Coast Guard Commandant Adm.
Thad Allen cited above.
And in September another senior US Coast Guard
commander "warned of the risk of conflict in the
Arctic, unless disputes over international borders are
resolved.
"Speaking to the BBC during an Arctic patrol flight,
Rear Adm Gene Brooks, in charge of the Coast Guard's
vast Alaska region, appealed for a diplomatic deal.
"'The potential is there with undetermined boundaries
and great wealth for conflict, or competition.
"'There's always a risk of conflict,. Adm Brookes
said."
(BBC News, September 10, 2008)
In October the the US 4th Marine Division's
Antiterrorism Battalion conducted training at "The
northernmost point in North America, Barrow, Alaska."
(Marine Corps News, October 29, 2008)
The US is not alone in the new scramble for the
Arctic, nor is the collective NATO plan simply related
to energy.
In a 2007 dispatch with the title "NATO Besieges
Russia in the Arctic" the most dangerous aspect of the
Alliance's drive into the Arctic was revealed:
"Amid great secrecy, NATO naval forces are trying to
control the Arctic Ocean to continue the military
bloc's expansion to Russia...the newspaper Military
Industry Herald reported here.
"Like in the tensest times of the Cold War, troops
from
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are trying to
take control of the Arctic route, said the
newspaper....[T]he US Navy, in conjunction with its
British allies, is meeting the challenge of displacing
Russian submarines from the Arctic region."
(Prensa Latina, March 29, 2007)
In March of 2007 the US and Britain held a joint
submarine exercise under the polar ice cap, one that
drew some attention because of the death of two
British sailors.
The drill, code named Ice Exercise 2007, was the
occasion for this observation on a US Navy website:
"The submarine force continues to use the Arctic Ocean
as an alternate route for shifting submarines between
the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. ...submarines can
reach the western Pacific
directly by transiting through international waters of
the Arctic rather than through the Panama Canal."
(Navy NewsStand, March 20, 2007)
A few days later the same source published these
comments from Barry L. Campbell, head of operations at
the U.S. Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory:
-“'We’re a worldwide Navy and the Navy’s position is
we should be able to operate in any ocean in the
world....When you go through the Arctic, no one knows
you’re there....We expect all our subs to be able to
operate in the Arctic....Our strategic position is to
be able to operate anywhere in the world, and we see
the Arctic as part of that....[I]f we ever did have to
fight a battle under there it would be a joint
operation.'”
(Navy NewsStand, March 29, 2007)
The key to understanding US and NATO military
expansion into the Arctic is provided by this brief,
matter of fact excerpt from a Russian news agency
relating the firing of a submarine-launched ballistic
missile in the Arctic:
"[A] Sineva intercontinental ballistic missile...was
fired in the summer of 2006 from the North Pole by the
submarine Yekaterinburg....[U]nder a thick icecap the
submarine remains invisible to hostile observation
satellites till the last moment. As a result, a
retaliatory nuclear strike would be sudden and
unavoidable."
(Russian Information Agency Novosti, July 7, 2007)
That is, with US and NATO missile and satellite radar
and interceptor missile facilities around the world
and in space, the only place where Russia could retain
a deterrence and/or retaliatory capacity against a
crushing nuclear first strike is under the polar ice
cap.
An earlier Russian reports confirms this perspective
and the fear that without this capability Russia would
be rendered completely defenseless in the event of a
nuclear war.
Commenting on the need for Russian strategic
submarines to operate under the Arctic ice, Navy
Commander Admiral Vladimir Masorin said:
secretary, Michael Chertoff. toured Alaska’s Arctic
shores with the same US Coast Guard Commandant Adm.
Thad Allen cited above.
And in September another senior US Coast Guard
commander "warned of the risk of conflict in the
Arctic, unless disputes over international borders are
resolved.
"Speaking to the BBC during an Arctic patrol flight,
Rear Adm Gene Brooks, in charge of the Coast Guard's
vast Alaska region, appealed for a diplomatic deal.
"'The potential is there with undetermined boundaries
and great wealth for conflict, or competition.
"'There's always a risk of conflict,. Adm Brookes
said."
(BBC News, September 10, 2008)
In October the the US 4th Marine Division's
Antiterrorism Battalion conducted training at "The
northernmost point in North America, Barrow, Alaska."
(Marine Corps News, October 29, 2008)
The US is not alone in the new scramble for the
Arctic, nor is the collective NATO plan simply related
to energy.
Russia in the Arctic" the most dangerous aspect of the
Alliance's drive into the Arctic was revealed:
"Amid great secrecy, NATO naval forces are trying to
control the Arctic Ocean to continue the military
bloc's expansion to Russia...the newspaper Military
Industry Herald reported here.
"Like in the tensest times of the Cold War, troops
from
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are trying to
take control of the Arctic route, said the
newspaper....[T]he US Navy, in conjunction with its
British allies, is meeting the challenge of displacing
Russian submarines from the Arctic region."
(Prensa Latina, March 29, 2007)
In March of 2007 the US and Britain held a joint
submarine exercise under the polar ice cap, one that
drew some attention because of the death of two
British sailors.
The drill, code named Ice Exercise 2007, was the
occasion for this observation on a US Navy website:
"The submarine force continues to use the Arctic Ocean
as an alternate route for shifting submarines between
the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. ...submarines can
reach the western Pacific
directly by transiting through international waters of
the Arctic rather than through the Panama Canal."
(Navy NewsStand, March 20, 2007)
A few days later the same source published these
comments from Barry L. Campbell, head of operations at
the U.S. Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory:
-“'We’re a worldwide Navy and the Navy’s position is
we should be able to operate in any ocean in the
world....When you go through the Arctic, no one knows
you’re there....We expect all our subs to be able to
operate in the Arctic....Our strategic position is to
be able to operate anywhere in the world, and we see
the Arctic as part of that....[I]f we ever did have to
fight a battle under there it would be a joint
operation.'”
(Navy NewsStand, March 29, 2007)
The key to understanding US and NATO military
expansion into the Arctic is provided by this brief,
matter of fact excerpt from a Russian news agency
relating the firing of a submarine-launched ballistic
missile in the Arctic:
"[A] Sineva intercontinental ballistic missile...was
fired in the summer of 2006 from the North Pole by the
submarine Yekaterinburg....[U]nder a thick icecap the
submarine remains invisible to hostile observation
satellites till the last moment. As a result, a
retaliatory nuclear strike would be sudden and
unavoidable."
(Russian Information Agency Novosti, July 7, 2007)
That is, with US and NATO missile and satellite radar
and interceptor missile facilities around the world
and in space, the only place where Russia could retain
a deterrence and/or retaliatory capacity against a
crushing nuclear first strike is under the polar ice
cap.
An earlier Russian reports confirms this perspective
and the fear that without this capability Russia would
be rendered completely defenseless in the event of a
nuclear war.
Commenting on the need for Russian strategic
submarines to operate under the Arctic ice, Navy
Commander Admiral Vladimir Masorin said:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
