*** Hacia
el nuevo Escenario de Ensueño del Pentágono:
Las Guerras Climáticas
Después de Iraq, ¿Venezuela?
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer.
25/02/04.
***************************************************************************************************
|
La oposición se prepara para desconocer
al arbitro y producir una situación de caos
Por: Martha Harnecker
Publicado el Martes, 24/02/04 03:21am |
|
||||||||
http://www.aporrea.org/dameletra.php?docid=7021
*********************************************************************************************************
|
Hacia el nuevo Escenario de Ensueño del
Pentágono: Las Guerras Climáticas
Después de Iraq, ¿Venezuela? Por: Jutta Schmitt
Publicado el Martes, 24/02/04 01:46pm |
|
||||||||
|
Al derrumbarse el pirámide
de mentiras respecto a la "guerra contra el
terrorismo" de la administración Bush, desde la "inteligencia fallida" del 11 de Septiembre hasta la "inteligencia falsa" de las supuestas armas de destrucción masiva de Iraq, donde ya ni siquiera el código "color naranja" le funciona para repintar el fiasco que es su credibilidad pública, y donde sólo aquellos que carecen de la más rudimentaria "inteligencia central" todavía caen en esta trampa de operaciones psicológicas tipo estímulo y respuesta, el Pentágono ha salido recientemente con algo que puede considerarse una idea un poco mas "convincente" para justificar las "nuevas guerras estadounidenses" en un futuro cercano: el cambio climático. Frente a las consecuencias catastróficas de un cambio climático, que se espera puedan manifestarse violentamente en cualquier momento dentro de los próximos 20 años, y ante la perspectiva de un escenario a escala global, donde "la perturbación y el conflicto constituirán características endémicas de la propia vida" (1), surge, como el sol detrás del horizonte, la tentadora oportunidad de ir a la guerra sin la más mínima necesidad de justificación. Lejos de resultar "humillante para la administración Bush", los últimos "descubrimientos" del Pentágono tienen una alta probabilidad de convertirse en el trasfondo necesario para promover un nuevo género de guerras, en sustitución de la "guerra contra el terrorismo" ya un tanto enredada, garantizando así la continuidad del enfoque universal belicista no sólo de la actual administración Bush, sino de cualquier futuro gobierno de los EE.UU: las guerras climáticas. Elevar el cambio climático "más allá del debate científico a un asunto de preocupación por la seguridad nacional para los EE.UU." (2), constituirá entonces la piedra angular de una nueva estrategia de seguridad nacional (y el propio escenario de ensueño del Pentágono), donde - aparte de la mera supervivencia - no hace falta inventar fastidiosa excusa alguna para ir a la guerra cuando y donde les de la gana. El "crudo sobrevivir" es causa y razón suficiente en sí misma y justifica cualquier medida y medio, incluso la aniquilación física de los competidores internacionales que compiten por el aire, el agua, la energía, la comida y, más importante aún, por las ganancias - hasta donde la catástrofe humana y ambientalista del planeta permita sacar provecho. La "supervivencia", también y finalmente, constituye el argumento más brillante y convincente para explicar, porqué una buena parte de la población mundial - las fuerzas de trabajo manuales, supérfluas, en su mayoría del Tercer Mundo, que se encuentran fuera del proceso de trabajo y ya no tienen significado alguno ni para la producción ni para el consumo - tendrá que ser eliminada cuanto antes: Para no más fatiguar la tan mermada capacidad del planeta de tener que aguantarse la libertad de la tiranía económica, financiera y militar mundializada de atropellar continuamente a la inmensa mayoría de su población humana y a su ambiente natural. En vez de dejar abierta la opción para la cooperación internacional y una solución común, rápida y rígidamente implementada para contrarrestar el problema del cambio climático, por no hablar de atacar la causa por sus raíces - el modo de "producción" (o más bien destrucción) suicida establecido a nivel mundial - el Pentágono, unido con su extensión política correspondiente (el respectivo gobierno estadounidense de turno), abrazará entusiásticamente las "guerras climáticas" en un doble esfuerzo por utilizar el cambio climático no sólo como la razón para ir a la guerra por el motivo que sea, contra el competidor/enemigo que sea, sino para desarrollar e introducir una nueva generación de armas geofísicas, "aprovechando las tecnologías emergentes y centrandonos en el desarrollo de estas tecnologías hasta convertirlas en aplicaciones para el combate bélico", con el objetivo declarado de "poseer el tiempo en el 2025". (3) Así que, después de Iraq, "con viento y marea", ¿Venezuela? NOTAS: (1): Mark Townsend/Paul Harris: Ahora el Pentágono le dice a Bush: Es el Cambio Climático que nos va a destruir ("Now the Pentagon tells Bush: Climate Change will destroy us"); http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4864237-102275,00.html (2) ibid. (3) Col. T. J. House et al, El Tiempo como un Multiplicador de la Fuerza Bélica: Poseyendo el Tiempo en el 2025; documento de investigación presentada a la Fuerza Aérea 2025 ("Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" (research paper presented to Air Force 2025); http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-1.htm Artículo leido
212 veces http://www.aporrea.org/dameletra.php?docid=7027. |
|
|
|
| Create an Account | Recommend Us | Submit News | Account | Feedback | February 24, 2004 |
| Towards the Pentagon's
new "Dream Scenario": Climate Wars (Score: 1) by juttafranz (238@666.com) on Tuesday, February 24 @ 10:21:08 AST (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.franz-lee.org |
After Iraq, who is next? Venezuela? By: Jutta Schmitt 24/02/04 As the pyramid of lies regarding the Bush administration's "war on terrorism" is falling apart, from the “failing intelligence” of September 11th to the “false intelligence” of Iraq's “weapons of mass destruction”, with not even the orange colour code being able to paint over the public credibility fiasco and with only those lacking “central intelligence” still falling for the stimulus-and-response psychological operations game, the Pentagon has now come up with what can be considered a somehow more "convincing" idea to justify “America´s new wars” in the near future: climate change. In the face of the catastrophic consequences of climate change expected to happen anytime within the next 20 years and given the prospect of a world wide scenario where "disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life" (1), the enticing opportunity of going to war without even the slightest need for justification, rises like the sun from behind the horizon. Far from proving “humiliating to the Bush administration”, the Pentagon's latest findings are likely to become the necessary background for a new kind of wars, substituting the somewhat gone awkward “war on terrorism” and guaranteeing the continuity of the bellicose world-approach of G.W. Bush's and that of any future US administration to come: climate wars. Elevating climate change “beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern” (2) will thus constitute the cornerstone of a new national security strategy (and the Pentagon's very dream scenario), where - other than mere survival - no further, onerous justification for war will have to be invented. “Sheer survival” makes the case for itself and justifies all measures and means, including the physical annihilation of international competitors for air, water, energy, food and, most importantly, profits - as long as the human and environmental, planetary catastrophy can be profited from. “Survival” is also and finally the most brilliant and convincing argument as to why a good deal of the world's population – the superfluous, manual and mostly third world labour force, that has fallen out of the production process and become meaningless both for production and consumption - has to be eliminated: to not further put a strain onto the planet's capacity of enduring the freedom of the world's economic, financial and military tyranny to wreak havoc on the vast majority of its human population as well as its natural environment. Instead of leaving an option for international co-operation and a commonly, rapidly and rigidly implemented solution of the problem of climate change, let alone of tackling the root cause - a literally suicidal mode of production or rather destruction - the Pentagon, in unison with its corresponding political outlet – the respective US administration in power - , will enthusiastically embrace “climate wars” in a double effort of using climate change not only as the reason to go to war for whatever objective it deems worthwhile and with whatever competitor/enemy concerned, but for developing and introducing a new generation of geophysical weapons, “capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications”, with the declared objective of “owning the weather in 2025”. (3) After Iraq, who is next? Venezuela? (1): Mark Townsend/Paul Harris: Now the Pentagon tells Bush: Climate Change will destroy us”; http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4864237-102275,00.html (2) ibid. (3) Col. T. J. House et al, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” (research paper presented to Air Force 2025); http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-1.htm |
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.
One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.
Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.
'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.
Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'
Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.
'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'
So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.
The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.
Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'
Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.