Manufactured and Testing WMD's

Very different the topic of this post is from biological and chemical warfare agents, and other brutal weapons or weapons brutally used, but this is still a new weapon that isn't of full global scope in terms of infrastructure placement, though that aspect does involve several continents, and the purporse of it is of global scope. People need to know about this. The U.S. and NATO have evidently been moving strongly towards use of global cyber warfare and the potential power to be achieved with this is evidently great. The following article also refers to other advanced warfare tech. of the U.S., but the piece is primarily about the cyber warfare.

"Pentagon Partners With NATO To Create Global Cyber Warfare System"

by Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, RickRozoff.wordpress.com, Oct. 8th, 2010

U.S. Cyber Command is scheduled to be activated this month, in the words of a Reuters dispatch “ready to go to war in cyberspace” with full operational capability.

The launching of the world’s first multi-service – with the involvement of all major branches of the U.S. armed forces: ... – military command is being coordinated with a complementary initiative by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Europe, the joint effort striving toward a worldwide cyber warfare system.

Last month the U.S. Defense Department’s Joint Task Force Global Network Operations command was deactivated and absorbed into U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) after a decade-long existence.

(snip)

The first commander of CYBERCOM, General Keith Alexander, said two weeks after his appointment and CYBERCOM’s launching on May 21 that the Pentagon “depends on its networks for command and control, communications, intelligence, operations and logistics” and that the mission of his command is to “deter, detect and defend against emerging threats against our nation in cyberspace.”

That's a sick and dark joke; defending the U.S. is the complete opposite of what the U.S., politically and militarily, has been doing for more than a long time.

(snip)

On the rare occasions when the Pentagon’s establishing an unprecedented military command for cyber operations is mentioned in the news media at all, the preferred word in defining its purpose is defense. When military and Defense Department personnel speak among themselves more direct terms are employed: Warfare, warfighting, wartime, rules of engagement, battlefield, battlespace.

(snip)

The American military has not been used to defend the U.S. mainland since 1812, when the United States instigated a war with Britain by invading Canada. It has not been used even to defend American territories since the less-than-effective defense of Pearl Harbor in 1941 .... (snip)

(snip)

Recent rumors that the Stuxnet computer virus was used to attack Iran’s civilian nuclear power plant at Bushehr provide an example of how the capabilities CYBERCOM is developing for its offensive, its wartime, contingencies could be employed. (snip)

In addition to the Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike project [5] for launching intercontinental ballistic and hypersonic cruise missile strikes anywhere in the world within 60 minutes, with the interval to shrink to a fraction of that time in the future, and with the development of super stealthy strategic bombers able to evade radar and air defenses and penetrate deep into the interior of targeted countries, a global cyber warfare capability would render the world defenseless in the face of American blackmail. And attacks. The foreign equivalents of the Pentagon’s Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) system could be neutralized.

Not only would Iran be vulnerable, but Russia and China as well.

The September-October edition of Foreign Affairs, ..., contains an article by Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn called "Defending a New Domain: The Pentagon’s Cyberstrategy" in which he announced ..., and where he spelled out the five components of the Pentagon’s cyber warfare strategy:

(snip)

The Defense Department is due to release a cyber strategy document this autumn, synchronized with the full operationalization of CYBERCOM and ahead of the NATO summit in Portugal on November 19-20.

On August 28 the Washington Post ran a feature entitled “Pentagon considers preemptive strikes as part of cyber-defense strategy” which detailed the following:

(snip)

The deployment of software and hardware tools for the above purposes is “the next logical step in a cyber strategy outlined last week by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III,” one of so-called “active defense.” [8]

In August CYBERCOM chief General Keith Alexander spoke at the LandWarNet 2010 conference in Tampa, Florida whose theme was Providing Global Cyber Dominance to Joint/Combined Commanders. He reiterated the contention that “cyberspace is now a domain alongside air, land, sea, and space.” [9] More ominously, he added: “We have to have offensive capabilities, to, in real time, shut down somebody trying to attack us.” [10]

For “active defense” read the capacity to launch preemptive attacks not only on individual hackers but on entire national computer networks.

Defense? William J. Lynn III is full of another damn liar. And I agree with Rick Rozoff, but in addition to reading the "active defense" notion as he suggests, we can also consider it [aggression], imo. It's definitely not about any real defense.

(snip)

A few weeks ago an article appeared in the Global Times by a researcher at the Development Research Center of the State Council of China who wrote, “To control the world by controlling the Internet has been a dominant strategy of the US” and “the national information security strategy of the US has evolved from a preventative strategy to a preemptive one.”

“The ultimate goal is for the US to [have] the ability to open and shut parts of the Internet at will.”

(snip)

The Chinese author further asserted that “the five core areas of Internet infrastructure are monopolized by US”:

(snip)

- After the control of Internet infrastructure and hardware and software systems, the US is now turning to Internet content.

- The US government has adopted macro-control and focus-funding to actively use IT giants to create a global Internet infrastructure which could be manipulated by the US. [18]

(snip)

The Chinese expert’s apprehensions were confirmed by retired Air Force general Michael Hayden .... (snip)

The Pentagon and the White do not intend to act alone in developing an international cyber warfare structure.

(snip)

The article also cited a legal expert at NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence established in Estonia in 2008 affirming that “because the effect of a cyber attack can be similar to an armed assault, there is no need to redraft existing treaties.” That is, the Alliance’s Article 4 – used to move Patriot anti-ballistic missiles into Turkey on the eve of the war against Iraq in 2003 – and its Article 5 – used for NATO’s participation in the war in Afghanistan – can be evoked and activated in the event of a cyber attack.

(snip)

Worldwide is the correct word for the military network the Pentagon has built in recent years, as is evidenced by the nations participating under U.S. command in Combined Endeavor 2010 and Africa Endeavor 2010: 75 countries with Afghanistan and Iraq among them.

(snip)

Washington has increased its military presence in several continents to achieve its 21st century geopolitical objectives. (snip)

(snip)

The Pentagon will be satisfied with nothing less than full spectrum dominance throughout the world – and above the world. It is now adding to its military superiority in the realms of land, air, sea and space control of the fifth battleground: Cyberspace.

The full article provides many details that'll surely interest readers wanting to seriously know what's going on with all of this global dominance warfare madness, while the above piece is almost entirely about the cyber realm.

This, imo, is clearly part of a real world war, just that it's not being fought like the historial WW I and II were. These sick elites are clearly working for full global dominance and that also clearly is war on this world. It's definitely global in scope, and definitely not for bringing or establishing peace, justice, democracy, reasonable standards of living (economically), et cetera. It's world war, threat, state-lead terrorism, and so on.