This week marks the second anniversary of a nuclear war that could have destroyed the United States.
On January 25, 1995, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, huddled together with his military staff, braced to take the terrifying step of launching nuclear missiles against the United States. It was to be a retaliatory strike, for the Russians were convinced that we had already launched an attack against them. What they discovered, in time to avert disaster, was that the incoming enemy missile was nothing more than a Norwegian weather rocket gone awry.
What would President Bill Clinton have done, two years ago, to defend the U.S. against a nuclear attack? What, for that matter, would he do today, if -- through militarism, mania, or misinterpretation -- the Russians, the Chinese, or some rogue nation launched its weapons of mass destruction against us? The answer, incredibly enough, is nothing. President Clinton would more than likely do nothing, because, thanks to his own reckless disregard for our nation's security, there is nothing he can do.
"The current administration knows that we have come precariously close to nuclear war several times in the past few years," charges Kevin Briggs of the American Civil Defense Association. Nevertheless, President Clinton refuses to implement the antiballistic missile defense that would protect us from nuclear attack. Writing in the Winter issue of the Journal of Civil Defense, Briggs points out that Clinton "vetoed last year's defense authorization bill because it called for a rapid deployment of missile defenses for America." Those defenses were too expensive, Clinton claimed, and a nuclear attack unlikely.
The threat is real, however. "Every American child faces the risk of annihilation from nuclear missiles originating from at least two countries," Briggs warns. President Clinton's ballyhooed boast about nuclear missiles no longer being pointed at America was so much campaign claptrap. "The agreement we have with the Russians to aim their missiles at the ocean instead of our cities," Briggs observes, "has no provisions for verification."
The reality of the situation is that "the Russians still have thousands of nuclear missiles ready to destroy the United States at any time, if desired." And the Russians aren't the only ones with this capacity for mass destruction, says Briggs, noting that "the Chinese very likely have nuclear missiles pointed at us." Whatever their current targets, the fact remains that they can be retargeted in a matter of seconds.
There is evidence that the Russians remain committed to the possibility of fighting and winning a nuclear war. "Since the end of the Cold War, the Russians have continued spending billions to build deep underground nuclear command and leadership facilities to ensure they can maintain control during a nuclear war," says Briggs. Not only that, but they continue to "upgrade their nuclear submarine, bomber, cruise missile, and land-based ballistic missile forces." The intentional launching of nuclear missiles is not the only threat, however. "The risk of accidental or illicit launches against the United States," Briggs warns, "is real and growing."
