text: Why the Soviet Union Thinks it Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War by Richard Pipes Baird Professor of History, Harvard University Reprinted from Commentary, 1977 A Summary of the Argument by Bill Somers American and Soviet nuclear doctrines are diametrically opposed. They are products of totally different historical experiences and political and socioeconomic systems. The apparent contradictions in Soviet nuclear doctrine and the dangers of U. S. unilateral adherence to a strategy of mutual deterrence are best understood when put in historical perspective. The American view of war has been conditioned by the ideas characteristic of a Western commercial society. Underlying it is the notion that human conflict results from misunderstandings that can be resolved by negotiation. Marxism, on the other hand, holds conflict to be normal (and military forces as a political tool and a part of grand strategy. Americans generally regard war as an abnormal situation and want to end it rapidly through technological superiority and with the least possible loss of friendly (but not necessarily enemy) lives. Large peacetime forces are an unwelcome expense. These contrary views of war were affected differently by the coming of nuclear weapons. In the U. S., atomic and thermonuclear bombs were considered "absolute" weapons, capable of destroying a society or even a civilization, and against which there was no defense. Thus, Clausewitz's dictum that war is an extension of politics was considered dead. Since nuclear war could serve no rational political purpose, the function of strategic forces should be to avert war. Because of the vast destructiveness of nuclear weapons, a "sufficiency" of weapons to retaliate was believed to be enough. Numerical superiority was thought to have little meaning. To ensure a stable balance, in which conflicts could be resolved by negotiation, the USSR should even have the ability to do unacceptable second-strike damage to the U. S. This concept of mutual deterrence, or mutual assured destruction, became U. S. policy and as nuclear delivery capabilities improved, remained the foundation of a somewhat more flexible policy. These U. S. strategic theories were developed largely by civilian scientists and "accountants," with little contribution from military professionals. The theorists were guided significantly by fiscal imperatives -- the desire to reduce the defense budget while retaining a capacity to deter Soviet threats to U. S. interests. The theories were formulated without reference to their Soviet counterparts, and in the belief that we can "educate" the Soviets to adopt our views. In the USSR, where strategy is considered a science and the special province of the military, nuclear weapons were not held to be "absolute," except perhaps briefly after Stalin's death. The idea of mutual deterrence was never accepted. Soviet theorists rejected the idea that technology determines strategy. They adapted nuclear weapons to their traditional Clausewitzian view of war as an extension of politics. The Communist revolution eliminated that segment of Russian society that was most Westernized, and put the peasant class in power. History had taught the Russian peasant that cunning and coercion assured survival; cunning when weak; cunning and coercion when strong. "Not to use force when one had it indicated some inner weakness." That concept of the use of power and the fact that, since 1914, the USSR has lost up to 60,000,000 citizens through war, famine, and purges and survived has no doubt conditioned the development of Soviet nuclear strategy. Soviet nuclear doctrine, expounded in a wide range of Russian defense literature, has five related elements: Preemption (first strike). Quantitative superiority (a requisite for preemption and because the war may last for some time, even though the initial hours are decisive). Counterforce targeting. Combined-arms operations to supplement nuclear strikes. Defense, which has been almost totally neglected by the U. S. under its concept of mutual deterrence. Soviet Doctrine is both a continuation and an extension of the Soviet belief that all military forces -- nuclear and conventional -- serve a political purpose as guarantor of internal control and an instrument for territorial expansion. Thus, large military forces are accepted in the Soviet Union as a rational capital investment, regardless of their impact on social programs. Soviet writing on nuclear strategy has been largely ignored, or has been ridiculed in this country because if its jingoism and crudity, and the obscurity of Communist semantics. It is a strategy of "compellance," in contrast to the U. S. doctrine of deterrence. But "... the relationship of Soviet doctrine and Soviet deployments (is) sufficiently close to suggest that ignoring or not taking seriously Soviet military doctrine may have very detrimental effects on U. S. security." Finally, "... as long as the Soviets persist in adhering to the Clausewitzian maxim on the function of war, mutual deterrence does not really exist. And unilateral deterrence is feasible only if we understand the Soviet war-winning strategy and make it impossible for them to succeed." Article Preview Why the Soviet Union Thinks It Could Fight & Win a Nuclear War Richard Pipes — July 1977 - Abstract IN A RECENT interview with the New Republic, Paul Warnke, the newly appointed head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, responded as follows to the question of how the United States ought to react to indications that the Soviet leadership thinks it possible to fight and win a nuclear war. ―In my view,‖ he replied, ―this kind of thinking is on a level of abstraction which is unrealistic. It seems to me that instead of talking in those terms, which would indulge what I regard as the primitive aspects of Soviet nuclear doctrine, we ought to be trying to educate them into the real world of strategic nuclear weapons, which is that nobody could possibly win.‖ Even after allowance has been made for Mr. Warnke's notoriously careless syntax, puzzling questions remain. On what grounds does he, a Washington lawyer, presume to ―educate‖ the Soviet general staff composed of professional soldiers who thirty years ago defeated the Wehrmacht-and, of all things, about the ―real world of strategic nuclear weapons‖ of which they happen to possess a considerably larger arsenal than we? Why does he consider them children who ought not to be ―indulged‖? And why does he chastise for what he regards as a ―primitive‖ and unrealistic strategic doctrine not those who hold it, namely the Soviet military, but Americans who worry about their holding it? About the Author Richard Pipes is professor of history emeritus at Harvard and the author most recently of Russian Conservatism and Its Critics (Yale). The Public Mood: Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R. Foreign Affairs, Fall 1984 by Daniel Yankelovich and John Doble Presidential campaigns do more than choose individuals for high office: our history shows many instances where elections have moved the country closer to a decisive resolution of longstanding issues. The 1984 presidential campaign gives the candidates a historic opportunity to build public support for reducing the risk of nuclear war. The American electorate is now psychologically prepared to take a giant step toward real arms reductions. For several years now a great change, largely unnoted, has transformed the outlook of the American electorate toward nuclear arms. There is a dawning realization among the majority of voters that the growth in nuclear arsenals on both sides has made the old "rules of the game" dangerously obsolete. The traditional response of nations to provocations and challenges to their interest has been the threat of force and, in the event of a breakdown of relations, resort to war. However much suffering war may have created in the past, the old rules permitted winners as well as losers. But an all-out nuclear war, at present levels of weaponry, would wipe out the distinction between winners and losers. All would be losers and the loss irredeemable. This grim truth is now vividly alive for the American electorate. Moreover, for the average voter the danger is real and immediate–far more so than among elites and experts. Americans are not clear about the policy implications of this new reality. They do not know how it should be translated into day-to-day transactions with the Soviet Union to reduce the danger. But there is an impatient awareness that the old responses are not good enough, and a sense of urgency about finding new responses. –By an overwhelming 96 percent to 3 percent, Americans assert that "picking a fight with the Soviet Union is too dangerous in a nuclear world...." –By 89 percent to 9 percent, Americans subscribe to the view that "there can be no winner in an all-out nuclear war; both the United States and the Soviet Union would be completely destroyed." —By 83 percent to 14 percent, Americans say that while in past wars we knew that no matter what happened some life would continue, "we cannot be certain that life on earth will continue after a nuclear war." —And, by 68 percent to 20 percent, the majority rejects the concept that "if we had no alternative we could fight and win a nuclear war against the Soviet Union." These findings are from a new national study conducted by the Public Agenda Foundation to probe attitudes toward nuclear arms. The picture of the electorate's state of mind that follows has been pieced together from a number of excellent national surveys of public attitudes conducted over the past several years by a variety of organizations. These include: Gallup, Harris, New York Times/ CBS, Time Soundings (conducted by Yankelovich, Skelly and White), ABC News/Washington Post, The Public Mood: Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R. 2 NBC News/Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Research and Forecasts, and the Public Agenda study, the most recent. The Public Agenda survey underscores what many others have discovered: Americans have come to believe that nuclear war is unwinnable, unsurvivable. II In the postwar period, U.S. policies toward the Soviet Union have oscillated between policies of containment (drawing lines against overt Soviet involvement), and policies of détente that depended on "managing" a carrot/stick relationship between the superpowers. Our shifts from one policy to the other have depended more on internal American politics than on Soviet actions. In the early 1970s, détente enjoyed immense popularity with the public. As the decade moved toward its close, however, differing Soviet and American interpretations of détente had begun to create tensions (for example, in Angola). The watershed event was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 and the reaction of the Carter Administration. This event marked the public start of the present "down phase" of disillusionment in the United States with the policies of détente, and of deeply troubled relations with the Soviets. President Carter characterized the Afghanistan invasion as "the worst threat to world peace since World War II." The public, which had momentarily set aside its mistrust of the Soviet Union in the early and middle 1 970s, now responded with renewed mistrust and frustration over our apparent impotence to counter Soviet aggression. (The frustration was aggravated, coincidentally, by this country's inability to free the hostages in Iran.) This combination of events led to a steep increase in public support for strengthening our defenses, and a mood of deep disillusionment with détente The Public Agenda survey shows that two-thirds of the public (67 percent) endorse the view that the "Soviet Union used détente as an opportunity to build up their armed forces while lulling us into a sense of false security." In 1980 and 1981 the backlash against détente reached a high peak of intensity. The public mood was characterized by injured national pride, unqualified support for increasing the defense budget, and a general desire to see American power become more assertive. The public is now having second thoughts about the dangers of such an assertive posture at a time when the United States is no longer seen to maintain nuclear supremacy. The electorate is still wary, still mistrustful, and still convinced that the Soviets will seize every possible advantage they can; yet, at the same time, Americans are determined to stop what they see as a drift toward nuclear confrontation which, in the electorate's view, neither we nor the Soviets desire. The stage is being set for a new phase in our relationship with the Soviets. For the United States, "normal relations" between the two superpowers are clearly not the "friendly relations" the American people associated with the 1970s policy of détente At the same time, Americans are skeptical about the kind of containment policy that prevailed so often in the past. From our Vietnam experience, voters draw the lesson that we must keep uppermost in mind the limits of American power. And from the present standoff on nuclear arms they draw the lesson that we must avoid being provocative and confrontational. The Public Mood: Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R. 3 Large majorities now support a relatively nonideological, pragmatic live-and-let-live attitude that potentially can provide the political support for a new approach to normalizing relations between the two superpowers. In shaping new policy proposals it will be useful for candidates to hold clearly in view two major findings that emerge from the many studies of public attitudes toward nuclear arms. The first is that Americans have experienced a serious change of heart about the impact of nuclear weapons on our national security. The second is that voter perceptions of the Soviets are not as black- andwhite as they once were; there are many shades of gray—nuances and subtleties that have an important bearing on policy. An inference follows from these findings: voters are psychologically prepared to consider much more dramatic and far-reaching arms-control policies than existing ones, because existing policies are rooted in the old rules of the game when there was a chance of winning if war broke out. III At the very start of the nuclear age in August 1945, a Gallup poll found that the overwhelming majority of citizens approved the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America was war-weary, and the new weapon held the promise of ending the conflict and saving American lives. Yet, when asked in the same survey whether the United States should use poison gas against Japanese cities if it would shorten the war and save American lives, most Americans answered no. In the summer of 1945, then, in spite of the suffering the war had caused, Americans clearly understood the ideas of deterrence and retaliation, and the need to weigh concerns other than that of simply ending the war. In 1954, Gallup reported that 54 percent of the public felt that the invention of the hydrogen bomb made another world war less likely. By 1982, however, the Gallup survey revealed that American thinking had undergone a radical change. In that year, responding to the same question posed a generation earlier, nearly two in three (65 percent) now said the development of the bomb was a bad thing. The reasons for this change are clear-cut. Twenty-nine years ago, Gallup had found that only 27 percent of the public agreed that "mankind would be destroyed in an all-out atomic or hydrogen bomb war." The Public Agenda asked those they interviewed in 1984 if they agreed or disagreed with this statement: "There can be no winner in an all-out nuclear war; both the US and the Soviet Union would be completely destroyed." An overwhelming 89 percent concurred. This and other responses reflect a dramatic shift in people's thinking about what nuclear war would be like. Nuclear war is no longer seen as a rational policy for the US government to consider. In part, this extraordinary change reflects Americans' revised understanding of the relative strengths of the United States and the Soviet Union. When the United States alone had the bomb, most Americans had few doubts about our safety. Even after the Soviets achieved nuclear status, and even after the advent of the hydrogen bomb, American confidence in our nuclear superiority gave most people a feeling of security. In 1955, for example, when only 27 percent said an all-out nuclear war would destroy mankind, Americans were nearly unanimous (78 percent) in believing that the United States had more nuclear weapons than the Soviet Union. Today, only ten percent believe we The Public Mood: Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R. 4 have nuclear superiority; a majority now feels that the two sides are roughly equal in destructive capability, and at a level felt to be terrifying. Concern about the issue has also increased, especially among the young. Only five percent of the public says they find themselves thinking about the possibility of nuclear war less than they did five years ago. A majority—and nearly three in four young adults between the ages of 18 and 30— says they think about the issue more often than they did five years ago. There is also majority agreement, 68 percent (rising to 78 percent among adults under 30), that if both sides keep building missiles instead of negotiating to get rid of them, it is only a matter of time before they are used. A sizable number expects that day to come soon: 38 percent of the American people, and 50 percent of those under 30, say that all-out nuclear war is likely to occur within the next ten years. This is a vision of the future that is far different from that held in the mid-1950s when most people said the development of the bomb was a good thing, deserving of a central role in our military strategy. Americans have also arrived at an astonishingly high level of agreement that we must adapt our future policies to these "facts of life": —That nuclear weapons are here to stay. They cannot simply be abolished, and because mankind will maintain its knowledge of how to make them, there can be no turning back to a less threatening time (85 percent). —That both we and the Soviets now have an "overkill" capability, more destructive capability than we could ever need, and the ability to blow each other up several times over (90 percent). —That there can be no such thing as a limited nuclear war: if either side were to use nuclear weapons, the conflict would inevitably escalate into all-out war (83 percent). —That the United States no longer has nuclear superiority (84 percent), and that we can never hope to regain it; that the arms race can never be won, for if we did have a bigger nuclear arsenal than the Soviets, they would simply keep building until they caught up (92 percent); and that building new weapons to use as "bargaining chips" doesn't work because the Soviets would build similar weapons to match us (84 percent). It is this fundamental sense that our own lives may be at risk that accounts for another startling change in public opinion. A consensus level of 77 percent says that by the end of the decade it should be US policy not to use nuclear weapons to respond to a conventional Soviet attack. Nearly the same number (74 percent) say it should be current policy never to use small nuclear weapons in a battlefield situation. IV Public attitudes toward the Soviet Union are highly complex. Americans believe that the Soviet Union is an aggressive nation, both militarily and ideologically, which presses every advantage, probes constantly for vulnerabilities, interprets every gesture of conciliation and friendship as weakness, fails to keep its promises, cheats on treaties, and, in general, gets the better of us in negotiations by hanging tough. The Public Mood: Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R. 5 At the same time, however, there is less concern than in the past about communist subversion from within or about the political appeal of communist ideology to our closest allies. Americans hold the Russian people in high esteem, believe that America is able to live in peace with a variety of communist countries, see the Russians caught in the same plight as ourselves in seeking to avert a suicidal nuclear arms race, credit the Soviets with legitimate security concerns, and believe they are genuinely interested in negotiation. Huge majorities feel that America has been less forthcoming in working things out with the Russians than it might be and that we have to share some of the blame for the deterioration in the relationship. This ambivalent attitude represents a change in outlook from the last presidential election in 1980 to the present one. In 1980, Americans were in an assertive anti-Communist, anti-Soviet mood, ready to support cold-war kinds of initiatives. But in politics, timing is all. Surveys show that Americans feel that the power imbalance that prevailed in 1980 has now been partly or wholly corrected and that more constructive negotiations are possible. Today, the majority of Americans have reached a conclusion about communism that can best be described as pragmatic rejection. As they have in the past, Americans today firmly reject the social values of communism, and see them as opposed to all our fundamental beliefs. But there is little fear today that communist subversion threatens the United States, that communists will engage in sabotage, form a fifth column, or convert millions of Americans to their cause. Americans today are confident that communism holds little appeal in this country. They differentiate among communist countries, too, and the threat they pose to our security. For example, in the Public Agenda survey, people concur with near unanimity that "our experience with communist China proves that our mortal enemies can quickly turn into countries we can get along with" (83 percent). This sense that communism is something we can tolerate without accepting, something with which we can coexist without endorsing, represents another and perhaps fundamental shift in the public's thinking since the beginning of the nuclear age. Admittedly, public attitudes toward dealing with the threat of communism often seem contradictory and confused. In recent years computer-based statistical methods have permitted some very subtle and powerful analyses which divide the public into like-minded subgroups. At the Public Agenda, analyst Harvey Lauer performed such an analysis on their survey findings, with some revealing and important results. Lauer's "cluster analysis" showed that public attitudes are most sharply divided by four variables: (1) the presence or absence of ideological animosity toward the Soviet Union; (2) the inclination to see the conflict between the United States and the USSR in religious terms or pragmatic terms; (3) the tendency to minimize or to stress the threat of nuclear war; and (4) the favoring of an assertive or a conciliatory policy toward the Soviets. The four groups that Lauer's cluster analysis reveals can be characterized as follows. One group he calls the "threat minimizers." They constitute 23 percent of the Public Agenda's national cross-section. Like virtually everyone else, they believe that nuclear war is unwinnable. But unlike most other Americans, they do not think there is any real chance that it will happen. Consequently they are prepared to take far greater risks than the rest of the public. They are less interested in negotiation than in building up our military strength. They reject conciliatory gestures in favor of weakening the Soviet Union in every way possible. Demographically, this group is predominantly The Public Mood: Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R. 6 male (69 percent), older than other groups, and fairly well educated, with good incomes. Politically, they tend to be conservative and Republican. At the opposite extreme is to be found the youngest and best educated of the four groups. Constituting 21 percent of the sample this group believes the possibility of nuclear disaster is real and urgent, they have faith in conciliation over confrontation, they want to see the United States take the initiative in reducing our nuclear arms, and most strikingly, they are almost totally free of the ideological hostility that the majority of Americans feel toward the Soviet Union. They see the Soviet threat almost completely in military terms. Like the first group, it, too, is more male than female (56 percent to 44 percent), but unlike the first group it tends to be liberal rather than conservative. What about the two middle groups where the majority of Americans are to be found? The single largest of the four groups—31 percent—is made up of Americans who are ideologically opposed to communism and the Soviets but are peaceful and nonassertive in their strategic thinking about how to deal with the Soviet threat. They see communism as an ideological threat, but they also think a lot about the possibility of nuclear war. They believe the Soviet Union takes advantage of us and cheats on our treaties with it, but they also believe that the United States has not done enough to reach serious arms control agreements with the Soviets. They urge that we reach an accommodation with the Soviets on a peaceful coexistence, "live-and-let-live" basis, and not attempt to reform or change them. Demographically, this is the most female of the four groups (60 percent); they are fairly young, of average education, and middle-of-the-road in their political orientation. The fourth group, representing one quarter of the population (25 percent) tends to see the conflict between us and the Soviets in religious terms. They see the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" threatening our moral and religious values. A majority of them believe that in the event of a nuclear holocaust their faith in God would ensure their survival. Unlike all the other groups, they believe that some day the United States is going to have to fight the Russians to stop communism. In many respects, the religious anti-communism of this group predisposes it to endorse the utmost in nuclear military strength for the United States. But, paradoxically, it is the most apprehensive about the imminent threat of a nuclear holocaust. Consequently, it sees great danger to the United States in efforts to weaken the Soviets too much, lest they respond "like cornered rats." A majority among them believes the United States has not done enough in negotiations with the Soviets, and a large minority would even opt for unilateral reductions in our nuclear stockpile. Most of the contradictions in public responses are concentrated in this subgroup. There is, however, an emotional logic underlying their seeming inconsistency: they fear communism as an ideology and would smite it with the sword—but they fear the threat of nuclear war more than they fear communism and therefore they are more willing than most Americans to sheathe the sword. They want the United States to be as strong militarily as possible, but they also fear the consequences of our using our military strength aggressively. Their activism derives from the fact that the likelihood of nuclear war is a living reality for them. They are concerned to do everything they can to avert catastrophe. Of all the four groups, they most yearn for strong leadership and authority to set down a policy that will allay their anxieties. They are the only one of the four groups where a majority believes that the subject of nuclear weapons is too complex for them to think about The Public Mood: Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R. 7 and should therefore be left "to the President and to the experts." Demographically, they are the least well educated of the four groups, disproportionately Democratic but not liberal. A profile of ambivalent American attitudes toward the Soviet Union can be seen graphically in the following table. It summarizes both the positive and negative attitudes toward the Soviet Union and toward communism as an ideology. AMBIVALENT ATTITUDES TOWARD THE SOVIET UNION AND COMMUNISM* Negative Views % Agree % Disagree "During the 1970s, when we were trying to improve relations, the Soviets secretly built up their military strength"** 90 6 "The Soviets are constantly testing us, probing for weaknesses, and they're quick to take advantage whenever they find any"** 82 14 "The Soviets treat our friendly gestures as weaknesses" ** 73 23 "The Soviets used détente as an opportunity to build up their armed forces while lulling us into a false sense of security"*** 67 20 "If we are weak, the Soviet Union, at the right moment, will attack us or our allies in Europe and Japan" * * * 65 27 "The Soviets only respond to military strength"*** 61 34 "The Soviets lie, cheat and steal—do anything to further the cause of communism"*** 61 28 "The Soviets have cheated on just about every treaty and agreement they've ever signed"*** 61 24 "In past agreements between the US and the Soviet Union, the Soviets almost always got the better part of the bargain"*** 58 31 "Whenever there's trouble in the world—in the Middle East, Central America, or anywhere else—chances are the Soviets are behind it"*** 56 38 The Public Mood: Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R. 8 More Accepting Views % Agree % Disagree "The Russian people are not nearly as hostile to the US as their leaders are and, in fact, the Russians could be our friends if their leaders had a different attitude"** 88 6 "The US has to accept some of the blame for the tension that has plagued U.S.-Soviet relations in recent years"*** 76 16 "You can't understand how the Russians behave without realizing that their homeland has been invaded many, many times. They are obsessed with their own military security"*** 75 19 "The idea that the Soviets are the cause of all the world's troubles is a dangerous oversimplification " * * * 70 26 "The US often blames the Soviets for troubles in other countries that are really caused by poverty, hunger, political corruption and repression" * * * 68 26 "Just 40 years ago, the Germans invaded the Soviet Union and killed millions of Russian citizens. It's perfectly understandable why they oppose our putting nuclear missiles on German soil"*** 58 35 "The Soviet leaders believe that President Reagan is trying to humiliate them, and this is not a good climate for negotiating on matters of life and death"*** 51 40 "The degree to which the Soviets cheat on arms control is overstated by Americans who oppose negotiating with them in the first place"*** 44 41 # Totals do not add to 100% because "Not Sure" responses are omitted ** Time/Yankelovich, Skelly and White, 1983 *** Public Agenda, 1984 There is somewhat of a generation gap on attitudes toward the Soviets, with older Americans expressing more suspicion of and hostility toward Soviet motives and actions than younger Americans. For example, 76 percent of those over 60 agree that the Soviets lie, cheat and steal— do anything to further the cause of communism—compared to 52 percent among those under 30. More The Public Mood: Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R. 9 older than younger Americans also believe that the Soviets cheat on treaties and agreements (76 percent to 49 percent). On the other hand, young Americans, perhaps more skeptical of authority to begin with, believe the degree of Soviet cheating is overstated by those who oppose negotiating with them in the first place. (Fifty-nine percent of those under 30 express such a view, compared to only 32 percent among those over 60.) V Such is the nature of public ambivalence toward the Soviet Union that it dooms to failure any one-dimensional policy that appeals exclusively to one side of public attitudes. A policy of undiluted anti-communism that emphasizes only the negatives cannot hope to win solid majority support. The time is past when successful candidates can simply run against the Politburo. Similarly, a onedimensional policy of détente—if détente is interpreted as it was in the 1970s, as "making friends" with the Russians—cannot win solid majority support either. No amount of public opinion analysis can fashion the correct policy. What opinion polls can reveal, however, and what we propose to describe are the boundaries or constraints which the public's thinking imposes on policy. To sustain a complex and difficult policy, one that may call for public sacrifice, restraint and understanding, it is prudent to seek to win solid and lasting support from the electorate. Our analysis of opinion data suggests that to achieve such support in today's climate, such a policy would have to be conceived within the following guidelines: 1. The United States must not adopt any policy that the majority of Americans will perceive as "losing the arms race." Most Americans believe that the United States cannot regain nuclear superiority, that the arms race cannot be won, and that we can never return to a time when our nuclear monopoly gave us a sense of nearly total security. People are nearly unanimous in the view that if we had a bigger nuclear arsenal than the Soviets, they would simply keep building until they caught up (92 percent). By nearly eight to one (84 percent), the public opposes the idea of building new weapons to use as "bargaining chips" to get concessions in negotiations. But, in spite of the feeling that we can never "win" the arms race, Americans are afraid we could "lose" it. Nearly six in ten (57 percent) say we must continue to develop new and better nuclear weapons so as not to lose the arms race. A particular concern fueling this sentiment is the fear that "technological breakthroughs" could make the weapons we now have obsolete (71 percent). 2. Americans are convinced that it is time for negotiations, not confrontations, with the Soviets. Following from the view that nuclear weapons can never be abolished and that the arms race cannot be won, Americans see only one way to reduce the risk of nuclear war—through negotiations. Americans overwhelmingly concur that "picking a fight" with the Soviet Union is too dangerous in a nuclear world, that we should be thinking of peaceful solutions (96 percent). Americans feel that the Soviets are as afraid of nuclear war as we are (94 percent) and that it is in our mutual interest to find ways to negotiate to reduce the risk of war. The Public Mood: Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R. 10 Some people see a most ominous trend: that we and the Soviets are drifting toward catastrophe. Sixty-eight percent of Americans feel that if we and the Soviets keep building nuclear weapons instead of negotiating to get rid of them, "it's only a matter of time before they are used." This concern is especially pronounced among women (75 percent) and those under 30 (78 percent). By 50 percent to 22 percent, people say the United States would be safer if we spent less time and effort building up our military forces and more on negotiating with the Soviets. Again, women and younger Americans agree even more strongly. The idea of building more dangerous nuclear weapons to get the Soviets to make concessions on arms control is rejected by a margin of 62 percent to 31 percent. Half the public fears that President Reagan is playing nuclear "chicken" with the Soviets (50 percent). 3. The dominant attitude of Americans is that of "live-and-let-live" pragmatism, not an anti-Communist crusade, nor a strong desire to reform the Russians. Americans say that peacefully coexisting with communist countries is something we do all the time (71 percent). And by a margin of 67 percent to 28 percent, people agree that we should let the communists have their system while we have ours, that "there's room in the world for both." A solid majority also feels no strong desire to involve the United States in reforming the Soviet Union. Nearly six in ten (58 percent) agree that we've been trying to change Soviet behavior for 60 years, and that it is time we stopped trying to do so. By a margin of 59 percent to 19 percent, Americans also say we would be better off if we stopped treating the Soviets as enemies and tried to hammer out our differences in a live-and-let-live spirit. And, by a margin of 53 percent to 22 percent, Americans feel that the United States would be safer if we stopped trying to prevent the spread of communism to other countries, and learned to live with them the way we live with China and Yugoslavia. 4. A national reconsideration of the strategic role for nuclear weapons is badly needed. Our present policies are almost universally misunderstood. More than eight out of ten Americans (81 percent) believe it is our current policy to use nuclear weapons "if and only if" our adversaries use them against us first. Almost the same massive majority believes that this is what our national policy should be. Only 18 percent agree that we should use nuclear weapons against a conventional Soviet attack in Europe or Japan; and more than three out of four (76 percent) agree that we should use nuclear weapons if, and only if, the Soviets use them against our allies first. At the same time, however, the public holds many other attitudes that are actually or potentially in conflict with this majority position. Only a third of all Americans (33 percent) know that nuclear weapons are less expensive than conventional forces. At the same time, substantial majorities (66 percent) say that they would be willing to pay higher taxes for defense if we and the Soviets reduced our nuclear weapons and replaced them with non-nuclear forces. More important than economic arguments is the concern of the majority, summarized above, that we not "lose" the arms race by falling behind the Soviets in technology or weapons. There is also great reluctance to appear "weak" in Soviet eyes, since the public is persuaded that the Soviets interpret conciliatory gestures on our part as signs of weakness. The Public Mood: Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R. 11 In brief, Americans fear that the danger of nuclear war has seriously weakened our security. They also realize that the present standoff between us and the Soviets excludes the use of nuclear weapons as an option for achieving policy goals. But they have not yet thought through the strategic and policy implications of this awesome change in the rules. Their present preferences are clear: to move toward less rather than greater reliance on nuclear weapons. 5. Finally, Americans are prepared—somewhat nervously—to take certain risks for peace. So dangerous is the present situation, and so gravely does it threaten our security, that the public feels it is time to change course and, in doing so, to take some initiatives in the cause of peace. The idea of a bilateral and verifiable nuclear freeze has been supported by upwards of 75 percent of the public for several years. But beyond a freeze, majorities also endorse other strategies containing an explicit element of risk. For example, a 61-percent majority favors the idea of declaring a unilateral six-month freeze on nuclear weapons development to see if the Soviets will follow suit, even if they might take advantage of it; 56 percent favor signing an arms control agreement with the Soviets, even if foolproof verification cannot be guaranteed. Finally, 55 percent favor expanding trade with the Soviets and making other cooperative gestures, even if that makes them stronger and more secure. In sum, a fair conclusion from the variety of surveys and interviews is that the American electorate wants to reverse the present trend toward relying ever more heavily on nuclear weapons to achieve the nation's military and political objectives. The public finds the long-term risks of continuing the way we are going to be simply unacceptable. Soviet Union-Retaining a Capability to Fight and to Win Soviet Union Index In addition to deterring a nuclear world war, Soviet strategic forces were expected to fight it and to win it. SALT I was acceptable to the Soviet military not only because it made war less likely but also because the Soviet military would have the capability to carry out its intercontinental strike mission even in a worst- case scenario. By limiting defensive systems to one installation in each country, the ABM Treaty guaranteed that Soviet missiles could successfully penetrate United States airspace. Because SALT I limited the number of ballistic missile launchers but not the number of warheads, the Soviet Union was able to increase its intercontinental missile arsenal. It used new technologies to equip its land- and sea-based strategic missiles with several warheads, known as multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). The Soviet military also greatly improved the accuracies of its missiles, especially the SS-l8 and SS-l9 ICBMs. In 1979, when President Jimmy Carter and General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev signed the second SALT agreement in Vienna, the Soviet Union had 5,000 warheads on its strategic missiles, an increase of 2,500 since l972. By l986 the number of Soviet strategic warheads exceeded 10,000. Thus neither of the SALT agreements significantly constrained Soviet nuclear modernization and the growth of the Soviet arsenal, whose ultimate aim was to hold at risk the vulnerable United States force of land-based Minuteman III missiles. Soviet leaders objected to United States proposals in the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START), a new round of talks to reduce nuclear arsenals, that began in June 1982, because, if accepted, such proposals would have cut in half the number of Soviet ICBMs, their principal war-fighting component. In the mid1980s , when it began deploying the fifth generation of ICBMs (the mobile SS-24 and SS-25 missiles, to assume part of the SS-l8 mission), the Soviet Union began to show interest in reducing the number of its heavy SS-18 missiles. Since their deployment in 1974, the United States had viewed the SS-18s as the most threatening and destabilizing component of the Soviet arsenal. In 1989 the Soviet leaders continued to link reduction of the SS-l8s to severe restrictions on the testing of SDI. First unveiled by President Ronald W. Reagan in March l983, the SDI promised to yield advanced technologies for a North American antimissile shield. Should SDI prove feasible, it could render Soviet nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." This prospect alarmed the Soviet military because such a shield could prevent it from attaining its two most important military objectives: avoiding wars and being prepared to fight them. In l989 the Soviet Union appeared willing to agree to deep cuts in its offensive weapons in order to derail SDI or at least to force the United States to ban SDI-related tests in space for a minimum of ten years. Data as of May 1989 Nuclear Weapons and the U.S.S.R: The Public Mood By Daniel Yankelovich and John Doble Summary: Presidential campaigns do more than choose individuals for high office: our history shows many instances where elections have moved the country closer to a decisive resolution of long-standing issues. The 1984 presidential campaign gives the candidates a historic opportunity to build public support for reducing the risk of nuclear war. The American electorate is now psychologically prepared to take a giant step toward real arms reductions. Daniel Yankelovich is Chairman of the national attitude research firm Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., and President of the Public Agenda Foundation. John Doble is a Senior Research Associate at the Public Agenda Foundation. Presidential campaigns do more than choose individuals for high office: our history shows many instances where elections have moved the country closer to a decisive resolution of long-standing issues. The 1984 presidential campaign gives the candidates a historic opportunity to build public support for reducing the risk of nuclear war. The American electorate is now psychologically prepared to take a giant step toward real arms reductions. For several years now a great change, largely unnoted, has transformed the outlook of the American electorate toward nuclear arms. There is a dawning realization among the majority of voters that the growth in nuclear arsenals on both sides has made the old "rules of the game" dangerously obsolete. The traditional response of nations to provocations and challenges to their interest has been the threat of force and, in the event of a breakdown of relations, resort to war. However much suffering war may have created in the past, the old rules permitted winners as well as losers. But an all-out nuclear war, at present levels of weaponry, would wipe out the distinction between winners and losers. All would be losers and the loss irredeemable. This grim truth is now vividly alive for the American electorate. Moreover, for the average voter the danger is real and immediate-far more so than among elites and experts. Americans are not clear about the policy implications of this new reality. They do not know how it should be translated into day-to-day transactions with the Soviet Union to reduce the danger. But there is an impatient awareness that the old responses are not good enough, and a sense of urgency about finding new responses. -By an overwhelming 96 percent to 3 percent, Americans assert that "picking a fight with the Soviet Union is too dangerous in a nuclear world. . . ." -By 89 percent to 9 percent, Americans subscribe to the view that "there can be no winner in an all-out nuclear war; both the United States and the Soviet Union would be completely destroyed." -By 83 percent to 14 percent, Americans say that while in past wars we knew that no matter what happened some life would continue, "we cannot be certain that life on earth will continue after a nuclear war." -And, by 68 percent to 20 percent, the majority rejects the concept that "if we had no alternative we could fight and win a nuclear war against the Soviet Union." U.S. Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci on Nuclear Deterrence and Strategic Defenses January 17, 1989 a. Flexible Response: Foundation of U.S. Nuclear Deterrence For the past 40 years, U.S. nuclear doctrine has been characterized by remarkable consistency. Since 1945, there has been only one major change in our nuclear doctrine - the shift, during the Kennedy Administration, from massive retaliation to flexible response. Despite this continuity, three secretaries of defense since then have had to respond to charges that U. S. strategic nuclear doctrine had changed during their tenure. This section states clearly what our nuclear strategy is - and what it is not. Whereas massive retaliation sought to deter any form of Soviet aggression through the threat of immediate, large-scale, nuclear attacks against military, leadership, and urban industrial targets in the Soviet Union, the key to flexible response is explicit in its name. Massive retaliation provided only two options to a president in the event of Soviet aggression - do nothing, or launch a massive attack against the Soviet Union. As the Soviets acquired a nuclear capability, including the ability to strike targets in the United States, the credibility of a deterrent based solely upon this threat declined. The new flexible response doctrine increased the number of options available to the president, and provided the capability either to respond to Soviet aggression at the level at which it was initiated, or to escalate the conflict to a higher level. Flexible response confronts Soviet attack planners with the possibility that we may respond to a conventional attack with conventional forces, or, if these fail to defeat the aggression, with land - and/or sea - based nonstrategic nuclear weapons, or with limited or massive use of U.S. strategic nuclear weapons against targets in the Soviet homeland. Flexible response has enhanced deterrence, multiplying the uncertainties confronting the Soviet leadership, and confronting them with the threat of costs that would far out-weigh any gains that might be achieved through aggression. Nuclear weapons are incorporated into our flexible response doctrine at two levels. On one level, U.S. non- strategic weapons - both land- and sea-based - are incorporated into U.S. and NATO planning. These weapons could be employed to degrade Soviet military operations in a particular theater, and to induce the Soviet leadership to cease its aggression through the threat of further escalation. Strategic nuclear weapon systems are also included in planning for limited strikes to provide a capability to retaliate against military installations deeper in Eastern Europe or the Soviet homeland. The incorporation of U. S. nonstrategic and strategic systems in these options provides a president with greater flexibility. On a second level, strategic nuclear systems are incorporated into U.S. nuclear war planning to provide the president with a series of large-scale alternative responses to a massive Soviet nuclear attack. These systems also provide the backbone for our alliance commitments. Since the inception of flexible response, planning for large-scale retaliatory options has emphasized the capability to strike at Soviet military targets separately, or in combi-nation with attacks on Soviet leadership installations and/or the industrial base. The intent of these attacks is to deny the Soviet Union the ability to achieve its war aims. By providing credible responses to the various potential levels of a major Soviet attack, these options fortify deterrence. In this context, our ability to withhold attacks against particular targets - including installations in a subset of cities particularly valuable to the Soviet leadership is intended both to influence the Soviet attack planners' pre-war planning, and - in the event of war - to provide to the Soviet leadership an incentive to terminate their attacks short of an all-out exchange. Secretary McNamara's 1963 description of the rationale behind these options, during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, remains valid today: " In talking about global nuclear war, the Soviet leaders always say that they would strike at the entire complex of our military power including government and production centers, meaning our cities. If they were to do so, we would, of course, have no alternative but to retaliate in kind. But we have no way of knowing whether they would actually do so. It would certainly be in their interest as well as ours to try to limit the terrible consequences of a nuclear exchange. By building into our forces a flexible capability, we at least eliminate the prospect that we could strike back in only one way, namely, against the entire Soviet target system including their cities. Such a prospect would give the Soviet Union no incentive to withhold attacks against our cities in a first strike. We want to give them a better alternative." There certainly have been evolutionary adjustments to U.S. nuclear planning since 1963. For example, the massive buildup of Soviet strategic nuclear forces, changes to the Soviet target base, and a better understanding of Soviet strategy and war aims led to shifts in the targeting of U.S. nuclear weapons systems. Deployment of more accurate weapon systems; improvements to the capability, survivability, and endurance of our command, control, and communications systems; and upgrades to our nuclear planning system also have facilitated the construction of more selective and limited options. All of these modifications, however, have taken place in an evolutionary manner, within the framework of our flexible response doctrine, not as a series of different strategies imposed by each administration. In returning to the original term-flexible response - our intent has been to emphasize the continuity of our approach to this element of our defense strategy. Yet after more than 25 years of continuity, several myths have developed regarding U.S. nuclear policy. The following discussion is intended to dispel these myths and clarify our nuclear policy aims. Myth 1: U.S. Nuclear Strategy is Based on Mutual Assured Destruction. Many critics have alleged that flexible response is simply massive retaliation by another name. In their view, the United States would respond to any Soviet nuclear attack with an immediate, massive strike against the Soviet homeland, including its cities. Some even believe that the U.S. response should be directed solely against Soviet cities and population, and that this was at one time U.S. policy. But this mutual assured destruction philosophy has never been U.S. policy. As noted, for over a generation we have looked for ways to develop multiple options as a means of enhancing deterrence, increasing flexibility, and controlling escalation. As early as 1963 Secretary McNamara emphasized the importance of multiple options in U.S. nuclear planning. He noted that "we have to build and maintain a second strike force that has sufficient flexibility to permit a choice of strategies. Secretary James Schlesinger, in his FY 1975 Report to the Congress, reaffirmed the importance of strategic force flexibility, noting that "If anything, the need for options other than suicide or surrender, and other than escalation to all-out nuclear war, is more important for us today than it was in 1960.... The Soviet Union now has the capability in its missile forces to undertake selective attacks against targets other than cities. This poses for us an obligation, if we are to ensure the credibility of our strategic deterrent, to be certain that we have a comparable capability in our strategic systems and in our targeting doctrine, and to be certain that the U.S.S.R. has no misunderstanding on this point. . . . " In his FY 1982 Report to the Congress, Secretary Harold Brown again reaffirmed the importance of selective and limited options, observing that "Our planning must provide a continuum of options, ranging from small numbers of strategic and/or theater nuclear weapons aimed at narrowly defined targets, to employment of large portions of our nuclear forces against a broad spectrum of targets." The capability to respond in an across the-board manner has always been one of the components of U.S. nuclear strategy planned under flexible response. Indeed, that capability to inflict unacceptable damage on the Soviets' military, leadership, and industrial infrastructure may be the key deterrent to a massive Soviet attack. Deterrence, however, may fail on less than a massive scale. The importance of this fact was noted by Secretary Weinberger when he discussed what would happen if deterrence failed: "If that were to occur we cannot predict the nature of a Soviet nuclear strike, nor assure with any certainty that what may have started out as a limited Soviet attack would remain confined at that level. Nevertheless, we must plan for flexibility in our forces and in our response options so that there is a possibility of reestablishing deterrence at the lowest possible level of violence, and avoiding further escalation." The declining credibility of a single massive response as the sole deter-rent to less than all-out aggression was recognized even in 1961, when we still had significant nuclear superiority. In fact, that recognition played a significant part in the shift to flexible response. Indeed, the key element which has, from the outset, differentiated flexible response from massive retaliation is the provision for options apart from an all-out response. Myth 2: U.S. Strategy is Based on "Nuclear War Fighting." Many of those who believe mistakenly that U.S. nuclear strategy was once based on MAD have also criticized the U.S. government for "shifting" from this strategy. They contend that we have adopted a nuclear warfighting strategy. These critics seem to believe that our mere possession of nuclear weapons is sufficient to deter Soviet aggression. In their view, if deterrence ever fails, the inevitable outcome will be a spasm nuclear war immediately involving massive attacks on cities. According to this philosophy, developing plans and acquiring capabilities for more selective employment options undermines stability and deterrence, and suggests our intention to fight a "limited" and/or "protracted" nuclear war. If a limited nuclear warfighting capability is one in which a single or small number of nuclear weapons are used in an attempt to end a major conventional war before it escalates to all-out nuclear war, then, in fact, we do possess such a capability. If a protracted nuclear warfighting capability is one in which nuclear forces and their supporting command and control structure might be available and effectively employed for more than 30 minutes following the onset of a Soviet nuclear attack, then we also possess this capa-bility. The critical question is: Do these capabilities strengthen our ability to deter? The answer is "yes." It is not our intention to fight a nuclear war of any description: "limited" or "massive," "prompt" or "protracted." It is our policy to prevent nuclear war. In doing so, we must determine what would deter the Soviet leadership from considering aggression - not what would deter us. In that regard, we have watched the steady buildup of Soviet strategic nuclear forces for over two decades, and the Soviet leadership's preparations for nuclear war, along with evidence that reflects their belief that such a war may, under certain circumstances, be fought and won. That evidence includes: The Soviets' capability to reload many of their ICBM silos after launch of the first ICBM; a capability supported by spare ICBMs and reloading exercises. Their continued expansion of a nationwide network of over 1,500 buried command bunkers for the Communist Party and military leadership, plus an extensive mobile command system-both supported by an extensive communications network. Increasing Soviet deployments of mobile ICBMs-the SS-24 and SS-25-which, with their greater survivability, could be employed over an ex-tended period. The Soviets clearly can conduct both limited and protracted nuclear attacks. We must deter them from these types of aggression. Indeed, we must make a Soviet victory, as seen through Soviet eyes and measured by Soviet standards, impossible across the broad range of scenarios the Kremlin leadership might consider. We may not agree with the assumptions upon which Soviet strategy appears to be founded, but we must design a deterrent strategy that takes these factors into account to remove any temptation for the Soviet leadership to believe they could fight and win a nuclear war. Our forces and our flexible response doctrine are designed to maximize the uncertainties that Soviet leaders would face, and confront them with an unfavorable outcome in any contingency in which they may contemplate aggression. Myth 3: As Part of its Nuclear Strategy, the U. S. Relies on a Launch-Under-Attack Policy. Over the past decade, as Soviet ICBM counter-silo capabilities improved, some have questioned the continued survivability of the ICBM leg of the Triad. Rather than abandon one leg of the Triad, however, successive administrations chose to modernize the ICBM force by deploying the Peace-keeper ICBM in a survivable basing mode. In 1986, we decided to deploy Peacekeeper in a highly survivable rail-based system. Predictably, many of the critics who question the continued value of the ICBM force began to assert that no truly survivable basing mode could be established. They contend, therefore, that the United States has shifted to a launch-under-attack posture, since our ICBMs would be destroyed unless launched prior to the impact of the incoming Soviet attack. As noted, successive administrations have devoted considerable effort and resources to increasing the flexibility and the number of choices available to the president should deterrence fail and the use of nuclear weapons become necessary. Asserting that the United States maintains a launch-under-attack policy ignores these efforts, and the deterrent provided by the Triad. We have not spent billions of dollars to modernize and increase the capabilities of the bomber and sea-based legs of the Triad only to leave the president with a single effective option with which to respond to a massive Soviet attack. We do not, however, intend to reduce the uncertainties facing Soviet attack planners - or the Soviet leadership. In order to increase the uncertainties in the minds of Soviet planners, it is not our policy to explain in detail how we would respond to a Soviet missile attack. However, the United States does not rely on its capability for launch on-warning or launch-under-attack to ensure the credibility of its deterrent. At the same time, our ability to carry out such options complicates Soviet assessments of war outcomes and enhances deterrence. Source: Report of the Secretary of Defense to Congress (January 17, 1989): 34-37. Soviet Views on the Interrelation of Diplomacy and Military Strategy RAYMOND L. GARTHOFF The close interrelationship between politics and war, between state policy and the employment of military means, is generally well recognized. Soviet leaders, beginning with Lenin's careful study of Clausewitz and enthusiastic endorsement of the famous maxim that "war is a continuation of politics only by other means" (injecting his own concept of "politics"), have been especially aware of the interconnection. This is important, although few maxims are so oft quoted and so little understood as this one of Clausewitzin American usage, in Soviet usage, and in much of the American commentary on the Soviet view. ' Over the past decade, the usually dreary and pedestrian Soviet discussion of political-military problems has been enlivened by the appearance of a number of sophisticated, high-caliber analytical studies, exemplified by such collaborative works as Military Power and International Relations and International Conflicts by political and military analysts of the Academy of Sciences Institutes studying international politics.2 The main source for the present discussion, I For a striking example of the latter category, see Richard Pipes, "Why the Soviet Union Thinks It Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War," Commentary 64 (July 1977): 34; and the refutations by Bernard Brodie, 'The Development of Nuclear Strategy," International Security 2 (Spring 1978): 72-73; Robert L. Arnett, "Soviet Military Doctrine: Views on Nuclear War," Arms Control Today 8 (October 1978): 1-2; and Raymond L. Garthoff, "Mutual Deterrence and Strategic Arms Limitation in Soviet Policy," International Security 3 (Summer 1978): 114-24. 2 See for example [Colonel] V. M. Kulish, ed., Voyennaya sila i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Military power and international relations] kMoscow: Institute of World Economics and International Relations, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 1972); V. V. Zhurkin and Ye. M. Primakov, RAYMOND L. GARTHOFF is currently United States Ambassador to Bulgaria. He is the author of several books, including Soviet Military Policy and Soviet Strategy in the Nuclear Age, as well as a contributor to many other books and journals. Political Science Quarterly Volume 94 Number 3 Fall 1979 391 392 | POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY however, is the General Staff organ Military Thought, in which a number of articles in the latter 1960s and early 1970s have dealt with aspects of the relationship between diplomacy and military strategy, including one article in 1971 specifically devoted to that subject. These discussions in Military Thought are of particular importance not only because they deal with an important subject seldom addressed, but also because they are written for the senior Soviet military echelons under the auspices of the General Staff, in an organ not publicly available and not intended for the general Soviet publicor for foreign readers. These discussions often build upon discussions in the open military press, but are sometimes more frank in addressing some matters. STATE POLICY, MILITARY STRATEGY, AND DIPLOMACY In the Soviet conception, "the dependence of military strategy on politics," as stated in Marshal Sokolovsky's standard treatise, Military Strategy, "affects the determination of overall and specific strategic aims, the general character of the strategy of a state, and the selection of methods and forms of conducting war. 3 As noted in the principal article in Military Thought, "both diplomacy and strategy are included in the broader concept of state policy and are subordinate to it.4 The tasks of military strategy are described as planning for possible future military operations, including estimating the capabilities of possible enemies. These tasks are resolved "in close coordination with other means of internal and foreign policy, among which not least is diplomacy."5 Many statements attest to the Soviet recognition that not only in peacetime, but also during hostilities, military strategy and diplomacy have essential complementary continuing roles to play. The concepts" diplomacy"a nd "militarys trategy"e ncompasss uch differenta spectso f state activity that at first glance it would seem difficult to speak of their interrelationshipa nd complementarityB. ut only at firstg lance.A lthought herei s a saying that when the cannon speak the diplomats fall silent, a scientific approach to a study of diplomatic activity and military strategy reveals in them many common features and points of contact, and leads to the conclusion that success in one area can create the precondition for success in the other, and vice versa .6 Mezhdunarodnye konflikty [International conflicts] (Moscow: Institute of World Economics and International Relations and the Institute of USA Studies, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 1972); V. V. Zhurkin, SShA i mezhdunarodno-politicheskie krizisy [The USA and international political crises] (Moscow: Nauka, 1975); "Doktrina Niksona" ["The Nixon doctrine"] (Moscow: Institute of USA Studies, Nauka, 1972); and G.A. Trofimenko, SShA: politika, voina, ideologiya [The USA: politics, war, ideology] (Moscow: Institute of USA and Canada Studies, Mysl', 1976). 3Marshal V. D. Sokolovsky, ed., Voyennaya strategiya, 3d ed. [Military strategy] (Moscow: Voyenizdat, 1968), p. 26, and see pp. 26-29. 4Dmitriyev, "Diplomacy and Milita-ry Strategy," Voyennaya mysl' 7 (Moscow 1971):40. 5Ibid., p. 50. 6 Ibid., p. 40. SOVIET DIPLOMACY AND MILITARY STRATEGY | 393 In a number -of other articles in Military Thought, we read statements such as: 'During the course of a war, armed conflict is always closely interwoven with other forms of conflict-economic, ideological, and diplomatic. Only on the foundation of their combination are class and political aims achieved in contemporary war."7 And, "diplomacy and military strategy are correct, effective, and produce positive results only when they are closely interlocked in direction, content, ultimate missions and objectives. "8 The Soviets are very attentive to the reciprocal active roles both of military strategy and of diplomacy in supporting and advancing one another and the overall objectives of state policy. Again, as stated in Military Strategy: State policy usually not only establishes strategic aims, but also strives to create conditionsf avorablet o the realizationo f thosea ims.... Fort he successfual ccomplishment of assigned objectives, the armed forces need the creation of favorable diplomatic,e conomica nd morale-politicaclo nditions.T he state preparesf or war in all these areas.... A vast range of activity is opened for diplomacy, which in endeavoring for a strengtheningo f the internationapl ositiono f a statec onstantlyt akesi nto account its securityi nterests,r eflectingt he requirementosf militarys trategy.9 We shall discuss later the role that military strategy, in turn, is seen as able to play in wartime in serving diplomacy. Deterrence Most Soviet discussions, especially since the Twenty-fourth Party Congress in 1971, stress the cardinal importance of preventing war. The Military Thought article includes such reference, and states that "Soviet diplomacy and strategy accomplish a single mission-to secure peace."'10 In a recent study, I have examined available materials on Soviet political and military views on mutual deterrence and strategic arms limitation, including important discussions in Military Thought." From that analysis, it is clear that Soviet writers have attributed an important contributing role to diplomacy in negotiating the ABM Treaty concluded in 1972, and more generally in the SALT negotiations. Unfortunately, few issues of Military Thought are available for this analysis for the seven years since the SALT I agreements were concluded. There 7 Major General N. Sushko and Captain 2nd Rank V. Puzik, "The Marxist-Leninist Theory of Cognition and Its Significance for Soviet Military Science and Practice," Voyennaya mysl' 1 (1966): 22; see also Major General V. Zemskov, "Problems of the History and Theory of Military Science," Voyennaya mysl' 4 (1971):19; Colonel General N. A. Lomov, "Some Problems of Command in Contemporary War," Voyennaya mysl' 1 (1966): 3; and Colonel V. Morozov, "Categories of Content and Form in War," Voyennaya mysl' 2 (1966):19 and 20. 8 Dmitriyev, "Diplomacy and Military Strategy," pp. 42-43. 9 Sokolovsky, Voyennaya strategiya, p. 29. 10 Dmitriyev, "Diplomacy and Military Strategy," p. 49. 11 Raymond L. Garthoff, "Mutual Deterrence and Strategic Arms Limitation in Soviet Policy," International Security 3 (Summer 1978):112-47. 394 | POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY is, however, a relevant and interesting article from 1973 by Major General Cherednichenko, a leading Soviet authority on military doctrine. In addition to restating the existence of mutual deterrence, he notes that "definite successes have been achieved in the strategic arms limitation negotiations," and he ascribes "a certain role" in the major success of Soviet foreign policy (including but not limited to the SALT agreements) to military strategy-in achieving mutual deterrence and thus forcing the United States to face up to the need for negotiating restraints on strategic arms.12 Of course the many references by Brezhnev and other political and military leaders to Soviet military power as a deterrent and to the need to maintain military parity indicate a more general appreciation of military strategy as serving state policy, but specific references to diplomacy (for example, in SALT) as serving military strategy (and vice versa) in this context are rare. Dmitriyev, in his article discussing diplomacy as a handmaiden of military strategy written prior to the SALT I accords, refers in general terms to disarmament negotiations, and to scientific, cultural, and other nontraditional forms of diplomatic activity. He also refers to "summit diplomacy," and to the "hot lines" (in the Russian, "red lines") between the Kremlin and the White House, Whitehall, and the Elysee Palace, especially noting their potential role for crisis consultations.13 Later discussions would include the 1971 agreement with the United States seeking to prevent the outbreak of war by accident or miscalculation and the 1973 Soviet-American Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War. Outbreak of War Clearly, diplomacy has a particular role in crisis confrontations. This is keenly appreciated by the Soviets, and the fact that some of the most outstanding studies by the Soviet "think tank" institutes deal precisely with this subject, is, as the Soviets would say, no accident. Marshal Sokolovsky's basic work on Military Strategy gives due attention to this subject: "Foreign policy preparation for [the contingency of] war includes such measures as the conclusion of alliances, the formation of coalitions of states, securing the neutrality of neighboring states, and others."'14 Soviet political and military analysis relies heavily on historical data and empirical approaches, especially in discussions dealing with the present subject. The civilian institute analysts, and the military contributors to the Sokolovsky treatise and to Military Thought, all think in terms of and cite historical parallels 12 Major General M. I. Cherednichenko, "Military Strategy and Military Technology," Voyennaya mysl' 4-(1973): 42. See also Anatoly Gromyko, "American Theoreticians between 'Total War' and Peace," Voyennaya mysl' 4 (1969):91-92. 13 Dmitriyev, "Diplomacy and Military Strategy," pp. 49-50. 14 Sokolovsky, Voyennaya strategiya, p. 29. SOVIET DIPLOMACY AND MILITARY STRATEGY j 395 and examples (especially, but not only, from Russian and Soviet experience). Thus, Military Strategy addresses the question of initiation of war as follows: Politics, proceedingf rom an evaluationo f the military-politicasli tuation, selects the most propitious moment to start a war, taking into account strategic considerations. One can judge how important the selection of the timing of the initiation of a war is by noting that in those cases where it was well selected strategy usually achieved great military results and politics gained the greatest advantages from theser esults1. " As examples, Bismarck's opening of war against Austria in 1866 is lauded: the Prussian army was then strong, Italy was a strong ally, and Austria had not yet recovered from the unsuccessful Italian campaign of 1859; moreover, Austria was in the throes of implementing an uncompleted military reform, and the intemal Austrian situation was rather unstable owing to an upsurge of Hungarian separatism. "All these circumstances enabled her [Prussia] to achieve victory thanks to the favorable timing of the moment." A negative example cited is the Russian failure to go to war with Turkey in the autumn of 1876: Turkey was tied down by a war with Serbia and Montenegro and urgently needed to reform its army; Great Britain was less well able to aid Turkey; and the weather would have aided Russian naval movements against Turkey. When Russia finally did go to war in April of 1877, all of these conditions were less to her advantage. Subsequently, even though Russia emerged militarily victorious in 1878, she was unable to achieve her main aims.16 The German attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 is also cited as having been "extremely unfavorable" for the Soviet Union.17 Other discussions, including Dmitriyev's in Military Thought, deal with the still sensitive case of pre-World War II Soviet diplomacy. The Nazi-Soviet Non- Aggression Pact of 1939 is cited as "an example of the flexibility of Soviet foreign policy and diplomacy." The author frankly acknowledges that "it took a great deal of courage to explain to the peoples of the Soviet Union and to the entire world why the USSR had to conclude a nonaggression pact with such a country as fascist Germany, which by 1939 had demonstrated itself to be an aggressive imperialist power." Nonetheless, since the Western powers were allegedly 'lulling the vigilance of the Soviet people with distracting diplomatic actions and attempts to resolve inter-imperialist tensions at the expense of the USSR," it is said to have been the correct Soviet move. 'Today, in retrospect, the interrelation of imperialist military strategy and diplomacy and its anti-Soviet thrust [in 19391 has become even more clear." Accordingly, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was "not only an important victory for Soviet diplomacy but also a great strategic success, since it secured peace for our country for almost two years and enabled us to strengthen our nation's defense."'18 ,s Ibid., p. 33. pp. 33 and 34. 16 Ibid., p. 34. 17 Ibid., 18 Dmitriyev, "Diplomacy and Military Strategy," pp. 43-45. 396 | POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY Soviet military and political analyses distinguish a special "period of threat" or danger, which in almost all cases precedes a war. In fact, in the Soviet view, a "general period of threat" usually occurs, followed by an "immediate threatening period" which, in turn, has "concealed" and then "open" phases. For example, the general period of threat for World War I is said to have begun in 1912, and the immediate period of threat on June 28, 1914, with the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. The German seizure of Austria in March 1938 is said to have opened the general period of threat for World War II.19 At the present time, while neither a surprise nuclear attack nor a war by accident is entirely ruled out, in the Soviet view it remains probable that there would be a "period of threat" with diplomatic, political, economic, and possibly limited military moves. It is, of course, recognized that "the militarypolitical nature and the duration of the period of threat always have depended on specific historical conditions," and would continue to do So.20 General Zemskov, a leading military theoretician and editor of Military Thought, notes that in case of a general nuclear war the "open" phase of the period of threat may be very brief or even absent, but there would still be an active preparatory period. Under all conditions, a period of threat will evidently be filled with a considerable complex of various measures along diplomatic, political, economic and military lines carried out by both sides. In the diplomatic sphere, for example, there can be various types of diplomaticw arningsa nd declarationsa, pplicationso f diplomaticp ressureo n certains tates, breaking-offr elations,a nd the establishmento r confirmationo f treaty obligations.21 Military measures in the period of threat include intensification of reconnaissance and intelligence, bringing military forces to higher readiness, possible mobilization (initially perhaps secretly), deployment of reinforcements to the theater of military operations, and possible partial evacuation of populations from cities.22 Crisis diplomacy is of major importance, including above all direct highlevel communication and negotiation. The one instance since World War II identified by Soviet analysts as a "period of threat" of war was the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 (which the Soviets call "the Caribbean crisis").23 The October 1973 confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union over implementation of the Egyptian-Israeli Suez cease-fire may also rank as a period of threat of Soviet-American war, although it has not been officially so described in the available Soviet literature. 19 Major General V. Zemskov, "Wars of the Contemporary Era," Voyennaya mysl' 5 (1969):61. 20 Ibid., pp. 60-62. 21 Ibid., p. 62. 22 Ibid. 23 The most careful and instructive Soviet account has been prepared by Anatoly Gromyko, a leading Soviet expert on American affairs, in Mezhdunarodnye konflikty, pp. 70-95. SOVIET DIPLOMACY AND MILITARY STRATEGY 1 397 Alliances and Coalitions Soviet writing on the role of diplomacy in relation to military strategy (and to war in general) places particular emphasis on the expected coalition nature of the contending sides in a general war. General Zemskov stressed in 1967 in Red Star that "a nuclear-missile war will be a war of coalitions. Complex tasks concerning the establishment of the proper mutual relations both with allies and with neutral countries will arise for each of the contending sides."24 In a later article in Military Thought he was more explicit. Armed conflict, he noted, is "supported" by other forms of conflict and other instruments of policy, in particular economic, ideological, and diplomatic. In turning specifically to diplomacy, he states: Diplomatic conflict will also have specific features. During the period of an intensive exchange of nuclear strikes by both sides, the sphere of utilization of this form of conflict will undoubtedly decrease, owing to the exceptionally complex situation which can be complicated in this period by the possible disruption of the system of state control, insufficient time, and other factors. Nonetheless, despite this fact, each of the sides will seek to do everything possible in order under prevailing conditions to use diplomaticm eansa s effectivelya s possiblea gainsti ts opponent. Subsequentlyt, he role of diplomacy will increase sharply. The point of diplomatic conflict will obviously be directed toward weakening the hostile coalition in every way possible, by means of separating individual states from it, and depriving the main enemy of his internationatli es and supportf roma llied,d ependenta nd neutrals tates.25 The theme of diplomatic efforts to break down a hostile coalition is given particular attention. Again, historical cases are examined and cited. Marshal Sokolovsky's treatise on Military Strategy concisely states and illustrates Soviet thinking not only on breaking countries away from a hostile coalition, but when possible coopting them onto one's own side. Diplomacy, he notes, "directing all its efforts to facilitating the achievement of strategic objectives, may arrange an alliance with a country which had until that time been in the enemy camp." This he describes as "undoubtedly an important factor for military strategy in accomplishing its missions." As examples, Sokolovsky cites successes of Soviet diplomacy in concluding agreements with Bulgaria and Rumania in the fall of 1944, "which placed the German fascist army in a very difficult position" on the southern flank of the Soviet-German front. This situation, of course, developed only after the defeat of the German and Rumanian armies in Rumania. And Sokolovsky acknowledges that it was only after the military successes of the Red Army that these diplomatic successes could be attained. Accordingly, in his words, "only as the result of the mutual efforts of Soviet strategy and diplomacy were these successes achieved. This was a striking example of the 24 Major General V. Zemskov, "An Important Factor for Victory in War," Krasnaya zvezda (Red Star), January 5, 1967. 25 Zemskov, "Wars of the Contemporary Era," p. 55. 398 | POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY complete coordination of action between diplomacy and strategy, unified by a single aim."26 Dmitriyev also gives greatest importance to military operations, although he places a little more stress on the role and contribution of diplomacy than does the Sokolovsky volume. In both cases, the mutually supportive action, and need for coordination, of diplomacy and military strategy is clearly stated. He observes that the truce agreements with Italy, Finland, and Rumania deprived Germany of allies "and of many tens of divisions operating against the armies of the USSR, the United States, and Great Britain. The conclusion of these agreements thus resolved tasks of a military-strategic nature." He stresses that these agreements were only possible owing "above all to the historic victories of the Soviet armed forces" from Stalingrad on through 1944. "In other words, the victories of Soviet troops were the cause and the foundation for successful diplomatic actions, and the latter in turn formalized cessation of combat operations not only by the above-mentioned countries of the Hitlerite coalition, actually participating in combat, but also by others which could have taken part on given strategic sectors. "27 In looking to a possible future war between the socialist coalition led by the Soviet Union and the capitalist coalition, General Lomov has remarked: "It is clear that in the course of a war one of the main political tasks of the socialist coalition will be to attract onto its side the peoples of non-socialist countries."28 In addition to discussions of the role of diplomacy in seeking to break down hostile coalitions, there is evident concern over an enemy's attempts to disrupt the Soviet-led coalition. Public discussions usually address this matter only indirectly, attesting to the strength of the socialist coalition, including the protestations of unity of political and military strategic concepts as well as of the interests and aims of the members.29 But in Military Thought there are clearer indications, and occasionally even a specific statement, of concern that "the imperialists"' arsenal of political-ideological and diplomatic means include "the attempt to break up the socialist community and to separate individual countries from its ranks."30 No doubt leaders in Moscow believe that apart from normal peacetime economic ties and political propaganda by the Western powers (and diplomatic maneuvers by China both in East Asia and Eastern Europe), in the event of a "period of threat" there might be more direct attempts to cajole members of the socialist coalition to "defect" into neutrality or even to the other side. Soviet studies of "coalition diplomacy" also include extensive research, in particular on the two world wars, including the Soviet-Western coalition alliance against Nazi Germany.31 26 Sokolovsky, Voyennaya strategiya, p. 31. 27 Dmitriyev, "Diplomacy and Military Strategy," p. 48. 28 Lomov, "Some Problems of Command in Contemporary War," p. 10. 29 See Sokolovsky, Voyennaya strategiya, p. 37. 30 Zemskov, 'Wars of the Contemporary Era," p. 55. 31 See Lomov, "Some Problems of Command in Contemporary War," p. 9. Also, for the major SOVIET DIPLOMACY AND MILITARY STRATEGY | 399 Neutralization of Potential Enemies Neutrals are not merely those left when opposing alliance coalitions are formed. Just as members of alliances may change, so may neutrals. And diplomacy, in the interests of both political and military strategy, must seek to move members of hostile coalitions toward neutrality, to secure the neutrality of potential enemies, and to influence sympathetic or fearful neutrals toward alignment on one's own side. As noted in Sokolovsky's Military Strategy: "It is important to military strategy to assure the neutrality of a number of states or of particular states, and this is an obligation of diplomacy."32 As one example, he notes the success of Prussian diplomacy in securing Russian neutrality prior to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, which not only avoided a two-front war but permitted concentrating all forces on the French front, save for one division in the deep rear. Military Strategy also draws attention to the fact that in World War II "Soviet diplomacy devoted considerable effort to securing the neutrality of Japan, which to a considerable degree enabled the Soviet High Command to redeploy part of its forces from the Far East and to concentrate them on the Soviet-German front." It refers to this case as an illustration of how "the creation of favorable conditions on the foreign policy front plays an extremely important role for military strategy."33 A similar example often cited is the Soviet diplomatic role in securing the neutrality of Turkey in World War II.34 A Soviet text on diplomacy, used in training officers for the diplomatic service, incidentally uses this case to illustrate the importance of correct judgment, assumption of weighty responsibility by an ambassador, and forthright expression of that estimate. Ambassador Sergei Aleksandrovich Vinogradov, it states, was summoned to the Kremlin in late 1942 and asked if "the country to which he was accredited" would join Hitler in the war; he replied that it would not, and with that assurance the decision was made to move troops to the German front.35 (The text is curiously veiled, not mentioning that "the country to which-he was accredited" was Turkey-although that fact is of course in the public historical record. Similarly, no reference is made to Stalin, only "the Kremlin" where Vinogradov "was asked," permitting the unnamed interlocutor to decide to transfer the troops.) Military Thought emphasizes the role that Soviet military successes against Germany (in particular at Stalingrad) played in facilitating these diplomatic recent work, see G. F. Vorontsov, Voyennye koalitsii i koalitsionnye voiny [Military coalitions and coalition wars] (Moscow: Voyenizdat, 1976). 32 Sokolovsky, Voyennaya strategiya, p. 30; see also Morozov, "Categories of Content and Form in War," p. 19. 33 Sokolovsky, Voyennaya strategiya, p. 30. 34 For example, see Dmitriyev, "Diplomacy and Military Strategy," p. 48, and Lomov, "Some Problems of Command in Contemporary War," p. 4. 35A. N. Kovalev, Azbuka diplomatii [The ABC's of diplomacy] 3d ed. (Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 1977), p. 223. 400 | POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY successes vis-a-vis both Japan and Turkey, which in turn served Soviet military interests. The strategic successes of the Soviet Army on the Soviet-German front enabled Sovietd iplomacyt o obtaina dditionagl uaranteesfr om the governmentso f statesw hich had been conducting a "cold war" (although this term was invented much later) against the Soviet Union. Here we have in mind such states as Turkey, which was preparing to attack our southern flank, and Japan, which was waiting for a suitable moment to attack the USSR in the Far East. These examples provide fresh evidence that diplomacy does not cease to function when a war begins; on the contrary, diplomacy frequently becomes even more active, influencing the course and even the charactero f militaryo perations.36 General Lomov, in an interesting discussion of diplomacy and military interests, notes a different kind of case. He contends that an unpublicized "sharp declaration"b y the Soviet government to Nazi Germany in 1940 after the German occupation of Denmark and Norway "that the neutrality of Sweden must remain inviolable" was responsible for preserving that neutrality, and cites an official declaration by the Swedish foreign minister in 1945 in "confirmation."37 General Lomov also argues that in war the aims of the socialist countries must be "most clear, convincing and as with all just aims undoubtedly will be supported by the people of those countries. These aims must also be so clear and convincing for the peoples of neutral countries that they meet with their approval, for under the conditions of nuclear war they cannot count on safe isolation. Each state inevitably implements even a neutral policy in either a benevolent or hostile way in relation to the belligerents."38 ROLES OF THE POLITICAL AND MILITARY LEADERSHIP "All leadership of the country and of the armed forces during wartime," Military Strategy notes, "will be accomplished by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, with the possible organization of a supreme organ of leadership of the country and the armed forces."39 Such an organ would be based on the World War II State Defense Committee and on the current Defense Council. All Soviet accounts take as self-evident (and as proven by experience) that there must be a single integrated leadership, with the political leadership dominant but with an essential role also for military strategists. 'The political leadership determines war aims and hence the limits to which war is to be waged; it defines the nature of the participation of the state in a war, . . . what strategy is to be pursued, what mutual relations should be maintained with other countries, and so forth."40 As this last statement indicates, 36 Dmitriyev, "Diplomacy and Military Strategy," p. 48. 37 Lomov, "Some Problems of Command in Contemporary War," p. 10. 38 Ibid. 39 Sokolovsky, Voyennaya strategiya, p. 434. 40 Zemskov, "An Important Factor for Victory in War." SOVIET DIPLOMACY AND MILITARY STRATEGY | 401 the supreme state defense body (under whatever name) decides wartime "problems of foreign policy and diplomatic action" ;41 "it is absolutely clear that the solution of these [wartime diplomatic] tasks falls completely within the competence of the political leaders."42 Soviet accounts often noted that above all in a nuclear war, the role of the political leadership would be even more important than ever before.43 (Also, incidentally, it is occasionally explicitly acknowledged that nuclear weapons are so uniquely dangerous "that the political leadership cannot let them escape its control.")44 In addition, a general nuclear war is assumed to be an all-out decisive clash of the socialist and capitalist systems, as represented by the two coalitions led by the United States and the Soviet Union.45 From time to time there are interesting nuances of difference over the specific role of the military leaders. General Zemskov, in a striking article in the open military press, balanced statements affirming a role of growing importance for the political leaders with this statement: "Of course this does not mean that the role of the military leadership in a war has now decreased. On the contrary, the role of the military command in the achievement of victory has also increased substantially." Nonetheless, he later adds-after praising Soviet military leaders "shaped by the Communist Party"-that 'Marxist-Leninists do not assign the role of generals absolute importance."46 Some other accounts in Military Thought, however, place greater stress on the importance of military advice and "responsibility" in aiding the political leadership to make militarily sound judgments. General Lomov, for example, commented: "The Supreme Military Command is the highly qualified adviser of the Government on military matters, whose recommendations cannot be ignored by the deciding political levels."47 And, in the principal discussion of diplomacy and military strategy, we read: 'The increase in the role of the political leadership in making decisions of a military-strategic nature, and in carrying out diplomatic actions, in no way reduces the importance of military science and military strategy. "48 Balancing Diplomatic and Strategic Objectives and Capabilities The Soviet literature both on military strategy and on foreign policy and diplomacy shows keen awareness of the need to gear aims and objectives to resources and capabilities. As Military Strategy puts it, "politics considers the 41 Lomov, "Some Problems of Command in Contemporary War," p. 6. 42 Zemskov, "An Important Factor for Victory in War." 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 For example, ibid; see also, Lomov, "Some Problems of Command in Contemporary War," pp. 10, 12. 46 Zemskov, "An Important Factor for Victory in War." 47 Lomov, "Some Problems of Command in Contemporary War, p. 8. 48 Dmitriyev, "Diplomacy and Military Strategy," p. 50. 402 | POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY requirements and considerations of strategy, as well as the capabilities of the state, seeking to make the aims commensurate with available forces and means."49 Similarly, a contributor to Military Thought stated: "The art of political and military leadership consists in particular of assuring the working-out of strategic plans which conform, on the one hand, to the political aims of the state, and on the other to its military, economic, morale-political, and scientific-technical capabilities."50 And more specifically in terms of the interrelation of strategy and diplomacy, we read: Military strategy, just as military science as a whole, is strong and correct only when it is built on careful consideration of all objective factors, in strict conformity with the tasksa nd capabilitieso f the foreigna nd domesticp olicy of a state. Disregardo f objectivel aws or underestimationof importantf actorsa s a rulel eads to military-political setbacks. Although diplomacy as a means of foreign policy usually comes to one's aid in s'uch cases, it is not always able completely to neutralize the consequences of military-strategimc iscalculations.51 As an example of such military-strategic miscalculation, and the "difficult" task for diplomacy in making amends, the author cites the unsuccessful Soviet offensive against Warsaw in 1920 (which he notes "was executed without sufficiently comprehensive consideration of the capabilities of the Red Army, which was exhausted from continuous combat and had a strong force of Wrangel's White Guard troops on its southern flank, in the rear.")52 As further illustration of the peacetime role of diplomacy in serving strategic interests at a time of general weakness, the article discusses the conclusion of peace treaties with a number of countries on the western and southern borders of Soviet Russia in 1920 and 1921, and the Rapallo Treaty with Germany in 1922.53 And, in another interesting illustration of self-criticism, the ill-starred attempt in the "peace talks" with Germany at Brest-Litovsk in 1918 to declare "neither war nor peace" caused a serious adverse military situation followed by a more disadvantageous (if short-lived) peace treaty; "A discrepancy between political actions and the military capability of the country was manifested in a most clear-cut form. "54 While generally avoiding generalizations about the relative roles of military strategy and diplomacy, the discussions in Military Thought do stress the military element in war, especially a possible general nuclear war. This is stated most categorically in the following passage. The character of diplomatic activity and its role in time of war differ substantially fromp eacetimed iplomacy;i ts interrelationw ith strategya lso changes.T he accomplish- 49 Sokolovsky, Voyennaya strategiya, p. 29. 50 Morozov, "Categories of Content and Form in War," p. 21. 51 Dmitriyev, "Diplomacy and Military Strategy," p. 45. 52 Ibid., p. 45. 53 Ibid., pp. 46-47. 54 Ibid., p. 43. SOVIET DIPLOMACY AND MILITARY STRATEGY | 403 ment of military-strategicm issionsd uring war is advanced to the forefront, while diplomacy deals "auxiliary -strikes." . . . In spite of the fact that diplomacy accomplishess pecificm issionsb y its own specialm eans, successfula ttainmento f the aims assigned to it by the state in the final analysis depends on the successful accomplishment of military-strategic missions. 55 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS The relationship of diplomacy with military strategy in the context of general war is not a major theme in Soviet military theoretical or political writing. On the other hand, even the modest attention given to the subject is probably more than one finds in our own writing. This does not mean that the Soviets expect a general nuclear war, but they do think more about military-and even diplomatic-problems if deterrence were to fail and war to come. It also reflects the greater and more encompassing attention the Soviets give to military theory. (For example, the principal discussion on "Diplomacy and Military Strategy" in Military Thought was one of a series of articles also covering "Politics and Military Strategy," "Military Strategy and Economics," "Military Strategy and the Political-Morale Factor," and "Military Strategy and Military Technology," all appearing from 1970 through 1973.) Nor does the fact that the sources cited in this review date mostly from the late 1960s and early 1970s have particular significance. The passages from Military Strategy, taken from the third and last (1968) edition do not differ materially from the first edition in 1962. Nor can one conclude that there has been any sharp tapering off of interest. With respect to the related subject of crisis diplomacy, on the other hand, as noted early in this discussion, there has clearly been a step-up in extent and sophistication of discussion in the 1970s. One methodological comment perhaps worth noting in these concluding remarks is the strong Soviet penchant for historical analysis (and analogy), especially with reference to Soviet-and prerevolutionary Russian-historical experience. While recognizing that nuclear war would be unprecedented and unparalleled, the Soviets see even such a possible cataclysmic event as occurring in a historical continuum in which "historical laws" continue to operate and therefore in which historical antecedent and the lessons of history have a contemporary meaning. The Soviet military discussions of a period of threat (or danger) preceding almost all wars, and reaffirmation of the validity of such a concept for the future, are also of considerable interest. These views coincide with the general, but not universal, Western view. The Soviet writers appreciate the especially important role of diplomacy in such a period. Of particular salience is the attention given to contending coalitions and to prewar and wartime efforts to gain and hold allies where possible, to secure 55 Ibid., p. 47 (emphasis in the original). 404 | POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY neutrality where desirable and feasible, and to chip away at the hostile alliance. This, undoubtedly, is seen as a matter of extreme importance. What is less clear is whether the Soviet leaders are more sanguine about the prospects for their own success in this respect or more concerned about vulnerabilities on their side. Ideological predispositions lead them to expect-indeed to believe in -favorable trends. Yet experience has shown peacetime defections from Moscow's leadership of even such socialist allies as China, Yugoslavia, Albania, Cambodia, and to one or another degree North Korea and Rumania. Moreover, with real reluctance (though eventually with direct force) Soviet leaders felt compelled to intervene militarily in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in order to keep those countries in the Soviet-led alliance. The cases of alignment with the Soviet Union and massive military and economic aid to other Third World states that subsequently realigned are too numerous to mention, but Moscow cannot forget them. There are hints that the Soviets believe that the presence of foreign bases and troops may prevent such things as sudden defection of an ally to neutrality. In the event of sudden impending nuclear war, an ultimatum-and offer-of exemption from nuclear attack for neutrality could be very tempting to any country, an offer they could not refuse. And the presence or absence of theretofore "allied" troops could be a decisive factor in whether such an offer were ever made, or could be accepted. This may then be one reason, along with others, leading to the constant Soviet campaigns against American military bases abroad. It may even also be a secondary but contributing factor in Soviet desire to maintain its own direct military presence in Poland, East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia (including the pressures to station troops in Czechoslovakia in 1967 and 1968, as well as actual stationing since that time), and perhaps regret now that Soviet troops were withdrawn from Rumania in 1958. Thle Soviet military writings, not unreasonably, ascribe key importance in a nuclear war to military operations. At the same time they recognize and affirm a continuing role for diplomacy. There is virtually no reference even in abstract terms to how a war would be terminated. If Soviet theoreticians have thought much about this subject, they have not written about it even in the confidential military journal. In all likelihood, it has not been given attention. Soviet accounts of "victory" in a general nuclear clash of the two coalitions usually speak only of the inability of the capitalist system to survive because "the peoples" will cast it off. Nothing is said of surrenders, if only because there is a vague expectation that capitalist rule will expire and therefore be unable to surrender; and if "the peoples" assume power, they would not continue the war and the question of surrender would not arise. Our own expectations on the conclusion of a general nuclear war are probably no better formed, though less weighted by ideological presumptions of an abstract "victory" for our "system." More generally, in the Soviet view diplomacy and military strategy have complementary and reciprocally supporting roles, both in peacetime and in SOVIET DIPL-OMACY AND MILITARY STRATEGY | 405 war. The Party political leadership has the coordinating and directing responsibility, but military leaders are reassured (and reminded) that they share a responsibility for advising the state leadership on military requirements, and capabilities, in order to assure neither over nor underestimation in making strategic policy decisions. NUCLEAR STRATEGIES AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY Paul Joseph Amid great controversy, the Reagan administration has undertaken an ambitious programme of modernising the US strategic forces. Some of the new weapons are offensive in character. They include the land-based MX, the submarine-launched Trident 11, cruise missiles, and two new bombers-the B-1 and the 'Stealth'-to carry them. In addition, new ground-launched cruise missiles are to be stationed in Europe along with a medium-range land-based missile, the Pershing 11. These are all counterforce weapons. They threaten Soviet retaliatory forces. The new systems enhance the possibility of striking first and raise the possibility-at least in theory-of limiting the damage that the Soviet Union will be able to inflict on the US in response.' The Reagan administration is also attempting to improve its defence capacity. Civil defence programmes are receiving more money. T.K. Jones, an Assistant Secretary of Defense, argues that the US can rebound from a full-scale nuclear attack within two to four years. The MX may be deployed with a ballistic missile defensive system that some claim can be expanded into a full scale ABM. After a March speech promising that new exotic technologies have become feasible, Reagan established an office that will accelerate development of space-based lasers and particle beam weapons designed to intercept Soviet missiles before they can strike the US. Administration officials believe that this commitment to an effective defence permits political leaders to act more forcefully. A commitment to improving defence capacity demonstrates a resolve that can be translated into negotiating advantages. Members of the Reagan administration have also been quite forthcoming in their discussion of fighting and winning both limited and protracted nuclear wars.' A commitment to developing warfighting capabilities can be seen in the renewed concern of the Pentagon with preparing command, control and communication facilities (c3) ag ainst the effects of blast, radiation, and electromagnetic pulse. Actually to fight a nuclear war, a political leader must be able to contact the military forces at his command. Assessment of damage, determining the opponent's intentions, deciding on a proper response, communicating that decision reliably, and maintaining control over military forces so that the actual response matches the original decision are all notoriously difficult to achieve in war. The 202 NUCLEAR STRATEGIES AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY 203 unique conditions of nuclear war make reliable c3 even more difficult to achieve.j Yet, the Reagan administration has plunged ahead with efforts to protect communication lines, computers, and command stations from interruption. It has been called the most important priority of the recently announced strategic modernisation package. The Reagan administration has begun arms control talks with Moscow, but argues that progress is dependent on modified Soviet behaviour in other areas of foreign policy such as Poland, Afghanistan and Central America. The strategists associated with the Reagan administration believe that the deployment of weapon systems will lead to greater political influence over Moscow. For them, arms negotiations are not a process of mutual concession with the aim of preserving rough parity. Nor is arms control per se held to be in the national security interest of the US. Negotiations are, instead, a strategy to mould Soviet behaviour. In the meantime, the specific proposals advanced by the President under START are geared to achieving superiority or forcing Soviet reje~tion.~ In pursuit of these goals, the Reagan administration is willing to spend vast sums of money. The total obligational authority of the Pentagon for 1984 is more than two hundred and fifty billion dollars. Over the next five years defence spending will total 1.8 trillion dollars. Some administration members argue in private that it will be necessary to spend an additional 750 billion dollars over the same time period. Military spending will rise from 24 to 37 per cent of the defence budget. The Reagan administration's wholesale adoption of a nuclear warfighting .posture has developed in parallel with foreign policy commitments predicated on unremitting hostility towards the Soviet Union. Before examining the connection between Reagan's nuclear strategy and his foreign policy, let me outline in more detail the main features of the debate over the use of nuclear weapons. Deterrence versus Warfghting Postures Strategic doctrines are usually divided into two groups. The first, called deterrence, recognises that nuclear war would inevitably end in holocaust. To talk of winners and losers in this context is nonsense. The only purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter, or prevent, war between the US and the Soviet Union from breaking out. Bernard Brodie, an early deterrence theorist, recognised that the bomb changed the very way in which we think about war. He argued that 'thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its chief purpose must be to prevent them. It can have almost no other useful purpose'.5 Brodie anticipated the fact that nuclear weapons would make war irrational for either side. The second group, advocates of warfighting doctrines (or what is sometimes called 'extended deterrence'), admits that the level of destruction 204 THE SOCIALIST REGISTER 1983 may be great in a conflict involving nuclear weapons. But, as in all other wars, there will still be winners and losers. There are two purposes for weapons. The first is to win the war between the US and the Soviet Union. The second is to threaten war so that the US can exert greater influence on other issues of foreign policy. Colin Gray, a supporter of warfighting and a consultant to the Reagan administration, argues that if 'American nuclear power is to support US foreign policy objectives, the United States must possess the ability to wage nuclear war rati~nall~It. 'i~s t his view that now dominates governing circles in the US. Those associated with the deterrence position include former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, former head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Paul Warnke, former CIA director William Colby, and former National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy. Prominent members of the warfighting camp include Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Burt, former National Security Council staffer Richard Pipes and Reagan administration advisors Colin Gray, Scott Thompson, and William Van Cleave. Let us look a little more closely at the arguments of each group. The first contrast between the deterrence and warfighting schools concerns the posture that strategists and decision makers should adopt towards nuclear weapons. Those in the deterrence camp believe that the development of nuclear weapons and their use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a qualitative break in the history of war. They recognised that nuclear weapons carry enormous destructive power and that the impact of even a few bombs would be catastrophic. As military instruments, nuclear bombs are unique. The advocates of the warfighting position strongly disagree. Nuclear weapons are more destructive than other weapons, but they are not qualitatively different. Our thinking about nuclear wars, they argue, should not be different from our thinking about previous wars. For example, any past introduction of a new weapon has been in combination with existing weapons. There is no reason to think that nuclear weapons are any different in this respect from the machine gun, the spear, the rifle, or a tank.7 The bomb can be used alongside the existing arsenal. There is no great divide between nuclear and conventional weapons. The second contrast concerns the connection between nuclear weapons and 'unacceptable damage'. The deterrence position recognises that it is comparatively easy for one side to inflict a level of damage that the other side considers unacceptable. The warfighters disagree. Critical to the exchange is the precise definition of what constitutes 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' damage. Most readers of the Socialist Register would no doubt consider the dropping of just one bomb on one city 'unacceptable' and would, as a result, be deterred from starting a war with this as a consequence. On the other hand, American militarists have argued that NUCLEAR STRATEGIES AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY 205 the Soviet Union would accept the loss of some thirty million people since that was the approximate level of damage that they suffered in World War 11.~A merican policy makers have, for the most part, followed former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's definition of unacceptable damage as twenty-five per cent of the civilian population and seventy five per cent of the industrial capacity. This official conception of 'unacceptable' can be achieved by delivering as few as 400 bombs. Those in the deterrence camp feared nuclear war because they believed that any exchange of hostilities would inevitably escalate to at least this level of destruction. For them, nuclear weapons obviated the Clausewitz dictum that war was the extension of politics by other means. Nuclear war, they argued, could only be the continuation of madness. Those in the warfighting position are not so sure. They believe that nuclear wars can be kept limited in the sense that they involve levels of destruction that do not threaten the existence of the other state. Nuclear wars can also be protracted. They can take days, weeks, even months. They reject the belief of the deterrence school that wars involving nuclear weapons will inevitably escalate to an all-out exchange leading to the destruction of both sides. Clausewitz has not been transcended. The warfighters believe that it is still possible to think of war as the extension of politics. A third contrast concerns the targeting of nuclear weapons. Under deterrence, the main purpose of nuclear forces is to prevent war by threatening unacceptable damage to the other side. To do this most effectively, American bombs should be aimed at Soviet cities and the industrial base. This is called counter-city targeting. The supporters of warfighting doctrines favour counterforce targeting or aiming at the military forces and command centres of the other side. Counterforce raises the possibility of striking the other side so that they will not be able to retaliate. The logical extension of counterforce is a first-strike capability or the ability to strike at the other side's retaliatory forces so that they are either unable to reply, or can reply only at a level that the attacking country considers 'acceptable'. Since many targets, especially missile silos and command bunkers, are 'hardened' with steel and concrete, destroying them requires fantastic accuracies-as close as a tenth-of-a-mile. (Many of the new weapon systems are achieving these levels of accuracy-at least in testing carried out under optimum conditions.) A fourth comparison concerns the possibility of erecting an effective defence against nuclear attack. The deterrence position has always been sceptical and has respected the weight of the scientific community which has argued that the difficulties associated with intercepting warheads travelling at close to eighteen thousand miles an hour are virtually impossible to overcome. Some in the warfighting camp, on the other hand, 206 THE SOCIALIST REGISTER 1983 believe in the possibility of erecting a 'layered' defence. This includes the so-called exotic, space-based systems such as lasers and particle-beam weapons designed to intercept Soviet missiles shortly after they leave their silos; exo-atmospheric systems that are supposed to intercept warheads before they re-enter the atmosphere; endo-atmosphere defences that will intercept warheads before they explode on the earth's surface; and, finally, a programme of civil defence that properly conceived and carried out can save the lives of millions. The technical evidence stands against them. Yet advocates of warfighting argue that their support for counterforce targeting and erecting a defence against nuclear attack is morally superior to deterrence which would target civilian populations and, by denying the possibilities of defence, leave oneself open to attack. Those in the deterrence camp recognise that the Soviet Union has had, at least since the late-sixties, the capacity to inflict unacceptable damage against the US. No matter what the US does, no matter how effective the first blow, the Soviet Union will be able to retaliate. The ability of the US and the Soviet Union to inflict unacceptable damage on the other is called mutually assured destruction or MAD. MAD is a fact of life in a world afflicted with nuclear weapons. But those supporting the warfighting posture are concerned with another question: what if deterrence fails. Their answer is that there will be war and the US must be prepared to fight it. After the hostilities end, one side will be in a better position than the other to organise whatever remains. The victor will be in a position to issue orders to the loser. To maximise the possibility of winning, the US should demonstrate its superiority at every possible step in a 'ladder of escalation'. Political and military leaders should enjoy the flexibility of selecting from a 'menu of options', both nuclear and conventional. In particular the US should never, in their view, be in a position where it would be deterred from using nuclear weapons first. Another contrast concerns Soviet intentions. The deterrence camp thinks that Moscow accepts the inevitability of holocaust should a war start. Basing its analysis on statements from government officials and the more recent pronouncements of military officers, those in the first school argue that Moscow accepts the reality of MAD, does not really have a serious civil defence programme, and wants to reduce the risk of nuclear war. The warfighting camp argues that Soviet 'strategic culture' does not reject the idea of fighting and winning a nuclear war. Basing their analysis on military manuals they argue that Moscow plans for nuclear war in much the same terms as they have previous wars. The implication is that the US fails to do likewise at its own peril. The final issue dividing the two positions is the stance taken towards arms control efforts. The logical result of deterrence is support for talks designed to regulate the competition between the two superpowers. NUCLEAR STRATEGIES AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY 207 Supporters of deterrence hope to use arms treaties to isolate nuclear weapons from the inevitable tension between Washington and Moscow. Negotiations are seen in the direct national security interests of the US. Warfighting advocates may reject arms negotiations entirely or, more commonly, see these talks within the context of all relations with the Soviet Union. A clever negotiating stance may enhance superiority, or elicit compliant behaviour from Moscow on other crucial issues. The prospect of arms control should be used as leverage. If Moscow wants arms control, it should be willing to pay for it. The implication is that nuclear weapons can be used in pursuit of other defence interests and foreign policy goals. The Instability of Deterrence Clearly the actual history of US strategic policy is much more complicated than a simple comparison between deterrence and warfighting would imply. As outlined above, deterrence and warfighting doctrines should be seen as ideal types, with the actual behaviour of a particular policy maker or even an administration falling somewhere between the two poles. A further complication is that governments present different policies to different audiences. It is necessary to make a distinction among declaratory policy, that which is announced publicly; internal policy, that which is actually believed by government officials ; and operational policy, that which the actual force structure is capable of carrying out. In general, declaratory policy tends to focus on deterrence. The internal, or actual policy, is more a warfighting doctrine. (In fact, actual policy has been more a warfighting position than one of deterrence since the mid-fiftie~.)~ The operational forces tend, for a variety of technical and bureaucratic reasons, to lag behind internal policy. Given all this, it is still important to realise that as a doctrine, deter- -rence is, by itself, unstable. Pressures generated within the ideology and structure of deterrence have produced significant dangers even without considering the perils offered by the warfighting position. For example, a 'pure' or minimal deterrence position requires a limited arsenal; certainly no more than several hundred bombs. Yet the United States has more than ten thousand strategic bombs and another twenty thousand tactical warheads. One reason for this instability is the paradox built within the concept of deterrence itself. Under deterrence, nuclear weapons are not to be used because to do so will produce unacceptable levels of destruction on both sides. The arms race is a rough standoff. Stability comes from a balance of terror. Yet the stability implied in deterrence is based on threatened destruction. To make this threat credible, decision makers approve the construction of powerful offensive weapons systems, and engage in various acts of sabre-rattling.10 Political leaders who do not seriously believe in the possibility of actually fighting a nuclear war will 208 THE SOCIALIST REGISTER 1983 nonetheless procure better weapons and make threats to use them because the doctrine of deterrence requires them to do so. The weapons and threats acquire a history. Organisations establish a vested interest in maintaining 'their' weapons. Or they lobby for new ones. The threats become institutionalised. The result is an environment of brinkmanship within which supporters of warfighting doctrines can operate to their own advantage. There are other important elements of instability within the deterrence position. The advocates of deterrence find nuclear weapons politically useful, even if they are not to be used. In actual battle, it may be recognised that the level of destruction obviates Clausewitz's dictum regarding war as the extension of politics. But in the preparation for battle, nuclear forces certainly remain political. For example, nuclear weapons not only preserve the balance between Moscow and Washington, but are instrumental in preserving a bipolar world. The respective nuclear umbrellas have a significant impact on the structure and politics of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Private messages can be exchanged with the Soviet Union through the medium of nuclear forces. All American presidents have threatened to use nuclear weapons, in part to maintain a commitment to Europe, in part to lower the chances of a Soviet response to US conventional intervention in regional conflicts. Strategic war between the US and USSR may be rejected. Yet the structure of forces required to sustain the threatened use of nuclear weapons go far beyond the requirements of minimal deterrence. Domestically, a president can support certain types of weapons to protect himself from his political opponents. The specific configuration of nuclear weapons is a valuable way of managing Pentagon politics. The secrecy and command procedures accompanying nuclear weapons sustain the authority of a president within the governmental structure. And his virtual control over public pronouncements regarding strategic policy make it possible to influence and even manipulate the electorate. Nuclear forces, in other words, are 'politically useful'. It is hard for a president, for both international and domestic reasons, to give them up, even if he doesn't expect to use them in a war. Additional breaks with the pure deterrent posture are the result. Deterrence has been further undermined by technical advances in weapon systems. The accuracy of ballistic missiles has improved-at least in tests-and now sustain counterforce arguments regarding the possibility of limited strikes against the other side's land-based missiles. Computers and surveillance techniques have also improved to the point where some supporters of the warfighting position are able to argue that it will be possible to detect and track Soviet submarines. Technical advances are also occurring in defensive systems. Accurate -land-based and cruise missiles, in combination with anti-submarine warfare and an effective defence, raise the prospect of achieving a disarming first-strike. In reality, NUCLEAR STRATEGIES AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY 209 a first-strike remains impossible. But changes in technology are enabling advocates of warfighting to argue that a first-strike and more limited counterforce scenarios may be possible to execute in the near future. In the meantime, no president, including those believing in deterrence, has been able to block these technical developments. Another factor that drives the arms race forward and makes deterrence unstable is the pattern of inter-service rivalries that exist within the US military. For example, an almost unchallengeable component of American strategic thinking is that each leg of a triad that includes bombers, submarines, and land-based missiles must be capable of independently delivering unacceptable damage.'' The result, at a minimum, is a tripling of the four hundred equivalent megaton bombs that are necessary to deliver the prevailing definition of unacceptable damage. In addition, presidents are often forced to compromise and bargain with various military interests. Even a president who enjoyed such impeccable anti-communist credentials as Richard Nixon found a price tag attached to his desire to sign a SALT agreement that had the approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There was a trade-off. In exchange for Congressional testimony from the Joint Chiefs that SALT I would not undermine US national security, Nixon approved construction of a new submarine-the ~rident.'T~h e Trident boat is larger and has longer range. But most importantly, it will carry a new missile, the Trident D-5 that is capable of counterforce levels of accuracy. In effect, a political bargain that was made in the early seventies to stabilise deterrence created the conditions that may undermine deterrence in the late 1980s. There are other examples of this trade-off dynamic. When Carter cancelled the B-1 bomber-temporarily as it turned out- the Air Force was given permission to develop cruise missiles. The MX was in part a price for military support for SALT 11. This pattern of trade-offs has less to do with relations between the Soviet Union and the United States than with politics inside the Pentagon. Presidents have been loath to tamper with the Pentagon for their only other choice would be the deliberate mobilisation of public opinion against the arms race. Instead they have chosen a series of accommodations. These have preserved political niches that have been exploited by opponents of deterrence. The implication of these factors-the paradox embedded in deterrence, presidential interests, improvements in technology, and trade-offs with the Pentagon-is that, left to their own devices, the deterrence camp will be defeated by the warfighting camp. Only popular movements can rescue the minimal deterrence position yet also create movement towards genuine disarmament. Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy Let us now return to the issue of foreign policy and its connection to the development of nuclear weapons. The most important reason driving up 210 THE SOCIALIST REGISTER 1983 the number of nuclear weapons is that the bombs have been harnessed to Washington's foreign policy goals even by those who did not expect to use them in actual combat. Those former American government officials who are currently quite visible in their opposition to Reagan's strategic policy, approved, while in ofice, of quantitative and qualitative improvements in the nuclear arsenal. In effect, they recognised that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union would be terrible. But they maintained that if the US could stay ahead in numbers of warheads, accuracy and other measures those advantages could be translated into political leverage on other issues. For example, it was felt that the USSR would be much less likely to aid their third world allies if the US held nuclear superiority. If the US intervened in the Middle East, Moscow would be less likely to respond. If Washington attempted to destabilise a revolutionary government, the Soviet Union would be reluctant to develop a counter response, all for fear of taking the first step in a scenario in which the US held the winning hand.13 Thus nuclear weapons proved useful for American international interests. By and large, this thinking has been followed by both the deterrence and warfighting supporters. The difference is that the former thought it was important to stop short of war, and the latter took more seriously the task of preparing for a war that would use nuclear weapons. In addition, to further the political influence of nuclear weapons, every post-war US administration has ruled out a declaration of no first use. Washington has deliberately preserved uncertainty concerning the policy of the US towards the initiation of nuclear war. Closely coupled to the refusal to rule out no first use is the practice of American presidents of threatening to use these weapons in crisis situations. Dan Ellsberg has listed twelve cases where the US had used nuclear weapons, not in the literal sense, but as a deliberate threat on behalf of American interests.14 On the other hand, every president has not made a concerted effort to improve the operational forces-the actual warheads, delivery systems, and communications-in a way that enhanced their capacity to fight a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. In other words, while the actual policy regarding nuclear weapons has consistently been one of warfighting, the effort to bring the operational forces more in line with actual policy has been more episodic. In fact, such an effort has only happened in four distinct periods: between 1948 and 1950 while Truman was President; in 1961 and 1962, the first two years of the Kennedy administration; the last two years of the Nixon administration; and, finally, from the last year of the Carter presidency to the present. (Note that in the last case the dividing line is not between Carter and Reagan. Reagan has merely continued-albeit with a substantial boost-the commitment to prepare to fight a nuclear war that was initiated by carter.)'' From the point of view of establishing a link between nuclear weapons and foreign policy, it is useful to remember that in each of these four NUCLEAR STRATEGIES AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY 21 1 periods major debates took place in the US foreign policy establishment. The most important was specifying the main international threat to American capitalism. Was it more important to preserve the economic and political structures of Western Europe and Japan or prevent the expansion of Soviet influence and power? A second disagreement concerned the origins of revolutions in the third world. Were they the product of local conditions or the inspiration of the Soviet Union? A third disagreement revolved around the methods of responding to those revolutions. Should the US use a combination of modest reforms coupled with comparatively small counterinsurgency operations, or a large, more conventional, military response? These intra-elite conflicts are all linked to different perspectives regarding the conflict between East and West. On one side is the more pragmatic view. Its main assertion is that the Soviet Union is a great power and, as such, enjoys certain entitlements. Ideology does not drive the Soviet Union forward. In fact, the proper diplomacy can make Moscow behave as a junior partner in the task of world management. The other half of this disagreement is based on the premise that the Soviet Union is inherently expansionist, that it seeks world domination and that the stakes between East and West are global.16 The Soviet Union is the devil and the West represents a higher moral code. Good and evil must inevitably collide. The Soviet Union is an illegitimate state. Scratch the surface and you will find festering underneath the roots of internal revolt. Ethnic groups are against the Russians. Eastern Europe is on the verge of rebellion. All of the religious minorities want to rise up. And the proper policy can act as a catalyst in undermining the very brittle forms of social control exercised by the Kremlin. The Soviet Union, in short, is vulnerable. It is at this point that the nuclear issue returns. One motivation on the part of Reagan is to force Moscow to compete in an arms race that it cannot afford. The US economy is larger. If the Soviet Union is forced to match US military spending, the level of resources that Moscow will have available for investment in agriculture, consumer goods, and industry will be severely reduced. Reagan has been understood to support a technology embargo on the grounds that it will hasten the process of internal crumbling. The connection between this ideological view of the Soviet Union and nuclear warfighting postures can be seen as well in the emergence of so-called decapitation strategies. In this scenario a few well-placed bombs would destroy the KGB, the Kremlin, and other political command posts. In this view, power in the Soviet Union is over-centralised. With the political head lopped off, the commanding officers of the local missile silos and submarines will not respond. The military forces would be indecisive and the US will be able to dictate terms. The Pershing 11 missile, due to be deployed in Germany, is crucial for this strategy since it has a flight time of only eight minutes to Moscow. 212 THE SOCIALIST REGISTER 1983 The influence of this distorted view of the Soviet Union in the Reagan administration has enormous significance. The implication is that the issue raised by the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 has yet to be resolved in American ruling circles. Does the US want 'merely' to contain socialism, or should the US attempt actually to roll back revolutions that have established communist or socialist parties in power? Containment or Rollback Many representatives of the Reagan administration have called for a return to Truman's policy of containment.17 The most influential presentation of containment during that period was offered by George Kennan who argued in his 'Mr X' telegram: The main element of any United States policy towards the Soviet Union must be that of a long term patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies. Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the western world is something that can he contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manoeuvres of Soviet policy, but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence.18 For Kennan the measures necessary to prevent Soviet expansion included military force, or at least the threat of military force. But the main counter-pressures were economic and political. Kennan, for example, saw the West's economic strength as its best weapon. He pointed out that of the five key industrial regions in the world-the United States, the United Kingdom, the Rhine valley, the Soviet Union and Japan-only one was a threat. Kennan also advocated the exploitation of actual and potential splits between Soviet leadership and the international communist movement. A non-communist government was of course preferable, but a communist government independent of Moscow presented possibilities that were worth exploring.lg Yugoslavia offered the best opportunities in this regard. Containment is usually thought to be the policy of enforcing the existing dividing line between East and West. Yet, some policy-makers defined containment more as a policy of rollback or liberation. The overthrow of communist governments would not be accomplished directly, that is by military action. Instead, internal instability in the East was to be promoted through economic and political pressures and by the threat of military attack. Containment was redefined as a more moderate version of rollback which included economic warfare, convert operations against Eastern Europe, and political isolation. For both Truman and Reagan this conception of containment was accompanied by the development of warfighting doctrines. The reflection of containment-as-rollback in the Truman administration NUCLEAR STRATEGIES AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY 21 3 can be clearly detected in National Security Council-68, a lengthy planning document approved by the President in April 1950. NSC-68 called for a significant commitment to rearming the US. As set out by its authors, containment was defined as 'all means short of war to block further expansion of Soviet power' (so far consistent with normal usage), but also as 'a retraction of the Kremlin's control and influence' and 'fostering the seeds of destruction within the Soviet system' (which is more a rollback position).20 It is worth pausing for a moment to examine the image of Soviet society embedded within NSC-68 and the parallels that exist between that document and the views of the Reagan administration. NSC-68 makes an important distinction between the Soviet government and the Soviet people. The problem is not with the Soviet Union as a whole, only with the Kremlin which is 'inescapably militant' because it is 'possessed by a world-wide revolutionary movement, because it inherits the traditional Russian drive for imperialism and because it is a totalitarian dictatorship'. The fundamental design of the Kremlin is to gain the 'complete subversion or forcible destruction of the machinery of government and structure of societies of the non-Soviet world'. The conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union is total; no compromise or 'peaceful coexistence' is possible. The stakes are civilisation itself. In this battle, the Soviet Union enjoys two organisational sources of strength: the Communist Party and the secret police. Each is capable of imposing 'ideological uniformity' at home and 'propaganda, subversion, and espionage' abroad. The Soviet Union's ideological 'pretensions', or promises of a society with equal justice and a fairer distribution of resources, are another source of strength. So is an 'utterly amoral and opportunistic conduct of foreign policy' that gives the Kremlin great tactical flexibility. By contrast, the goals of the US are completely benign. According to the authors of NSC-68 they are '. . . to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity'. The weaknesses of the Soviet Union are also important. The greatest vulnerability of the Kremlin is the nature of its basic relations with the Soviet people. These are 'characterised by universal suspicion, fear and denunciation'. The Kremlin is also vulnerable with regard to its relations with its satellites and their peoples. Nationalism (on the side of the Eastern European nations) remains the most potent emotional-political force. Here Soviet 'ideas and practices run counter to the best and potentially strongest instincts of men, and deny their most fundamental aspirations'. The authors of NSC-68 speculate on the possibilities of making the Soviet people allies of the West (if successful 'we will obviously have made our task easier and victory more certain'). The final weakness of the Soviet 214 THE SOCIALIST REGISTER 1983 system is the necessity continually to expand. Efforts to prevent or contain this expansion, either through meetings with the 'superior force' or a 'superior counterpressure' will lead to stagnation. In short, willingness on the part of the United States to counter Soviet expansion will create a situation in which 'the seeds of decay within the Soviet system would begin to flourish and fructify'. In this view containment becomes a catalyst to the 'rot' spreading within the Soviet system itself. There is a link between this conception of containment-as-rollback and plans to fight a nuclear war. The war plans of the Truman administration included DROPSHOT which was based less on deterrence than on delivering an initial disabling blow. Another plan, code named BROILER, reflected on the possibility of liberating Eastern Europe and Russia 'immediately following the initial bomb campaign'.21 The drafters of the plan urged that 'preparations should be made early. .. to enable the Allies to take quick action in case of an early Soviet collapse'. The bomb was the key factor in the hope of inducing this early surrender. Air Force plan TROJAN provided for a total of 300 atomic bombs in an initial attack on Russia and expected the political and economic system to collapse as a The expectation that the threatened use of the bomb could catalyse internal weaknesses in the Eastern bloc, especially to the point of collapse, was hopelessly optimistic. Yet the identical view can be found some thirty-odd years later among many members of the Reagan administration. As in the 1948-50 period, policy makers continue to hold open the possibility that some combination of economic pressure, political isolation and military threat involving atomic weapons will hasten internal crumbling. As in NSC-68, members of the Reagan administration believed that Russian history displays an inherent militarism and drive for expansion. For example, Richard PerIe, the current Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Policy, thinks that the Soviet Union is much like Hitler's Germany-both driven toward world control unless the West responds. Perle believes that nuclear warfighting plans are necessary to counter the threat. He is not as worried about nuclear escalation as he is about appeasement. I've always worried less about what would happen in an actual nuclear exchange than about the effect that the nuclear balance has on our willingness to take risks in local situations. It is not that I am worried about the Soviets' attacking the United States with nuclear weapons confident that they will win that nuclear war. It is that I worry about an American President's feelings he cannot afford to take action in a crisis because Soviet nuclear forces are such that, if escalation took place, they are better poised than we are to move up the escalation ladder. 23 At the same time, the Reagan administration believes that Russia is NUCLEAR STRATEGIES AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY 21 5 weak because it is over-centralised and its policy is brittle. As argued above, these features, for some members of the Reagan administration, leave the Soviet Union open to a decapitation strike (an attack on the Moscow political command posts). Destruction of the 'brain' in combination with the Soviet tendency to refuse to delegate authority, will, in this thinking, prevent the land-based retaliatory missile force from responding- at least before the European-based cruise missiles and US-based ICBMs hit their silos. The new five-year defence plan explicitly bases nuclear war strategy on decapitation. American forces are to 'render ineffective the total Soviet (and Soviet-allied) military and political power ~tructure'.'~T he five-year plan also calls for 'investment on weapon systems that render the accumulated Soviet equipment stocks obsolescent'. 'Costs on the Soviets' are to be imposed, 'by raising uncertainty regarding their ability to accomplish some of their higher-priority mission^'.'^ The expectation is that the effort of the Soviet Union to keep up with the US in the arms race will be so exacting that their civilian economy will collapse. On this view the US must prepare itself to gain vicrory over the Soviet Union. Eugene Rostow believes that we are living in 'a pre-war and not a post-war ~orld'.'~B efore his appointment to the staff of the National Security Council, Harvard historian Richard Pipes had criticised the nuclear war plans of previous administrations because 'deeply embedded in all our plans is the notion of punishing the aggressor rather than defeating him'. Pipes now makes explicit the connection between the arms buildup and the goal of transforming Soviet society. 'Soviet leaders would have to choose,' Pipes has said, 'between peacefully changing their communist system. .. or going to war'.27 The plans of the Reagan administration for conducting war with the East include special operations, or guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and psychological warfare. The five-year Pentagon plan calls for 'revitalising and enhancing special operation forces to project United States power where the use of conventional forces would be premature, inappropriate, or infea~ible'.'~ As with NSC-68, the goals are total. A senior White House official has stated that Reagan has 'approved an 8-page national security document that "undertakes a campaign aimed at internal reform in the Soviet Union and shrinkage of the Soviet empire" '.29 The strategic doctrines and operational programme of the Reagan administration essentially return us to Truman, NSC-68 and the other war plans of the 1948-50 period. But what of the Kennedy and Nixon administrations, the other two periods in which a concerted effort was made to develop an operational warfighting capacity using nuclear weapons? The continuity among all four periods is empire. In each case, Washington decision makers found it necessary to develop and implement new programmes taken in defence of American interests. Passage of these pro216 THE SOCIALIST REGISTER 1983 grammes involved a major effort and a review of the traditional issues that divided the foreign policy elite. For Washington decision makers these changes constituted a 'project', a redefinition of the role of the US as the guarantor of the world order. Accompanying the project was an ambitious modernisation programme. Between 1948 and 1950, Truman took the steps that transformed the US into the active leader in creating and protecting an international system. By 1950, the US had given economic and military assistance to Europe, and made a substantial military effort in Korea. From a post-war low the defence budget had more than tripled. An atomic arsenal had been created that could be used in a war with the Soviet Union. Domestic opposition to an active international role had been swept aside. By 1960 new tensions appeared in the system, tensions that seemed to require different military capabilities. Kennedy was concerned with the spread of revolutionary movements in underdeveloped countries, particularly in the case of Cuba. Using methods ranging from assassination to full-scale invasion, Kennedy tried to overthrow the Castro government. American foreign policy and defence interests seemed threatened in Indochina as well. During the first two years of his administration, Kennedy defined revolutionary movements and accompanying regional instability as grave threats to the US, and yet found Washington's capacity to respond quite inadequate. Something had to be done. The answer was 'flexible response' or the development of capabilities against national liberation movements as well as preparing the nuclear force structure for use in a variety of situations short of all-out war. By 1962 Kennedy had created a defence posture that permitted a more active programme of intervention and at least the illusion of being able to fight a limited war.30 Because of the more adequate defence preparations, Moscow, it was thought, would be deterred from responding to American actions in underdeveloped countries. By the early-seventies the world order that the US had organised was beginning to unravel. Control could no longer be exercised through the comparatively simple management of a system. Bretton Woods was defunct. International financial adjustments, such as the convertibility of the dollar, were necessary. Inter-capitalist competition increased. After making a major commitment in Southeast Asia, the US was all but defeated. The Nixon Doctrine, pledging support to allies capable of helping themselves, but avoiding a direct US commitment, was one kind of evidence demonstrating the limits of American military power in the third world. Another was the use of the 'China card', a more determined effort to take advantage of tensions existing inside the Communist bloc. Domestically, the political situation, especially in the Watergate atmosphere, weighed against a sustained remilitarism. In this context, Nixon and Kissinger felt it was important to demonstrate American NUCLEAR STRATEGIES AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY 217 power. Increased strength in nuclear weapons was seen as providing additional leverage for American policy makem3' By 1980 the process of deterioration had proceeded still further. Summit meetings among the leading capitalist nations had become no more than rhetorical exercises. The structure of US alliances was more volatile and opportunist. Iran demonstrated the impotence of the US to control political developments in a region of central interest. While the contours of the empire could still be seen, the substance of the system was more precarious. Nuclear warfighting scenarios and operational improvements appeared again. In each of the four periods, the executive branch reoriented the global position of the US, often against domestic as well as international opposition. Under Truman, the main structures of the post-war order were put into place. Under Kennedy, a new focus on revolutionary movements in the third world was adopted. Under Nixon, the US began the difficult adjustment to the limits that had been placed on American power. Under Reagan, the US is continuing to act as an imperial power, but after the structures set up for maintaining orderly economic growth and political control have been severely weakened-in some cases to the point of collapse. Nuclear warfighting strategies were instrumental in this process. By contrast, the years 1950-60, 1963-8 and 1976-8 did not call for such major adjustments in the world role for the US. And the strategic doctrines of this period have been closer to deterrence. Over the post-war years Washington retained its commitment to containment. Yet, its ability to secure this policy through economic, political and conventional military means has gradually diminished. A tendency to redefine containment as rollback, focused either on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe or against successful revolutions in the third world, has proved remarkably persistent. There has also been an increased reliance on nuclear weapons and atomic diplomacy as substitutes for control through economic and political organisations. The post-war order is over. The US must adjust. Failure to do so will only lead to desperation. And the danger is that, in this desperation, nuclear weapons will be used. NOTES 1. See Robert Aldridge, First-Strike (Boston, South End Press, 1983). 2. See especially Richard Halloran, 'Pentagon Draws Up First Strategy for Fighting a Long Nuclear War', New York Times, May 30, 1982, pp. 1, 12. 3. See William Broad, 'Nuclear Pulse: Awakening to the Chaos Factor', Science, Vol. 212, May 29,1981;~1~0.0 9-1012. 4. Christopher Paine, 'A False START', The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, August1 September 1982. 5. Bernard Brodie, The Absolute Weapon, 1946. 6. 'Victory is Possible', Foreign Policy, Summer, 1980. 218 THE SOCIALIST REGISTER 1983 7. Colin Gray, 'Across the Nuclear Divide', International Security, Summer 1977. 8. Richard Pipes, 'Why the Soviet Union Thinks it Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War', Commentary, March 1977. 9. See David Alan Rosenberg, 'A Smoking Radiating Ruin at the End of Two Hours": Documents on American Plans for a Nuclear War with the Soviet Union', International Security, Winter 1981/82, p. 13. 10. On this point see Anders Boserup, 'Deterrence and Defence', Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, December 1981. 11. See Fred Kaplan, Wizards of Armageddon, (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1983). 12. John Newhouse, Cold Dawn: The Story of SALT, (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973). 13. For an assessment of the successes and failures of this strategy see Barry Blechman, Force Without War, (Washington, Brookings, 1979). 14. 'Call to Mutiny', E.P. Thompson and Dan Smith, eds., Protest and Survive, (New York, Monthly Review Press, 1981). 15. On the deterioration of Carter's commitment to a minimal deterrence position see Thomas Powers, 'Thinking About World War 111', Atlantic, November 1982. 16. For an analysis of the impact of this dispute on the early history of the cold war see Daniel Yergin, Shattered Peace, (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977). 17. For an example see the testimony of Eugene Rostow quoted in Aviation Week and Space Technology, June 29, 1981, p. 24; or Norman Podhoretz' sympathetic commentary in The Present Danger, (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1980). 18. 'The Sources of Soviet Conduct', Foreign Affairs, July 1947, pp. 576-86. 19. See NSC-2011 ('US Objectives With Respect to Russia'), August 18, 1948 included in Thomas Etzold and John Lewis Gaddis, Containment Documents on American Policy and Strategy: 1945-1950, (New York, Columbia University Press, 1978). NSC-2011 was drafted by Kennan. 20. NSC-68 ('United States Objectives and Programs for National Security'), April 14, 1959, in Etzold and Gaddis, op. cit. 21. See Gregg Herken, The Winning Weapon: The Atomic Bomb in the Cold War, 1945-50, (New York, Vintage, 1982), p. 228. 22. Ibid., p. 286. 23. Robert Scheer, 'With Enough Shovels', Playboy, December 1982, p. 154. 24. Halloren, op. cit. 25. Ibid. 26. Scheer, op. cit., p. 120. 27. Ibid., p. 122. 28. Halloren, op. cit. 29. Scheer, op. cit., p. 122. 30. Desmond Ball, Politics and Force Structure in the Kennedy Administration, (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1981). 31. See Desmond Ball, '~ijViu : The Return to Counterforce in the Nixon Administration', California Seminar on -Arms Control and Foreign Policy, occasional paper, December 1974. Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies at MIPT National Missile Defense and Russian American Relations by Walter C. Uhler About the Author | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 Welcome to visit the Center's STAR site (events, publications and discussions on nuclear disarmament related issues) - this information section is updated daily December 3, 1998 found Arizona's U.S. Senator Jon Kyl extolling the merits of national missile defense (NMD) to a large gathering of like-minded enthusiasts in Washington, D.C. Although his was a decidedly preliminary performance, designed to wet the appetite for the main event -- a pro-missile defense speech by Lady Margaret Thatcher, Kyl urged immediate steps -- perhaps first utilizing the Navy's AEGIS cruisers in a ship-based system -- to protect the entire (not just continental) United States from a missile attack by a "rogue" state, such as Iran, Iraq or North Korea. Dramatic events during the summer of 1998 appeared to support Kyl's sense of urgency. In July, the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, headed by former and future Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, issued its recommendations to Congress. Not only did the commission conclude that, within five years, Iran and North Korea could develop missiles able to strike U.S. territory, it also found that "the threat to the United States posed by these emerging capabilities is broader, more mature, and evolving more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the intelligence community."1 Events on the ground appeared to buttress the commission's conclusions. In May, Pakistan and India had conducted underground nuclear tests. Iran flew its first Shahab 3 medium range missile in July. And, most ominously, on August 31, North Korea launched a three-stage Taepodong-I missile over Japan in an attempt to put a satellite in orbit -- leading to speculation by some analysts that it could strike parts of Alaska or Hawaii. Senator Kyl knew quite well that the missile defense systems he advocated would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1972. Kyl also knew that Russia, the only state possessing a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the United States, believed that the treaty remained the cornerstone of strategic stability. Nevertheless, he seemed quite willing to risk alienating Russia in order to deploy missile defense. Knowing that his words were being broadcast by C-SPAN, I sought the reason for his unconcern about Russia. Our exchange went something like this: UHLER: Senator Kyl, I'm Walt Uhler -- with the Department of Defense. What about Russia's sensibilities concerning missile defense? KYL: During the Cold War there were two schools of thought about how to deal with the Soviet Union. One school thought the Soviet Union should be accommodated. The other, led by President Reagan, forced the issue. We now know who was right. Like Reagan, I feel that we should explain our point of view to the Russians, but if they object, we must proceed. They eventually will come along.2 Although Kyl did not specify how Reagan "forced" the issue, it is safe to conjecture that every conferee knew what he meant. For it is an unquestioned assumption among political conservatives in the United States, and among an even a broader segment of its populace, that President Reagan's massive arms buildup during the 1980s -- especially his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, also known as "Star Wars") -- precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union. National missile defense enthusiasts are not shy about this matter. On June 20, 2001 one of the biggest NMD cheerleaders, U.S. Representative Curt Weldon, was more explicit in an article titled, "Bush can follow Reagan's lead in policy on missile defense," published in The Philadelphia Inquirer. Congressman Weldon is the author H.R 4, which made it the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense. According to Weldon, "when George W. Bush made his first visit to Europe recently, it was like a rerun of Ronald Reagan's first visit to Europe in 1982, when a new president with a new defense vision faced skittish European leaders and a hostile Russia. What did Reagan do in the face of such opposition? He did what comes naturally to wise statesmen facing decisions of great consequence. He faced down the protests, reassured our allies, called Moscow's bluff, and went ahead." Although Weldon does not specifically identify the elements of Reagan's "new defense vision," he does assert that calling Moscow's bluff led to a "sweeping" international victory.3 Although Weldon's article attempts to connect Reagan in 1982 with Bush in 2001 on the issue of national missile defense, Reagan's famous Star Wars speech was not delivered until March 1983. True, in October 1981 the president had discussed missile defenses as a potential solution to the vulnerability of America's ICBMs.4 And it also is true that America's 1982 Defense Guidance urged the pursuit of "competitive strategies;"5 or the development of "weapons that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment."6 Specifically proposed was "prototype development of space-based weapon systems."7 But 1982 also was the year when the nuclear freeze movement gained great momentum. The most persuasive evidence indicates that Reagan's Star Wars speech was intended to halt that movement, to "break something new"8 that would "provide the nation with something reassuring that might stem the growth of the freeze."9 Furthermore, Weldon's historical revisionism overlooks the fact that Reagan's rhetoric and arms buildup brought the world to the edge of the nuclear abyss. The Soviet Union's KGB inaugurated Operation RYAN (Raketno Yadernnoe Napadenie), or an unduly frantic search for evidence that America was contemplating a surprise nuclear attack, soon after Reagan's inauguration. In late September 1983 -- the year of Reagan's "Evil Empire" and "Star Wars" speeches and shoot-down of Korean Airlines flight 007 by a Soviet interceptor -- and thus when mutual suspicions were at their peak, "an Oko satellite reported that a massive U.S. ICBM launch had taken place."10 Fortunately, the duty officer, Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov, concluded that it was a false alarm and did not pass the warning up the chain of command.11 Unfortunately for Petrov, he was removed from his position and forced into early retirement.12 In November matters became even more serious. A U.S. - NATO exercise, called Able Archer, tested "the command and communications procedures for the release and use of nuclear weapons,"13 prompting Moscow KGB "Center" to issue a flash alert for all information indicating that the U.S. was preparing an imminent nuclear strike. This was subsequently seen to be an extremely serious matter because, "prevailing nuclear doctrine at the time held that in the face of an impending nuclear attack, the Soviets should have sought to avoid disaster by launching a preemptive nuclear attack of their own."14 Moscow did upgrade "the alert status of twelve of its nuclear-capable fighter aircraft" and "in East Germany and in Poland, Soviet forces began to prepare for a retaliatory nuclear strike,"15 lending credence to the conclusion of Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky that these events brought the Soviet Union and the United States closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis.16 A former CIA director, Robert Gates, attributed the Soviet Union's alarmist behavior to being "out of touch"17 or to their "growing desperation."18 But surely, much of the blame for this hair- trigger tension can be traced back to the reckless rhetoric and behavior of the Reagan administration. Even Reagan professed to be "perplexed but disturbed"19 by the KGB's response, and the thought that the Soviet leaders might believe the United States capable of such action "contributed to his desire for face-to-face contact with Soviet leaders."20 Thus, one might ask what, indeed, did President Reagan's Star Wars program accomplish prior to the arrival of Mikhail Gorbachev on the world's stage in March 1985.. Except for the hair-trigger tension of 1983, we have Matthew Evangelista's considered conclusion that it accomplished nothing. As of March 1985, according to Evangelista, "none of the Reagan administration's expectations for the SDI's impact on the USSR had come true. There was no massive, economy- busting increase in Soviet military expenditures, no concessions on arms control, and no interest in 'sharing' SDI with the United States."21 The main thrust of the Star Wars argument, however, concerns moves made by Mikhail Gorbachev. I heard it, most recently, on June 28, 2001, when another NMD enthusiast, Robert Pfaltzgraff (Professor of International Security Studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and President of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis) told a gathering of national missile defense enthusiasts in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania that Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the end of his presentation, I rose to request evidence to support his assertion. Rather than answer me, however, the floor was turned over to Ambassador Henry Cooper, former head of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization under the elder President Bush. Cooper assured me that, based upon his personal involvement in arms control negotiations, especially with Marshall Sergei Akhromeyev, the Soviet leadership knew it was defeated when Mikhail Gorbachev failed to persuade Reagan to abandon in his SDI program at Reykjavik in October, 1986. Adjournment of the afternoon session immediately after Cooper's response prevented further dialogue. But his history had a familiar ring to it. It had been presented in a book by Peter Schweizer, Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy that Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union. And it was just as erroneous.22 First, Schweizer erroneously claims that Gorbachev's "perestroika was a consequence of Reagan policy" because "with the Reagan administrations commitment to high-technology systems such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, economic reform became a necessary evil."23 Anyone familiar with the thinking of Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov might find such an assertion to be plausible. But actual participants, such as V. V. Shlykov (Department Chief of the Main Intelligence Administration of the Soviet General Staff, 1980-88), Roald Sagdeev, former head of the Soviet Space Research Institute, and Aleksandr Yakovlev, one of Gorbachev's closest advisors, claim otherwise. According to Shlykov, "The notion that Gorbachev's perestroika was started as a result of Reagan's Star Wars program was concocted in the West and is completely absurd."24 Sagdeev told American Sovietologist, Matthew Evangelista, that SDI had "absolutely zero influence"25 on the origins of perestroika. When Yakovlev was asked to assess the impact of Reagan's defense spending on the new leadership, he stated that "it played no role. None....Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American President was Reagan or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it....There have been better and smarter Presidents. I can't say that Reagan played a major role..."26 Schweizer correctly notes that Star Wars worried influential individuals within the Soviet military and the scientific community.27 In fact, in 1983 Yuri Andropov authorized the Soviet Union's ongoing investigation into potential ballistic missile defense applications to escalate from Fon-1 (advanced concept and technology development) to Fon-2 (engineering development).28 Nevertheless, some of the Soviet Union's most prominent scientists, such as Yevgenii Velikov and Roald Sagdeev, "quickly focused their attention on the dangers posed by an arms race in space weaponry, including SDI."29 A clear indication that Schweizer's effort is more a political polemic than a serious work of history can be found at the end of his book. The last chapter of his book, discounting the five- page epilogue, ends with the Reykjavik Summit of October 1986. Although Gorbachev had been in power but nineteen months at the time of this historic meeting (and had five more years of rule ahead of him) Schweizer claims that "the Reykjavik Summit proved a watershed meeting in many ways."30 Continued See also our special section: How Should Russia Respond to the Impending US NMD Deployment? Your questions and comments to STAR Site Editor | STAR Forum Search the STAR site Footnotes 1) Bradley Graham, Hit to Kill: The New Battle Over Shielding America From Missile Attack (New York, Public Affairs, 2001) p.44. 2) Walter C. Uhler, "Misreading the Soviets," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2000, p. 69. 3) U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, "Bush can follow Reagan's lead in policy on missile defense," The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 20, 2001. 4) Frances Fitzgerald, Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan Star Wars and the end of the Cold War (New York, Simon & Schuster, 2000), p. 519, note 197 5) Walter C. Uhler, "Misreading the Soviet Threat," The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, March 2001, p. 171. 6) Fitzgerald, p. 200. 7) Ibid. 8) Ibid. p. 203. 9) Ibid. 10) Steven J. Zaloga, The Kremlin's Nuclear Sword: The Rise and Fall of Russia's Strategic Nuclear Forces (Washington DC, Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002), p. 201. 11) Ibid. 12) Ibid. 13) Garthoff, The Great Transition, p. 138. 14) Beth A. Fischer, The Reagan Reversal: Foreign policy and the End of the Cold War (Columbia, MO, University of Missouri Press, 1997), p. 131. 15) Ibid. p. 130. 16) Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story (New York, Harper Collins, 1990), p. 605. 17) Robert M. Gates, From the Shawdows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1996), p. 273. 18) 18 Ibid. p. 258. 19) Garthoff, p.139. 20) Ibid. 21) Matthew Evangelista, Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War (Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1999) p. 245. 22) Beth Fischer (The Reagan Reversal, note 14) assigns much personal credit to Reagan for bringing the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion -- but not in a manner that can give much comfort to those who cite Reykjavik as the turning point. Fischer concludes that, in 1984 -- after Reagan learned how close the world came to accidental nuclear war in November 1983 -- he subordinated his hard line Soviet policy in order to pursue "cooperation and understanding." Fischer, p.142. She adds, however, "Gorbachev's role in bringing about the end of the cold war cannot be overstated." pp.145-46. 23) Peter Schweizer, Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union (New York, Atlantic Monthly Press, 1994), p. 198. 24) Michael Ellman and Vladimir Kontorovich ed., The Destruction of the Soviet Economic System: An Insider's History (Armonk, NY, M.E. Sharpe, 1998), p. 57. 25) Evangelista, p. 242 26) Aleksandr Yakovlev, The New Yorker, November 2, 1992 27) For example, "Col. A. I. Sazhin ... told a group of diplomats and intelligence officers that military officials believed the SDI system might prove 90 percent effective." Schweizer, p. 215 28) Zaloga, p. 205 29) Evangelista, p.237 30) Schweizer, p. 276 Yet one searches Schweizer's book in vain for the devastating impact of Reykjavik on the Soviet Union. Instead the reader finds suppositions about the impact of Star Wars rather than proof. For example, Schweizer recounts the discussions of John Poindexter (a member of Reagan's delegation) with Marshal Akhromeyev to demonstrate that the prominent Soviet military officer "had an abject fear of SDI."31 Schweizer also asserts, rather than proves, that "Gorbachev's willingness to agree to dramatic cuts [in his strategic and intermediate nuclear forces] and link them to strategic defense was further evidence of just how desperate Moscow was for relief from the West."32 Thus, Reagan's refusal to bargain away Star Wars was a crushing blow because "Soviet hopes of eliminating the SDI research program were dashed once and for all."33 As this paper will demonstrate, Schweizer's is an extremely poor, biased and incomplete history of the Cold War's culmination. But it merits the consideration given to it here because Richard Pipes, an extremely erudite and serious student of Russia's history, once wrote that Schweizer's book -- although it "lacks scholarly rigor" and is based upon interviews, "many of which cannot be verified" -- "comes closer to explaining the end of the Cold War" than Raymond Garthoff's extraordinarily researched book, The Great Transition.34 Pipes (a member of the CIA's "Team B," author of the alarmist and now thoroughly discredited article, "Why the Soviet Union Thinks It Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War" and advisor to President Reagan during the first years of his first term) notes with approval that Schweizer "opens with three quotations from three high Soviet officials ... conceding publicly that Reagan's programs, such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, 'accelerated the decline of the Soviet Union.'"35 Lending further scholarly weight to the Star Wars argument is Martin Malia's book, The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991. Malia wrote, "SDI posed a technological and economic challenge the Soviets could neither ignore nor match."36 He adds that "former Soviet military personnel and political analysts generally agree that the Soviet Union's inability to keep up its half of the arms race, in particular regard to SDI, was a principal factor in triggering perestroika."37 According to Malia, "the crucial turning point was the INF Treaty of 1987...Gorbachev bowed out of the Cold War essentially on the West's terms and without obtaining any concession on SDI. No doubt one reason he did so was that by 1987...the internal difficulties of perestroika had become acute."38 There's plenty of evidence, much of it emerging after Schweizer, Pipes and Malia offered their interpretations of events, to refute every claim made for Reagan and the Star Wars interpretation. First is the emerging evidence that in 1985, the Soviets undertook "a separate effort, code-named Protivodeistviye (Counteraction)...as an asymmetric response to SDI, aimed at improving the ability of ICBMs to survive against space-based weapons."39 That effort's greatest contribution was the Topol-M ICBM that was specifically designed to counter Star Wars.40 The Topol-M not only survived the collapse of the Soviet Union, but also the economic duress that plagued post-Soviet Russia during its first decade of existence. The first ten Topol-Ms were deployed in 1998. Ten more were deployed in 1999. Proponents of the Star Wars interpretation might want to reconsider their operating hypothesis, based upon that fact alone. According to reports gathered by Nikolai Sokov, "Topol-M's warhead is precision-guided or uses other technology with the same effect ...this single-warhead ICBM carries more decoys and penetration aids than a ten-warhead Peacekeeper (MX). Reportedly, the warhead is hardened, and only a direct hit by an antimissile could stop it on the descending trajectory...Topol-M's booster is intended to reduce the duration and the altitude of the active (boost) phase of the trajectory. This was done specifically to avoid the impact of 'various-types' of antimissile defense systems, such as ultra-high-frequency emissions, lasers and so forth -- a clear reference to the 'exotic' 'Star Wars' space-based systems."41 With this evidence in mind, Mikhail Gorbachev's statement to President Reagan at Geneva, in November 1985, takes on added significance. Referring to Star Wars, Gorbachev said, "I think you should know that we have already developed a response. It will be effective and far less expensive than your project, and be ready for use in less time."42 In this context, Roald Sagdeev's assertion that "Marshal Akhromeyev and his people never attributed much to SDI's technical prospects."43 becomes more plausible than John Poindexter's. Thus, also gaining plausibility are the assertions of M.I. Gerasev (Institute for the USA and Canada), General M. A. Gareev, and V. V. Shlykov that denigrate SDI's significance.44 Finally, Professor Malia's interpretation of the INF Treaty does not withstand compelling evidence to the contrary. First, we now know that Andrei Sakharov -- who called Star Wars "a Maginot line in space" -- persuaded Gorbachev in February 1987 to avoid allowing his concerns about Star Wars to prevent him from negotiating the INF Treaty (if not the START treaty).45 Second, the incursion, not only into Soviet airspace, but into Red Square of Mathias Rust's Cesna airplane in May gave Gorbachev the excuse he needed to purge the military. Gorbachev subsequently remarked, "Let everyone here and in the West know where the power is -- it is in the political leadership, in the Politburo." Gorbachev had overcome a major obstacle to his pursuit of "mutual security."46 Third, and perhaps most significantly, immediately after the signing of the INF Treaty, Gorbachev and his Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze "stood up, beaming, and raised their arms straight up in a victory gesture."47 However, two other beliefs prevent such evidence about the Soviet collapse from receiving an unbiased hearing among missile enthusiasts. First, crediting Grobachev, and not Star Wars contradicts what many of America's defense and national security specialists consider an article of faith: the Soviet Union was a totalitarian system that was impervious to internal reform. As Stephen F. Cohen has noted, the dominant view of the totalitarian school "held that 'no fundamental changes were likely, short of the violent destruction' of the Soviet system."48 Cohen quotes the following from the 1953 edition of 'the field's best textbook," Merle Fainsod's How Russia is Ruled: "The totalitarian regime does not shed its police-state characteristics; it dies when power is wrenched from its hands."49 During the 1960s and 1970s, the totalitarian school of Soviet history came under assault by a new generation of "Revisionist" historians. But on the eve of President Reagan's election, the totalitarian interpretation reemerged, thanks, in part, to an article ("Dictatorships and Double Standards") that Jeane Kirkpatrick published in the November 1979 issue of Commentary magazine. There she attempted to demonstrate that authoritarian regimes "are more compatible with U.S, interests" than totalitarian regimes, because they are more susceptible to "progressive liberalization and democratization." On the other hand, "the history of this century provides no grounds for expecting that radical totalitarian regimes will transform themselves."50 Obviously, those who subscribe to the totalitarian interpretation of Soviet history must look for some external cause when attempting to explain the Soviet Union's demise. That's why two of the most prominent members of the school, Richard Pipes and Martin Malia, turned to Reagan and Star Wars. And that's why so many lesser scholars and defense analysts persist in their belief, notwithstanding the substantial evidence to the contrary. Yet, they would do well to recall the many conservatives who criticized Reagan, near the end of his administration, for creating a false euphoria and for giving the Soviet Union breathing space.51 Writing in Newsweek, a prominent conservative columnist, George Will, asserted that "Reagan has accelerated the moral disarmament of the West -- actual disarmament will follow."52 Obviously, Gorbachev's radical reforms demolish the totalitarian shibboleth. As Gorbachev scholar, Archie Brown, has observed, "from the spring of 1989 it is scarcely meaningful to describe the Soviet Union as a Communist system. It is not only that the greater part of Marxist- Leninist dogma had been abandoned by then -- and by the party leader himself -- but also that the most important defining characteristics of a Communist system, whether structural or ideological, had ceased to apply as a result of policies introduced during the period of radical reform which got seriously under way in 1987 and became more fundamental in 1988."53 More recently, Professor George W. Breslauer has concluded: "On his own terms, then, Gorbachev was successful in deligitimizing the inherited approach to political life at home and abroad and its hostility to a democratic political order and a post-Cold War international order. Indeed, such change may be his principal claim to fame as a transformational leader."54 Breslauer also observes that "Gorbachev went far to fulfill...many of the prescriptions of those scholars who have examined the lessons of evolutionary strategies for transforming regimes in non-Leninist settings."55 Perhaps even more devastating to the totalitarian interpretation, however, is the scholarship demonstrating that the Soviet Union began throwing off its quasi-totalitarian traits immediately after the death of Joseph Stalin. For example, Robert English's recent book, Russia and the Idea of the West, persuasively demonstrates the inexorable post-Stalin inroads made by Western ideas until they were sufficiently powerful to capture leaders such a Gorbachev and permit them to gain leading positions within the Soviet system.56 American "exceptionalism" is the second reason why missile defense enthusiasts doubt Gorbachev and credit Star Wars. The arguments of exceptionalists go something like this: "Why should a country on a mission from God sully itself with arms control agreements and other compromises with lesser nations, when its technological prowess will provide its people with the invulnerability necessary for the unimpeded, unilateral fulfillment of their historic destiny."57 Exceptionalists often are technological utopians, but foreign policy "realists" and, consequently, unilatreralists. The only argument against American exceptionalism -- which became more virulent in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse and became known as triumphalism -- is to demonstrate that neither Reagan, nor Star Wars (and thus neither realism, unilateralism nor technology), but Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of "mutual security" brought an end to the Cold War. We are quite aware, by now, of Gorbachev's pronouncements about mutual security as well as his actions to match deed with word. Not only his repudiation of the Brezhnev Doctrine or his historic announcement of a 500,000 man troop reduction, but his denunciation of the use of force during his historic speech at the United Nations in December 1988. We know from Anatoly Chernyaev's memoirs that, in preparation for his meeting with Reagan at Reykjavic, Gorbachev explicitly articulated his concern for mutual; security: "We are by no means talking about weakening our security. But at the same time we have to realize that if our proposals imply weakening U.S. security, then there won't be any agreement. Our main goal now is to prevent the arms race from entering a new stage."58 Chernyaev adds, however, that at that same Politburo meeting, "directions were issued to focus on the quality of weapons in case we failed to prevent a new phase in the arms race."59 Most persuasive, however, is Raymond Garthoff's conclusion that "Gorbachev repeatedly took the initiative to go beyond American positions, to make greater sacrifices of Soviet military advantages than those called for by the United States, both in unilateral actions and in pushing the United States to go further in negotiations."60 Continued See also our special section: How Should Russia Respond to the Impending US NMD Deployment? Your questions and comments to STAR Site Editor | STAR Forum Search the STAR site Footnotes 31) Ibid. p. 277. 32) Ibid. p. 278. 33) Ibid. p. 276. Although Schweizer closes his book with the Reykjavik Summit, his account addressed "a flurry of hard blows to a weakened Soviet system." (p.284.), including challenges in the third world, an arms buildup, denial of Western technology and a drop in oil prices, that brought the collapse. 34) Richard Pipes, "Misinterpreting the Cold War: The Hardliners Were Right," Foreign Affairs, Jan./Feb. 1995. 35) Ibid 36) Martin Malia, The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991 (The Free Press, New York, 1994), p. 415. 37) Ibid. 38) Ibid. p. 416. 39) Zaloga, p. 205. Nikolai Sokov, Russian Strategic Modernization: Past and Future (Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), p. 47. 40) Sokov, p. 47. 41) Ibid. pp. 132-133. 42) Mikhail Gorbachev, Memoirs (New York, Doubleday, 1995), p. 407 43) Evangelista, pp. 336-337. 44) Ellman and Kontorovich, pp. 56-58 45) Richard Lourie, Sakharov: A Biography (Hanover, NH, Brandeis University Press, 2002), p. 358. 46) Susanne Sternthal, Gorbachev's Reforms: De-Satlinization through Demilitarization (Westport, CT, Praeger, 1997), p. 88. 47) George W. Breslauer, Gorbachev and Yeltsin as Leaders (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 76. 48) Stephen F. Cohen, Rethinking the Soviet Experience: Politics and History Since 1917 (Oxfore, UK, Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 25. 49) Ibid. 50) Jeane Kirkpatrick, "Dictatorships and double Standards," Commentary (November, 1979), p. 44. 51) Fitzgerald. p. 461. 52) Ibid. p. 467. 53) Archie Brown, The Gorbachev Factor (Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 310 54) Breslauer, p. 279. 55) Ibid. p. 285. 56) Walter C. Uhler, "Gorbachev's Revolution," The Nation (December 31, 2001). 57) Walter C. Uhler, "Missile Shield or Holy Grail?", The Nation (January 28, 2002). 58) Anatoly Chernyaev, My Six Years with Gorbachev (University Park, PA, Penn State Press, 2000), pp. 83-84. 59) Ibid. p. 84. 60) Garthoff, p. 765. Garthoff was mistaken, however, when he concluded that "although the restructuring of the Soviet Union failed, the restructuring of international relations succeeded."61 Having failed to understand the reasons for the Cold War's end, the United States pronounced a "New world Order" that, first and foremost meant that the U.S. "forestall the rise of 'peer competitors.'"62 Partisan politics were also at play. In 1994, Frank Gaffney (a former assistant to one of the Reagan administration's most notorious hawks, Richard Perle, and head of a conservative think tank) convinced Congressman Newt Gingrich to include in his 1994 "Contract with America" a provision "requiring the Defense Department to deploy antiballistic missile systems capable of defending the United States against ballistic missile attacks."63 He worked tirelessly to convince leaders of the Republican Party that "missile defense could be a winning issue in the 1996 presidential election against Bill Clinton."64 And although additional evidence has emerged recently to further expose the partisan nature of the Rumsfeld Commission's report,65 concerns by Republicans and the government of Israel about the transfer of missile technology from Russia to Iran were legitimate. They appear to remain legitimate today.66 Nevertheless, misquided faith in Reagan's legacy, especially concernng the efficacy of weapons technology, plays a large role in the Bush administration's decision to withdraw from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty next month in order to pursue various paths to deploying a layered national missile defense system. And this, notwithstanding a national intelligence estimate (in January 2002) that acknowledges, according to one report, that "rogue states or terrorist groups are unlikely to use missiles as their method of choice for delivering weapons of mass destruction."67 Even prior to the reemergence of national missile defense in 1998, however, the U.S. had squandered its honeymoon with post-Soviet Russia by failing to deliver the economic aid Russians expected and by reneging on Secretary of State Baker's promise to Gorbachev that, with his help to permit a unified Germany within NATO, "there would be ironclad guarantees 'that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward'"68 Making matters worse was the bombing of Yugoslavia, which violated the 1997 "Founding Act" that committed Russia and NATO to refrain "from the threat or use of force against each other as well as against any other state, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence in any manner inconsistent with the United Nations Charter."69 Notwithstanding such errors and policies, President Clinton's Secretary of State would claim that the U.S. "stands taller than other nations, and therefore sees further."70 Not to be outdone in hubris, the younger Bush administration would have its incoming Secretary of State, Colin Powell, suggest that "the U.S. can do pretty much what it wants because its sophisticated democracy makes it politically and morally superior to the rest of the world -- and sometimes even exempts it from international norms and treaties."71 Were one to examine William Zimmerman's superb analysis of the foreign policy views of Russian-- based upon polls conducted in 1993, 1995, 1999 and a reinterview in 2000 -- he would find that the Russian attitude toward America had deteriorated significantly.72 Finding that his study of Russian attitudes confirmed the categories -- of elites, attentive public and masses -- found in studies of the foreign policy views of Americans, Zimmerman also confirmed that Russia's attentive public serves much the same purpose as it does in America -- to adopt and transmit elite opinions to the largely ill-informed masses. He also found that, as in the United States, the attentive public does not play its designated role very well when resistance among the masses is high. As Zimmerman notes, "the fundamental instinct of mass publics is isolationist."73 Elites are both more "militantly internationalist" and more "cooperatively internationalist." Nevertheless, "in 1999 and 2000, as they had been in 1993 and 1995, the [Russian] mass publics were more isolationist than were the elites, though they were significantly more hard line than they had been in 1993 and 1995."74 During the 1990s, increasing wariness, if not hostility, toward the United States caused Russia's leaders to reject Gorbachev's vision of mutual security and adopt foreign policy realism. Thus, Vladimir Putin might very well be Russia's foremost realist. Yet Putin's realism is "cooperatively internationalist," especially since September 11th, when he cast his country's lot with the U.S. in its war against terrorism. Putin recognizes, as one analyst recently noted, "that an alliance with the West is the only path to Russian economic progress and protection against Islamic fundamentalism."75 However, as noted Russia scholar, Stephen F. Cohen, observed last November: "It is unlikely that Putin can stay the American course against terrorism without significant concessions, if only because he is surrounded by political elites deeply distrustful of Washington and unhappy with his decision."76 Writing in the April 15, 2002 issue of The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel and Cohen state that "the opinion [is] spreading across Moscow's political spectrum that the Bush Administration's war on terrorism now has less to do with helping Russia -- or any other country -- fight Islamic extremism on its borders than with establishing military outposts of a new (or expanded) American empire...with control over the region's enormous oil and gas reserves as its primary goal."77 Moreover, "not surprisingly, President Putin, Bush's alleged 'partner,' is coming under increasing high-level attack in Moscow as a result of White House policies. Putin's policies have unleashed angry charges that he is 'losing' Central Asia and the Caucasus while succumbing to US imperialism. Of special importance, and virtually without precedent in Soviet or Russian history, has been a series of published 'open letters' signed by retired generals, including one of former President Yeltsin's defense ministers, accusing Putin of 'selling out' the country and 'betraying' the nation's security and other vital interests."78 And it appears that elite sentiment is filtering down to the masses. According to one survey, "the number of Russians who regarded Russian-American relations as 'friendly' or 'good' dropped from 20 percent in September 2001 to 13 percent in March 2002."79 Thus, the Bush-Putin Summit being held as we speak might reverse an ominous trend. Atmospherics alone should help. But Russian and American analysts already are questioning the value of a written arms control agreement that fails to make the nuclear arms reductions irreversible, just as they are wondering whether the new NATO-Russia Council (NRC) will be any more satisfying than the highly disappointing NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council it replaces. A Public Opinion Foundation poll of 1,500 Russians, conducted just prior the Reykjavik summit that announced the new NRC, found that 52% of the respondents were "convinced that NATO is a security threat to Russia," (although only 44% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 35 thought so).80 A cynic might also question whether President Bush's signature on this nuclear pact will "begin the new era of U.S.-Russian relationships"81 as Mr. Bush claims, or whether it simply provides political cover for a useful subordinate on the eve of America's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. In either case, unless the U.S. and Russia come to some agreement on national missile defense or unless relations improve substantially, the American decision to deploy weapons in space -- already a foregone conclusion among America's missile defense enthusiasts -- will probably become the issue that strains relations to the breaking point. Because Russia already possesses the capability to penetrate any NMD system that the U.S. might deploy within the next fifteen to twenty years,82 and has serious doubts about America's ability to even deploy an effective system, the world must immediately worry more about China's response to America's post-ABM treaty NMD efforts (and thus India's and Pakistan's). But, at some point, given America's technological utopianism, American efforts to weaponize space will persuade Russia's leaders that the U.S. is not content with a limited NMD system designed to protect against rogue states, but intends to pursue a system that renders it invulnerable to any retaliatory strike, including Russia's. Given the enormous role that Russia's nuclear arsenal currently plays in defending the Russian people, such a move by the U.S. would constitute a hostile act that would demand a response and, consequently, Russia's return to the arms race. No longer could Russia afford even a well- founded complacency. About the Author Walter C. Uhler, the Defense Contract Management Agency's Chief of Operations for Lockheed Martin Delaware Valley, has studied and written about Russian and military history for approximately 30 years. He received a BA in Political Science and another in Russian language from the Pennsylvania State University. He also received a Certificate for completion of Russian Area Studies and a Masters of Public Administration from Penn State. His Master's Essay compared the weapons' acquisition practices of the US and the USSR. Articles, reviews and OP- EDs by Mr. Uhler have been published in The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, The Moscow Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Defense News, The Journal of Military History, the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Russian History, the Naval War College Review and Government Executive. The January 28, 2002 issue of The Nation contains his very relevant article, "Missile Shield or Holy Grail?" In addition, Mr. Uhler has testified about missile defense before state legislatures and has given radio interviews -- on defense matters and Russian-American relations -- to stations across the United States. Mr. Uhler has approximately twenty-five years of professional weapons' acquisition experience within the Department of Defense. Nevertheless he appears today in his capacity as a private citizen and scholar. Nothing contained in this article should be construed to represent the official position of DCMA or the Department of Defense. See also our special section: How Should Russia Respond to the Impending US NMD Deployment? Your questions and comments to STAR Site Editor | STAR Forum Search the STAR site Footnotes 61) Ibid. p. 774. 62) Barry R. Posen, "The Best Defense," The National Interest (Spring 2002), p. 125 63) Craig Eisendrath, Melvin A. Goodman, Gerald E. Marsh, The Phantom Defense: America's Pursuit of the Star Wars Illusion (Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, 2001), p. 39.. 64) Bradley Graham, p. 25. 65) Michael Dobbs, "The Missile Trail: An Intelligence Turnaround, How Politics Helped Redefine the Threat," Washington Post (January 14, 2002) 66) Michael Wines, "U.S. Expects Russian Help To Stem Nuclear Weapons: Link to Iranian Arms Program is a Priority," The New York Times (May 15, 2002). 67) Dobbs. 68) Leon V. Sigal, Hang Separately: Cooperative Security between the United States and Russia, 1985-1994 (New York, The Century Foundation Press, 2000), p. 56. 69) Robert S. McNamara and James G. Blight, Wilson's Ghost: Reducing the Risk of Conflict, Killing, and Catastrophe in the 21st Century (New York, Public Affairs, 2001), p. 87. 70) Anatol Leiven, "Against Russophobia," World Policy Journal (Winter 2000/01), p.25. 71) The Los Angeles Times, January 28, 2001. 72) William Zimmerman, The Russian People and Foreign Policy: Russian Elite and Mass Perspectives, 1993-2000 (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2002). 73) Ibid. p. 101. 74) Ibid. 75) Vladimir Shlapentokh, "The Rise of Russian Anti-Americanism after September 2001: Envy as a Leading Factor," Johnson's Russia List (May 7, 2002). 76) Stephen F. Cohen, "Second Chance With Russia," The Nation (November 5, 2001). 77) Katrina vanden Heuvel and Stephen F. Cohen, "Endangering US Security," The Nation (April 15, 2002). 78) Ibid. 79) Slapentokh. 80) Izvestia, May 15, 2002. 81) The New York Times, May 14, 2002. p.A8. 82) Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov has stated that "we are going to do everything to counter these threats when they take shape, if they ever take shape, which is to say not before 2015-2020." "Russia planning to counter US missile shield; defence minister." AFP (March 28, 2002) CDI Russia Weekly # 199. Air University Review, November-December 1981 The Gatsby Effect in U.S. Strategic Affairs Colonel Alton L. Elliott If one believes in the original immorality of the Russian strategic school and in the high moral pathos of nuclear retaliation, then one is a true follower of the new faith. But if one questions this indisputable proposition, then one is worse than a heretic or apostate, not worthy of ascending even to the porch of the Holy Temple of Strategic Analysis, where the initiated perform rites of passage--from the humility of deterrence of the pugnacity of counterforce capability.1 Henry Trofimenko This metaphor by Henry Trofimenko characterizes one facet of United States strategic thought. Indeed, U.S. strategists often appear to have arrived at "indisputable propositions" concerning the U.S.-Soviet strategic relationship, and a form of orthodoxy seems to pervade our current assumptions about strategic deterrence and strategic competition. However, Trofimenko is in error when he defines the theological condition as the primary way to understand U.S. military strategy. The nature of U.S. strategic thought often appears less governed by factors of religious faith, which can be said to exist on the basis of legitimate, intuitive expectations than by factors of a creative imagination that have little to do with faith or religion. Consequently, an additional metaphor is required to round out Trofimenko's view. We may add, for example, that U.S. strategic thought can also be understood, in part, as the results of a "Gatsby Effect," which, as suggested by novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald, promotes an inordinate claim on reality and provides its own certification.2 It is far from accurate to suggest that a literary metaphor is a reliable guide to all U.S. strategic perceptions. Trofimenko commits the exaggeration of describing "Western nuclear strategy" as a religious cult. Western nuclear strategy would be more easily understood, and perhaps more reasonable, if it were simply a religion, but it is not. Neither is it simply or wholly based on a self-certifying and illusionary reality. Yet, important segments of it may be. This article examines one area where "indisputable propositions" have been arrived at through a Jay Gatsby form of imagination—a form that precludes other equally reasonable propositions about strategic affairs—rather than by faith or analysis. It can be offered as a possible, if not indisputable, proposition that the views which a significant number of military strategists hold concerning Soviet concepts of war have symptoms of the Gatsby effect. Many military strategists have shown great consistency, over time, in constructing an incomplete reality of the U.S.-Soviet strategic relationship. Rather than subject the declared reality to a wider range of reviews, the tendency has been to certify what has been said by what has been said. Yet even a cursory examination, as given here, uncovers some gaps in a reality that has become a primary factor in U.S. military assessments of the U.S.-Soviet strategic relationship. This incomplete reality about Soviet strategic thinking appears to have originated in the Cold War period and seems destined to perpetuate the feelings if not the faith of that bygone era. As Daniel Yergin speculates in Shattered Peace: So the Cold War is still very much with us, as are the ever-perplexing questions about the Soviet Union's role in international politics and about the means, meaning, and measure of American security.3 In the writings of George Kennan, John Lewis Gaddis, and Daniel Yergin, one can uncover perhaps the most thorough documentation of the rise and demise of the Cold War and with it the illusions that formed so much of American foreign policy in the post-World War II period. These chroniclers, and those who have debated and revised their findings, show that there is nothing simple about the way American defense policies are created. If there is agreement on the origins of our policies, it is based on a belief in multiple causes and complicated interactions. However, among the many causes and interactions, it is possible to note that some are more prevalent than others. One possible conclusion which can be drawn from a study of post-World War II policy is that American policymakers prefer a single, simple short-term approach to foreign policy and strategic affairs. As indicated in George F. Kennan's Memoirs and the hundreds of Cold War debates since his "X" article, it appears that much of American defense policy can be explained by the urge and search for a single, uncomplicated solution for the problems of national security policy. American policy apparently comprehends only one doctrine at a time, one jingle or slogan, and one level of analysis and consensus as a means to define strategic relationships. The Truman, Eisenhower, and Nixon doctrines of "Containment," "Flexible Response," and "Realistic Deterrence" have provided an emphasis, a theory, and a certified short-term role for American defense behavior in the past. And these approaches have been based for the most part on narrowly focused substrategic objectives and were composed of less than durable assumptions about the nature of international competition. These are not necessarily contradictory factors if one considers the role of national security policy in a democratic society. Our pragmatic philosophy and the style of our electoral politics cannot, by any expectation, be held accountable for long-term strategies and consistent approaches to international relations. Unlike our Russian counterparts, who have the final doctrine (Soviet Marxism) and continuity of policy execution (Brezhnev for 16 years), we Americans are only able to declare the merits of a four- to eight-year theme without feeling responsible for its ultimate fulfillment or consequences. Such is the nature of American politics. Consequently, many American military strategists have found that Soviet behavior often fails to conform to the demands of our short-term themes, slogans, and military solutions. As a result, military planners have frequently perceived periods of "maximum danger," "weapons gaps," and "critical windows," which, in accordance with supporting arguments for more military power, could be overcome in spite of the "irrational" designs of Soviet Russia. That improvements in U.S. military power never seem to affect the Soviets as planned is a fact often lost from one "strategic" period to the next. However, no one should argue that the warnings and proposed solutions are not sincere, perhaps very often helpful, and given by men who have only the purist intentions regarding American security and world peace. Even so, the most reliable strategists, like Trofimenko's theologians and Fitzgerald's Gatsby, when guided by a single illusion rather than comprehensive assessments, are likely to produce confusion and possibly disaster. And if one examines the preferences of many military strategists today, it appears that much of what is called strategic thought has most often been derived from one-sided assessments of our military adversaries. Whether or not we grant ourselves great progress and analytical improvement since the one- sided assessments of the Cold War period, it is nevertheless interesting to recall some of the characteristics of Cold War military strategy. George Kennan provided perhaps the most disturbing charges when he noted that in the Cold War mode military planners were often responsible for exaggerating Soviet behavior and continually conjuring false images of Soviet irrationality. These images, according to Kennan, can become the daily companion of those who cultivate them so that any attempt to deny their reality appears as an act of treason or frivolity.4 "Thus the planner's dummy of the Soviet political personality took the place of the real thing as the image on which a great deal of American policy, and of American military effort, came to be based."5 Kennan saw in these tendencies and in the associated belief in a Soviet design for military world conquest the beginnings of the attitudes associated with the term cold war. Such attitudes, Kennan states, were the property of a small minority that included military budgeteers and nuclear strategists.6 As is noted by Daniel Yergin, these attitudes were the property of military men whose image of Russian aggressiveness led them to warn General Carl A. Spaatz in 1947 that the "USSR has moved so far along the aggression road that she must continue to move along the same way."7 A year later, James Webb, Director of the Bureau of the Budget, accused Air Force leaders of using scare tactics in public speeches to promote larger budget appropriations. For example, Air Force Secretary W. Stuart Symington and other Air Force officials had, according to Webb, disclosed intelligence reports about Soviet aircraft developments that suggested the Russians had overtaken America in such areas as jet fighters.8 These tactics, according to George Kennan, reflected Cold War attitudes. By 1950, the Cold War attitudes of individual defense leaders became institutionalized in the defense policy assessment known as NSC-68. This document reached the following conclusions about the Soviet view of war: The Kremlin is inescapably militant. The Soviets are possessed by a worldwide revolutionary movement which seeks to bring the free world under its domination. The Soviet Union's "fundamental design" necessitates the destruction of the United States.9 NSC-68 offered other interesting conclusions about the Soviet Union's "far larger share" of its gross national product for military spending and of the need for larger U.S. military budgets. Most important, these noted conclusions of NSC-68 went virtually unchallenged. The only significant disagreement came from two experts on the Soviet Union, George Kennan and Charles E. Bohlen, neither of whom at this point believed the Soviets had a world design. Both thought that caution guided Kremlin calculations and that the Soviets were sometimes only responding to Western actions.10 Our NSC-68 legacy remains operative today. Far too many military reports and briefings appear afflicted by those same attitudes that were a part of the first Cold War. Although Soviet and American military relations have not remained static since 1950, by most measures they appear no more dangerous than previously. Yet the Cold War images remain. Whether in the analysis of Presidential review memoranda, Department of Defense guidance, or budget issues, many military assessments continue to be driven by adherence to an old concept of a Soviet grand design based on the worst one can assume of an adversary. Today this is called "prudent planning." In recent years, as regards perceptions of the Soviet view of war, the nature of Soviet civil defense measures, Soviet designs on Western Europe, U.S. vulnerabilities, the utility of strategic arms talks, and Soviet participation in the politics of the Third World, an increasing number of U.S. military strategists, particularly those in uniform, have most often adopted a thoroughly pessimistic view. That view often includes the following propositions: The Soviets desire nuclear war with the United States and are waiting for the time when they can be sure to win. Soviet civil defense measures are so comprehensive and effective as to constitute a major strategic factor in the U.S.-Soviet relationship. The Soviets desire to attack and prevail, militarily and politically, over the whole of Western Europe. The Soviet military buildup, particularly in strategic forces, has been designed to render U.S. strategic forces vulnerable to a Soviet first strike. (The period of maximum danger is the mid to late 1980s.) Soviet military surrogates are operating throughout Africa and the Middle East, with great success, to undermine U.S. policy and provoke a variety of conflicts whose resolutions are beyond the scope of current U.S. military capabilities. To the extent that these propositions, which are reflected in most orthodox military literature, form the rationale for major U.S. weapon acquisitions or policy initiatives, current U.S. defense policy maintains its connection with the 1950s view of the Soviet threat. More important, an increasingly narrow set of assumptions, given recent DOD pronouncements on the Soviet threat, appears to be forming the United States strategic outlook for the 1980s. Therefore, the central problem of U.S. military strategy since 1950 remains. American strategists appear unable or unwilling to entertain more than one assessment at a time to defense policy problems, much less a progressive net assessment of an adversary, alternative military postures to support a given strategy, or more than one possible solution. In this sense, the main trends of our time remain consistent with our national security heritage of the post-World War II era and continue to produce less than a rewarding strategic relationship with the Soviets. Today there remains a willingness to accept the first, and usually the most pessimistic military perception of the Soviets and allow that first view to become the prime determinant of military strategy developments in any given period. Hence, the various hawkers of gaps, vulnerabilities, new strategic factors (such as civil defense), and even strategic optimism can rightly or wrongly generate several years of action and reaction without regard to long-term consequences. Moreover, it seems increasingly less important to obtain balance, moderation, and confluence in the factors which we in the military service allow to govern the development of our strategic views than to have an orthodox view whatever its origin. Whether we are satisfied with the bureaucratic or historical explanations of why this may be so, it is no happy prospect that such a condition could ever characterize the way military planners arrive at strategies. What may be most important at this point is that we seek to know which medieval humors govern what parts of our strategy development activities. If, as a part of the process by which U.S. military strategy is developed, one could incorporate the means to interrogate and understand the origins, the completeness, and the alternative utilities of strategic perceptions systematically, there would be less danger of the traditional tendency toward short-lived extremes in the military input to U.S. strategic affairs. In the sections that follow, the importance of obtaining alternative views is shown in an illustration of how two sides of a strategy input (namely the assessment of the Soviet view of war) have developed in the minds of Western strategists. American Views of Soviet Views One of the favorite preoccupations of Western military and civilian strategists has been the production of "authoritative" accounts on the Soviet views of war. That these accounts have become critical elements in military threat assessments and strategy debates is no mystery. After all, one's concept of warfare is theoretically linked to one's strategy, military force structure, and, to some extent, intentions. By analyzing the admixture of our opponent's concepts and capabilities, we are supposedly able to adjust the course of our own concepts and capabilities to support specific security goals. However, if we misinterpret the connections between adversary concepts and capabilities, we can wander far afield in the proper maintenance of our security objectives. If we, like Jay Gatsby, "invent" conceptions to which we must remain faithful, we forfeit control of our destiny to potential misunderstandings and fatal accidents. To the extent that U.S. military strategists rely on a less-than-complete rendering of the Soviet concept of war, we likewise face the danger of promoting strategic developments inappropriate to strategic reality. A case in point is the way Western strategists often render the Soviet view of war. One recent, although incomplete, reflection on the Soviet view of war is contained in the FY79 defense report to Congress. The report concludes that: the main thrust of the Soviet Union is toward expanding its political influence and establishing itself as a global power; Soviet strategic nuclear forces (if dedicated to "pure" deterrence) appear excessive in quantity and mismatched in characteristics to the purposes of deterrence or assured destruction; Soviet forces oriented toward Western Europe (if "purely" defensive) have strong offensive capabilities and are governed by a doctrine which emphasizes deception, tactical surprise, speed, etc.11 The argument is then offered that since these propositions can be raised, the Soviets are therefore less well-intentioned than we would wish them to be; a fact we must consider in our defense planning. Put another way, the strategic concepts and capabilities of the Soviet Union, as we account for them, will always form the primary basis for U.S. defense planning. We must, of course, have a certain amount of faith in our accounts of Soviet views. It is apparent from the tone of the defense report that U.S. defense planners have their own notions of what constitutes "pure" deterrence and defense, the quantitative bounds of strategic deterrence and conventional "offensive" and "defensive" postures, and the range of intentions that various postures reflect. And it is equally clear that the Soviets do not measure up to U.S. ideals of "pure" deterrence and defense. However, the details as to how these notions are calculated are not available. One could reach disturbing conclusions about these assessments of Soviet views. The way we state Soviet views may have nothing to do with realistic Soviet intentions or their relationship to U.S. norms for pure deterrence or defense. Rather, the fact that we have reached familiar conclusions about the Soviets may simply indicate great gaps in our understanding of Soviet strategic concepts. Otherwise, it will continue to be a profound source of distress that the basis for U.S. strategic planning is drawn from what we do not yet understand about Soviet postures, tactics, and intentions, rather than what we know with some degree of confidence. The consequences of this difficulty are moderated in the FY79 defense report by a recognition that Soviet strategic nuclear attack is the least likely military contingency we face. And in the FY80 defense report, one finds an even calmer assessment of Soviet military power. Our civilian leadership recognizes that neither Russian nor American leaders are in a position to use nuclear weapons for political ends. Mutual strategic deterrence and essential equivalence are in effect. However, aside from a general recognition that a state of deterrence currently exists, many U.S. military strategists and planners remained locked in a debate over the true nature of Soviet strategic views. In a sense, the Team A—Team B debates of 1976 have continued, particularly in military circles. In the current debate, U.S. military views usually associated with those of Team B, and the DOD civilian views, if not similar to Team A, are at least different from Team B. As it stands, the current state of the U.S. consensus on the Soviet view of war seems contradictory and incomplete. Deterrence is said to be operative in the same breath that suggests Soviet nuclear forces have feasible political and military utility beyond deterrence. And there is a casual mixing of Soviet substrategic characteristics (the tactical capabilities of ground forces) with strategic inferences concerning Western Europe. There are other views about the Soviets that are equally difficult to understand. For example, in his article, "Why the Soviet Union Thinks It Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War," Professor Richard Pipes offers the view, popular among U.S. military planners, that American and Soviet nuclear doctrines are "starkly at odds." Professor Pipes effectively represents those who believe that: The Soviet view of strategic deterrence is fundamentally different from the U.S. view; nuclear war is unthinkable and unwinnable in the U.S. view, but in the Soviet view it is thinkable, feasible, and winnable. The Soviet military controls strategic military affairs in the Soviet Union; in the U.S., the military is totally subservient to pacifist civilian authority. The Soviet ruling elites regard conflict, including nuclear war, as a normal condition in the current stage of historical development. U.S. and Western strategists do not recognize, as the Soviets do, the reality of violence in human relations.12 The difficulty with the Pipes analysis, and other versions of it, is its assumption that Soviet military thought is the center of gravity in all Soviet strategic affairs. Likewise, there is an assumption that U.S. military men have few thoughts about nuclear war fighting and little influence on U.S. defense policy. Somewhere between the extreme pessimism of Professor Pipes and the more prudent assumptions reflected in the defense report lies a conceptual path largely unexplored. It is this alternative path which, like the dissenting views of Kennan and Bohlen in 1950, should receive greater attention in our military planning and strategic assessments. Alternative Views On rare occasions alternative views are developed, but not often heard, which admit that the Soviet strategic culture is not unique or monolithic. In addition to orthodox Soviet military viewpoints, some have detected the existence of a countervailing strategic subculture composed of Soviet government officials, researchers, and journalists.13 The countervailing views, which indicate doubt of the possibility of a meaningful victory in a nuclear war, are not analyzed with the same enthusiasm that is applied to the more "offensive" statements of the Soviet military elite. Few suggest other explanations for apparent Soviet aggressiveness. Benjamin Lambeth notes, however, that, The confident Soviet military assertions regarding the winnability of nuclear war and the probability of Soviet victory may reflect far more an effort to instill a spirit of confidence and optimism in the Soviet armed forces than any expectation or belief on the part of the Soviet military leadership.14 This suggestion is certainly too soft to be admissible as useful evidence. But so are the methods used to gather much of the evidence that is currently acceptable. For example, when Soviet military literature speaks of the virtues of peace or defense, it is often labeled propaganda. If it speaks of winning war, it is labeled as truth with certainty. And, on the basis of this rather selective methodology, some "strategists" proceed to attribute awesome military effectiveness to the Soviets and dangerous conditions for U.S. forces. These pessimistic assessments are almost exclusively drawn from Soviet military literature as if political views carried no weight in the Soviet Union. Soviet military writings, however, no more necessarily represent the strategic perceptions and expectations of Soviet civilian leaders than formal U.S. military contingency plans indicate the way United States national command authorities would actually cope with nuclear crises.15 Among those who have helped clarify the consequences of looking beyond Soviet military literature, Dennis Ross has done a most admirable job. His article "Rethinking Soviet Strategic Policy: Inputs and Implications" gets to the heart of the apparent differences in Soviet American strategic views. Ross notes that the Soviet rejection of American strategic concept is not based on a unique Russian way of thinking about the problem; rather, it is because our concepts do not suit Russian goals. He then analyzes the Soviet style, as it has evolved, to show that even Russians can and do adhere to a principle of deterrence that is not necessarily hostile or offensive in design.16 Similarly, Bernard Brodie has shown that the Soviets, like the Americans, have a requirement for deterrence.17 He did so by debunking the Richard Pipes article. Brodie asks who in the Soviet Union thinks Russia can fight and win a nuclear war. The Pipes article tells us that some Soviet generals think so, but not a single political leader is mentioned. "One could at this point dismiss the issue by remarking that there are also plenty of US generals who think that the United States could fight and win a nuclear war and are even willing to give a definition for the word win, though few of us would be comfortable with that definition."18 The Soviet leadership alleged this tendency among American generals as far back as 1948 and characterized military men who commanded American strategic forces as being proponents of "adventuristic positions" and of "preparing for global thermonuclear war."19 The point is that both American and Russian military men tend to think that war-winning forces are the best forces to support deterrent policy. But few military men and fewer political leaders have advocated using those forces in a preemptive nuclear war. To suggest that the military view on either side is the prime indicator of political intentions and objectives is to present only partial reality. There are other sources of Soviet intentions and goals. As a balance to the orthodox arguments about the complete militarization of Soviet society, we would do well to remember that Soviet society, in the wake of the 1917 revolution, was politicized and socialized while the new Red Army was still deciding what uniforms to wear and how many czarist officers should be retained. In this connection, the premilitarized Soviet concepts of war contained two cautions that remain ideologically operative today. The first is that war should be the most expedient instrument for obtaining an objective. "To indulge in war when peaceful negotiation or threat or bribery or even substantial concession might attain the same end at less overall cost would be, in Marxist eyes, the height of political irresponsibility."20 The second essential prerequisite is that once war is expedient, victory must be assured. Otherwise, objectives cannot be obtained. Therefore, the Soviet's view of war, if it is to be used at all, must be aimed at attainable, significant objectives. War must have a purpose which cannot be achieved otherwise. Peter H. Vigor, in his excellent book The Soviet View of War, Peace and Neutrality, goes so far as to say of nuclear war that". . . one can be quite certain that it will be the policy of the Soviet leaders not to engage in nuclear war, if they can possibly avoid it; nor to engage in a war of conventional weapons that is likely to escalate further."21 This assessment places quite a different emphasis and finds a different reality regarding the Soviet view of war from those who think the Soviets believe superiority in firepower is the only prerequisite for war. However, Vigor does note the conditions under which the Soviets would view war with the United States as feasible or necessary. For example, the Soviets would probably go to war if the U.S.S.R. or one of its satellites were attacked. The Soviets might also, under an extremely narrow set of conditions, contemplate war if America's second-strike capability could be completely neutralized. However, insofar as Soviet leaders today perceive no offensive threat from NATO and are otherwise convinced that America's second-strike capability is credible, war is not feasible. As Vigor emphasizes, ". . they will never willingly engage in a war which, by their own theories, they must lose."22 Many Western military planners have ignored this important point. It is easy to understand why. It is the military planner's duty to focus on what an opponent can do militarily. Although, quite often in stating what an opponent can do, we are usually overgenerous in allowing them perfect plans, organizations, equipment, and flawless execution in operations. There is also a tendency to dwell on the offensive tactics rather than on the defensive ones, and to attribute "tactical offensiveness" to the political leadership and even to the entire population. Hence, the Russians are often made to appear as entirely warlike, offensive, and aggressive people. We would probably do better to treat the defensive and the offensive characteristics of Soviet military and political postures with equal analytical enthusiasm. When assessments are offered, there should be objective presentations of Soviet strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities in comparison with those of the United States. An assessment of comparative conditions of how both countries relate to conflict would indicate some of the following: — Why is conflict likely or not likely? — Who would start it? — For what purpose? — How would the conflict ensure the goal or purpose? — By whose criteria could military victory be obtained and how? — What are the long-term consequences of such conflict? Otherwise, any assessments which settle on simple numerical imbalances will continue to assume Soviet offensive designs and may thereby generate inappropriate responses to unreal conditions. There are, of course, reasonable cautions to observe in giving the Soviets the benefit of the doubt. While we should have a more balanced look at Soviet capabilities, we must not assume that Soviet behavior is static. And we must do more than focus on the narrow band of conditions under which the Soviets would or would not do us harm as if the narrow condition were the ever- present, most likely condition. As Vigor notes, there are conditions in which war could become the instrument of Soviet policy. Of primary concern to us is the condition where our second- strike capability would become neutralized either by technological breakthroughs in defensive systems or by a Soviet first-strike force capable of destroying all our offensive weapons. If we can show that the climate is being created in which, in the Soviet view, nuclear war is feasible—that our second-strike capability no longer exists and that Soviet goals can be achieved most efficiently by nuclear war— then we have no alternative but to make drastic fixes to our strategic forces. However, if those conditions are only inventions of our strategic imagination, we are likely to generate drastic problems in the wake of our prudent plans. Few military studies treat both the conditions of Soviet political and military objectives and capabilities in comparison with the strategic goals and capabilities of the United States. The strict requirements of military deterrence and long-range political objectives must be viewed together. Otherwise those assessments will be of little lasting value. Incomplete assessments may lead us to conclude that it is desirable to go beyond "pure" military deterrence and seek the political utilities which theoretically come with the presence of, if not the use of, preemptive capable forces. The Soviets have nearly achieved "preemptive status" in Europe, according to Western assessments. But it is not yet clear that they have gained extra political benefits. Nor is it clear that U.S. security would be improved by matching the Soviet forces in Europe, Africa, or elsewhere. The Soviets may also be following a path toward a preemptive posture in the strategic arena. If the United States desires to take an essentially equivalent path militarily and politically as the Soviets have, our goals should be at least as clear to us as Soviet goals are to Soviet leaders. At a minimum, we should recognize that the differences between Soviet and U.S. strategic goals may be more important than the statistical characteristics of their comparative nuclear arsenals. Moreover, if the United States desires an equivalent political and military status with the Soviets on the basis of military deployments, our objectives must be derived from no less than a comprehensive understanding of what it means to compete with the Soviets over the long-term. If, after our goals become clear to us, it is politically necessary to grow militarily, we should do so without hesitation. But that step should not be suggested primarily on the basis of an Americanization of Soviet concepts of war or a statistical review of comparative warheads and throw-weights. These are only two of the inputs for strategy development. The staff process by which military strategy inputs are developed should, of course, provide more than pieces of answers to major strategy questions. During 1975 the military departments in the Pentagon began the first steps to provide more comprehensive strategy inputs by establishing "net assessment" branches in their headquarters staffs. With the encouragement of the OSD Director of Net Assessment, the Air Force launched a Soviet assessment in 1975, a Korean assessment in 1976, and a European assessment in 1977- 78. However, the "net" part of these assessments remains incomplete. Comparative, balanced assessments of two components in terms of strength, weakness, and vulnerabilities have not been possible. Whether net assessment staffs are maintained in the future, the Air Force could benefit from a counterpoint staff that would be allowed to create comprehensive assessments and freely question the orthodox assessments which have now become the basis for our strategy inputs. Indeed, such a staff could examine every facet of our strategic assessments to include the evidence and sources of evidence used to compare U.S. and Soviet stances: — broad political goals (both domestic and international); — concepts of international relations and conflict; — military concepts and capabilities (from both military and political perspectives); — major strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities; — long-range trends in strategic competition; — programmatic initiatives. It would be the responsibility of the staff to find among the many reasons why the Air Force should pursue this or that program as well as the other reasons why the programs are not in the best interest of the Air Force or the country. This role, too often played by people outside the DOD, usually after a commitment has been made to a program, may be the most important of the adversary roles. Specifically, counterpoint staffers should be assigned to decision groups, such as the Air Force Systems Acquisition Review Council, Program Objective Memorandum Review Group, etc., to examine Air Force program decisions in terms of the number and quality of alternatives evaluated, level and sources of outside "expert" advice, and analysis of long-term consequences (strategic impact) of various decisions. These may appear to be simple functions, and no doubt some may argue that these functions are presently performed. However, currently there are no bureaucratic arrangements for an independent group, specifically appointed to improve objectivity, to check for symptoms of Groupthink,23 and to otherwise test the strategic utility of our decisions. Who would serve on the staff? Those graduates of the Air Staff tour, from all disciplines, who have broad experiences in the Air Force would be candidates. There are many talented officers who could serve. They would only need the guarantee that the rewards of offering constructive alternatives, or even the dissenting view, would be equal to those of the loyal advocates of the orthodox view. The Air Force could extend its vision significantly if we would create an internal mechanism that provides alternative assessments of our concepts, plans, and programs. A counterpoint staff could be the beginning of that mechanism. It appears that we can ill afford to go on without those "other views." If we fail to test the realities we believe in, we could create an Air Force that is irrelevant to the future needs of strategic deterrence. Like Jay Gatsby, we could continue to evolve in the direction of the Platonic conception we hold of ourselves and the incomplete images we hold of others. "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. . . So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."24 Berlin, Germany Notes 1. Henry Trofimenko, "The ‗Theology' of Strategy," Orbis, Fall 1977, pp. 497-515. Henry Trofimenko heads the Foreign Po1icy Department of the Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada, Academy of Science of the U.S.S.R. 2. Quentin Anderson, "Property and Vision in 19th-Century America," The Virginia Quarterly Review, Summer 1978, p. 385. The definition of the Gatsby effect came from Quentin Anderson's article. The Gatsby effect, as Anderson explains, was based on the ability to create an all-enclosing imaginative construction, a dream to live in. See F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby (New York, 1953). 3. Daniel Yergin, Shattered Peace: The Origins of the Cold War and the National Security State (Boston, 1977), p. 410. See also John Lewis Gaddis, The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947 (New York, 1972). 4. George F. Kennan, "The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917-1976," Foreign Affairs, July 1976, p. 682. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Yergin, p. 337. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid., p. 402. 10. Ibid. 11. Department of Defense, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1979 (Washington, 2 February 1978), p. 34. 12. Richard Pipes, "Why the Soviet Union Thinks It Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War," Commentary, July 1977. 13. Jack L. Snyder, The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implication Limited Nuclear Operations (Santa Monica, California: Rand Project Air Force Report, R-2154-AF, September 1977), p. 32. See Benjamin S. Lambeth, Selective Nuclear Options in America Soviet Strategic Policy (Santa Monica, California: Rand, DDRE Report R-2034, December 1976), p. 44. 14. Lambeth, p. 44. 15. Ibid., p. 46. 16. Dennis Ross, "Rethinking Soviet Strategic Policy and Implications," The Journal of Strategic Studies, May 1978. 17. Bernard Brodie, "The Development of Nuclear Strategy," International Security, Spring 1978, p. 72. 18. Ibid. 19. A. Ye. Yefremov, Europe and Nuclear Weapons (Yevropa i Yadernoye Oruzhiye) (Moscow, 1972), translated by Joint Pub Research Service, Arlington, Virginia, 1973, p. 10. 20. Peter Vigor, The Soviet View of War, Peace and Neutrality (London, 1975), p. 6. 21. Ibid., p. 136. 22. Ibid., p. 140. 23. Irving Janis, Victims of Groupthink (Boston, 1972), p. 16. Janis notes several characteristics of decision-making bodies under influence of Groupthink. Such groups are usually optimistic the decisions they have made. They rationalize away the dissenting views. They believe in the inherent morality of their decisions. And they promote stereotyped views of their adversaries. 24. Fitzgerald. p. 59. Contributor Colonel Alton L. Elliott (M.A., St. Mary's University) is Commander, 6912th Electronic Security Group, Tempelhof Airport, Berlin, Germany. Prior assignments include Deputy Chief of the Policy Analysis Group, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force; intelligence officer at Hq Tactical Air Command and USAF Security Service; EC-121 crew member in Thailand; faculty member of Squadron Officer School; and political-military affairs officer, Hq USAF. Colonel Elliott is a Distinguished Graduate of Air Command and Staff College, a graduate of the National War College, and previous contributor to the Review. Disclaimer The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University. Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 4, Number 29, July 19, 1977 © 1977 EIR News Service Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited. MILITARY STRATEGY Richard Pipesl Dream -' Another Utopian Nightmare ,' Richard Pipes' highly-touted article "Why the Soviet Union Thinks It Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War" run in the current issue of Commentary magazine has been picked up and generally favorably received in the "American Whigs" press, including the Chicago Tribune, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, and the Indianapolis Star. These American Whigs, well aware of the fundamental fallacies of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) strategic doctrine, have been eagerly looking for a serious and honest assessment to appear on the actual Soviet military doctrine and war-winning preparedness strategy. They have been led to believe by all the hype that Pipes produces a rigorous analysis of the ·"Clausewitzian" Soviet strategic doctrine and a devastating critique of Fabian-linked stalwarts such as Paul Warnke, Henry Kissinger, and Robert MacNamara, who generally deny that it is possible to fight and win a nuclear war. If Pipes' purported scholarly purpose were in fact fulfilled and this common superficial reading of his article correct, then indeed Pipes' Commentary piece would be a valuable contribution to the strategic debate now taking place in this country, being spearheaded by the U.S. Labor Party, Generals Keegan and Singlaub, circles at the American Security Council and others. But this reading is a pipe dream. Monetarist Faction In fact, Commentary magazine is the house organ of the financier-controlled Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), an outfit composed of monetarist lunatics. Included on its executive board are Goldman Sachs partner Henry Fowler, the unstable Eugene Rostow from Social Democrats USA, Dillon Read investment banker-turned arms negotiator Paul Nitze, banker C. Douglas Dillon, also of Dillon Read, and the discredited Democratic Party pro-dope hack Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, as well as Pipes, a Harvard Sovietologist, himself. It is well known that this faction collaborates behind the scenes with Jimmy Carter's National Security Council Director Zbigniew Brzezinski and Energy Czar James Schlesinger. The Pipes piece is in fact a factional document put out by a grouping of financiers with powerful connections at the top levels of the Carter Administration. The fact of the matter is that Pipes and his CPD cohorts, under the cover of scholarly analysis, are retailing the Big Lie line that the Soviet Union as a matter of political policy, intends to launch and win a nuclear war that will destroy the United States. Pipes strongly hints at the above formulation in his article, and left no room for doubt about his thesis in an interview with NSIPS. In his article he writes, "And insofar as military doctrine is indicative of intent, what the Russians think to do with their nuclear arsenal is a matter of utmost importance that calls for- close scrutiny... above all, however, looms the question of intent: mutual deterrence does not really exist. And, unilateral deterrence is feasible only if we understand the Soviet war-winning strategy and make it impossible for them to succeed." In the interview, Pipes confirmed, "In my article I am not at all talking about Soviet military capability. I am talking about their intent, their political and military intent. " Further, in the Commentary article, Pipes explicitly advocates that the U.S. adopt a brushed-up version of Herman Kahn's escalation (rung-ladder) nuclear war scenarios. Pipes excoriates the foolish Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine because it does not "deal in a considered way with the particular nuclear attack on hand so as to minimize further damage to the United States and maximize the possibility of an early settlement on reasonably acceptable terms ... " He enthusiastically boasts "limited-response options," the "refinement introduced into U.S. doctrine by James R. Schlesinger.' , He also strongly suggests, demonstrating either a shocking ignorance of the ABC's of modern nuclear warfighting or simple duplicity, that a Soviet first-strike against the U.S. would not be a total, all-out attack against U.S. military capability and population centers to destroy the United States as a functioning nation and thereby eliminate NATO's in-depth war-fighting capability. "Soviet nuclear strategy is counterforce oriented. It targets for destruction - at any rate in the initi.al strike - not the enemy's cities but his military forces and their command and communication facilities." He then uses this f.alsification to sneak in his own suggestion that the U.S. assume a "mirroring" counterforce "preemptive strike" posture (not surprisingly the only "preemptive strike" posture the U.S. is potentially anywhere near capable of): "Any evidence that the U.S. may contemplate switching to a counterforce strategy such as occasionally crops up, throws Soviet generals into a tizzy of excitement. It clearly frightens them ... " When interviewed, Pipes frankly admitted favoring a massive civil defense program, quick deployment of the full assortment of utopian Nazi-style wunderwaffen weapons - including the cruise missile, the neutron bomb, the MX mobile missile, and the M-12A nuclear warhead - and improvements in U.S. missile targetting and MIRVing to give the U.S. what he called a "preemptive first strike" capability to meet "the Soviet war threat." WhyNow? The appearance of Pipes' CPD factional piece at this particular time is extremely significant. What has the For example, Pipes gives several paranoid reducfinancier- controlled CPD faction terrorized is the fact tionist arguments, to build his ridiculous case that the that the Soviet Union is helping to bring down Lower Soviet Union is intending a first strike against the United Manhattan's bankrupt "American Century" world States as a matter of political policy. According to Pipes, financial order - not with missiles and bombs, but with "an extreme social Darwinist outlook on life" permeates an aggressive political organizing drive to re- the Russian elite as well as the Russian masses, which industrialize Europe and develop the Third World only (Brzezinski's very own) Russian "democratic intelthrough economically sound transfer ruble-financed ligentsia and religious dissenters oppose to any sigprojects. nificant extent." In Pipes' warped perspective, "the Contrary to Pipes, Soviet policy is to neutralize the war Communist revolution of 1917.. in effect installed in danger caused by the Carter Administration's debt power the muzhik, the Russian peasant." collection and deindustrialization efforts which con- From there, Pipes argues that the Soviet Union has stitute the propelling force toward general war. developed its "intent" to fight and win a nuclear war as Pipes' CPD deployment is being undertaken with the the only means of controlling its own population - as he full support and cooperation of Brzezinski and puts it, "to ensure internal stability"! Schlesinger for a dual purpose. First, Brzezinski and In the same vein, he argues, in language reminiscent of Schlesinger are hoping that Pipes' call for a U.S. "pre- Nazi "blood and soil" jargon, that what he calls the emptive first strike" posture will give desperately "middle class, essentially Protestant ethos" of the needed credibility to their "aura of power" con- United States, held by "the educated and affluent," frontationist policy, and cow the Soviets into backing off regards fear - that is, "the organism's biological from their economic strategic perspective. reaction to the threat of violence" :... as inadmissible and In this regard, the CPD monetarist grouping and their therefore, unfortunately, does not feel threatened by the associates are using Pipes to try to discredit "soft- Soviets. He quotes fellow Utopian, flap-jawed Daniel liners" Paul Warnke and Henry Kissinger, who Moynihan as scientific authority: "If you're not very represent other monetarist groups whom Pipes educated, you're easily frightened. And not ever being specifically attacks, and with whom the CPDers have frightened can be a formula for self- destruction." heretofore collaborated as part of a Mutt-and-Jeff Within Pipes' own "peasant mentality," science and psychological warfare game against the USSR. The CPD technology are dow"rigraded, if not actually de ' spised. crowd now wants to cast off Warnke's British Fabian- "When the Soviets launched Sputnik, which their style 18th century-like "ceremonial warfare" propaganda hailed .as a great contribution to the adr negotiations approach " and K i s s i n ger' s neo- vancement of science, (it) ... represented in fact a Metternichian balance of big power maneuvering, which significant military demonstration." Pipes digs up a they see as no longer effective in deceivirig and in- quotation from British strategist P.M.S. Blackett to timidating the Soviets. The puppet Carter himself as well emphasize this recurrent theme in criticizing U. �� . as Cyrus Vance and Paul Warnke are now moving into s,trategists: "More chess playing and less nuclear complete lock-step toward nuc1ea,r confrOntation ' behind physics might have instiIleda greater sense of the the Brzezinski and Schlesinger Utopi�� nderwaffen realities." // �� push: . .. "" sls In his interview, Pipes ip ted that Darwin - in fact a The CPD, which has strong ties into the AFL-CIO Malthusian nominalist who categorically denied man's leadership though e Kirkland and some, if dwi'riating, creative ability to alter nature - was "a humanist"! On Clausewitz influence in industrial and military layers, is also ou�� t ' · tb manipulate Whig layers - increasingly looking to ttie, U.S. Labor Party for leadership - around their profHed Pipes, a self-prQelaimed "Clausewitzian;" correctly paranoia abdut the Soviets and with the boondoggle bait jdentifies that the Soviets' military doctrine is in the of low-technology; wunderwaffen "defense" production tradition of Clausewitz: "Clausewitz, buried in the (the Cruise missile�� neutron bomb, MX mobile missile, et Unite�� States, seems to be alive and prospering in the al.). They are hoping,that American Whigs will not Soviet Union." Despite his quoting of Clausewitz's "war concentrate their energies on maintaining high- is the continuation of policy by other means," Pipes technology industries, (like aerospace, through, for in-,' . doesn't understand what Clausewitz meant by this idea. stance, prototype development of the B-1) and will not' Nor does he really believe it. He asserts that the Soviets seek new military applications primarily as spin-offs have the political intention of launching a thermonuclear from fusion and other high-technology development war to destroy the United States, which he derives from within the industrial-military complex. the fact of their development of a war-winning military Whose Peasant Mentality? Richard Pipes reveals himself in his commentary piece to be a crude Social Darwinist and nominalist whose "analysis" of the Soviet Union and its leadership is largely projection. A leader in the Committee on the Present Danger and plant on the "outside" Team B evaluation group, Pipes is a Polish refugee who betrays an unmistakable "peasant mentality" with no comprehension of the American Whig industrial capitalist tradition. 2 MILITARY STRATEGY doctrine. Nowhere in his article does Pipes analyze Soviet political or economic program, their committment to industrial progress at home and abroad, thereby reducing Soviet politiCS in a totally unClausewitzian manner to mere military considerations. Pipes completely covers up, of course, that the Soviets developed a Clausewitzian war-winning military preparedness posture in response to decades of monetarist threats to destroy the Soviet Union's existence as a republic - and that the USSR doesn't want war but would go to war only if forced by extreme Carter Brzezinski provocations. Clausewitz was a great humanist and German republican, greatly influenced by the American Revolution and the ideas of Franklin, Hamilton, and Washington. Confronted .by Pipes, the "Clausewitzian," Clausewitz himself would doubtless exclaim: "I am not a n'!" 'Clausewitzi�� Clausewitz would scoff at Pipes' assertion that Russian "peasants" are intending to fight and win a total war. As Clausewitz elucidates in On War: "Military genius depends on the general intellectual . development of a given society... the most highly developed societies produce the most brilliant soldiers ... the greatest military names do not appear before a high level of civilization has been reached. We will on the other hand never find a savage who is a truly great military commander ... since this requires a degree of intellectual powers, beyond anything that a primitive society can develop ... " The adoption by the Soviets of a Clausewitzian military doc;:trine was made by the most advanced Soviet political and scientific cadre, a far cry from Pipes' muzhiks. Pipes no more meets Clausewitz's dictum that "one should think through the full consequences of war to the end before starting a war," than do his incompetent opponents, Warnke, Kissinger, MacNamara, et al. Confronted by an interviewer with the three main purposes for which war is fought, given by Clausewitz, Pipes readily agreed to only one - "the destruction of the enemy's armed forces." He blanched at "the occupation of the enemy· country," and hysterically denied altogether the validity of "the establishment of a viable and durable peace" as the ultimate political purpose of warfare. - Bob Cohen Paul Goldstein Neutron Bomb: Back Door To Schlesinger Doctrine The Carter Administration's announcement that it will move ahead with the development of the supposedly humane and "clean" atomic weapon, the neutron bomb - a weapon which, Carter officials are frank to say, they hope will :ncrease the possibility of a limited, "theater" nuclear war in Western Europe - was promptly followed by a claim from NATO Supr'eme Commander U.S. General Alexander Haig, that the U �� S.'s European allies are enthusiastic about the weapon: From other quarters, however, including the Soviet Union, came sarcastic comments concerning the supposed "humanity" of a weapon which aims at killing people while leaving real estate untouched. And the Soviets underscored their continuing refusal to accept any "limited nuclear war" strategy by stating explicitly that if the U.S. uses neutron weapons, they will respond with all their available arsenal. This all leaves room for serious doubt that the NATO allies - who fear above all any strategy that would attempt to make Europe the main battlefield of a nuclear war - will be pleased by the weapon's development. The neutron bomb is touted in the press as the ideal battlefield weapon. Instead of exploding with the blast and fallout of a regular nuclear weapon, the neutron bomb saturates an area of about a square mile with penetrating neutron radiation. The idea, as stated by such proponents of the weapon as Sen. Stennis, is that such a weapon, with low yield in the region of a few kilotons TNT equivalent, could be used in "tactical" or "theater" nuclear wars without causing as much damage as regular nuclear weapons. Presumably this would be advantageous both for troops rapidly occupying the irradiated area and io "contain the level of violence" according to the theories of limited nuclear war. ' This logic, like all such "theater" nuclear war garbage ignores the simple fact that no "theater" nuclear war or "limited" nuclear war - for example limited to Europe - will ever or could ever be fought. The Soviet Union has made it clear in statements and publications too numerous to list, and in their own military training and deployments that the use of any nuclear weapons by the U.S. or its allies, no matter how small, clean, or wellbehaved, would provoke a full-scale nuclear war, beginning with in-depth Soviet strategic strikes against the continental U.S. In such a full scale nuclear war, ground warfare in Europe or other "theaters" would be no more than the "mopping-up" operations following saturation nuclear bombing. In such a situation, regular old dirty nuclear weapons, with hjghly effective blast, will be far more useful than neutron bombs, whose effect could be eliminated by well-constructed bunkers. The use of the N-bomb to back up U.S. claims that it holds military-technological superiority over the Soviets is about equally ludicrous. The fact is that the principle used in the bomb has been developed by the Soviets to a far more advanced level, as demonstrated by last summer's disclosures by Soviet fusion scientist L.I. Rudakov. Most important, neutron bomb research has immediate scientific application to laser and electron beam 'fusion research. A low-blast, neutron-rich hydrogen bomb (that is, a neutron bomb) is ideal for the project PACER proposed by New Mexico's Los Alamos fusion laboratories, a program designed to produce cheap fissile fuel and energy from hydrogen bombs. The Carter Administration, however, has sabotaged the development of these peaceful applications of neutron bomb technology and is now dismantling the scientific research teams needed to do the job with cuts in the fusion research budget. Howthe N-bomb Works The conventional hydrogen bomb uses a nuclear fission or atomic-bomb explosion as the igniter �� obtaining the or high densities and temperatures needed to induce fusion reactions in large amounts of fusionable material (the heavy deuterium and tritium isotopes of hydrogen) contained in hydrogen bombs. The fusion explosion deposits over 80 percent of its energy in fast neutrons which are then trapped in the H-bomb assembly, usually PROPHECY Behold- It Is Come! Given by Gwen Shaw on Maundy Thursday during a prayer meeting Events shall speed up, shall speed up, shall speed up, yea, after the middle of the summer, things shall begin to happen very quickly. The angels of the four corners of the earth are holding back the winds, even the winds of destruction, and when they release or let them go, the armies will march, the armies will march, the armies will march. Pray, pray, pray, pray, pray that the nuclear armament will not be released, for I say unto thee, there are enough destructive weapons to destroy this whole planet. There is no place to hide them and there is no place to keep them. I say unto thee, this whole planet is in danger of being totally destroyed, annihilated by mankind. It hangs, it hangs, it hangs from a thread. These are terrible days, My children. Yea, this whole planet is on the eve of Gethsemane, the hour of the crucifixion of this world has come. And this whole world is about to be crucified, and I can't find My intercessors who will travail for the redemption of this planet. Oh, My children, the hour is late, madness rules the hearts of men and men are mad. There is no balance in anything. Yea, I say unto thee, cry out, cry out, CRY out! The north, the north, the north, the "Bear" has not had any new ribs to devour, it is looking for more ribs. It is hungry, the "Bear" is hungry. The Bear" is ravenous, the "Bear" says, "I must have more ribs, I must have more ribs." And Iran shall provoke the "Bear" and the "Bear" shall move against Iran. It shall come down, it shall come and join forces and move into Iran and shall already have a welcome ready to meet it in Syria, for yea, they link, they shall link, they shall link. There shall be a linking, there shall be a linking, and Pakistan shall be crushed in the linking, for the linking shall be from Delhi. It shall be from Delhi, it shall be from Delhi, it shall be from Delhi to Afghanistan, for there is a strong link in Kabul, and it shall link all through, yea, Khomeini shall be crushed, Khomeini shall be crushed by the "Bear." Yea, and it shall link all through Iraq, it shall link all through Syria, for the welcome is there also. Turkey yea shall move on, yea, there is even a linking with Greece, with the Lord God. Yea, I say unto thee and the link goes on and on. It links to Yugoslavia, and it links to Romania, it links to Bulgaria, it links to Albania, yea, I say unto thee, it shall link with the red forces, even the Red Brigade of Italy. Yea, it has prepared, it has prepared itself with many, many shelves of armament in storehouses of armament. And it shall link, it shall link with Libya, yea, it shall link, it shall link with Ethiopia, it shall link, it shall link, yea, I say it, I say it, I say it, it shall come, it shall come, it shall come, yea, it shall come even unto Megiddo, yea, prepare, prepare, prepare, prepare your hearts, prepare your hearts, prepare your hearts, My children! Yea, only intercession can delay it, only travail, only crying out and fasting can hold it back, yea, and I say unto thee, I have not got My harvest in, I have not got My harvest in, I have not got my harvest in. Oh, My children, oh, My children. Oh, there is a big upheaval in the Kremlin. I see the earth breaking up, the earth breaking up, and men in power must get the armies of Russia moving before they have no more power to control those armies. And they must start them marching before another force rises against them, that force that shall take their power from them. Oh, it is the last hour for Russia, it is the last hour for Russia. Oh, it is the last hour, it is the last hour for Gog and Magog, and for Tubal and Meshech it is the last hour indeed. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, pray and weep for the youth of Russia for they shall be slaughtered, they shall be slaughtered as the youth of iron is slaughtered, they shall be slaughtered, they shall be slaughtered, the bodies, the bodies, the bodies! Yea, there shall be piles as cord-wood, as cord-wood, as you see the cord-wood as you go to the airport in Harrison, as you see the cordwood there in the lumberyard, so shall the bodies be stacked up, stacked up in piles, in piles, and they shall be cremated and burned, many shall be cremated and burned. Yea, I say unto thee, I say unto thee, the stench shall fill the air. The stench, the stench, the stench, the stench shall fill the air. Oh, the stench, the stench! Oh, I call thee this night to the garden to pray, yea, I have called thee, thy flesh is so weak, thy flesh is so weak. I have called thee, I have called thee, I have called thee to pray. Yea, thou shalt nest regard the call of man, Spring 1984 The Lord calleth thee this night, the Lord calleth thee this night, the Lord calleth thee this night! Oh, the Lord thy God calleth thee, for the hour is late, the hour is late. Yea, listen, My children, you can hear even now, can you not hear, can you not hear the company of soldiers and guards coming to arrest, oh, they are coming to arrest, they are coming to arrest, they are coming to arrest the body of Christ to be crucified shortly. Oh, they are coming to arrest, they are coming to arrest, the body of Christ shall be crucified. Yea, persecution, persecution, persecution, persecution! Oh, the body is not ready for the nails. The body is not ready for the nails. Oh, the body, the body is too proud to be stripped naked. The body is too proud to be stripped naked, the body is too proud to bear the shame. It is a proud body, it is a proud body. It is a haughty body. Oh, it is a worldly body. Oh, it is a worldly body, it is an ambitious body, it is an ambitious body, it is a self-edifying body. Oh, it has lifted itself, this body of Mine has lifted itself, it is not willing to be hung up beside Me and be crucified. Oh, My body, oh, My body...Yea, your robe is of fine purple and scarlet trimmed with gold, bedecked with silver, oh, My body My body, My body! Oh, how can you minister to Me in Pilate's Judgment Hall You are not ready, you will deny Me when the stripping comes! You will deny Me! Already you don't want to identify yourselves with Mine who have been stripped and beaten. Already you separate yourselves from those who mourn and are persecuted. Oh, you proud body, you proud body! The Spirit is departing from you, and you don't know it! Given to Sister Gwen in the form of a prophetic vision "Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the lane of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tu- bal, and prophesy against him, And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee O Gag. . . And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth and all thine army...Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them...Gomer and all his bands...of the north quarters...and many people with thee... And thou shall come up against my people c Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against m land, that the heathen may know me, when shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before the eyes ....And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord God: every man's sword shall be against his brother ....BEHOLD, IT IS COME, and it is done. saith the Lord God; this is the day whereof (Ezekiel 38:2) Vision of the End of the World Sarah Hoffman (David's notes in red) After her suicide in 1979, the Lord sent Sarah back to earth to repent and share a warning of the end of the world with her people, the Mormons. It appears that judgment began with the World Trade Towers falling. God loves a people who are among the Mormons who will come to know Him and come out from among them. She has brought them a message of warning and mercy, which she delivers to them in seminars. This has happened with many others. Howard Pittman was a lost Baptist preacher who died and was rebuked by the Lord for his lost, sinful life. He came back, repented and is preaching the true Gospel with a warning from heaven of what awaits the sinner- Christians. This panoramic view of the earth came into view and then came closer and closer like I had been out into space and was flying towards it. I knew that this was to help me make my decision to go back to earth, to my terrible life, because part of me wanted to go back to the beautiful spirit world or paradise and part of me felt the need to go back into my body and change my life. It was kind of a tug of war and what I was going to see was to help me understand what I would go through if I went back into my clay body. It played out again just like a video tape in fast forward motion and yet again I could assimilate and see everything clearly and perfectly. As the world zoomed up to me I saw the whole world and then the various countries. I don't know the countries of the world very well, but as I looked at these lands I instinctively knew what countries they were. I was looking at the Middle East and watched as a missile flew from Libya and hit Israel with a big mushroom cloud. I knew that the missile was actually from Iran but people from Iran had been hiding it in Libya and fired it. I knew that it was a nuclear bomb. Almost immediately missiles started flying from one country to another, quickly spreading to all over the world. I also saw that many nuclear explosions did not come from missiles but from ground bombs of some kind. I knew that in the future there would be a nuclear war throughout the world and this is how it would start. Then, my focus changed from the Middle East to America. I understood that I was about to see some of the things that would lead up to the nuclear holocaust I had just witnessed. As I looked upon the continent of North America, I zeroed in on the East Coast and then to New York. I saw New York with all of its buildings and people. Then I saw some tall buildings crashing to the earth with tremendous smoke, debris and dust everywhere (World Trade Towers?). I saw a woman holding a little girl"s hand, running from the crashing buildings. The lady had long dark hair past her shoulders, curled inward a little. She had on a beige business suit, heels of a slightly darker color, perhaps a tan color. No glasses. The little girl appeared to be about 6-7 years old with short brown hair, below the chin, in a sort of a pageboy haircut. They were holding hands and running together from the falling buildings in the heavy smoke and dust and they were forced to let go of hands and thereby they got separated. The little girl was terrified and I could hear the little girl screaming "mommy, mommy" over again and again. I don't know if they lived or died. I can still see the face of the lady clearly and could identify her if I saw a picture...or could describe her to an artist to draw her. I asked if an earthquake caused the buildings to fall down and the impression was "no," but I don't know what caused them to fall. The next thing that I felt more than I saw was that shortly after this there was no commerce, no shopping, buying, and was impressed that there was no economy. The economy had almost failed completely and no one had any money. The next thing I saw was people being sick and dying. I saw this particularly in four cities: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Salt Lake. The disease started by having white blisters, some the size of dimes appear on their hands, arms and face. This quickly developed into white puffy sores and blisters. People would stumble about and fall and then many died within a short time, maybe 24 hours. I also saw other people with blood coming from their nose, mouth, eyes and ears. It started like a flu virus and it spread very quickly, faster than the other white blister disease. The people who had this disease died even faster. This was more wide spread across the entire United States. There were hundreds of thousands of people stricken with these two diseases. I knew that the diseases, and there were several different kinds, but at first primarily these two, came from small containers that had been brought into the United States. These containers were like quart jars and I was impressed that the people carrying them would just drop them on the ground in large crowds of people and the people would become infected without realizing it. In these cities as the disease spread, the people tried to flee from the cities out to the countryside. There was complete chaos in these cities and a breakdown of normal society. There was no electricity in them either, but I don't know why or how that came to be. There were cars piled up everywhere, blocking roadways and most people then had to walk out with nothing. The disease started to spread beyond these initial cities. As these people were fleeing the cities, there were gangs attacking them and killing them. In the cities that were struck with the disease, there was complete chaos, looting, rioting, murdering, a complete breakdown. Many people seemed to go absolutely crazy. I sensed that the electricity had failed everywhere now and that nothing was running, there was no communication or anything anywhere in the country. Nothing worked, no radios or TVs. I watched people throw rocks and break windows to steal TVs which I thought was really crazy because they wouldn't work. Immediately, as I watched this happen in the United States, I jumped back to the Middle East and saw the same thing in Israel, the same sores, and I realized that it was the same types of disease or sickness happening there. I knew somehow that whatever diseases had been used in the United States were also being used in Israel. This lasted for only an instant and I was back in the United States. There was a tremendously long winter that lasted into summer. It caught everyone by surprise and started the full famine. Actually, I realized that the long winter actually just increased the famine greatly to its full measure, because the famine had already been in progress because of the storms, droughts, floods and other plagues that had been happening over the few years leading up to the long winter. It seemed then that the year following the long winter was when everything started to go down hill very quickly or things piled up one on top of the other without any breaks. The sense of time though was not very clear because I was seeing several things that seemed to happen all at the same time or very close together. During and after the long winter, the disease spread everywhere and increased in severity. The economy was completely gone and the electricity was also gone. There was complete chaos and anarchy all over the United States. There was no government, just a total breakdown. There was no food at all. I saw people trying to get food and were completely panicked because there was no food. I saw people digging in the ground for worms and eating them because they were so hungry. Also, during this time I became aware that there was very little water and that almost all of the water had become poisoned so that if a person drank the water they would get the disease and die. Many did even knowing that they would die, because they were so thirsty. Some of the people seemed to go crazy and went around in gangs killing people just for the sake of killing. Others killed for food or for things but the people who killed just to kill were absolutely terrible. They seemed like beasts, animals completely out of control as they raped, looted, burned and butchered people. I saw them go into people's homes and drag families out who were hiding there and rape them and butcher them. There was such a fear and hatred that came upon the people -- families, wives, husbands -- loving ties no longer mattered; it became survival only. Husbands would kill their wives and children for food or water. Mothers would kill their children. It was absolutely horrible beyond description. The air seemed to be filled with smoke as many buildings and cities burned and no one put them out. As I looked upon the scene of chaos, destruction and smoke, I noticed that there were these little pockets of light scattered all over the United States. There were, I would guess, about twenty or thirty of them. I noticed that most of these places of light were in the western part of the United States, with only three or four in the East. These places of light seemed to shine through the darkness and caught my attention and so I concentrated on them, asking, "What are these things?" I could then see that they were people who had gathered together and they were on their knees and they were praying. The light was coming from them and I understood that it represented their goodness and love. I understood that they had gathered together for safety and that they cared more for each other than for themselves. Some of the groups were small, with only a hundred people or so, but in other groups there were what seemed several thousand. I realized that somehow many, if not most of these cities of light had been established just before the disease attack and that they were very organized. It was like they had known what was coming and had prepared for it. I didn't see who or what had organized them, but I saw many people struggling to get to them with nothing but what they could carry. These cities of light had food and were sharing their food with those who joined them in their groups. There was peace and safety in the groups. They were living in tents, all kinds of tents, many of which were just blankets covering poles. I noticed that the gangs left these groups alone, choosing to pick on easier targets and unprotected people. They also preyed on the people who were trying to get to the cities of light. Many people in these cities of light had guns to defend themselves with and so the gangs left them alone but it seemed that the gangs just didn't want to come against them. (Since we are warned that "They that take the sword will die by the sword" and "If any man shall kill with the sword, with the sword must he be killed," I would suggest that guns here have a spiritual meaning. The power to kill will be in the saints' words as if they were a gun. The two witnesses kill with their words in Rev.11, indicating the time of grace is up for the wicked.) I realized that these cities of light, which is what I began to think of them, were only for a short time and then the people in them would go somewhere else; however, I don't know where they went but I seem to think that they gathered to the mountains, to the high places. As I was looking at the cities of light, I then saw missiles coming and hitting some cities and mushroom clouds started happening all over the United States. Some were from missiles that I knew came from Russia and others were not from missiles, but were from bombs that were already in the United States. They were hidden in trucks and in cars and were exploded. I specifically saw Los Angeles, Las Vegas and New York hit with bombs. New York was hit with a missile, but I think that Los Angeles was hit by a truck bomb or actually several, because I didn't see any missile. I also saw north of Salt Lake City have a mushroom cloud, a small one, but no missile. In the darkness I also saw little fireballs. I don't know if this happened just before or during the mushroom clouds, but there were millions falling everywhere. They were very hot, of different sizes with most about the size of golf balls. As they fell from the sky they left a streak of flame and smoke behind them. Whatever they touched they started on fire: people, buildings, trees, grass, it didn't matter. I didn't ask what they were or where they came from, because by this time I was getting sick of the whole scene and so I just observed and didn't ask many questions. Almost right on top of these mushroom clouds I saw Russian troops invading the United States. I saw them parachuting into a lot of places, primarily from the East Coast. I saw them parachute into Salt Lake City. I also saw Chinese troops invade from the West Coast, near Los Angeles. The people who were still alive started fighting them with their own guns. I didn't see any military. This was the nuclear war that I had seen earlier and I knew that it was also happening all over the world like I had seen previously. I did not see much of this war, but I was impressed that it was not very long and the Russians and Chinese lose, but I don't know how exactly. Now the smoke turned to a very thick, heavy dark smoke. Just as things appeared to be as bad as it could get, then the earthquakes happened. This happened during a winter. It seemed that this was the winter following the very long one and so the chaos had been almost for a full year. The earthquakes seemed to start in the West, around Idaho and Wyoming, and then quickly spread everywhere. I saw a huge earthquake strike Utah and then California. There were earthquakes all over California, but were especially devastating in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas. These earthquakes triggered volcanoes all over the West. They started spewing a tremendous amount of ash and smoke into the air and the air became very dark and dirty. The sun was darkened even more because of the smoke and the ash that started raining down everywhere. I also saw huge waves of water sweep over the West Coast and then I realized that it was happening all over the coastal cities of the entire world. Los Angeles was almost swept completely away. The waves were huge. I saw a big wall of water, taller than many of the buildings, perhaps as high as 20 feet, sweep over Salt Lake City. I thought this was strange because it was so far from the ocean and I wondered how a wave from the ocean could travel all the way to Salt Lake City. I was impressed that it was not from the ocean but from the ground. I quickly saw great cracks in the earth around Salt Lake City open up and water just shoot out of the ground. I felt that under the ground, very deep, there was a tremendous amount of water in the ground and the earthquakes forced it up to the surface. When the water swept over the city, there weren't very many buildings left, in fact there was a tremendous destruction with hardly anything left at all, just a few buildings. The water went from Idaho down to near Cedar City and was very bad. In the cities there was great destruction, and most of the buildings had been destroyed and there was a lot of rubble. Though the earthquakes, disease, floods, volcanoes and tidal waves killed a lot of people, most people died because of the gangs and everyone killing each other, not from the terrible devastations. As I thought a moment about it, it seemed that the earth itself had become sickened at the terrible things that were happening upon it and was finally reacting. I was impressed that the earth wanted to cleanse itself of the terrible chaos and evil that had engulfed the people. Because of the volcanoes erupting everywhere, there was now ash mixed with the heavy smoke. Ash was falling and it was almost complete darkness everywhere. The diseases had become very bad. I saw people literally die on their feet. There was another disease I saw. People had these red blotches on them and then they quickly started bleeding everywhere, from every opening. Then, they literally disintegrated or melted into unrecognizable masses of flesh and bone. I cannot even begin to describe what I saw. The dead were everywhere After this terrible winter, I saw the survivors pile up the dead into huge piles and burn them. The smell was absolutely terrible. I could smell it just a little and the smell itself would make you sick. This burning of bodies had happened a little during the chaos, but not much because people were so worried about surviving that they just ignored the dead. I then saw four more things. I saw a huge earthquake in the middle of the United States. It was tremendous and seemed to split the United States in half about where the Mississippi River is. The crack in the earth that resulted was huge and that area totally sank. It was miles wide and it opened up and the earth fell down. It seemed to swallow everything. Then water flowed in from the Gulf of Mexico all the way up to the Great Lakes, only they weren't lakes anymore, they became all part of a big inland sea. I then saw a series of tremendous earthquakes all over the world. But it wasn't lots of separate earthquakes, it was all part of one huge, gigantic earthquake that shook the entire earth. Because of this earthquake, water came upon the land all over the world. Huge walls of water along all of the coasts. This earthquake and the walls of water made the earlier ones seem small by comparison. I don't know if the earthquake that split the United States into two parts was part of this worldwide quake or not. I then saw a tremendous wind come upon the earth. As the wind hit I saw people go into caves and into the cracks of rocks to escape it. It was tremendous and it blew trees and everything away. It appeared to be stronger than any hurricane or tornado. It seemed like everything was blown away. I understood, without asking, that the great worldwide earthquake and the wind were somehow caused by a huge object, like a planet or something, that had come very close by the earth and disrupted everything and that it was near the end that this happened. I then was back into space viewing the entire earth from a distance. I saw this huge fireball, two or three times bigger than the earth, approach the earth. It was extremely bright red and gold in color and then engulfed the entire earth. When I saw this, because it was so different than everything else, I asked what it was. I was impressed that it was the burning of the earth that is described in the scriptures. I understood that just before it came Jesus had appeared to the earth and the good people that I had seen earlier had left the earth with Him and were no longer on the earth. The only people left were the few wicked who had survived the devastations earlier, but there were not many. Nuclear Attack on America and The Lord's Army David Kocurek July 3, 2005 Nuclear Attack on America In this dream/vision it was not visual, but rather audio. It was as if I were listening to a radio broadcast with a lady reporting a news flash. She said some US cities were nuked. I listened as she named coastal cities from Alaska to southern California. I started to count and remember the cities' names as she named them. But then I awoke and sat up in bed, still hearing her speak on the radio. I was shocked to still hear her while I was awake. The TV was off, and I have no radio in my room (?). This startled me and I forgot my count and couldn't remember all the cities' names she mentioned. It was about 9-14 - all coastal cities; then it faded off. I couldn't hear it any more. I remembered a few, though, like Los Angeles, Anchorage, Santiago, San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver etc... all coastal cities. Dumitru Duduman's prophecy's come to mind (?). But also, the fact that after the cold war both Russia and America divulged their nuclear plans to one another, or MAD Mutually Assured Destruction. In case of an attack on Russia, the Russian plans were to hit all coastal cities with ICBMs while detonating some other ICBMs a few hundred miles above America, releasing an electromagnetic pulse to silence all communications and electricity from within America. This is no secret and can be looked up on the internet. The Lord's Army in Preparation I dreamed I was on a white horse. I was in a line with many others on their white horses. We all wore armor and had swords, yet no two were dressed alike. The line was three lines deep. We all faced east. Their was one lone horseman out front of us all; he was down a ways from were I was. Though I couldn"t see Him very well, I knew it to be Jesus on His horse, because He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. I looked down on my white horse and noticed it was dressed up in silver all over very elaborately, yet seemed old with carvings. Each rider was distinctly dressed for battle but all had armor and silver on us and our horses. I noticed some little silver bells braded in to my horse's reins. I thought 'this can't be very stealthy' (?), even though they looked nice with hand carvings on them. I looked over my right shoulder, third row back, and saw a man I once saw teaching on Bible prophecy years ago. I can't remember his name, but I remember his face. There were some on foot helping him prepare his armor and horse for battle. I looked around and we were on some fast grassy plain with small rolling hills. The three lines of the Lord's army went as far as I could see in either direction. Then I remembered somewhere in the bible were it says, "A triple braded rope is not easily broken." The time for the Lord's return is drawing near. It was a great sight to see. I wondered about those bells that were on my horse, so while praying I asked the Lord why there were bells on my horse. This was the reply I got: "I put those there so I'll always know at all times where you are on the battle field." Wow, I thought. They are bells of love. It's true, those who put their trust in the Lord will never be disappointed. Dreams of Missile Attacks on U.S. Erin from Chile 6/21/05 Just 2 weeks ago I had 2 dreams about missiles hitting the US. In the first dream I was just in a completely dark place and I was looking towards the United States (I'm in Chile). In front of me I saw a great city, (I thought NY at the time but who knows...). All of a sudden I saw a light streaking across the sky and go down into the city. Then there was a huge explosion and the entire city was flattened. Just gone, nothing remaining. In the second dream, in the same week, I dreamed again about a similar event. This time I was again in a dark place but looking at a large map of the world on a wall. It covered the entire wall and reminded me of something that you might see in a NASA building or something (like a giant computer screen but on a wall). I was standing there looking at this map when I saw 3 missiles going toward the US again. I stood there and watched as 2 hit cities on the east coast and one went out to the west somewhere. I was certain that one city was NY but the other east coast city I wasn't sure -- but it was to the south. Also, in that same week of the missile dreams, I dreamed twice (again twice) about terrible earthquakes. As you know, last week there was a devastating earthquake here in the north of Chile, followed by another one the next day in the south of Chile and then 2 or 3 in California, Alaska and Japan. In my dream, I knew that the earthquake would be here in Chile. I thought perhaps here in Santiago, but it was in the north instead. I pray that my dream of the missiles is only that.... a dream. Nuke Visions of U.S. Cities B.H. - 7/13/05 I had this dream back in August 2003, but certain circumstances have brought it to the forefront of my mind over the past few months. A plant that towered over my head in the dream (I am 6'3") was non-existent back in 2003, but is now right where it was in my dream, and two days ago, went from sagging and blocking our walkway, to standing straight up. I was not the one who did this, and the person who tied it up was not aware of this aspect of the dream. Seeing that plant standing up like that sent chills down my spine. This is why: In this dream I was in my backyard facing west, the direction of the river (I live in Memphis, TN, about 5 miles or so from the river). I was standing directly next to the towering plant I described above. There were no shadows, but I could feel the sun's warmth (midday?), and the sky was a clear blue. Suddenly, there was a bright flash in the southwest and as a mushroom cloud rose into the sky, the roar of the blast hit me, soon followed by a blast of hot wind. I felt the air grow hot very quickly and I hit my knees. I awoke in a cold sweat, tears streaming down my cheeks. Also, two nights ago when I saw that the plant had been bound up like that, as I sat there staring at it, the phrase, "it's on a barge" popped into my head. From past experience, I have learned to pay close attention when this happens. Today I took out my map of the city and traced a line from my street toward the southwest and the line ran directly between the two bridges. It is quite apparent that an event like this would sever the supply lines across the Mississippi River as well as kill many people in the surrounding area. I hesitated to write to you about this dream, but when I saw that plant standing tall two nights ago, I had tell you. Forgive me for waiting as long as I did to pass this on to you. God willing, I'll be proven wrong. Cincinnati Nuked? Garrett Crawford - 4/12/07 A city in southwest Ohio was nuked (Cincinnati?) and I saw the fallout perimeter; it stretched eastward. I saw three bands of fallout in degress of red according to the severity of fallout. Like I said before, all the fallout moved to the east. The width of the fallout area was from about the ¼ of the state to the Ohio River, and it stretched into the western parts of the state. I was shown at this time all supplies and industrial goods will cease to be made, and the manufacturing sector will cease to exist. No longer will we be able to rely on manufactured goods, because there will be no one to make them. (David: Garrett lives in the fallout area down wind of Cincinnati.) Another dream the same night: I saw a large cruise Ship that represented America. They had a large Broadway-style production going on the deck of the ship. It was about Jesus and Christianity; there were many lights, actors, props, backgrounds and smoke machines. It looked like a really expensive and fancy production. It was so extravagant. I recall watching as they had the actor playing Jesus walk on the water, which was on the pool on the deck. I then looked up and saw a sign, a great big neon sign on a pole. The sign read something to the effect of: 'God is with the US' or 'God loves the US.' I cannot recall exactly what it said, but I do recall that when reading it I just laughed and shook my head. San Diego Nuked? Garrett Crawford - 4/15/07 I was standing over a small model city that had a toy train in it. This city was San Diego. The toy train ran all through the city and there was a nuclear bomb on the train. I was so obsessed with this train and the nuclear bomb that was inside it. I would watch the train and see where it went, constantly wondering when and where the bomb inside of it would go off. This train was the focus of my attention and I did nothing but think about it. After a while I began to lose my focus and my obsession for the train and the bomb, and I walked away from the model city. After I walked away, the train stopped and I never got to see if the bomb went off, if it ever even did. Chicago Nuked? Mark Fritts - 4/15/07 I had a dream last night of a nuclear attack upon Chicago. I was in Chicago and I heard a plane go overhead and I knew that a nuclear bomb was dropped. I immediately ran into an underground subway system and sought protection by asking for the nearest nuclear fallout shelter. I then was directed to where one was which ended up being outside of the city. (David: This is a warning that the judgment is decreed but there is time to find a place of safety. The only place of escape is to get out of town. Chicago is also threatened with an earthquake soon.) Boston Nuked? Ruth Steverman - 7/18/07 Hi, I had a dream a couple of nights ago. In the dream I saw a mushroom cloud over Boston. I was wondering if anyone else has had a similar dream for Boston. In the dream I immediately started praying for my new granddaughter; she had been born. Her due date is September 5 and in the dream she was still an infant. Thanks and God bless. D.C. Nuked As I Went to Heaven Marc Stinebaugh - 5/10/08 This is very unusual for me, as I rarely have dreams I can remember, and sometimes it will just be a snapshot that I will remember, but two nights ago, on May 8th, I had a really long dream that I can't fully remember because it was so complicated. What I do clearly remember was at the end of it because something unexpected and out of place happened that had nothing to do with the rest of the dream. I found myself on one of the top floors of a tall high-rise apartment building in Washington, D.C. (near where I live). I didn't see any landmarks but I still knew it was D.C. Someone that had been in the dream earlier was standing next to me and as I looked out the window over the city (the buildings looked very small, like Lego blocks). I saw two nuclear explosions on the ground that were in close proximity to each other and grew into tall mushroom clouds very quickly. My immediate thoughts were that the explosion would reach me very soon and I wondered if I would die quickly or not. Then I thought about the radioactive fallout for a second and turned my head away from the window and closed my eyes. I knew that God could protect me from it, but also knew that it probably wouldn't have happened that way if that was His plan for me, so I accepted that I would die from it. As I had my eyes closed, I felt an amazing calm come over me and I felt I had died and was now in a peaceful state and that I was going to go to heaven. I laid there feeling this peacefulness and enjoying the feeling when I realized that I was actually sleeping and then I woke up from the dream. Nuke Attack and Revival Dear Friends, Many are receiving warnings of a nuclear attacks on major cities. I have felt that revival was coming soon and that it would come after another attack worse than 911. I also clearly received Jer.18:7,8 today. "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them." I do not believe that this nation will repent this week. I don"t believe that God gave this to me as an excuse for why something may not happen but rather to let us know that when it does it is not His fault. God is merciful but He knows the nature of man must be chastened to repent. Sooner or later it is not to anyone's advantage to delay judgment. {Eccl.8:11} Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. {Isa.26:5} For he hath brought down them that dwell on high, the lofty city: he layeth it low, he layeth it low even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust. {26:6} The foot shall tread it down; even the feet of the poor, and the steps of the needy. {26:7} The way of the just is uprightness: thou that art upright dost direct the path of the just. {26:8} Yea, in the way of thy judgments, O Jehovah, have we waited for thee; to thy name, even to thy memorial [name], is the desire of our soul. {26:9} With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee earnestly: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness. {26:10} Let favor be showed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness will he deal wrongfully, and will not behold the majesty of Jehovah. {26:11} Jehovah, thy hand is lifted up, yet they see not: but they shall see [thy] zeal for the people, and be put to shame; yea, fire shall devour thine adversaries. When the people continue to turn the Grace of God into a license to go their own way (Jude 4), even if Noah, Daniel and Job were there interceding, they would deliver only their own souls by their righteousness (Eze.14:12-20). Eventually when men refuse to repent God says don't pray for them any more (Jer.14:10-12, 7:16, Lk.13:24), in other words stop asking me to delay or have mercy. I hope we haven't reached that point for these cities yet. Please follow the email exchanges below and pray for wisdom. Bless you, Dave ********************************************************* Dave, I woke up this morning (12-07-03) half awake half asleep. I heard a voice say four cities have been bombed with nuclear weapons. Then I heard these were dirty bombs. Lam:3, Lev:3, Gen:3, Ex:3, Eph:3, came out of the Word after this. I asked God for a dream ... I remembered nothing when I awoke it was not until the afternoon that it hit me. When I was asleep I heard a confirming word I had no visuals. The Lord said plainly "Joel" then again "Joel". I read the 3 chapters and see it coming through the Word. Joel 2:2,10, 30-31; 3:15 all speak of thick smoke and not being able to see the sun, moon or stars. The number of these accounts in Joel are four. Your Brother, Philip ********************************************************* Warning dream from Chris Radic Feb.14, 04 This dream was about 2 weeks ago . I was standing in a big city. In the middle of the street, I could see evangelists on the corners trying to give warnings, but the people did not listen, they only laughed at them. Some were being taken off the streets by force .. Afar off, I could see the Pacific Ocean. I could almost say for sure it was San Francisco, California. The Lord showed me that the evangelists knew what was coming, but they stayed at their post... All of the sudden, I heard an explosion, and saw a huge fire ball... As it was traveling closer to me, it was consuming everything in it path. As it got closer, I heard a sound that I have never heard in my life. It was a precursor. This explosion was so powerful, that it was like a nuclear release... and maybe it was... precursors usually happen this way... When the fire ball got to me, I was totally atomized. The only thing I could see in the street was a shadow of where I once was standing... I was then being brought up. I was about 10,000 feet up over the city. I was crying, because I thought I did something wrong... The evangelists were going up to the heavens... At that same time, the Lord told me, "No son, you haven't done anything wrong... Come here, says the Lord, let me show you the moral decline of this nation!" I started seeing like a movie of our country from 1776- 1920- 1940- 1950- 1960..... very bad all the way.... In all this, there were Gods chosen giving warning...but only a few listened . The nation itself, never came to full repentance... Then the lord told me, "Chris my righteous judgment is now on the nation and other nations along with her... I am going to consume them by fire, says the Lord!!" I awoke out of my sleep and started to pray in the spirit. I could not intercede, only pray, that His Will be done.... ************************************************** San Francisco Dream Dave, I've never been to SF, but on the night Feb 14, 2004 or early morning Feb 15, I had a dream about a cataclysmic event coming to SF. On Feb 14, I was reading about the mass gay & lesbian marriage happening in SF and I was thinking about God's warning through his prophets like Duduman, Gruver and Bohler and many other men of God through the past few years. That night when I went to bed I dreamt that I was on a car traveling across the Golden Gate bridge. All my companions were unbelievers and they seemed to be in a "joy ride" mood. As we reached half way the bridge, all of a sudden the bridge started falling apart, beams snapping and falling, and lanes breaking up, and cars started falling into the ocean like pebbles. Instantly, I knew in my spirit that a huge terrorist attack had just taken place in the US. The people I was traveling with started screaming and panicking. I manage to calm them down quickly and then I led them to a short prayer. The first words that came to my mouth were, "Lord we are so full of sin - please forgive us ...." In the next instant, our car had reached the other side of the bridge, safe and sound then the dream ended. Shalom, John. **************************************************** David, We lived in Grass Valley Calif. from 1983-1993 with a hilltop 360 degree view, that allowed us to see the coastal mountains all the way across the Sacramento Valley. In the mid to late 1980s I awoke from a dream that was from the Lord. In the dream I was standing on my hilltop looking out across the Sacramento Valley toward San Francisco, and noticed this huge column of black cloud going up 60 to 80 thousand feet and forming a mushroom head. I knew it was atomic. Also in another dream I was walking in a hilly area such as I grew up near in the east side of Oakland, Calif. Walking amongst the oaks and scrub brush I came across three men. Watching them, I noticed they appeared disoriented turning this way and that as they carefully progressed. When they became aware of my presence, facing the sound of my foot fall they lifted their heads up to look at me and were holding their arm and hand up so as to shield their eyes from intense light. I now see that they were light struck from a nuclear explosion. When I greeted them I invited them to look at this map I had possession of. They milled over and peered over my shoulder, and this is what we saw. I saw a map of the California coast line. In this dream the San Francisco peninsula was gone as far south as Santa Cruz. The north peninsula was gone as far north as Navato or Santa Rosa. At the bottom of the map was a date glowing in red and blinking. It read August 9th. (I'm sure about the month but the day I'm not sure). At the time I knew the day also and waited for it. When it arrived something did happen. On the Sacramento Channel 3 News there came the news blip of the opening of the National Democratic Party Convention in San Francisco being hosted by the Gay Caucus. David Whyte *************************************************** Dear David, Your emails brought back what I remember "seeing" years ago in the eighties. I was driving in the Bay Area and it was a beautiful clear day. About 5 miles away, across the Bay, I could see the tall, white buildings of the San Francisco financial district sparkling in the sunshine. As I admired the beauty of the city view, it was like a TV channel change and the same view became a blackened, broken, scene of destruction. I remember the remains of the Transamerica pyramid building standing out about 1/2 the size of its original structure, black, bent, and twisted. I blinked my eyes trying to figure out how in the world I could see the city like that, wondering if it was my imagination or what. Over the years, I have had only a few visions so this is an area of my spiritual walk I try to be careful with. God bless you all, I hope in the Lord's Mercy. Rory m *************************************************** Bryant Holmes About 8 years ago, the Lord had me read Joel chapter 1:4, about the different locusts. He then showed me a vision of a tree and showed me that the locusts were attacking the tree; one group attacked the fruit, another the leaves, another the bark, and the final one the root. He said that the tree represented the family and that the last attack would be at the root. In April/May of last year (2003), He reminded me of this again (just before the Episcopalians ordained the gay priest) and said that homosexual marriage would pass, but after it did, there would be a time of relative quiet. Then, the homosexuals would start going to mainstream churches for their weddings and the churches that did not allow them to be married there would be threatened with the loss of their tax exempt (501c3) status. He said that we would be surprised at the big churches who went along and performed the ceremonies because of the potential loss of their tax exempt status. He also said that when this happens, this would be the door through which persecution flows against the church in America. Also around April/May of last year (2003), He gave me a vision of what the next attack would be like; He showed me a beautiful woman with a beautiful pearl necklace and a blue dress (i never saw the woman's face; i saw her neck, the necklace, and the top and collar of the dress)...out of nowhere a man's hand came and snatched the pearl necklace and the feeling of panic, terror, horror, shock, fear, was like nothing that i have ever experienced; it is beyond my ability to describe it...I don't know specifically what the next attack will be, but whatever it is, it is going to be much worse than 911 and horrible beyond our comprehension. (Editor's note: The string of pearls could be a group of cities that will be taken away from the Babylonish harlot of America.) I had a four part dream in the middle of a 40 day fast in early may of 2004. In the first part I was standing on something, I don't know what it was, and the whole earth was spread out in front of me, like a map. I could see everything, all at once, every continent, every city, everything...to my left was the u.s. and Canada, Mexico; Europe was in in front of me. for some reason, the whole world was dark, because every city had its lights on...I saw lights on in buildings, but I didn't see any people. someone was standing next to me, narrating, explaining what I was being shown, but I don't remember seeing them. I just remember a light next to me and understanding that the voice was coming from the light, but I couldn't see who was in the light...anyway, i saw 9/11 hit....there were 'ripples' that went through the whole earth, like when you throw a stone into a calm lake or something...there wasn't a feeling of panic or fear, but mostly sadness. not even sorrow, really...more like when a friend is hurting and you go and pat their shoulder like, 'awww, it'll be ok', kind of thing, if that makes sense...I saw people taking their money out of the us and putting it in Canada and France (France was prominent in this)...I mean, rich people, movie stars, etc., thinking that their money would be safe...then I saw the next attack, which occurred on the west coast....Los Angeles lit up like fireworks, at least 2 explosions...it was a nuclear attack...the ripples then went deeper and further than they did for 9/11....remember in the string of pearls vision that there was such a feeling of panic and terror that I couldn't even describe it? I felt it again in this dream, but the panic was not just in the U.S.- it was worldwide...I suddenly found myself in Africa, and I was walking among people, and they were crying, because they were very afraid...and the people in the U.S. who had taken their money out of the u.s. and put it in Canada and France after 9/11, thinking that their money would be safe, were wrong...they couldn't get to their money anymore...the entire economy had locked up like an engine with no oil. I saw, superimposed (if this makes sense) over the whole earth, a mechanism lock into place, like some kind of lock...I saw this land mass, that represented the economy, slide off into water, and it didn't rise again, though I got the feeling that people were really expecting it to...it was explained to me that these attacks are being taken advantage of (I hate to say orchestrated, but that's the feeling I got) to lead us into a truly global economy, but first, the existing structure has to be destroyed, because the existing economic structure cannot sustain a truly global economy...a truly global economy not only means that there is no one nation that is stronger than another, but it also means that there is no one nation that is richer than another...a true global economy is not about getting the rest of the world to meet our economic standards, it's really about dragging us down into their standard; America is going to be a 3rd world nation as a result of this...the beginning of this is the outsourcing of jobs, which has been in the news a lot lately. like i said, there were 4 parts and this was just the first; the second had to do with the timing of the attacks, the third had to do with secular and religious people not listening to the warning, and the fourth had to do with the church as a whole not listening.... The second part of the dream was by far the most disturbing. I was in the parking garage of the world trade center, but the parking garage wasn't underground or even on the ground level-it was 10 floors beneath where one of the planes was about to hit. I was holding onto a concrete pillar and looking out to my left, and there was a 'window', for lack of a better word, that allowed me to see the city...I think I was in the first building because no plane had hit yet; it was peaceful, sunny, and quiet, very serene and calm...I remember saying within my spirit, Lord, these people have no idea what's about to happen, but I know...I'm the only one who knows what's going to happen...as I held on to the pillar, which was about 10-15 feet away from the 'window', or clear space that let me see outside, I closed my eyes and prayed, 'is it now Lord?', and He said, 'No, not yet'...I began to tense up, because I knew in my spirit that the impact was coming, and that it was coming soon...a few seconds later, I asked, 'is it now, Lord?', and He said, 'No, not yet'....something in my spirit began to rumble (rumble is the only way I know how to describe it)....the intervals between the 'rumbles' got shorter and shorter and shorter and more intense, and I asked, 'Is it now Lord?', and He didn't answer...suddenly i felt the impact of the plane hitting the building and there was a dull WHOOMP!, and the concrete pillar that I was holding onto vibrated violently......as I looked out to my left, to the clear space, everything was still silent....and then a body fell, just one.....I was horrified...have you seen movies or pictures and fills e bodies and body parts, like confetti...I saw arms, legs, I saw a woman in a skirt, falling, I saw what was left of a man, from the waist down: a shiny black belt, black slacks, black shoes, and the feet were crossed at the ankles...I heard the people's screams...I was close enough even to hear the wind whipping through their clothes as they fell...the sky was full of bodies and body parts...I could even tell which ones had jumped from above and which ones had fallen...the ones who jumped seemed to have a little more control of their bodies than the ones who simply fell; i saw a man bent in half, like he had jumped off of a diving board...suddenly, almost outside of my peripheral view, a head bounced into the parking garage...a man's head, no body, no limbs, just head, but it was alive...it was gnashing its teeth in the most horrible way that i have ever heard, demonically, repeatedly, and very loud...I got scared and i said in the dream, Lord, I don't like this; Lord, I don't want to see this anymore....the dream faded gradually, i woke up and sat up in my bed for a few seconds When I laid back down and went back to sleep the dream continued....this time i was in an elevator at my job...i work for PayPal, which i truly believe to be either the mark of the beast or the system that the mark is going to be based on; it's slogan is 'the new world currency', which most people who don't work here don't know about....I was in an elevator with 3 co-workers (we had an elevator at the old building that we were in until last year; we don't have one in our new building), all of whom are still working here and I see frequently....there were 2 women and a man; I was standing in front of one of the women, my face in her face, and i said emphatically, "there IS going to be a nuclear attack in the united states, and it is going to be in Los Angeles!'..her face turned red and she backed up, smiled, and walked away, and the Lord said, 'this is a religious spirit'...He helped me to understand that she represents the people who send those cutesy emails, the ones that say something like, 'say this prayer and send this email to 10 people, including the one who just sent it to you, and God will answer your prayer by the end of the day'...people who have no concept of Who He truly is...they think of God as being a cutesy all love all accepting God, not a God who has standards and not a God who demands righteousness....the other 2 people, the man and the other woman, were talking amongst themselves, and when I turned to tell them what was about to happen, their conversation intensified so that they were so focused on each other that they ignored me...I believe that they represent the people who don't necessarily reject God outright, but ignore Him... The final part of the dream is the part that i believe has to do with the church and our current state...I was standing outside of this massive building that looked like a school...I was carrying these things in each arm, burdens is what I heard in my dream, and I could see them clearly, although no one else could, but I got the feeling that because of where I was, people should have been able to see what I was carrying...I found myself in a huge auditorium, and it was like a party or celebration was going on...there was loud, raucous laughter, children running everywhere, even on the stage, women and men talking and laughing and smiling...papers were in the air everywhere...and I'm standing facing the crowd, with my back near the door, with these 'burdens' in my arms, and no one is paying attention to me, although, like I said, I got the feeling that they should have been, and that they should have known what I was carrying...all of a sudden, I feel the same 'rumblings' that I had when i was in the world trade center, and I'm getting agitated...I see a young girl named autumn (of all of the people in my dream, she is the only one who was called by name), who is about 6 yrs old and has a crush on my 6 year old son (in real life, this is true)...she's chasing my son and he's trying to get away; I found my wife and told her to get the kids because we had to get out of there NOW, and the rumblings are getting closer together and more intense...she said that she would but walked away and didn't come back, and i got frustrated, so I left and went outside and was going to go down some steps to get to away from the building, but as I stood at the top of the steps, I realized that they were very steep, unusually steep, and that the steps themselves weren't very wide; it seemed to me that if I tried to step on one, it would only be big enough for about half of my foot, or less, so I said, Lord, I can't go down these steps...they're too steep and too small and with these burdens that I'm carrying, I'm afraid I'll lose my balance and fall....then, I was prompted to look to my left and I saw a lush green grassy area that gradually went to a sidewalk and away from the building...I went that way and as soon as I cleared the grass and got to the sidewalk, the Lord said, 'go back', and I knew that He meant back into the building to try to warn the people one more time, and I didn't want to because the rumblings were increasing in frequency and I knew that whatever was coming was coming quick and that there wasn't much time, but I ran back into the building with these burdens and came back out with my wife and 4 of my 5 kids (my 6 year old son was still inside for some reason)....our car was parked right in front of the building and I yelled to my wife to go back inside and get our 6 year old because we have to go NOW!!! and that we don't have time to wait...my wife and I have 16 month old twins, a boy and a girl, and I was buckling my son into his baby seat and it broke, so I tossed it over my shoulder and said, Lord, what now? suddenly, out of nowhere, a red cord appeared from behind the seat, like where a seat belt would be. I was getting very agitated but my son was very calm and he was looking at me with his huge brown eyes, not worried about anything...I put him in the seat and tied the rope/cord around him and I remember thinking, at least if we get into a car accident, he'll be ok; this won't cut him in half...just as I'm doing this, the rumbling are getting closer and closer and more intense, to where I feel them deep within my bowels, and now there is no interval between them, and suddenly I sense something coming over my shoulder, and there is this large, round shadow on the ground, and I remember thinking, sadly, great, this is it; this is what was coming and we're not supposed to be here; we're not going to make it, and I woke up. The Lord hasn't given me full understanding of everything in these dreams, but i do believe that timing wise, something is going to happen in the fall (autumn)...because autumn was the little girl's name who was chasing after my son, and of all of the people in the dreams, hers is the only name that I heard audibly...also, because of the dream where I was in the world trade center; fall begins in September. ****************************************************** An Open Vision Feb. 25, 2004 Vincent Xavier email@example.com On January 5, 2004 while driving north on I-15 I was at perfect peace with the Lord and enjoying the beauty of that day. I had been in prayer and had drawn very close to the Lord in my heart. As I was driving in perfect peace with my eyes wide open, I saw several nuclear bombs explode in several cities across America at the same time. Immediately the scripture came to mind about the UNWALLED CITIES. I did not want to see this vision and actually asked that it would depart from my mind. Yet as I continued to travel down the road I began to sense the seriousness of what I had seen. The Spirit began to speak to my heart about a SERIES OF EVENTS that will take place SIMULTANEOUSLY. The Lord revealed to me that the reason there have been no suicide bombers blowing up malls and other people oriented facilities is because in the mind of the terrorist there is a knowledge that if they were to walk into a place or be on a bus and blow it up, there would be a quick intervention that would arrest the entire population of men and women from these foreign countries throughout the United States. One explosion would not fulfill the intent and purpose of what has been planned against this country. What is happening at this time is a planned and plotted series of explosions at the same time that will cripple and cause to collapse the nation in one day. When I saw this vision I saw cities fall in a moment. What has propelled me to write this is that approximately twenty minutes ago I was told that a ―Dirty Bomb‖ was found in a locker in Las Vegas Nevada. I know in my heart that there are nuclear weapons in this country that are planted in several cities throughout. Part of a prophecy 1-27-04 "Are these not the days of the PASSOVER? Is it not the season called MARCH? Yes it is at this time during the month of MARCH that the dynamic of my Kingdom shall manifest in the earth. A great outpouring of My Spirit is to come and fill the house with the Glory. A great deliverance from the power of sin and death shall be broken and my people will come forth in freedom and liberty. Truly old things shall pass away and all things shall become new!" More March 04 prophecies http://www.etpv.org/2003/tyoac.html http://www.etpv.org/2004/ahum.html ***************************************************** Michael A. Landrum, January 21, 2004 An open door in 2004 Prophesy now To the land, the sea, the sky, the shore. Break the chains. Start to soar. Listen now for the Lions roar. He comes in mercy and He comes in might. He comes to heal the devil's blight. The nations will tremble and kings will fall, But the people who trust in their Jesus will call To the land, the sea, the sky, the shore That He who tarries will tarry no more! From the time that my people seek me with the whole heart, From the time that my people will set themselves to call upon me in one voice, I will with single purpose visit them To break the yokes of their oppressor. On March 12th and 18th, I will show you my Hands: First, my left Hand of judgment; Second, my right Hand of healing. From that time shall my people begin to finally seek me with the WHOLE HEART. I will not allow my testimony to be obscured or my works ignored in the earth. ―Come, and let us return to the Lord; for He has torn so that He may heal us; He has stricken so that He may bind us up. After two days He will revive us--quicken us, give us life; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live before Him.‖ [Hosea 6:1-2 Amplified version] *************************************************************** David J Meyer I must write about another vision that the Lord gave me on February 15th, 2004. I woke up at 5:30 that morning, and my thoughts were instantly filled with the names of the cities that I had ministered in during the past several years. I thought of New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, and numerous others. After praying and reading the Scripture in preparation for preaching that morning, I was getting ready to go to the church at about 9:15 A.M., when I suddenly became overwhelmingly sleepy. I was not tired and had had a good night"s sleep, but I was compelled to lay face down. Suddenly I saw a residential area of a large city. It was as dark as night, but I could see rooftops and a large square building. I did not recognize the area and wondered where it was. In an instant there was a massive explosion, and the large square building disappeared in fragments of glass and concrete. Immediately there was another flash of light, and then a column of red and yellow fire that rose high into the air appeared like a mushroom cloud. I asked the Lord where this was taking place and in the split second that I asked, the telephone rang. The phone almost never rings at that time on Sunday morning. I heard three rings, and I heard my wife say that it was a New York call as we have caller I.D. I said to her, "You"d better get it." The caller was a man I had never heard of before, but he had obtained one of my tapes from someone and decided to call me at that moment of time. He said he was from Brooklyn. I do not pretend to know what all of this means or what the time frame is. May God help us and be merciful. **************************************************************** Samuel Garcia This morning March 1, 2004 I had two dreams about possible judgment on NYC and San Francisco. First dream was: I was in Manhattan in my Mother's apartment and I looked out the window and saw three volcanic eruptions happening one after another. I noticed that there was snow in the ground, that might mean that before March 21, the last day of winter there may be some kind of volcanic eruption, at least three of them in Manhattan, New York City. The second dream was that I heard a Christian lady news reporter, maybe like from CBN, the 700 Club or something like that reporting that something had happened in San Francisco, around where the 49ers football team plays. Time is running out for America, let us make sure that WE are found FAITHFUL to the LORD. ****************************************************** A prophet friend in E. Florida This morning the Lord woke me at 2 am. I spent hours reading what he wanted me to and I went back to bed. The power was very strong on me. I saw myself able to walk thru walls and go up to the ceiling. The police tried to arrest me and couldn't find me. Someone needed help and I could translate and help them. Then I saw dark clouds and things moving very fast; I could see pages turning very fast. Then an angel came to me and said everything is ok till 7- 30 [July 30]. Dave this was real, the lord wants me to practice on translating like Phillip in acts 8. Oh what a god! What I was reading is on death to self and on the inner life. Our spirit and soul and body has to be only doing the desire of God. No pleasing self, only the Father. Completely dead to self, no self motivation, no self will ,no trying to please self, just looking at Jesus' eyes and only doing what he shows us, no matter what circumstances. We are in do nothing till he shows us what to do, that means no opinions not trying to figure out anything or use reason, just let God be God and trust him. Terrorist Weapons in U.S. James Bartholomew - 3/03/10 In a dream on the night of 7/22/07, I was watching a video monitor that I knew was connected to a camera watching the U.S.- Mexico border. The ground gently sloped away from the camera and was covered with high grass that was mostly brown. Suddenly, a woman on a bicycle appeared on the monitor. The woman appeared to be Mexican, was dressed in a long peasant dress and could have been in her mid 20s. She was carrying something on her left shoulder which was covered in a white cloth. The outline of tubes around five inches in diameter and five feet long could be seen. The whole bundle of tubes seemed to be at least three feet in diameter. As the woman passed out of view of the camera, a second bicycle rider appeared, also carrying a bundle of tubes covered with a white cloth. The second rider was a dark male with black hair and could have been of either Mexican or Middle East origin. As I was watching the monitor, I realized they were smuggling terrorist supplies into the country. I was in a state of panic, trying to tell people, "She's the one!" but no words would come out of my mouth. The dream ended and I awoke in a state of panic, still trying to speak. At the time of the dream, I did not have an idea what the tubes were. Lately, I have been thinking they could be shoulder-mounted rocket launchers. This morning I looked up these type of weapons on the Internet before leaving for work. From their appearance, they could be what I saw in the dream. On the way to work, I turned on the radio. Someone was talking about a book on the history of terrorism in the United States. I changed stations and someone else was talking about an aspect of terrorism. This may be a confirmation that rocket launchers have been smuggled into the U.S. through Mexico by terrorists. Note from David: This was just posted. Syria is already smuggling this weapon across one border to terrorists. Nothing to stop them or their cronies from doing the same here. New Syrian-supplied weapon enables Hizballah to shoot down Israeli aircraft DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 3, 2010, 6:30 PM (GMT+02:00) Syria has defied Israel's caution that handing over new strategic weapons to the Lebanese Hizballah would compel Israel to strike targets inside Syria. DEBKAfile's military sources disclose that Damascus has just smuggled across the border a number of Russian-made IGLA-S surface-to-air missiles capable of intercepting low-flying F-16 warplanes, drones, helicopters, cruise missiles, transports and surveillance aircraft in all weather conditions, by day or night. Tuesday, March 2, the head of the research division of Israeli Military Intelligence, Brig. Gen. Yossi Beidetz, reported to the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee that Syria had smuggled to Hizballah strategic weaponry more sophisticated that it had ever dared transfer before. Beidetz did not specify the type of missiles, but our US sources disclosed he was referring to the advanced Russian IGLA 9K338, a shoulder-mounted missile which poses a threat to low-flying aircraft and other flying projectiles in all weather conditions. Its other prime asset is that it is virtually impossible to jam its launch and trajectory with electronic counter-measures. The US sources could not say whether these missiles were taken out of the stock recently consigned by Moscow to Iran's Revolutionary Guards or delivered to Syria and thence to Hizballah. DEBKAfile's military sources report that the IGLA-S in Hizballah's hands will seriously hamper Israeli Air force surveillance activity over Lebanon and curtail its operational options against the surface-to-surface rockets when positioned to shield them against attack. Its presence in the Hizballah armory means that the Iran-backed Lebanese Shiite extremists will be free to loose their missiles and rockets against Israeli towns in relative safety, with Israeli aircraft hard-pressed to destroy them. Moscow and Damascus have covered the IGLA-S transaction to a third party by defining the system as defensive. However, seen from Israel, it adds another layer to Hizballah's aggressive capabilities by shielding its massive array of rockets against aerial attack. While visiting Washington last week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that, if attacked by Hizballah, Israel would also go for its sponsors, Syria and Iran. A Nuclear Strike on America & the Deliverance of God's People By Evangelist Ed Hawk Graham It was the Lord's day, Sunday 2-28-99. I had been studying God's word all day and praying that the Lord would give me a fresh word concerning the storm of His judgment upon America. As I prayed, I fell off into a deep sleep and the next thing I knew, I was standing outside preaching to a great many people of the coming storm. I kept preaching over and over that all who trust in the Lord and believe in His warning should start to prepare themselves for the coming storm. As I preached, many started to prepare, but others just laughed at my words of warning and went on their way. I saw many families split as the ones that didn't believe in the coming storm departed from the ones that believed in God's warnings and were starting to prepare themselves. As I watched the believers prepare; the nonbelievers just went about as nothing would ever happen to them. I continued to preach of the coming storm to all who would hear the warning. As I preached, we all heard the sound of a large plane going over our heads. As we all looked up, we saw that it was not a plane at all, but a I.C.B.M. nuclear missile on its way to its target. We all watched as the missile crossed the sky and disappeared out of sight. All at once, we saw a very large mushroom cloud going higher and higher into the sky. I looked at all the people before me and told them the storm was upon us. I then yelled, "All who have trusted in the Lord and His warnings, take cover as God's judgment is now upon this country". I looked once again and the mushroom cloud had now started to recoil back to the earth. I yelled one last warning for all who believed God's warning to take cover. As I watched, I saw all who would not believe the warning just go about as if nothing was about to happen. I started to pray in the spirit as I watched the nuclear cloud cross the land before me, demolishing everything in its path. Just before it reached me, I took one last look to see that all who trusted in the Lord's warnings made it to their shelters. As I lifted the door of my shelter and went inside, the door closed behind me as the power of the storm hit the ground. As I cleared my eyes, I saw that my whole family had taken God's warning and were in the shelter with me. We all started to praise the Lord for His protection. As I looked around in the shelter there was more than enough food and water to last through the storm. For what would become many months, the storm raged on and we remained in the shelter of the Lord. Each and every day we became closer and closer to the Lord as the things of the world were being stripped away through the storm of His judgment. All at once, there was a great calm and the Lord moved me to open the door of our shelter. As I prayed in the spirit, I opened the shelter door and stepped outside. As I stepped out, I found myself looking at all the destruction the nuclear strike had caused. I then found myself calling to all who trusted in the Lord's warning to come forth. When I said this, one shelter door after another started to come open and God's people started to come out of the ground untouched. Because they trusted in the Lord's warning, He had kept them through the storm. We all started walking across the land and we could see that all who did not trust in the Lord's warnings, were lost in the storm. We all started to praise the Lord and I woke up from my dream. For the next few hours, I found myself praising the Lord Jesus for His protection for all who trust in His warnings of the coming storm as I prayed the Lord placed three verses upon my heart all in PSALMS. Psa. 22:4-5, which says, "Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them", they cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. Psa. 32:7-8, which says, "Thou art my hiding space, thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with song of deliverance, "Selah" I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go; I will guide thee with mine eye. Psa. 91:10-11, which says, "There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plagues come high thy dwelling. For He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. The Sword Is Coming to Atlanta (Please see Catastrophe Delayed Momentarily in 2005) (Note from Dave: I have received two dreams from people; one lived South of Atlanta and one northeast, in which they were receiving refugees into their home. We certainly will have to be ready wherever we live to help out and be a witness.) April Fields' Dream Ron and I lived in a very large house but still there was a limited number of bedrooms. We had invited a number of friends and family to come spend the weekend with us. The bedrooms filled up quickly but then a late arrival – a couple who brought 16 more people with them – made it necessary for me to rearrange to accommodate them all. I recall that the people were families with different ages of children and none of them spoke English. And as I was sorting out where people would sleep I realized I would have to feed these people, too. I awoke while making a shopping list for food. Ron and April live outside of Atlanta. The Dream by Sam Cathey A month ago, Dale Cathey's oldest son Sam told him that he had a dream. Immediately prior to him telling this, Jeanne Beech quoted Gen. 41:32 -- that the doubling of a dream meant it is fixed, and that it will come to pass shortly. Sam said that in his dream he and his dad were coming up out of a subway and when they came up everything in Atlanta had been destroyed -- not a building remained. Dale and Sam didn't know about the above article. Jeanne lives 150 miles from Atlanta and has been shown she will have refugees in her home. Tony and Vicky Hinton We live in Georgia about 40 miles below Atlanta. My husband had a dream about 2 years ago about bombs hitting Atlanta. There is a brother in downtown Atlanta that ministers on the streets and also takes food and supplies mostly to poor mothers with children who have no income. But they feed whoever they can. As he has been ministering on the streets, about a year ago he felt in the spirit a strong darkness come over the city. Now Atlanta has always been in darkness, but this was a darkness like none he had ever felt. He and some of the brothers had noticed that some of the homeless people were disappearing. They have no home and no money, so they wondered why so many of them were gone all of a sudden and no one on the street knew what happened to them. This began to increase greatly. About 6 months ago, maybe a little longer, he and the brothers took food to some poor families in a trailer park. There were a lot of poor families living in the park. As they continued to take food to them every week, they noticed that there were a lot of foreign men moving into the park. Every week they increased. They were Middle Eastern men who were posing as Mexicans. Most of them just would not speak at all, but the ones who did were speaking to the brothers in Spanish and said they were Mexican. Since there has been a great influx of Mexicans in the area some of the brothers had learned some Spanish over the years. One brother who could speak Spanish well said that his Spanish was better than their Spanish. It is obvious that they are not Mexican, but middle eastern. The brothers went to the authorities but nothing has been done. They said there was nothing they could do ???? Well, several months ago, one of the brothers started feeling in his spirit to move out of the Atlanta area. He felt that his work was about over there. He felt to search for a place in the Tennessee area. He and his wife even went there, and had decided to move. Then his wife started changing her mind and started backing out of moving. So this brother became concerned because he felt he was hearing this from the Lord. So last week he began to fast and seek the Lord on this issue. Three days into the fast, early in the morning around 4 am, he was awakened. He looked up and there was a light in the room next to the wall at the other end of his room. Then suddenly an angel stepped out of the light, like he just stepped through the wall. As he stepped from the light into the room, he called the brother by name as he was pulling a sword from its sheath. The brother said he could hear the metal scraping as he pulled it from the sheath. He raised the sword. He then said, calling him by name, that "The Lord God" had put it into his heart to move from this place, and he was to take his family and move, because "The Lord God" was bringing the sword to this city. He also said that he "must leave soon." He repeated these instructions twice. Then he stepped backed into the light and disappeared. This brother has never had a visitation like this before. He told his wife. She said that God would have to show her. Please pray for this family and all of us who are in the area. I believe this might go with the word coming forth about multiple areas being hit before the year is out. (Note from Jeanne Beech: I do not recall where this came from, but this week I read that this man has been instructed to leave by July.) (Note from Dave: The invasion over the borders is preparing America for the fall. The Minutemen are trying to close the door after the fox is in the coupe. I hope the brother will obey whether his wife will or not. He should remember Lot and his wife.) Update from Tony and Vicky 6-4-05 Another brother in the Atlanta area has had an angel visit. The angel instructed him to leave the Atlanta area. After the visit he prayed and fasted for further instructions. As he was praying, he heard the Lord in an audible voice say that he was to leave Atlanta and he was to be gone by July. He gave no other details. Whether something is happening in July was not confirmed, only that he had to be gone by then. He was not told why either. So he is moving in blind faith and obedience. We live 40 miles below Atlanta and as of yet have had no instructions. We are waiting on the Lord, but have no fear nor sense no danger to us personally. This must be something that will affect downtown Atlanta, as all these brothers living in the heart of Atlanta. My son who has gone away from the Lord as he has left home lives right in the heart of Atlanta, also. Please agree with us for his protection as he has a calling that he has turned away from at the present. The Lord be merciful to his own. Attack on Atlanta? James Jones I woke up from a very disturbing dream at 6:40 am on 9-10-05. I felt prompted to put it down on paper. I live in Atlanta, Georgia, but I am not sure that this dream is only for Atlanta. In the dream, after bringing everything into the garage at night, I went into my house and shut the two garage doors. (Our current house only has only one garage door.) I then went to bed. In the middle of the night I heard a disaster alarm siren going off outside in the distance so I got up to look outside through a bedroom window. I looked for a while but at first I did not see anything. Then all of a sudden I sensed that all the air in my room was being sucked outward away from me. I immediately knew something was wrong and called out to my family that they needed to evacuate to the basement of our house immediately. They were all asleep but heard my warning when I yelled out with urgency. I first heard my mother call out, "How long before we have to get into the basement, do we have two hours time?" My reply was stern: "You better be down in the basement in two minutes." (Based on my understanding that one day equals one thousand years in God's time, then two minutes could equal 83 days which would land on approximately Dec. 2, 2005; but I'm not sure and don't have any divine revelation on how long two minutes God time equivocates to our time.) When running down into the basement I passed by the door to the garage and I saw my brother who was standing in the doorway. He asked me if I should put the doors to the garage down. I knew something was wrong because the doors were suppose to be down, so I went out to the garage to look. When I got into the garage both doors were somehow up. At this time I was able to see outside into the distance much better but I noticed the disaster alarms had stopped ringing. When I stood outside my garage I saw about 5-10 miles off in the distance a large black twirling cloud. At first I thought it was a cloud from a nuclear explosion but I looked at it carefully and it had the look of a nuclear explosion as well as the look of an F4 or F5 tornado tearing up everything. It seemed like it was both. The dream then ended. I knew the doors being up had a specific meaning and believe we have but a little time to evacuate before the storm comes upon us. I have known that the judgment storms will be coming upon our nation and I have always planned on emergency preparations to try to ride it out. It might be wise to rethink this mindset and get out while we still have a small window of time. The mathematical configuration I could determine was using the one day God time = 1000 years earth time. (Note from David: A brother calculated if "a thousand years is as one day," two minutes would be 511 days, or approx. 17 months. That could be approx. 17 months after 9-10-05, which would be about mid-March of 2007. Being in the basement before two minutes could indicate abiding in the secret place of Jesus before judgment falls.) Amos Skaggs said: G-d said He would postpone the destruction on America one more time to show His mercy to the believer because they prayed for this country. BUT HE WILL NOT DO IT AGAIN. I saw this Aug. 3, 2005 and recorded it also. Terrorists Nuke New York and Economy The farmer of Krems, also known as "The Seer of Waldviertel" …On September 17, 2001, a reverend from Tirol, Josef Stocker, spoke to the seer by telephone. Regarding the New York attack of September 11, 2001 the Farmer of Krems said: The terrorist act that is prophesied for the present-time has not yet occurred, and when it does there will be a nearly total destruction of New York -- an unprecedented terrorist act that will be carried out with two small nuclear explosive devices… Destruction of Manhattan New York is destroyed unexpectedly before this time of war by small explosive devices that explode very low in the air. The image grows more vivid, becoming like houses blasted apart from a violent storm. In the explosion inferno (the explosion's epicenter or "ground zero"), I saw nothing left standing. It would seem to have occurred around noon (local time). If one considers, however, that, in the early summer, it becomes light very early, that could be also in the morning hours. I saw all details clearly and with extraordinary clarity… … Also, regarding the destruction of New York, I saw details that one could never perceive with the eye due to the quickness of the event. It was revealed to me in proper sequence, but in slow motion. I saw this city in all of its detail. There a dark object fell in its course, continually crooking upon itself. I stared intently as this body fell, until it almost crashed to the ground. First it shredded into pieces, dissolving itself as it did this. In this moment I did not yet comprehend what had happened. The first explosive device exploded some buildings a distance behind a larger building standing with a wide entrance facing the ocean's shore. From the perspective of the Atlantic Ocean, these buildings seemed to be located somewhat to the south behind this larger building. The buildings did not fall over or implode upon themselves, but rather they became, save for a few, part of the explosion's epicenter (ground zero). They then became pulverized from the ground up. From a distance, they had the appearance of sinking, as if swallowed up by the ground beneath them. Hidden Bombs; Avian Flu; Translations Mesake Coalala email@example.com In the early hours of Sunday morning, 10/9/05 I had this dream. (Note: For quite a few weeks now I have been praying to the Lord that he visit all my friends and relatives around the world in dreams, visions and revelations and show them that the tribulation is about to start and that it was time to repent and turn to the Lord.) I dreamt that I was in Los Angeles. I was sitting on a table with an unsaved cousin of mine. He was telling me how the Lord has been showing him dreams of the whereabouts of the enemy"s nuclear bombs that have been hidden away in the U.S. He described to me an old, derelict, rundown warehouse where a nuclear warhead was hidden. In the dream I was really happy. God was answering my prayers and my friends and relatives were being warned. About 12.30AM, Monday morning, 10/10/05 I had this intense dream. In the dream I saw people panicking and fleeing towards the East Coast of the United States. I was wondering what the people were fleeing from. Then I heard the words "Avian Flu" or something that sounded similar but I am sure it was Avian Flu. I saw soldiers mercilessly shooting people who were slow to flee. As I looked at the soldiers the word "Nazi" came to my mind. I then saw this Polynesian family who were slow to flee. The parents had decided since they couldn"t make it they might as well hide under the the big septic tank beside their home. Little did the family know that a soldier had spotted them. Somehow I knew what soldier was thinking – he was thinking of blowing up the whole septic tank along with the family. As the chaos spread, I started praying and said something like this: "Lord what do you want me to do?" Immediately, my body had this bright, orange glow. I saw a few other people who had the same orange glow on them. Like the others I could clearly hear the voice of the Lord directing me on who to minister to. We were translated from place to place only at the Lord"s direction. I remember telling a group of people what was happening and leading them to the Lord. I then was directed to go to someone whose name was Urn…This Urn had shared a prophecy which I was interested in. I then woke up at about 1:00 AM thinking it was for real. Catastrophe Delayed Momentarily (See also Nuke Found in Arizona) Robin Schenck - 11-30-05 6:57 AM (David"s notes in red) In a dream I found myself, my two older brothers and many, many other people at a large concert hall. We were seated in a row not far from the front of the auditorium, maybe about 10 rows back from the stage. My eldest brother S--- was seated between my next oldest brother D---- and I. I was seated on the end of the row at the outside aisle or maybe there was one seat more to my left. The concert was about to begin. The concert began. There was also a man who I'd gone to high school with. He was in my oldest brother's class, so he was two years older than I. I had a major crush on this guy in high school. Now we were all grown up and at this concert together. As we sat there talking and preparing to see this concert my father who was outside the concert hall, unseen, sent in a message to my oldest brother to come out there - he wanted to talk to him. S--- (oldest brother) went out and came back with the message that father had said that he was not going to start the judgment just yet, the bad thing that he was about to do to the world, and that he did not want us to memorize or say/pray something just yet, lest we hinder something he wanted to do or prevent. Since Jesus was the first born of many brethren He is our oldest Brother who brings the message of the "Father." Everything is already orchestrated and our parts are completely planned out like a concert but the time is delayed. This same thing happened to me three months before the end of 1998. God told me the judgment of America in 2000 would be delayed. But He said I was not to tell anyone, except our local congregation after a bit, so that the message of repentance and fear of the Lord would get out. Then three months before 2000 He said to tell them. Notice this dream was on 11-30 (or 11:30) just 30 minutes before midnight, which has been known as a time of judgment as with the Clock of atomic scientists. 6:57 is only 3 minutes before 7:00. 7 represents spiritual completeness. The concert began and my brothers were both up on stage and also sitting next to me - strange. I was also supposed to be one of the musicians, but my cousin Y----- was up on stage with my brothers and playing a very bad cello solo segment of the piece of music they were performing. I kind of laughed at the sour notes she was playing and looked around at others, but I was proud of her anyway. (The Lord is proud of the young who as disciples offer their immature service to him.) My brother S--- and I switched seats when he came back with the message, so I did not have to get up again to let him sit in the middle, and he sat down and relayed the message to the other two of us. Father said he was going to wait a little while on the catastrophe he had just about begun, because of some intervention by prayers or requests of some kind. I asked my brother if father wanted us to leave the hall or what. My brother seemed to indicate that we were just to wait there for another signal, don't leave just yet, just wait. He sat down again with us. (We are just to stand down and wait for the resumption.) I was greatly agitated and knew that though the delay was spoken by father as the result of the intervention of believers' prayers and such, that the delay would be extremely short, that Father was not stopping the catastrophic event. Later in this dream, I found myself at some other place where my physical fitness was being tested. I was on an exercise mat on the floor and I was doing sit-ups. I had to do at least 30 or 50 to prove good fitness. I began to do the sit-ups and was doing rather well. No one was holding my feet at all and I was just easily performing those sit-ups. I felt like I could go quite a long time and that 50 of them would not be a problem at all. I also noted that I was working to maintain just the right angle to maximize the effect on the abdominal muscles, so as not to cheat - I wanted to FEEL the muscles working properly. We are to spiritually exercise ourselves unto Godliness to get prepared for this judgment while waiting. ********************************** The dream/prophecy below has been on our site for months here before the Greek named storms of 2005. It says that after these storms there would be a delay after which the explosions would happen. No one thought we would ever see Greek named storms but we just passed Epsilon, a new world record that one day will be broken. Chaos and Woe Messianic Pastor Caleb Kinley Shabbat Shalom! May YHWH truly bless you this Shabbat and may He wrap His arms of love around you and embrace each of you into His glory. I have included a dream I had several times about a week or so ago. I'm not a prophet, and this is only a dream, but usually, at least parts (if not all) of some of my dreams do come true. For example, two weeks before Sept. 11th I did dream of the exact events, verified by my mother and my wife. About three days before the December 26 tsunami, I dreamed the tsunami would happen, and it came true, verified by my mother, my wife, and my congregational members as I shared the tsunami dream with my congregation. Again, I am not a prophet and I pray this does not alter anyone's opinion of me... :-) I'm too afraid to not share this dream and can only hope and pray this one does not transpire...anyway... These were terrifying to me, to say the least. The dream began with a loud voice saying, "Thus saith Elohim, the wicked has witnessed 'chaos' and still they refuse to repent. 'Chaos times Chaos times Chaos.' They ignore my call and refuse to gather under my wings. 'Chaos time Chaos times Chaos.' They are busy bodies with idle hands, putty for evil, and they send a rancid stench to my nostrils. O miserable wretches they have become. They worship the sun and everything that is under the sun, but Me. They worship man, but not Me. They worship lust, but not Me. They worship envy and covetousness, but not Me. They worship power, money and fame, but not Me. They worship science and nature, but not Me. They bow down to pleasure for a season, and I will cut them off from among my people. Therefore, 'Chaos times Chaos times Chaos' will be their just reward. "Watch and see O servant, watch and see the meaning of 'Chaos times chaos times chaos.' O servant, take and eat of this parchment, and your tears will be for visions and your tongue shall prophesy forth My words. Few will hear you speak of My words, and fewer will come forth and share the mantle of My blessings. Many will not believe and will continue in their sin, and make great hate of you and the rest of My servants. The infidels will despise my people and bear false witness to try and remove the virtue from My bride. But the light of your menorah will not burn out. Thus saith Elohim YHWH." (There was more that I just cannot remember right yet). I was then lifted up above the high mountains by a breeze of wind and the wind was like an invisible floor so that I was able to stand in the sky and see the earth through the wind like it had a glass floor. There were great movements of water in the oceans/seas (hurricanes?) bearing Greek names that caused more flooding and wreaked more devastation. The came a pause, and I'm not sure if the days of the pause represent days, months or years. But once the quiet pause was completed, there was four or five great lights coming from the ground that turned the mountains into dust and rubble. Some like Chuck Youngbrandt have said that the Lord has, through concerted prayer, knocked this 4 or 5 explosions down to 1 or 2 in the U.S. But that does not mean that there will not be more in Iran or even Israel. This is what I suspect. The flesh of people from miles away dissolved and all that was left from those who perished were their skeletons, clean down to the bones. They had no eyes and their eye sockets were clean as if someone used bleach to clean out a white plate. Many who survived were maimed, amputees, and as they wept, bright green tears mixed with blood melted away the parts of their face made wet by their tears with a fizzing sound like Alka-seltzer. They had no eyelids as their eyelids dissolved because of their tears, and their eyes swelled up until they looked bug-eyed. It was then that the skeletons of the dead came alive and hunted the living and killed whoever they caught (i.e. pandemic-disease?). And then the earth opened in many places, swallowing up many of those who survived the bright lights, and the oceans and seas grew large, sending waves and storms, too many to count. The dead of many floated on the water and included women, children, babies, animals, men, and cities once hidden from water were now covered in water. And the rivers and the oceans and the seas cried because they were polluted by rotten flesh and blood. I could hear the cries of thousands of people and the cries made my ears have sharp pains so that I had to put my fingers in my ears. And many of the living blasphemed YHWH and searched for His people to place blame on us. They said "let us find the bride and eat their flesh, for it will taste sweet like honey." Then I saw great famine, such as has never been. Rich nations were now begging for bread and were happy to pay much money for rotten bread covered with worms. And many began drinking unclean water from rivers and oceans and seas that were still full of dead human flesh. And some would drain the blood of their children and roast their child over an open fire, and then feast upon their children, drinking their blood while eating their flesh, and being merry. And disease stood tall, and caused many more to perish. ************************************** Amos Skaggs said: G-d said He would postpone the destruction on America one more time to show His mercy to the believer because they prayed for this country. BUT HE WILL NOT DO IT AGAIN. I saw this Aug. 3, 2005 and recorded it also. Impending Judgment on America A prophet friend in East Florida: Vision 1: The Lord took me to the streets of America and I saw all the cities on fire, we have 8 million Moslems in America and when the war breaks out in the Holy Land and when America gets involved 8 million Moslems will burn America to the ground. I saw Moslem women coming into America and in their inner body parts vials of anthrax and bio chemicals. I saw 180 million Americans die in a 72 hr period, then I saw New York, Florida, Nevada- Texas, California nuked, we will be invaded. Russia and China will do it. Vision 2: The Lord took me in the spirit to outer space and I saw very dim stars and then the lights came on and I saw a huge asteroid brown in color coming to planet earth asteroid turning over and over like tumbling. Vision 3: The Lord took me in the spirit and I drove down the east coast of Florida and up the West Coast and when I was in Orlando, Florida - the Lord cut Florida in half and I said Lord have mercy and he said no more mercy and the second time I said Lord have mercy he said no more mercy and I asked the Lord why he is doing this he said, "Death of the innocents". I saw from Kissimmee, Florida to Miami under water, then the Lord showed me portable buildings stacked like a train all connected together the buildings were full of people with legs and arms missing. I ran into the buildings and there were no end of the buildings. Vision 4: I saw an asteroid race right by Florida and go north what a horrible sound and it hit us and then I saw helicopters with men with guns and when they came to me I disappeared and later I was somewhere else and I put out my hand and an apple was their and I are it; the Lord will take care of his true servants don't worry. Vision 5 : I was in a red suit and riding a red car and something was holding me from passing and going to the sea then they moved away and I got to the sea i dropped my cell phone and I went into the sea and entered a building that was very strong, and safe, Interpretation: I have a great call on my life Isaiah 63,64 and 65, Red is the blood of Christ and power the seas are the people for the harvest. The building is Christ and the cell phone is connection to this world. We are to be led by the spirit and hearing Gods voice and not sold out to the world. Gods Kingdom is not of this world. I died 17 years ago when I received the holy ghost and I'm a new creation in Christ Jesus. We must all go that way and we will do exploits for the end time harvest. Jesus said we will do greater things than he because he will send the holy ghost - Mark 16:17 Be one of then and give God all the glory. Five Major Cities Nuked Richard Swanson Author of the book Spare Your People In 1971 I saw, in a dream, limited nuclear war in America. I beheld two or three short successive orange-colored flashes of light off in the distance towards the north. These flashes, which produced a strobe-light effect, literally lit up the nighttime sky. As they occurred I could briefly see the outline of some mountains from beyond which the flashes came. The next morning - in the dream - as I was walking through a field of swamp grass, I heard a news report over a transistor radio which was attached to a corner pole of a lean-to. The news report said: "Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, Denver and San Francisco have been struck by thermonuclear warheads." By the time the broadcast said "Denver" I was in the Spirit. I was standing beside Jesus. I then realized it was Jesus Who was giving the news report, and what I was hearing over the transistor radio was the Word of God. As He spoke, His words could be heard throughout eternity. As Jesus said "Denver," He pointed there, and as He did the Holy Spirit showed me, though it was not quite dawn, exactly where Denver was. It was still night in San Francisco, yet the Holy Spirit showed me where that city was too. I then looked back toward the East Coast. The sun had already risen there and through some cirrocumulus clouds, I could see the Florida area. I suddenly realized I was up in the heavens looking down. I also knew that during this limited nuclear attack I would be in Florida, very close to the Alabama border. Several years later I discovered that this part of Florida is indeed swampland, just as in the dream. Attacks on Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago Sultana - 9/17/07 The year before 9/11, I dreamed of 4 explosions. I told my husband that the World Trade Center was blown up and I saw an explosion on the ground, then I saw the Pentagon explode. Dreams of Washington D.C. In May 2004, I was given a dream of Washington D. C. What I saw was terrifying. While looking at the top view of D.C., the Lord said, "Look," and as I looked the whole city began to shake and if fell flat. In the fall of 2004, I dreamed of D.C. again. This time I saw bodies piled everywhere and trucks were driving by checking IDs. They were throwing the bodies on trucks like bails of hay. I also saw in Fairfax, people staying in their homes unless given permission by the authorities to leave. I saw tanks driving in the city streets with the military everywhere and we were making food for them and giving them drinks. In 2002 my brother dreamed about large caterpillars. They were laying dead all around and someone cut them open. Inside these creatures were metro buses with people in them. God told me the interpretation of this dream. The caterpillars are the metro rail system. In July 2005, I dreamed that bombs went off in the metro stations. They looked about 3 or 4 feet long and 8 inches high, and packed in something like PVC pipe plumbers use. When it exploded, the blast was minimal, but this yellowish smoke came out the tunnels. As soon as it was breathed in, the lungs began to bubble, blister and bleed. (It was like I could see inside of someone's lungs). People were painfully dying everywhere. I saw these bombs go off in various stations: 1. Metro Center; 2. Pentagon; and 3. Smithsonian. There were explosions in the north side of the Capital area, as well as the White House area outside the gate. In another part of this dream, Metro had put up those scanning booths to check bags before you could enter. This security measure would minimize the terrorism if metro chose to use this system.. Aug. 4th I dreamed we (the National Prayer Chapel) were in the Hilton Memorial Chapel at a Prayer weekend. I knew it was not yet our church building, but I saw our people there with other churches involved. I'm not sure which church fellowships they were. I saw Euginie as she was taking in the beauty of the building. I saw the Luthers, Carols, my family and everybody. Then I temporarily left the prayer meeting and saw the top view of all the bridges leading into Washington D.C. and they exploded. I could see down into the water; it was awful. Cars fell in the water and people were burned. At the same time, I saw the metro system explode with bombs with yellowish gasses. Then I saw a bomb go off at the base of the WASHINGTON monument and it broke and fell over on its side. Then I was back at the meeting when I heard, "May I have your attention please! Please remain calm. WASHINGTON has just been attacked." Then I saw people start to panic and our church members went into prayer mode, getting hold of those who were panicking... Then I saw the police tell people to get into their houses or hotels. They wanted the streets clear. No one was allowed to go outside or they could be killed. Then I woke up. On Aug. 5th, I dreamed that we were in the Hilton Memorial but this time I saw Pastor David Wilkerson and he was praying over Pastor Ray Greenly. He was praying, "Lord I commission Pastor Greenly over this region. Lord give him a great anointing for your harvest field." Then an announcement came over the speakers, "May I have your attention please. WASHINGTON D.C. has just been attacked." Then I woke up. Dream of New York & Chicago I dreamed a second time and I saw New York City bridges blown up and the metro system. I thought I saw the Statue of Liberty fall over, too. I also saw the bridges to Chicago hit and their transportation system, as well. Chicago was not attacked at the same time D.C. was. It was slightly delayed. Terrorist Attack on Seattle Vision Jim in Baltimore, Maryland I had an open vision on 4-25-05 of an upcoming terrorist attack against the United States. As I approached His Throne room I felt the winds of the second heaven on my face. Up ahead I saw tiny white lights everywhere (they were angels) then I saw His brilliant white Throne. I was in the very presence of God. Trembling, I asked Him to show me plainly the future of the United States. He said, "I will show you a small fragment." I saw two large natural disasters that are coming to America because they refuse to repent. I saw the eruption of the Yellowstone geyser. I saw an earthquake that absolutely devastated the State of California. Then I asked the LORD to show me if there are any more terrorist attacks coming to America. And He said, "Look down there!" And I saw a train going around two mountains in a valley, and then I saw the words, "SEATTLE WASHINGTON." As the train came into the words, the entire train exploded. I said LORD, "when will this happen?" And He said, "Not too many days from now." I thanked and praised Him, and then I came back down to the first heaven. Let's all pray and intercede that the LORD will have mercy on this country. Perhaps if He finds ten righteous as He told Abraham, He just might. Today (4-28-05), the Lord gave me a word of knowledge that for three years evil men have purposed in their hearts to plot against Seattle, and the Lord will not intervene unless the saints ask Him to (Mark 11:24). Your Brother Jim in Baltimore, Maryland. U.S. Navy Carrier Task Force Destroyed Alexander B. Cuppett US Army & Action Officer, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Retired) 366 Graves Mill Rd, Madison, VA 22727 31 August 2005 TO: General Richard Meyers, Chairman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff INFO: CNO, VJCS; CSA; SMA, CSAF; CMC, CINCEUR-SACEUR; USEUCOM, CINCPAC; CINCPACFLT, CINCLANT, CINCLANTFLT; COMSUBPAC, COMSUBLANT, CINCCENT, CDR-JCSE, CGSOUTHCOM, CGFORSCOM, CGNORTHCOM, CG ALASKAN COMMAND; Senator Allen, and Congressmen Goode and Cantor. Subject: Predicted Destruction of a US Navy Carrier Task Force Ref: My Ltr to you, Subj: Soviet Defeat of the USS Kitty Hawk's Radar Surveillance "Screen" in WESTPAC, dtd, 10 Feb 2002 (NOTAL) Ref Ltr was sent to you and fourteen Flag Officers, including nine Members of Congress, conclusively proving that the Soviets now have "spoofing" capabilities which can defeat our best radar technology. The following will inform you of our coming naval defeat as a result of this "pilfered" capability. Moreover, you can thank Bill and Hillary Clinton for the spoofing technology transfer in 1993-1994. The ref Ltr also details how this transpired; and can be found on page 129-130 of the book, "America Sold Out", published in 2003. General, I have a friend who, during the nine years I have known him, has never been wrong on any "prediction" he has made. This includes, but is not at all limited to, the Dow-Jones Industrial"s "bottom-out" on 24 Sept 2002; and the rise of "per-barrel" oil prices, to the very dollar amount(s) this year! The subject prediction, detailed below, concerns the US Navy. Some days ago my friend was given a Holy Ghost vision of a US Navy Carrier Task Force, consisting of fifteen ships and three subs, being attacked by Chinese (PRC) forces. In the scenario there was a "football-shaped fleet" (see Attach) sailing in formation. There were fourteen surface ships ahead of/or around the flagship, a CVA/CVN. Suddenly the carrier, which was in the center of the formation, was hit on the port side. A huge hole opened and the carrier then "slowed and shuddered to a stop." Before any planes could be launched it rolled 30 degrees to port, casting all aircraft into the ocean. It then rolled to 90 degrees and capsized; all in a matter of a few minutes. (Enemy surface and subsurface elements were also operating.) At that point the entire formation was struck by missiles, each ship being hit; including "two [SSN] submarines", which were operating submerged on the flanks of the CVA. This included the loss of a "rover," fast attack sub, which was also in the Task Force. Subsequently, enemy aircraft over flew the fleet; therefore it must be ascertained the attacking planes were never detected by the radar screen. The ships were sunk by "air- to-surface" missiles, whereas the subs were sunk with "air-to-subsurface" devices. I suspect the missile which hit CVA had a "nuke tip." I also suspect the recent Sino-Soviet exercises were perfecting their operations plan(s) to attack our WESTPAC units. Be advised the "bait" will be an incident with Taiwan; and the Russians and the North Koreans shall be, in some manner, involved in the scenario. The entire formation was sunk; not one element/unit surviving. The loss of life was great. Be advised, the gentleman having this vision has absolutely no knowledge of US Navy surface or subsurface operations/tactics; to include convoy screening techniques. Have a great day, sir, as you and the other "Chiefs" are going to need a bunch of them - - soon. Very respectfully, yet sorrowfully, with warm regards, Al Cuppett Bronze Star & Purple Heart Medals, et al, RVN, 1970-1971 (1957-1979) Secretary of Defense Civilian Service Medal, the Joint Staff, 1990 Joint Meritorious Unit Award, the Joint Staff, 1984-1990 [Nineteen years "joint service" during my 31-plus years of service to the USA; in over 35 countries.] P.S. The expected destruction of Florida by apocalyptic cyclones has also been prophesied by the same man; and confirmed by several others. Be advised that Hebrew University professors, using the HBC, predicted all 39 Scud missile strikes on Jerusalem in the Gulf War; thus, only one person died [of a heart attack] because he was too stubborn to evacuate his apartment, as IDF-ordered. I also know by prophetic revelation that New World Order operatives shall strike a major US landmark; and deduced logic says the "militia" may be blamed so a UN-cops-run "gun collection" scenario can begin. TASK FORCE DEPLOYMENT AT TIME OF ATTACK ROVER SUB (on ASW patrol) CWS-B CWS-B CWS-B CWS-C CWS-C D D SUB CVA SUB D D CWS-C CWS-C CWS-B CWS-B CWS-B (STARBOARD) (LEAD ELEMENT) (PORT) LEGEND Capital Warship-B Large warship, type not known by the observer. Capital Warship-C Warship, type not known by the observer. D --- DD -- DESTROYER SUB ---- SUBMARINE (SSN) EACH SUB WAS OPERATING AT A DIFFERENT DEPTH ROVER SUB ---- A FAST ATTACK -- ASW SUBMARINE "ROVING" CVA - CARRIER (Independent "observer" thinks CVA will be the USS Kitty Hawk, if not decommissioned) MISSILE ATTACK COMES FROM PORT SIDE OF THE FORMATION INITIAL ATTACK: ATTACKING PRC-AF SORTIES NOT DETECTED UNTIL AFTER THE ATTACK COMMENCES MASSIVE LOSS OF LIFE - FEW SURVIVORS CVA HIT – SLOWS RAPIDLY, LISTS TO PORT AND CAPSIZES IN SHORT TIME ATTACK THAN CONTINUES FROM THE AIR, SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WEAPONS WILL BE "SURGICAL" SWIFT, ACCURATE AND DEADLY IN NATURE. COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF THE SURFACE SHIPS AND SUBMARINES NOTE: SHIP DESCRIPTION IS AS ACCURATE AS IS POSSIBLE FROM A "NON- NAVAL OBSERVER". ACTUAL TYPES OF SHIPS CANNOT BE VERIFIED BUT DEPLOYMENT, AS DEPICTED, OF THE VESSELS AND SUBS WILL BE THE ACTUAL FORMATION AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK. THE CURRENT GLOBAL "BALANCE OF POWER" WILL SHIFT AS A RESULT OF THIS ACTION. *************************************************************** Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against "Sizzler" Missile Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers Advanced missile poses substantial new threat for U.S. Navy U. S. Naval Institute March 31, 2009 With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned. After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers. First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km. The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces. The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike. Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes. Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets. While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages. If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack. Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat. After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses. As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog: "The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat." In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters. Multiple Terror Attacks & the Harvest (Note from David: If this is the multiple attack we have been expecting it will bring much death, collapse in the economy, martial law and revival with the beginning of the John the Baptist / Elijah ministry, which is just before the man-child ministry and tribulation. Please spend your time preparing for these things.) Nuke Attack on Atlanta, New York, SW Corner of U.S. Jan Albayalde - 9/02/07 September 2, I dreamed I was in my spirit above SW America looking out over the entire country. By the light it appeared to be either late dusk or early dawn. I was so high over America I could see the curve of the earth but just high enough so that America was the only thing in my range of view. I saw nothing as far as state delineation, cities, absolutely nothing, but the outline of America and a dirt color. As I looked out over America, from the west I saw a black and red explosion in the SE corner of America. Out of the blast unfurled a banner, like a scroll and it read ATLANTA. Next I was still in my spirit and aware I was on "a long island" near the ocean and while it was a beautiful, sunny day I was standing in the midst of hundreds of people who were running around in great fear and confusion, and in their panic many of them were speaking Italian. I just stood there and watched them and what unfolded. A blast went off on the island, then one near the shore in the water, maybe even on the shore. Then across a narrow body of water from the island in a nearby city, I saw a blast in the heart of the city bigger than the two on the island. (From the above description of my surroundings I believe I was on Long Island, NY, and saw Manhattan or New York City.) Next, I was again back high over America, over the SW corner, and an enormous blast, bigger, much bigger than the other four went off right under me. Though I was high above the earth, I was right over the blast and could not tell where in SW America the blast went off. End dream. I was just an observer. I felt no fear and I had no sense of time as far as when, or how long between the blasts, although there was a definite sequence which I described. After sharing the above dream of September 2, I dreamed this morning, 9/11/07 that I was reading an economic report of dire news of the collapse of America's economy, among other catastrophes. Suddenly, a huge shadow of a bear appeared superimposed over the report. Many words came into prominence but the two I remembered on waking were "WATCH" and "WAVE." Then the Lord's voice in the dream said, "Fear not, the 'prophet' has tethered the bear." I looked and saw a figure standing at the head of the bear and there was a leash in the hands of the figure leading to the bear. (David's note: After we received the revelation above, one of our elders and head of UBM's prison ministry, Rex Veron, basically shared that, "I was studying in 1 Samuel 17:34-37 and as I read about David relating to Saul his defeat of the lion and the bear and how he saved the sheep from their "paw," my spirit began to stir within me that this is a word to the emerging John the Baptist company. These animals are symbols mentioned in history in Daniel 7: 4, 5 and in the future in Revelation 13:2." I believe that this revelation is being made known under the forerunner anointing of the Elijah or John the Baptist ministry now. This attack on America and the fall of the economy is under the shadow of the bear. The bear has been behind the scenes all along making covert war on Babylon. It has been given authority to do this, but limited to this, by "the prophet" at this time. Before David as the man-child came to the throne, while he was still a lad he conquered the Lion and Bear. These represent the two Beast entities of the end time, the Western and Eastern Roman Empire. These are Babylon the Lion, aka US, Britain, Australia, Canada, w/ allies and Media-Persia the Bear, aka Russia w/ allies and the Middle Eastern seed of Media- Persians, the Muslims. Since prophecy is repeated with larger groups of people as history repeats, "the Prophet" is the Lord Jesus in His day and Jesus in the first-fruits man-child in our day. This is "the prophet" that Jesus is using to control the bear. {Acts 3:20} and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, [even] Jesus: {21} whom the heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things ("things" not in Greek), whereof God spake by the mouth of His holy prophets that have been from of old. {22} Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me. To him shall ye hearken in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you. {23} And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. Jesus is going to repeat history by coming in the man-child at the beginning of the trib to restore all but is coming personally at the end of the trib when all have been restored. {7:37} This is that Moses, who said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren (Jesus/man-child), like unto me. {38} This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us: {39} to whom our fathers would not be obedient, but thrust him from them, and turned back in their hearts unto Egypt, {40} saying unto Aaron, Make us gods that shall go before us: for as for this Moses, who led us forth out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. {41} And they made a calf in those days, and brought a sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their hands. {42} But God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets... The beast is on a leash as Rome was in Jesus' day. {Jn.19:10} Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee? {11} Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above... "The Prophet" Jesus ceded no power to the beast of Rome except the power to crucify His flesh. In our day the beast is ruled by the spoken words of Jesus through the man-child even before he is caught up to the throne of authority over the "church in the wilderness." Another very important meaning of the tethered bear could be that the bear market has been tethered for God's people who walk by faith. A bear market in the world represents a loss of confidence in the future, which causes the economy to crumble through lack of investment. Christians are being guided by God's prophets back to His biblical economy of investing in the needs of others and receiving the abundant dividends that come of it. {Lk.6:38} give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom. For with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again. Plus, God's prophets teach that God is our supplier. I had a dream on 9/22/07 that there was a large bear outside my house and I went to get my gun. This has to be spiritual because I don't have anything but a BB gun. The prophet that God is raising up will slay the loss of confidence in God's people towards their true provider. (Phl. 4:19) And my God shall supply every need of yours according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus." He That Gathereth Not Scattereth Michael Hare - 7/15/07 In the dream I was on a hill with other people and we got word that there was going to be an Al Qaeda attack. All the people started getting behind rocks, scrub bushes, etc. I told one man to go get that baby and bring him to me on top of a combine (a crop harvester). The combine was just there, I don't know why. I knew if I got on that combine we would be safe. The man went after the toddler and I climbed up on the combine. (A combine is used for harvesting grain. Wheat, oats, barley; it cuts the stalk, taking the whole thing with the heads of grain in and then separates the grain from the chaff all in one. That is why it is called a combine; it combines functions and keeps the grain safe so it can then be put into the granaries. I believe the Lord is separating the wheat from the chaff. Michael knew he would be safe in the combine because he is the wheat, not the chaff.) Meanwhile there was a platoon of soldiers that showed up on a road close to us. They were single-file and the point-man would kneel down in a shooting position. Then the 2nd man would run in front of him and kneel, then the 3rd, so on and so forth. Then there was a Marine platoon that showed up and they were in full combat gear and headed down that road in a run. After a while a soldier came up and told us that it was ok now, that the Al Qaeda had attacked South of us. I remember that there was a lot more to the dream, but I can't remember those portions. I think this may be a warning that an attack from al Qaeda may happen south of us here in central Arkansas. First thought that came to my mind after meditating on the dream was Texas. Also, I believe the baby may be the part of the remnant that comes in from the harvest (combine) that was told of from Dr. Jim Brooks. Being a former farmer, let me tell you some significant facts about what a combine does: 1. The cab is located at the top of the machine so that the operator can oversee/direct what goes into the header. 2. The wheat, rice, soybeans, etc. that go into the header, along with the weeds, is taken onto screens that separate the weeds from the wheat. 3. The weeds are then blown out the rear of the combine and the wheat put into the bin on top. That"s it in a nutshell! Kind of like what the Lord will be doing at His harvest -- separating the tares from the wheat. David"s note: I just received two other witnesses that the US is about to receive multiple terror attacks. One is below. Also, one sister saw in a dream that I called her in September of 2007 and told her about three bomb attacks in the East, West and South. According to this, at the time of the Al Qaeda attack we will be harvesting the fruit of the remnant. The first thing I heard when I read this was, "he that gathereth not with me scattereth." {Lk.11:21} When the strong [man] fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace: {22} but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him his whole armor wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. {23} He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. The strong man was bound and made defenseless by Jesus and everyone is responsible to help in the harvest. If you"re not chasing the devil and plundering his possessions, you are running from him. Multiple Terror Attacks Mark Fritts - 7/10/07 Last night I had a dream where I came across a map that a terrorist had left behind. The map was of the state of New York with what was possibly a nuclear facility circled. There was another map also there that I slightly remember, which had another circled. I am not sure if what I saw indicated that a nuclear facility may be hit or if it could be referring to a nuclear strike on that place by the terrorists. In my mind I remember thinking that the terrorists were going to attack soon, and that it may be at multiple sites. It seems like they had the plans all drawn up and were on their way to carry them out. Just before the dream ended I heard the words, "A thru D are being carried out now." After the dream I thought about this for a while. Maybe the terrorists are planning on hitting four different places and this is just the start of their plans? (David: Possibly four strikes are planned and the Lord only permits three as in Michael's dream above or possibly one is not in the US but some place like Israel or Britain.) I asked the Lord to confirm this in scripture to me. I opened the Bible and it fell open to Daniel chapter four. In this chapter Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Nebuchadnezzar later on in the chapter spends seven years as a beast in the fields eating grass. (Peter said all flesh is as grass.) I thought it also interesting that an eagle is mentioned in verse 33. America's national symbol is the eagle. My interpretation: Terrorists are going to hit America soon. She will become crazy like a beast and hit back at the terrorists and the countries which send them out. America will spend seven years eating much grass and devouring many nations. The eventual end of America is possibly seen in chapter five of Daniel. As Babylon fell to the Medes and the Persians, America (Mystery Babylon) will fall after the seven years of tribulation are over (Rev. 18). (David: I believe the next hit will bring the fall of the world economy along with the [Elijah] John the Baptist ministry and the beginning of a great harvest.) Multiple Terror Hits Adele Frederick - 7/15/07 10:40 PM Last week I had a dream that I was telling someone that I had just had a dream, so this was a dream inside of a dream. In the dream I saw a building that looked like the twin towers. I saw them blow up, then I saw a 3rd building blow up. As soon as this happened I saw 20-30 fighter jets pop up and take off. I perceived they were going after the attackers. Then the dream ended. Since this dream I was thinking a 9/11-style attack was coming and now I'm thinking this is confirmation of the 3 different attacks scenario above. Three Cities Attacked Amos Scaggs - 2/24/06 I saw three cities under attack. I saw the relationship of the cities as the stars in the triangle below but don't know how big the triangle actually was. I know Washington D.C. was hit the hardest. I don't know the names of the other two. The top star I believe was Washington D.C., although on a smaller scale it could have been NY, with the middle lower one being D.C. Then after that there were very few cars on the highway. There were a few horses and buggies and some people were in the woods on horseback. They met at a small country store and one person, only one person, left the area on a mission, after getting a mid 1960s truck started. God will deliver his people. I was delivered from the blasts and I received help from people on the way. I rode in a buggy and was given a ride on a horse in the woods. I was delivered from the wolves in the woods. I was directed to follow the dogs on the path and they would take me to the place. I was taken to the country roadside store and I had help from an unknown force to get the truck started to go on a mission. I can't get the exact locations on a PC, but can get an idea. Check the stars below for approximate relationship. * << (1) Washington D.C. (3)> * * <(2) Depending on the scale of the triangle in relation to a map: (1) DC. (2) Could be Atlanta (3) Could be Memphis, TN I only saw symbolic locations but I know Washington DC. was one of them. It will happen but I don't know the time frame. It also could be (1) NY (2) D.C. (3) Around Winchester, VA On the Atlas, if you put a straight edge on NY, D.C. and Atlanta they will all line up. All I can say is that this is the pattern that I was shown and there were no scales to go by. I also saw Charleston, WV being hit at one point. After this happens it will bring this country to its knees, BUT God will take care of His own and guide them through seemingly impossible circumstances. (David: The old vehicles, horses and buggies seem to say that a nuclear bomb causes an EMP effect, taking out the modern electrical conveniences.) DEBKAfile Exclusive: New Al Qaeda threat of radioactive truck attacks naming New York, Los Angeles, Miami, August 10, 2007 The threat was picked up by DEBKAfile"s monitors from a rush of electronic chatter on al Qaeda sites Thursday, Aug. 8. The al Qaeda communications accuse the Americans of the grave error of failing to take seriously the videotape released by the American al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gaddahn last week. "They will soon realize their mistake when American cities are hit by quality operations," said one message. Another said the attacks would be carried out "by means of trucks loaded with radio- active material against America"s biggest city and financial nerve center." A third message mentioned New York, Los Angeles and Miami as targets. It drew the answer: "The attack, with Allah"s help, will cause an economic meltdown, many dead, and a financial crisis on a scale that compels the United States to pull its military forces out of many parts of the world, including Iraq, for lack of any other way of cutting down costs." There is also a message which speaks obliquely of the approaching attacks easing the heavy pressure America exerts on countries like Japan, Cuba and Venezuela. DEBKAfile"s counter-terror sources and monitors say there is no way of gauging for sure how serious these threats are, how real, or whether they are part of a war of nerves to give the Gaddahn tape extra mileage. But it is important to note that the exchange of messages took place over al Qaeda"s internal Internet sites and that they contained the threat of radioactive terror and specific American cities for the first time after a long silence on these subjects. In addition, a growing number of clips has been disseminated of late over al Qaeda sites instructing the faithful how to design remote-controlled gliders, pack them with explosives and launch them against predetermined targets. Copyright 2000-2007 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved. Three Arab Black Horse Riders Jo Ann - June 16 I had a vision of three beautiful, huge black horses being ridden by men dressed as Arabs and all in black. Whether they were Arab or not, I don't know, but they were dressed as Arabs. They were on a sure and direct mission, not an evil mission, but a mission sent by God (righteous judgment). They were riding black horses, so hard and ferocious. I could see the sweat pouring off the horses and flying into the wind. Foam was pouring out of the mouth of the horses; they were being ridden so hard. Their hooves were pounding the ground like thunder. Then a number appeared: "109." I had this vision on June 16th. This is the most vivid vision I have ever had. Note from David: I think this represents three hits on America by Muslims for God's good purpose of waking up the sleeping elect. They are in black because they are bringing this judgment in darkness and because the black horse in Revelation 6:5 destroyed the economy. Multiple Attacks Coming Kim Weir - October 2004 I had a vision of a great plan to attack in many places in the US by Islamic militants. I sensed it strongly and prayed it be thwarted. But then I began to have visions of a dark cloud rolling in. I prayed, "Lord what is this?" He said, "It is of me." I went up into the cloud. I saw within it a great and powerful energy. The Lord said, "This is my judgment for America. It is here. It must come to pass so that the lost can be saved." Then I looked for the end of it and there was no end to the cloud. The sky became completely covered. And the Lord said, "Never again. This country will not be the same ever again." I saw this vision several times. The cloud is here. It hasn't left and we will see things happening soon. At one point I saw a greater number of demons operating in the US and they were laughing arrogantly, "We are powerful! Look at us here doing evil!" I then saw God looking over the edge of heaven and heard him say, "Only for a time will you have power. Only to bring my will to pass. It is all given of me." Multiple Attacks on Major Cities Austin Ellard - 7/28/05 I had this dream on July 28, 2005, and I recorded it the next day. I remember being in Auburn, AL. I saw a huge storm outside a window. I believe I checked three times, and after the third time I checked and really got a good look at the details. The storm itself was truly massive! It was pitch black in color. It looked somewhat like a tornado, but it was much too large to simply be that. The best way of picturing it would be a hurricane with a "twister" or cyclone in the middle where the eye would be found. It might be possible that the storm was actually a nuclear blast, resembling the mushroom cloud in Hiroshima. After I checked what I believe was the third time, I tried to tell someone near me that a huge storm was approaching, and it might be best to flee. The other person did not seem to care and might not have ever noticed the storm, had I not said something. The person I tried to warn in my dream was my English teacher (and since this is the last week of summer classes here at Auburn I thought that might imply these attacks may very soon occur, but I am not certain). I remember the storm and "funnel" eventually came right upon me, but I was not worried -- it seemed I was protected from it. Later in my dream, I remember seeing a brother in Christ, whom I recognized. I talked with him for a while. I am not sure where I was, but I believe it was a public place of some kind. Some time later in the dream I remember feeling a sense of chaos and being told that there had been some kind of horrible attacks on multiple major cities. I was soon on the cell phone with my mom, asking her what exactly had happened. She mentioned the name "Manhattan." Eventually both my parents were with me in Auburn. I woke up sometime after. Multiple Attacks Shock All Amos Scaggs - 4/09/06 There will be multiple attacks on America that will be so sudden, without warning, unexpected and taken by complete surprise that the media won't be able to cover it all. The people will not believe it is happening. Attacks in Eight Cities Ed Waldon - 10/18/05 I saw a giant, black widow spider standing over America -- one foot in each of eight strategic cities. She was standing right over Missouri, facing southwest. I specifically saw Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Washington D.C., Miami, Dallas or Houston. I saw the tip of each leg touching the coastal and major cities around the U.S. The spider was not eating the cities; it was touching them all around the country. Her body was over the Midwest, legs out to the coasts and cities, one leg in Florida. The tip of each leg was very sharp and precise, messing with each city. Flu shots? Venomous poison; death. I see more insects around the U.S., doing various things, mostly chewing, gnawing on the cities. I saw a natural hourglass later that night with only a few grains of sand left. Black widows have a red hourglass underneath. Hourglass: time's up! Reader reply to spider vision: The cities mentioned happen to have the greatest Jewish population in the U.S. New York has more Jews than Israel. Also, the red underbelly could represent Russia's actions in support of the spider which ties it in, somewhat, with Duduman's visions of Russia attacking U.S. 11/11/05 I saw what looked like an octopus over the U.S., with its body centered in Texas. The tentacles stretched out to eight cities and began touching them. Whatever is coming is going to affect these eight cities and it appears that when the "touching" happens that it will be simultaneous and from a central source that has a body. Something is about to happen. It seems to me, at first glance, that chemicals or biologicals may be involved, but on a large scale with a "head" or central core. On October 18th I saw a black widow spider with eight legs. On November 11th I saw an octopus with eight tentacles. The octopus' body covered a lot more territory than the spider's body. It was spread out more. The central body covered the northern part of Texas, as well as parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico. For some reason, the octopus also was "closer to the ground" and lying on the ground with the tentacles spread out. The black widow's body was further above the ground and centered over Missouri. Has the effect now reached "ground level"? End of vision. Ed: The octopus has a "beak" at its center, underneath, that can crush hard crustaceans and crack open things so it can eat. It is a saltwater creature and very intelligent. It issues an "ink" when in danger. Friend: The octopus, which is also called devilfish, is a predatory mollusk with a pouch- shaped body and eight powerful arms with two rows of suction discs on each tentacle. (Isa.59:4-6) No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly. They trust in confusion and speak lies. They conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity. They hatch adders' (snake) eggs and weave the spider's web. He who eats of their eggs dies. Their works are works of iniquity, and an act of violence is in their hands. 11/12/09 - Email from Ed after I sent him a picture of an octopus: Whoa, that picture is confirming! I am really impressed with that extra webbing of the octopus between the legs! This is exactly what I saw covering the states that I mentioned. That webbing is also directly under the head. I saw the help of angels in between the tentacles, in the gaps. I am not sure if it is globalization or not, but it may be connected. My concern is that I have been given two visions of the same thing, or nearly the same thing. A doubling is serious business and when the Lord gives these in series, the events usually happen within a shorter, rather than longer, time. Whatever this is, I think it is already here and ready to be implemented. Both were already over the U.S. It has changed from a spider to a much larger monster, but the venom of the black widow spider is seven times as deadly as the desert rattlesnake. The Eagle and the Serpents Michael Boldea, Jr. - 10/18/04 (The Angel said, "This has been revealed to you, that you may know, the first bite has been, the second is yet to come, and the third will be its destruction.") Psalm 34:7-8: "The angel of the Lord encamps all around those who fear Him, and delivers them. Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him! Oh, fear the Lord, you His saints! There is no want to those who fear Him." Upon my return to the United States in late August, I had a very vivid and troubling dream. I shared it with the staff here in Wisconsin, and with a few other brothers, but continued to pray and seek direction from God as to whether or not I should include it in the newsletter. At the staff's urging, and feeling a release from the Lord, I have included this dream in this issue of the newsletter. I dreamt I was walking through a sparsely wooded forest, and suddenly my attention was drawn to an eagle flying high above the tree line. It was a beautiful sight to behold as the eagle rode the thermals, flying in slow lazy arcs across the blue sky. I began to quicken my pace, and keep up with the eagle's flight, all the while keeping an eye on it, noticing that it was slowly descending toward the earth. I followed it for a long time, its descent not being sudden but very gradual. Finally I came upon a small clearing, where there were no trees, just some bushes on the edges of the green grass. The eagle landed in the clearing and began to look around, not seeming to notice me. As I began to wonder what the relevance of this was, a man dressed in white, hands clasped in front of him, appeared beside me and said, "Be patient, in due time you will see the purpose." I was silent as I watched the eagle and was beginning to grow somewhat impatient, when suddenly, it seemed out of nowhere, a brown snake lunged at the eagle and bit down on its left wing. The snake's strike was very quick and very precise. The eagle reacted without delay, clawing and pecking at the snake, cutting deep wounds in its underbelly, trying to defend itself and ward off the serpent. Just as it seemed the eagle was winning the battle, and the serpent was retreating, another serpent appeared, red and black diagonal stripes covering its body, and without hesitation struck out at the eagle's right wing, biting down and refusing to release. After a momentary tug of war the serpent tore off flesh and feathers, leaving a large wound on the eagle's right wing. The second bite was much worse than the first, and for an instant the eagle was stunned. Then a serpent much larger than the previous two, made up of many colors, slithered toward the eagle, opened its jaws, and lunged, taking the whole of the eagle's head in its mouth before biting down. The serpents retreated and the man who had been standing beside me walked to the eagle, knelt down, picked it up and held it in his cupped hands. The look of grief on his face was beyond any I have seen in my life. Just seeing the look on the man's face broke your heart. The man continued to look down at the eagle, and with a pained voice said, "The true tragedy is that at any moment it could have sought the safety of the above, it could have soared toward the heavens and would have found its protection. This has been revealed to you, that you may know, the first bite has been, the second is yet to come, and the third will be its destruction." I watched for a long time as the man held the eagle in the palms of his hands, the pained expression never leaving his features. I was too stunned to speak, or ask any questions, what I had seen having seemed so real. The feeling followed me into my waking hours as well, and each time I closed my eyes I saw the entire scene play before my eyes throughout the day. One thing that I feel I need to share with you is that the second bite seemed to come from an unexpected place. Although I have my own opinion concerning this, I choose to keep it to myself, because expounding on personal opinion is a dangerous thing when it comes to things that God reveals. Terrorist Attack Leads To Retaliation and Revival Swiss Prophet Erich Reber Swiss Prophet Foresees Pending Muslim – Terrorist Attack on the US, causing a Poison Cloud to Emerge; Thousands Will Die Written By Wolfgang Simpson – May 22, 2006 Quote – "Over 20 nights in a row, well-respected prophetic voice Erich Reber (Switzerland) has had vivid and detailed visions of an imminent terrorist-motivated attach on the U.S.A. Before we look at the details, let"s have a look at the man himself. Erich Reber is a well-known prophetic figure far beyond his native Switzerland. The long-term accuracy of his prophetic ministry that began in 1987 is often so remarkable that even secular businessmen and psychiatrists regularly come to him for counsel- and come again because of the startling behind-the-scenes insights that Reber has as he prays. ...Before 9/11 Erich experienced an open vision in which he found himself trapped in a collapsing high-rise building and almost lost his mind in this trap of concrete. God made him to revisit the situation seven times. In a vision on the firs Sunday in July 2005 God showed him that He was going to shake London-and only one week later the subway- bombing in London took place (July 8, 2005). The Poison Cloud over the US in a vision in autumn 2002 Reber saw a terrorist attack (with Islamic background) on the US, that will be so devastating that many thousands will be found dead. Reber, who first delivered this prophecy in Canada upon visitation of David Demian, says he has been transported by the Spirit of God into the very US cities and neighborhoods where this is going to happen and saw the many dead bodies strewn about. Ten months ago, God let him revisit the vision and told him to speak it to America. On May 6, 2006 Erich shared this vision for the first time in the US at a seminar in St. Paul, Minnesota hosted by Lutheran Renewal. It looked far worse than after the 2004 Tsunami," he said. "The result of this attack will be the emergence of a cloud of poison that will hover over the US, and then slowly, over a number of days, move towards Canada." This attack will have two results: First: it will lead to a great and new quest for God. The followers of Jesus in the US therefore should get ready for a large harvest of people previously unmoved by God. Second, the US as a nation will overreact and retaliate with military means so strong that this will lead to a huge humiliation and demoralization of the Islamic world. America and some political Allies will lead a military strike of such a force that millions of Muslims will cry out to Allah in desperation- in a similarly unanswered way as Christians in America who merely cry out to God to do something. Then, many Muslims will cry out for help "to anyone," and this will be the time when Jesus will reveal Himself to them. This, in turn, will open an entirely new door for the gospel, and many Muslims will be brought into the Kingdom of God." What to do in Preparation? Asked whether this attack can be prevented by prayer or repentance, Erich says: "I wish it could be averted, but I feel this is part of a judgment that God has firmly planned for America. Maybe as we get ready for such an event and stand on our guard, ready to use our rod, that is, our God-given authority to command the cloud to be cast away, it will be possible to lessen the devastating impact of the attack. And if we prepare wisely, maybe thousands of lives can be spared. But my main admonition that I seemed to have heard from God is this: Eat my word! As we in Switzerland saw news reports in the aftermath of the devastation of 9/11, there were many stories showing the responses of the churches in America. What we saw were churches that had a few moments of silence and then lit candles in remembrance of the lives that were lost-that was all. God has told me that America loves a good show, conferences, strategies, concepts and charismatic figures, but does not eat my Word anymore. . ." Terrorism Coming to Stay Amos Scaggs - 5/27/07 Soon a tall slender man carrying a package will come in the back door which was left open and will terrorize every one in his sight. Even the righteous will tremble but not be afraid. This man came in once before on 9/11 but only a short distance into the house. This time he will come all the way in. I believe this is terrorist related. This man is here to stay this time. His face was grayed out so I didn"t see any distinguishing characteristics. (Note from David: This man may be more spiritual than physical. Grey is the color of the beast. This "slender man" could be speaking of the economies and the bread basket being affected by this. At any rate, the threat is real and the fear of the Lord will be the beginning of wisdom for many after the next strike.) Terrorism Released Amos Scaggs - 5/29/07 I saw a hand holding a large brown paper sack twisted at the top and filled with sand, hornets and bumblebees. The hand was shaking the sack and irritating the insects inside. Another hand appeared with a sharpened pencil to punch a hole in the sack to let the irritated hornets escape. The terrorists from the desert that have been contained will be released soon. (Note from David: The next strike on America could be a partial fulfillment of this but the retaliation will turn the whole Arab world against America with a greater fulfillment.) Chaos and Woe Messianic Pastor Caleb Kinley Shabbat Shalom! May YHWH truly bless you this Shabbat and may He wrap His arms of love around you and embrace each of you into His glory. I have included a dream I had several times about a week or so ago. I'm not a prophet, and this is only a dream, but usually, at least parts (if not all) of some of my dreams do come true. For example, two weeks before Sept. 11th I did dream of the exact events, verified by my mother and my wife. About three days before the December 26 tsunami, I dreamed the tsunami would happen, and it came true, verified by my mother, my wife, and my congregational members as I shared the tsunami dream with my congregation. Again, I am not a prophet and I pray this does not alter anyone's opinion of me... :-) I'm too afraid to not share this dream and can only hope and pray this one does not transpire...anyway... These were terrifying to me, to say the least. The dream began with a loud voice saying, "Thus saith Elohim, the wicked has witnessed 'chaos' and still they refuse to repent. 'Chaos times Chaos times Chaos.' They ignore my call and refuse to gather under my wings. 'Chaos time Chaos times Chaos.' They are busy bodies with idle hands, putty for evil, and they send a rancid stench to my nostrils. O miserable wretches they have become. They worship the sun and everything that is under the sun, but Me. They worship man, but not Me. They worship lust, but not Me. They worship envy and covetousness, but not Me. They worship power, money and fame, but not Me. They worship science and nature, but not Me. They bow down to pleasure for a season, and I will cut them off from among my people. Therefore, 'Chaos times Chaos times Chaos' will be their just reward. "Watch and see O servant, watch and see the meaning of 'Chaos times chaos times chaos.' O servant, take and eat of this parchment, and your tears will be for visions and your tongue shall prophesy forth My words. Few will hear you speak of My words, and fewer will come forth and share the mantle of My blessings. Many will not believe and will continue in their sin, and make great hate of you and the rest of My servants. The infidels will despise my people and bear false witness to try and remove the virtue from My bride. But the light of your menorah will not burn out. Thus saith Elohim YHWH." (There was more that I just cannot remember right yet). I was then lifted up above the high mountains by a breeze of wind and the wind was like an invisible floor so that I was able to stand in the sky and see the earth through the wind like it had a glass floor. There were great movements of water in the oceans/seas (hurricanes?) bearing Greek names that caused more flooding and wreaked more devastation. The came a pause, and I'm not sure if the days of the pause represent days, months or years. But once the quiet pause was completed, there was four or five great lights coming from the ground that turned the mountains into dust and rubble. Some like Chuck Youngbrandt have said that the Lord has, through concerted prayer, knocked this 4 or 5 explosions down to 1 or 2 in the U.S. But that does not mean that there will not be more in Iran or even Israel. This is what I suspect. The flesh of people from miles away dissolved and all that was left from those who perished were their skeletons, clean down to the bones. They had no eyes and their eye sockets were clean as if someone used bleach to clean out a white plate. Many who survived were maimed, amputees, and as they wept, bright green tears mixed with blood melted away the parts of their face made wet by their tears with a fizzing sound like Alka-seltzer. They had no eyelids as their eyelids dissolved because of their tears, and their eyes swelled up until they looked bug-eyed. It was then that the skeletons of the dead came alive and hunted the living and killed whoever they caught (i.e. pandemic-disease?). And then the earth opened in many places, swallowing up many of those who survived the bright lights, and the oceans and seas grew large, sending waves and storms, too many to count. The dead of many floated on the water and included women, children, babies, animals, men, and cities once hidden from water were now covered in water. And the rivers and the oceans and the seas cried because they were polluted by rotten flesh and blood. I could hear the cries of thousands of people and the cries made my ears have sharp pains so that I had to put my fingers in my ears. And many of the living blasphemed YHWH and searched for His people to place blame on us. They said "let us find the bride and eat their flesh, for it will taste sweet like honey." Then I saw great famine, such as has never been. Rich nations were now begging for bread and were happy to pay much money for rotten bread covered with worms. And many began drinking unclean water from rivers and oceans and seas that were still full of dead human flesh. And some would drain the blood of their children and roast their child over an open fire, and then feast upon their children, drinking their blood while eating their flesh, and being merry. And disease stood tall, and caused many more to perish. Terrorists Are Not the Real Enemies Marion Carney - 3/15/08 (David"s notes in red) Dream - 7/15/01 Prior to 9/11 I saw an Arabic-looking man standing on the street I grew up on, throwing two smoke bombs in the middle of the road. He was warning me of something that was to take place. He said, "We are not the enemies, we are not the enemies. Be warned, woman." (Smoke bombs are for hiding something. Two of them represent the twin towers. What is hidden about the twin towers is that the real enemies to us as Christians are not the conspiracies of Muslims or the American powers that be, but the principalities and powers that rule them. These are the ones with whom we are told. Also, the real enemies are they who give in to the spiritual hosts of wickedness. {Pr.16:7} When a man's ways please Jehovah, He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. [See Say Ye Not "A Conspiracy"]) As I continued to walk down this street I was shown almost in slow motion two buildings that resembled the twin towers but at the time I didn't make the connection because I really didn't know what the twin towers looked like. As I passed the buildings there were people crying and moaning but I was looking around for bodies but could not find them. During this dream and afterwards I had a strong feeling that something bad was going to happen. I was watching the event as if I was viewing merely from my eyes. I did share this with my co-workers and family members at the time and confided in them that I felt there was going to be a major destruction that involved a cover-up and some buildings. I could not shake that feeling. Just short of a month and a half later I awoke feeling really scared and just had a bad feeling that I couldn't shake. Later at work that morning I heard some co-workers talking and getting excited saying, "Oh my God, oh my God." My boss came over and turned on the radio next to me as I heard the news of the first plane hitting the tower and I knew that's what I was shown in the dream. I said out loud to my co-worker, "That's what my dream was about, Marlo." I had been forewarned of the tower being hit. I told her that I saw two buildings, not just one, and at that time only one had been hit. Moments later we heard the news of the second building being hit and that was my confirmation of the two smoke bombs. I believe they represented deceit and the two buildings I saw were the towers. I have my own theory of what really took place and it's not one that we as Americans should disclose. I have many examples of dreams that have come true in the physical -- not just spiritual dreams. They vary from me being shown when one of my children were in danger or ill to when complete strangers were in trouble or abducted. I have even learned in some dreams how to make myself interact. For example, I have many dreams of people who were missing and in the dream I am never shown addresses or states. I know in my spirit that these could be actual missing children or people. The last few times I had that type of dream I actually remembered to tell myself to look for an address or a street while I was dreaming and I actually did. I said to myself in a dream, "Marion, ask someone for the address; you need to remember the street when you wake up." I did ask someone in a dream where we were and when I awoke I remembered it and wrote it down and looked online for the street name and address; however, I came up with many choices. Iran Nukes U.S. Army and Is Destroyed? Great Loss of Troops in the Middle East David Gibson's Dream I found myself in the Middle-East. I was elevated in the air and looking down at about a 45 degree angle. There was a brown haze in the air (nuclear explosion?). I saw on the ground, in this desert-looking terrain, a tremendous eagle. It was huge, larger than a jumbo jet, and the detail of its wings and feathers was awesome. It was spread out on the ground and I know that it had just died. For two hundred yards in every direction were middle easterners, Muslims, crowded around to look at the eagle. They were shocked. They could not believe that the eagle was actually dead. The thought in my mind was, why? Why did we do this? (smaller storm) For a year before Desert Storm I kept hearing tank tracks rumbling in my ears. Then when Desert Storm started the noises stopped. Now I see this vision! (David's note: This vision is obviously prophesying a great loss of American troops in the Middle East. I believe when this does happen the troops from Ft. Hood at Killeen TX. will take the major hit. Please pray for God's elect to be spared.) Major Units at Ft. Hood III Corps Commander III Corps Staff Garrison 1st Cavalry Division 4th Infantry Division 13th Sustainment Cmd (E) Operational Test Command 4003rd GSU Unit/Activities Link Partners in Excellence Iran Nukes U.S. Army Vision Given to Chuck Youngbrandt on 10-14-1983, Text - 2-02-06 Then JESUS spoke to me, saying, "Come - let me show you more." This is when I saw the Persian Gulf region, and there was a whole lot of activity. I saw Russia invading Iran, and another invasion of troops into Iran, coming from Afghanistan. Jesus revealed that Russian troops were having a hard time, being blocked by fanatical Iranian troops in the mountain passes. I saw American troops being rushed in by air and ship and assembling in Saudi Arabia. Jesus then said, "FLEETS." And I now saw fleets of war ships, many nations, assembled in the Arabian Sea and near the Strait of Hormuz. Then, from Iran, I saw a missile being fired which streaked over the Persian Gulf, from Iran, and exploded over the masses of assembling U.S. troops - a nuclear fireball consumed them in an instant, and many of the oil fields caught fire - the whole land was ablaze in this deadly holocaust. The heart of the U.S. Army was wiped out in one blow. I made a note in my record of October 14, 1983 as follows: "Does Iran have the bomb?" I had no idea that Jesus was showing me what would come more than 23 years later. Note from Chuck's letter on 12/20/06: We know from Jesus' Word that the President has opportunity to escape this "war trap" up until and ending May 16, 2007 - after that here is no escape, only desolation. Note from David: I believe Iran's nuclear facilities will eventually be hit with conventional weapons by Israel and the U.S., which could start the great Middle Eastern war before the tribulation. However, in the list of nations subdued by Babylon in Jeremiah 25, Iran along with the Medes will be destroyed just before the last war when the remnants of all the nations rise up against Babylon at the end of the tribulation. The same timing is shown in Jeremiah 49:34-39 when Iran is struck by Babylon just before chapter 50 when Babylon falls. I believe it may be at this time that Iran will take out a whole U.S. army with one nuclear missile as Chuck saw in the vision. Of course, the U.S. would destroy Iran with nuclear weapons afterwards but the U.S. military would be severely weakened. This would set the stage for the attack on the U.S. by the nations. Iran Has Nuclear Missiles? Russian military stalls on reports Ukraine sold warheads to Iran http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060403/45107320.html 3-4-06 MOSCOW, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The chief of Russia's General Staff said Monday he could neither confirm nor deny reports that Ukraine had sold 250 nuclear warheads to Iran. "Russia's General Staff has no information about whether Ukraine has given 250 nuclear warheads to Iran or not," General Yury Baluyevsky, also deputy defense minister, said in response to an article in Novaya Gazeta newspaper Monday. "I do not comment on unsubstantiated reports." The newspaper said that Ukraine had failed to return 250 warheads to Russia in the 1990s when the former Soviet republic declared itself a nuclear-free zone. The paper suggested the warheads could have been sold to a third country, including Iran. Russian General Confirms Iran Has Nuclear Weapons Stratfor Intelligence, Week of June 4, 2002 http://cuttingedge.org/news/n1660.cfm A Russian general's statement about Iran's nukes fails to register with media. Sometime a slip of the tongue is so incredible that no amount of doctoring can explain it. And sometimes a slip of the tongue is as intentional as could be. Take an appearance by Russian Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky. He gave a briefing on Friday in Moscow during the Bush-Putin summit and was asked about whether Iran actually fired the Shihab-3 intermediate-range missile in a successful test earlier this month. The second question was whether Iran can threaten Israel, Russia or the United States with its nuclear and missile programs. Then the Russian general takes a surprise turn: 'Now, as to whether or not Iran has tested something like that. Iran does have nuclear weapons,' Baluyevsky said. 'Of course, these are non-strategic nuclear weapons. I mean these are not ICBMs with a range of more than 5,500 kilometers and more." Now this is shocking news, indeed! This Russian general has just confirmed that Iran has nuclear warheads and theater missiles with which to deliver them! And, he seems not to be concerned because these warheads cannot yet hit Russian soil. If Iran has nuclear weapons and the missile capability with which to deliver them to Israeli targets, then the entire calculation of military balance in the Middle East may just have changed. Iran Has Missiles to Carry Nuclear Warheads By Con Coughlin - NEWS.TELEGRAPH - 07/04/2006 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/07/wiran07.xml Iran has successfully developed ballistic missiles with the capability to carry nuclear warheads. Detailed analysis of recent test firings of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile by military experts has concluded that Iran has been able to modify the nose cone to carry a basic nuclear bomb. The discovery will intensify international pressure on Teheran to provide a comprehensive breakdown of its nuclear research programme. An Iranian Shahab-3 missile on parade in Teheran Last week, the United Nations Security Council gave Iran 30 days to freeze its uranium enrichment programme that many experts believe is part of a clandestine attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies it is trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But ballistic missile experts advising the United States say it has succeeded in reconfiguring the Shahab-3 to carry nuclear weapons. The Shahab-3 is a modified version of North Korea's Nodong missile which itself is based on the old Soviet-made Scud. The Nodong, which Iran secretly acquired from North Korea in the mid-1990s, is designed to carry a conventional warhead. But Iranian engineers have been working for several years to adapt the Shahab-3 to carry nuclear weapons. "This is a major breakthrough for the Iranians," said a senior US official. "They have been trying to do this for years and now they have succeeded. It is a very disturbing development." The Shahab 3 has a range of 800 miles, enabling it to hit a wide range of targets throughout the Middle East - including Israel. Apart from modifying the nose cone, Iranian technicians are also trying to make a number of technical adjustments that will enable the missile to travel a greater distance. Western intelligence officials believe that Iran is receiving assistance from teams of Russian and Chinese experts with experience of developing nuclear weapons. Experts who have studied the latest version of the Shahab have identified modifications to the nose cone. Instead of the single cone normally attached to this type of missile, the new Shahab has three cones, or a triconic, warhead. A triconic warhead allows the missile to accommodate a nuclear device and this type of warhead is normally found only in nuclear weapons. According to the new research, the Iranian warhead is designed to carry a spherical nuclear weapon that would be detonated 2,000 feet above the ground, similar to the Hiroshima bomb. Although US defence officials believe that Iran is several years away from acquiring nuclear weapons, they point out that the warhead could hold a version of the nuclear bomb Pakistan is known to have developed. Iran has acquired a detailed breakdown of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The development of the Shahab-3 is just one element of a wide-ranging missile development programme. In 2003 the Iranians concluded another secret deal with North Korea to buy the Taepo Dong 2 missile, which has a range of 2,200 miles and would enable Iran to hit targets in mainland Europe. Earlier this week the Iranians announced that they had successfully test-fired a new missile, the Fajr-3, which has the capability to evade radar systems and carry multiple warheads. Bush and Israel Nuke Iran http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/iran-bush.htm Iran will be destroyed - holocaust, hand of Bush http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/iran-dest-fire.htm Iran will be destroyed; fire by God http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/Irandestroyed.htm Iran will be destroyed - by the hand of - of Israel http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/DestructionIran.htm Destruction of Iran - Israel The sword which you feared shall overtake you there in the land... ...This shall they have for their pride, because they have reproached and magnified themselves against the people of the Lord of hosts... http://exodus2006.com/L0rd kyr0N/5march2006.htm The treachery of Iran against the people of God is an impediment. A cold truth. - From God, March 5th, 2006 Terrorist Attack on Toledo & Nuclear Power Plant Jane Northey - July 4, 2003 I have a friend who lives in Howell, Michigan. She had a dream around Memorial Day, which she shared with me in great detail. I knew her reliability in the dreams that God had given her, for every one of her dreams had come true since I have known her. As she told the dream, she spoke of a great terrorist attack that involved a nearby state where she lives. This attack would eventually engulf her state as well. The dream was so pointed and graphic that I told her to hold onto it because it was probably going to come to pass. She mentioned that in her dream a television announcer said, "A terrorist attack has occurred in Toledo. Toledo." (I didn"t know this at the time but Toledo, Ohio, is only about 100 miles away from her house.) About one month later on the 4th of July of that year, I was working at my bench at work when suddenly I started to see waves lapping over my desk. They were superimposed over the boards that I was working on. I started to hear those waves and nothing else. They were lapping against a shoreline and my feet were now standing on a beach where the waves were coming from. Then I saw islands out on this huge lake and I knew instantly that I was having a vision. I began to hear only what was in that vision and nothing else around me. (I work in an electronics company, where I test all products going out the door to the customer. So, the building is busy and noisy.) I was encapsulated in the vision and only heard and saw what was going on in that vision. Then I saw a man who was of Hungarian/Yugoslavian descent. He had immigrated to Canada, nearly 10 years before. He spoke flawless English and had blonde hair. He was of Caucasian birth. You would never suspect that he was of a terrorist group or had affiliations like that of any kind. I was told that the man came from Windsor. And I saw the destination of this man. He was crossing from the northern side of Lake Erie, to the south side of the same lake. He traveled from the town of Windsor, in a pleasure boat. He was dropped off at an island in the middle of the lake. And when he got out of the boat I saw that he was carrying a metal briefcase with him. (When I saw this in the vision, I immediately knew that it was a dirty bomb.) He proceeded to walk over the island, and when he reached the other side, there waiting for him was another boat. He entered the pleasure craft and it took him to another island, where he did this same thing, island hopping, until he got to the main shores of United States. (Which I later learned was the state of Ohio.) There the final pleasure craft to pick him up had a secret sliding door on the inside panel of the boat, where he placed his briefcase. They drove him to a place that juts out into the lake, to what I could see was a very rich owner"s house in a gated community, in front of an amusement park. Then in the vision, I saw the name of the city in front of this house where they had landed at, and it said boldly, Sandusky! (As I saw this, I knew instantly that this was a sleeper cell working in America.) He then entered the house where he would be staying. The house had a boat launch underneath it, which they closed the doors tight, right next to the water. As soon as they arrived on the shores of America, they disappeared from all sight. No one knew they were there. Everything appeared to be absolutely normal and common amongst those on the lake. (I was amazed as I saw this unfold before my eyes.) I realized that this had everything to do with my friend"s dream -- but this was an extension of it on a grander scale. This was information on the level of the gift of revelation. This shook me to the core of my being and I couldn"t erase it from my thoughts. Something had to be done, but what? Who would listen to me? I have no name, in the Christian world. I have no connections with any political scene. Telling this to the FBI might get me locked up somewhere, instead of being heard. So I prayed, and started to do my own research on Lake Erie, and its islands. I got a detailed map of Ohio and of all of its cities. I especially concentrated on Toledo, Ohio, and why anyone would choose that particular town for devastation. I used public libraries and Triple-A services to acquire any information that would be useful. I found out why Toledo was targeted. It is the largest Inland Sea port, oil refinery, in and on the Great Lakes. To my amazement, there are many islands out in Lake Erie. Many are inhabited all year around. And some are vacation spots during the summer. The town of Windsor, Canada does exist, and it"s on Lake Erie, on the northern side of the lake. The briefcase that the man carried was the typical size for carrying a dirty bomb. When I started to get these confirmations, I immediately asked for time off from work, and went to see this area for myself. I took with me the only thing that I knew could work, and that was anointing oil. I went to anoint the whole area. When I was there, I went unto one of the islands, and could see a huge nuclear power plant, that was built right on the shoreline of Lake Erie, in between the cities of Toledo and Sandusky. Even with all my research I hadn't discovered that this plant was there. And as I toured the islands, and I was looking back towards Ohio, I saw a huge amusement park on the shoreline. As the commuter boat drove me closer to the shoreline of Ohio, I saw a gated community, in front of the amusement park, all in front of the town, just the way that I seen it in the vision. That"s when I found out that town was called Sandusky. Now I understood in depth, what God was trying to show me. It would be extremely easy to throw a briefcase into an intake valve of that nuclear power plant, as the waters of Lake Erie cooled it. Or that this sleeper cell, that I now realized was in America, may be waiting for an opportunity to strike, or hook up with another group, to destroy even more than what I had been shown. Really, who would expect it? All I could do at that time was to anoint the islands and pray that the enemy would be found out or exposed. Loss of a City Soon? Anonymous - Nov. 2006 (David's notes in red) We believe the Lord was indicating to us that there would be the destruction of a U.S. city. We are not positive but we believe it is probably soon. At the beginning of November 2006, I saw Isaiah 17:10-11. It speaks to me of the destruction of a city. The destruction of a city speaks of the loss of livelihood, the loss of loved ones, friends, a father, mother, brother, sister, friend, etc. {Isa.17:9} In that day shall their strong cities be as the forsaken places in the wood and on the mountain top, which were forsaken from before the children of Israel; and it shall be a desolation. {10} For thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength; therefore thou plantest pleasant plants, and settest it with strange slips. {11} In the day of thy planting thou hedgest it in, and in the morning thou makest thy seed to blossom; but the harvest fleeth away in the day of grief and of desperate sorrow. Notice number 11 which may identify a 9-11 style attack. {12} Ah, the uproar of many peoples, that roar like the roaring of the seas; and the rushing of nations, that rush like the rushing of mighty waters! {13} The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but he shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like the whirling dust before the storm. {14} At eventide, behold, terror; [and] before the morning they are not. This is the portion of them that despoil us, and the lot of them that rob us. In the natural this is the Assyrian army invading and destroying Damascus before conquering the Northern 10 tribes and the entering the south against Jerusalem where God killed 185,000 of them in one night before they left. I believe this will happen again. I saw a vision of the U.S. as Nineveh, which was the capital of Assyria. It may mean that the coming war in the Middle East will turn nuclear and the U.S. will lose a lot of troops and a city. More accurately, this scripture "jumps off the page" at me. I read it and I am frightened. I am never frightened of scripture. I am afraid and I ask myself what does it mean? A day or so later, I call my friend of 25 years in New York. She is a Christian who has seen many unusual things. She tells me she has had the exact same experience the day before with the same EXACT 2 verses of scripture. I realize now this is to confirm what I have seen. While this nation has set out pleasant plants and foreign seedlings the harvest shall be a heap of ruins. We have planted democracy and principles of law and government, economic development, health care, food, etc., but we will get back something different. November 6th, 2006 As an outgrowth of my wife's conversation with her friend. My wife prays that the Lord will show her things. That night she has dreams. In her dream she sees a round oak table and a missile is sitting on top of the table. It has a red cone on its top. In the second dream she hears, "knights of the round table." My wife tells me about the dream and I am convinced it is from God. I begin to pray for the Lord to show me the meaning. I am thinking the missile is not conventional but nuclear. What I think it means: I believe the round oak table bespeaks of Great Britain (the British Oak). The missile option has been placed on the table. I think with respect to Iran and the Middle East. The knights of the round table were the defenders of the Christian west and if I am not mistaken stopped the Islamic incursion on the Island of Malta. (One of the reasons the Malta flag hung in my classroom.) Would the equivalent of the Knights of the round Table today be NATO? Yes it could be or it could be Britain, the U.S. and Australia. They will use the nuclear option. November 8th, 2006 I wake up in the middle of the night and I see "1895" on my clock radio. I am rather surprised and hit every button over and over to change it to some semblance of the right time. I cannot change it, so I go back to sleep. I wake up again, and again I see "1895." Again, I try to change the display by hitting every button over and over but to no avail. The clock will only say 1895. There is no colon between the 8 and 9 (just like the first time). I go back to sleep, when I awaken I am late for work. It, ironically unknown to me, is a late start day as there is a faculty meeting. The meetings are about one every month or two. I was afraid to go into the meeting as I was 2 minutes late for the last one and the principal chewed my tail off. While I am hiding in my classroom, I call my friend in New York. I ask her to pray with me I won't get caught not being in the meeting. She suggests I check out the date..... Find out what happened in 1895?? I check the date: I am stunned, I am shocked. I am convinced it was no accident. November 8th, 1895 was the first day in the scientific history of the atomic bomb. This is a fact that I was totally unacquainted with. In fact, one may well argue that November 8, 1895 is the dawning moment of the Nuclear AGE. It is on this date that a German physicist Wilhelm Roetngen discovers gamma radiation. He calls these mysterious rays "x-rays." Within one year this knowledge is being developed for medical technology. If you go to Google, type in "scientific history of the atomic bomb." The first entry is fine, scroll down and then click on "chronology." You will see this for yourself. While all of the teachers sign into the meeting and the sign-in sheet is passed around, no one ever gets back to me about my not being there. I thought I knew quite a bit about things nuclear but this fact was totally unknown to me. I believe that the missile on the table is a nuclear one. One thing that has been common to these dreams and visions: everything has been by twos. My friend and I both saw the same scripture jump off the page, my wife dreamed the same thing twice, I had the same vision twice. When a dream is doubled it means that it will soon come to pass. We have been expecting a war in the Middle East to begin soon, '07 or '08, with Israel hitting Iran and the US stepping in as it becomes nuclear. Also a terrorist hit on a US city that will be nuclear. This is not a made up story to entertain or scare you, this actually happened to us. I believe the reason that I did not see anything more is that I would be too easily frightened. I have heard, however, that in my later years that I will be a man of dreams and visions. Ironically, the land we have bought is in a place I did not know about when I bought it. We thought we were 5 miles from a place called Dresden but this place is called Pisgeh. If I remember correctly the allies in WWII firebombed a German city called Dresden. They designed it so that the winds feeding the fire like a tornado would incinerate the whole city and it worked, killing many people. Pisgeh in the Bible was a place where Moses went before he died. It was a place of vision, where he could "see" to the north, south, east and west. (It is also the place that Moses got a view of the Promised Land which I believe is going to happen soon with the man-child being caught up to the throne as in Rev.12.) I also found out something else I did not know about this place: I was purchasing a second parcel of land that once had a church on it that traces its origins back to Asuza Street in San Francisco in 1906. The church is gone but the land is still there. Las Vegas and the Lion Las Vegas Cyndee Pillow - October 07, 2005 Last night I was in my prayer closet and the Lord was speaking to me about some things. I heard Him say that he was hearing the intercessors prayers and there were some victories because of the gathering of the intercessors in unity crying out in America. Praise God for this. I felt Him urging us to keep praying and crying out because it is not His will that any should perish without the Lord Jesus, as we all know. He doesn't desire any to go to hell, but the SIN in America is the downfall of many....even so..... it is not God's will to destroy men's lives but to save them. Men are making the wrong choices. He wants us to pray that they Choose CHRIST! Keep weeping and crying out. I feel the Lord saying....."LOSE SLEEP, crucify the flesh and let love cause you to cry out for the Lost in the night watches!" Even so, those that have ears to hear, hear what the Spirit is saying. Then in a vision.........I started seeing prostitutes, pimps, gold coins, money and cash as if coming in flashes of different pictures. These continued as I saw rapes, thieves, gangs beating up people and on and on. Lawlessness and violence, sin and corruption all around is what I saw...and it was dark and this was all in one particular city. I heard the words from the Lord, "Babylonian rule is in your Nation. Unjust gain, fraud, lying, and cheating and THE CITY OF SIN SHALL NOT ESCAPE MY JUDGMENT." If some of you have a problem with the word Judgment, please take it to the Father. I make no excuse for the word as this is what He told me and I must word it as He worded it to me and not change a thing He said. This I feel is very important! Prophets must stop watering down what the Lord gives them!!! Suddenly, I saw more and focused in on a dark city street. I was brought close to the street to a manhole cover. I heard the words, "There's a scheme and a plan undercover." I then saw a quick view of underneath the city of sin, and saw into the sewer system. This all happened in quick snapshots. Finally, I was left viewing from high above the city. There was some type of an explosion from underneath the city of sin, making the ground heave up as if vomiting, and then, there was a collapse and the ground sank! I saw this city of lights sink into the ground. Whether this is literal or all a spiritual symbol, I do not know. God didn't reveal this to me. In the last part of the vision I was seeing the bulbs of the glistening city lights popping, one by one by one, until there were no more advertisements beckoning people to come into this or that place. I heard the Lord say one more thing, "The city of sin must be dealt with. No more will money be the draw, as I deal with Las Vegas, Nevada." Note from David: Dumitru Duduman testified: "Then he showed me Las Vegas. "You see what I have shown you. This is Sodom and Gomorrah. In one day it will burn." He said, "Its sin has reached the Holy One.'" Vision Of A Lion Cyndee Pillow - February 2, 2006 I was looking at something, as if far away, however, it moved closer. It was like a series of 3 vision pictures. In the first flash, I could not make it out at first but only knew it to be some type of animal in the first flash. The second one was closer and it appeared to be a wild animal and at that point as I looked, I asked myself, "Is that a tiger?" I tried to make it out clearly to confirm for sure that it was a tiger, when instantly the third flash picture came even much closer. This time I saw it was not a tiger. It was a lion. As I watched he hung his tongue out and left it hanging out as he stared at me. I asked, "Lord, is this Lion you? Lord, I don't believe this is you, because you wouldn't have your tongue hanging out like that as you are King." I don't know why I thought that, but it didn't seem dignified to see the King of Glory with his tongue hanging out like that. I also remember that I could not recognize him at first as to even what the lion really was. I knew it didn't represent the Lord or I would have recognized Him and would not have had a question to his identify. I had no idea who it really did represent at the time. However, a sister told me that Osama Bin Laden is likened to a lion. So, I looked up the name for its correct meaning. OSAMA means Lion-like. Isaiah 57:3 But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore. 4 Against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood. I heard something very strange in my spirit after this vision. I heard the words "Rapid Succession." Then, I heard words in Mexican or Spanish, "Rápido! Rápido! Rápido!" repeated 3 times. Rapid-1. occurring with speed; coming about within a short time. Moving or acting in great speed; swift. Characterized by speed and motion. Succession-1. the coming of one after another in order, sequence, or the course of events; sequence. 2. a number of persons or things following one another in order or sequence. 3. the right, act or process, by which one person succeeds to an office, rank, estate or the like, of another. 4. decent of transmission, or the principle or mode of transmission or a throne, dignity, estate, or the like. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I make no call on what all this means, but present it to those that feel the urge in the Spirit to pray concerning what all this could mean. I personally feel led to prayer over protection and exposing of anything attempting to come over our Southern borders of the US in way of an attack, namely our Mexican borders. Wellspring of Fire & Light firstname.lastname@example.com Vision By A.C. Valdez In 1929 I was preaching in Vancouver, British Colombia. I had gone to the 6th Avenue Church that seats 1,000 people. The old building is gone. I sat down on the platform and looked down at the congregation for the Sunday morning service. There were 18 people. I had crossed the continent from Los Angeles to get to that meeting--18 people in my first service. My first thought was, My Lord and my God, the nerve, asking me to come across the country to stand here in front of 18 people. Now, that was my first thought. Now, I no sooner thought that when God spoke to my heart and said, "Son, I want you to comfort these people." They needed comfort, Brother. He gave me the capacity to comfort them. I started preaching comforting words. If I had given way to the human, Brother, I would have skinned them alive and tacked their hides up on the wall. People in a condition like that don't need a skinning; they need comfort. God helped me. He poured in the oil and the wine. He helped me to comfort those people. They began to cry all over the place, as they needed comfort. The tears began to stream down their cheeks. They had gone through a terrible trial in that city, and the name of "Pentecost" was in the newspapers of that city, and it wasn't very good. The things that they had put into the newspapers were enough to keep most anybody away. I had 18 people in the inside and thousands on the outside. God began to work, and the Spirit began to come forth. By the following Sunday the place was well filled. The Holy Ghost began to bring them in. By the end of the third week they had to take down the partition that separated the coat room from the main auditorium to put more seats in that auditorium that seated a thousand. It packed out. They packed the place, standing up and down the winding stairs and outside of the church building and out into the street. The glory of God came down. Souls began to get saved, and the sick were healed. We had a glorious victory over the world of flesh and the devil. The ministers were so happy. They said, "Lord, in spite of that death, you've given us victory." Right in the middle of that victory, I stood in 6th Avenue Church one day with the power of God on me. All of a sudden the ceiling just disappeared. Now, when I say "vision," my friends, I know that some visions are what the Bible calls "night visions," like in a dream. You will find that in the Bible. Dreams are also called "visions." Generally speaking, a vision is differentiated by what you see with your eyes open, that which you see when you are not asleep. In this particular case I was standing on my feet, when all of a sudden the walls and the ceiling just faded right out. I began to see this vision, and the Lord showed me. I looked up and saw what answers to the description of an ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile), just as real as any picture that you would see--or the real thing if you've ever seen one of those missiles. It was just as real as you would look upon one if it were right in front of you, two or three feet away! I saw it. It was passing over a skim of clouds, not heavy clouds, but a thin skim of clouds. I was standing on the side of this mountain, a residential district. I was looking over into a bay area. It would appear like I was in Berkeley, if you've ever been to Berkeley, and the Berkeley hills. I was looking into the bay area toward San Francisco, the San Francisco Bay region, that direction. I saw the freeway. I don't say that it was the Oakland freeway that is there today. I don't know where it was, my friends. I do know this, that I was standing on the side of this mountain, overlooking a huge metropolis, when I saw this missile directed toward the city; and suddenly, being electronically controlled, no doubt, it plummeted right down into the city and then exploded. Then I saw the fireball, which answers to the description of what I have seen in a civil defense film release of the first hydrogen bomb explosion. This happened in 1929! The atom was not split until 1932! Yet I saw it as clear as I see you here tonight. There was a purpose in it. I have been warning people ever since that this thing is coming! As the day approaches, my friends, I feel more vibrant than ever before! I have got to bear testimony to what I saw with my eyes! I have got to warn God's people that they must live in the Spirit and walk in the Spirit and be filled with the Spirit if they want God's protection in these last days! I saw this thing blossom out in all of its beautiful colors. Did you ever see a picture of it? It is a beautiful sight, but it is a horrible sight. All of the colors of the rainbow you can see in that big ball as it swells out. Then the pressure that it creates following the explosion, it demolishes everything before it. It leaves a crater over 300 feet deep and over 2 miles across. It is capable of destroying a huge metropolis the size of New York City in one blast. Even though there were no freeways in 1929, I saw freeways. I saw them run and jump in their cars to escape, but there was no escape! I saw the aftermath of this explosion. I saw all of the details. The Spirit of the Lord picked me up. Like St. Paul, whether in the body or out of the body, I don't know! All I know is, my friends, that God took me and whisked me across that area where the bomb hit in the midst of that huge metropolis. There was nothing left. The center where it struck was molten, like molten glass. It wasn't, my friends, until I was carried way beyond the residential area that I began to see any sign of debris. Finally, I came to what looked similar to snow or sand drifts piled up against the fences and buildings. I saw piles or iron, like broom straw, only much finer than broom straw. It was in piles and in patterns--everything completely destroyed! Finally, way, way out, beyond what I felt was the residential area, I began to find signs of human beings, only in pieces--torsos, heads, hands, arms, and legs. They were scattered around everywhere! The Spirit of the Lord carried me out farther. I began to find signs of life. People were running. Everybody was blind. (I didn't know in 1929 that if you are 35 miles away from the explosion and you happened to be looking in that direction, you would never see again. I didn't know that at that time.) Everybody was blind, my friends. They were running and screaming and bumping up against this and that and the other, bouncing back, children blind and screaming and crying out for their parents and parents for their children. The farther I went, the more the confusion, and the cries increased. My friends, even tonight, while I am speaking to you, I can hear those cries! I can hear those cries, children and parents screaming out for one another! It was a terrible sight to behold! If I were to live 10,000 years, I know I could just close my eyes and hear those screams and see the terror that was written all over the faces of parents and children! A terrible sight, indeed. Then, my friends, the Spirit of the Lord took me. Oh, I wonder how fast I was going. I could see the mountains and the hills just passing before me. I came sweeping down over a large valley. In the distance I could see, as I began to approach, a body of people that looked like tens of thousands. I don't know how many were there. It was a sea of people. Long before I got there, I could see. As I came down closer, I could discern them. They had their handkerchiefs. They were wiping their tears from their eyes. Then for the first time I began to hear heavenly anthems. I could hear the Hallelujahs, in bass and tenor and soprano and alto, voices blending together. That mass of humanity was lifted together by the heavenly music. I came right down in the midst of them. There they were, God's people. This is what I saw, friends. They were all dressed up like they were ready for the Sunday service. Their hair was parted. Nothing was disturbed. There was no soil on their shirts. They were cared for so perfectly that everything was in order, my friends. Their faces were clean. Their clothing was clean. Everything was in order! The only word you could use to describe them would be "meticulous" Meticulous! Glory to God! What a wonderful thing to be in the hands of God! I say that God is going to protect his people in these last days IF. . .they live in the Spirit and walk in the Spirit and keep filled with the Spirit! Stephen L. Bening/Art Cormier: SS18 "Satan" Russian Missiles 85. Stephen L. Bening 85.1 1990, Dreams & Prophecies & Visions, America To Be Destroyed By A Russian Attack of SS18 Nuclear Missiles — During 1990, I met a man named Art Cormier. Art was a butcher: a meat cutter in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. God was showing him some incredible things. He was having trouble getting people to pay attention to him, for he was receiving warnings about America's future. His English grammar was not very good, but I quickly saw the importance of what he was receiving and I felt called to help him, so, in a sense, I became his scribe. I began doing prophetic newsletters then, mainly filled with what Art was seeing. God led me to call them the "Gammadim Reports," after Ezekiel 27:11. This was still several years before I became aware of the Internet, yet God knew even then that I would be the only watchman using the name "gammadim" in the whole world in the year 2000 and that anyone, doing a simple search anywhere on the internet, would be able to locate my web site. AMAZING GOD! I recall one event that changed me forever. It was June 18, 1991. I had just visited the location of my previous employer at 666 71st Street. I had been showing a friend that place and laughing about the numerical address. I pulled my car into my office parking lot at 6 P.M.: the 18th hour of the 18th day of the 6th month of 1991---can you see all those sixes. Art Cormier was waiting for me. He handed me a revelation he had received that America was going to be destroyed by a Russian attack of SS18 nuclear missiles. Russia has named these missiles "SS18 Satan". Art had no idea where I had been---he had no idea that I had just come from 666 71st street. He had not even noticed the 18th hour of the day. He had not even noticed that it was 6/18, but I did immediately and I was changed forever. VISION: Nuclear Destruction of Miami July 24, 1992 On the afternoon, at about 2 P.M. on July 24, 1992, I was walking out of the front door of the home where I was staying on Golden Beach, in North Miami, Florida. As I walked out the front door, and walked west, toward me car, I was startled by a flash in the Southern sky. I turned to look South. From where I was standing, I had a relatively unobstructed look at the Southern Sky. As I watched, I saw a Hydrogen Bomb mushroom cloud rise to the South. I began to panic. I thought about the light I saw and the cloud and estimated it's distance at about 40 miles. That meant to me that Homestead Air Force base had just been nuked. I was thinking that if it had been hit by a Russian SS18 missile, which has a blast radius of 100 miles, that the shock wave must be going to reach me in 30 or 40 seconds. At any rate, that was my estimate. I began to look around the yard, seeing if there was any culvert or drainage ditch that I could jump into to get underground. I found nothing. I resolved to just stand there and praise my God until the blast hit. Just as I began to thank the Lord, the mushroom cloud dematerialized in the sky as I was looking at it: it just faded away. It was at this time that I realized that I had not seen a real atomic blast, but I had seen a vision. On month later, on August 24, 1992, Homestead was hit with a direct hit by Hurricane Andrew and the destruction was compared to that which would be caused by an Atomic Blast. Sometime later though, the Lord spoke to me and told me that I was to expect another, later fulfillment of my vision. It is to be fulfilled as I saw it transpire in my vision. Stephen L. Bening