The 3 A.M. Phone Call: Zbigniew Brzezinski Received Warning of Incoming Nuclear Attack

http://www.nsarchive.org/

Zbigniew Brzezinski with Deng Xiaoping

Washington, D.C., March 1, 2012 – During the 2008 campaign, Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debated the question: who was best suited to be suddenly awakened at 3 a.m. in the White House to make a tough call in a crisis. The candidates probably meant news of trouble in the Middle East or a terrorist attack in the United States or in a major ally, not an 'end of the world' phone call about a major nuclear strike on the United States. In fact at least one such phone call occurred during the Cold War, but it did not go to the President. It went to a national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was awakened on 9 November 1979, to be told that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the combined U.S.–Canada military command–was reporting a Soviet missile attack. Just before Brzezinski was about to call President Carter, the NORAD warning turned out to be a false alarm. It was one of those moments in Cold War history when top officials believed they were facing the ultimate threat. The apparent cause? The routine testing of an overworked computer system.

Recently declassified documents about this incident and other false warnings of Soviet missile attacks delivered to the Pentagon and military commands by computers at NORAD in 1979 and 1980 are published today for the first time by the National Security Archive. The erroneous warnings, variously produced by computer tests and worn out computer chips, led to a number of alert actions by U.S. bomber and missile forces and the emergency airborne command post. Alarmed by reports of the incident on 9 November 1979, the Soviet leadership lodged a complaint with Washington about the "extreme danger" of false warnings. While Pentagon officials were trying to prevent future incidents, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown assured President Jimmy Carter that false warnings were virtually inevitable, although he tried to reassure the President that "human safeguards" would prevent them from getting out of control.

Among the disclosures in today's posting:

• Reports that the mistaken use of a nuclear exercise tape on a NORAD computer had produced a U.S. false warning and alert actions prompted Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev to write secretly to President Carter that the erroneous alert was "fraught with a tremendous danger." Further, "I think you will agree with me that there should be no errors in such matters."
• Commenting on the November 1979 NORAD incident, senior State Department adviser Marshal Shulman wrote that "false alerts of this kind are not a rare occurrence" and that there is a "complacency about handling them that disturbs me."
• With U.S.-Soviet relations already difficult, the Brezhnev message sparked discussion inside the Carter administration on how best to reply. Hard-liners prevailed and the draft that was approved included language ("inaccurate and unacceptable") that Marshal Shulman saw as "snotty" and "gratuitously insulting."
• Months later, in May and June 1980, 3 more false alerts occurred. The dates of two of them, 3 and 6 June 1980, have been in the public record for years, but the existence of a third event, cited in a memorandum from Secretary of Defense Brown to President Carter on 7 June 1980, has hitherto been unknown, although the details are classified.
• False alerts by NORAD computers on 3 and 6 June 1980 triggered routine actions by SAC and the NMCC to ensure survivability of strategic forces and command and control systems. The National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP) at Andrews Air Force Base taxied in position for emergency launch, although it remained in place. Because missile attack warning systems showed nothing unusual, the alert actions were suspended.
• Supposedly causing the incidents in June 1980 was the failure of a 46¢ integrated circuit ("chip") in a NORAD computer, but Secretary of Defense Brown reported to a surprised President Carter that NORAD "has been unable to get the suspected circuit to fail again under tests."
• In reports to Carter, Secretary cautioned that "we must be prepared for the possibility that another, unrelated malfunction may someday generate another false alert." Nevertheless, Brown argued that "human safeguards"—people reading data produced by warning systems--ensured that there would be "no chance that any irretrievable actions would be taken."

Background

For decades, the possibility of a Soviet missile attack preoccupied U.S. presidents and their security advisers. Because nuclear hostilities were more likely to emerge during a political-military confrontation (such as Cuba 1962, the likelihood of a bolt from the blue was remote but Washington nevertheless planned for the worst case. Under any circumstances, U.S. presidents and top military commanders wanted warning systems that could provide them with the earliest possible notice of missile launches by the Soviet Union or other adversaries. By the early 1960s, the Pentagon had the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWs) that could provide about 15 minutes of warning time. By the mid-to-late1960s, forward-scatter systems (so-called "Over the Horizon Radar") could detect missile launches within five to seven minutes from while, while the 474N system could give three-to-seven minutes of warning of launches from submarines off the North American coast. [1]

By the end of the 1960s, the United States was getting ready to deploy the Defense Support Program satellites which use infrared technology to detect plumes produced by missile launches. DSP could be used to tell whether missile launches were only tests or whether they signified a real attack by detecting number of missile launches and trajectory. This provided25 to 30 minutes of warning along with information on the trajectory and ultimate targets of the missiles. As long as decision-makers were not confronting the danger of a SLBM launch, the DSP would give them some time to decide how to retaliate.

In 1972, the North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) began to network warning systems into at "interlinked system" operated at its headquarters in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado.[2] A complex computer-based system always bore the risk of failure, break-downs, or errors. Even before networking emerged, false warnings emerged as early as 1960 when a BMEWs radar in Greenland caught "echoes from the moon," which generated a report of a missile attack which was quickly understood to be false (see document 1). During the Cuban Missile Crisis false warning episodes occurred, some of them involving NORAD, that were virtually unknown for many years.[3] If there were significant incidents during the years that followed, it remains to be learned. But once the networked systems were in place, the possibility that they would typically produce false warnings became evident. 

The Events of 1979-1980

"As he recounted it to me, Brzezinski was awakened at three in the morning by [military assistant William] Odom, who told him that some 250 Soviet missiles had been launched against the United States. Brzezinski knew that the President's decision time to order retaliation was from three to seven minutes …. Thus he told Odom he would stand by for a further call to confirm Soviet launch and the intended targets before calling the President. Brzezinski was convinced we had to hit back and told Odom to confirm that the Strategic Air Command was launching its planes. When Odom called back, he reported that … 2,200 missiles had been launched—it was an all-out attack. One minute before Brzezinski intended to call the President, Odom called a third time to say that other warning systems were not reporting Soviet launches. Sitting alone in the middle of the night, Brzezinski had not awakened his wife, reckoning that everyone would be dead in half an hour. It had been a false alarm. Someone had mistakenly put military exercise tapes into the computer system." -- Robert M. Gates. From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How they Won the Cold War (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1996),114.

The series of alarming incidents and telephone phone calls recounted by former NSC staffer (and later CIA director and future Secretary of Defense) Robert Gates took place in the middle of the night on 9 November 1979. Because of the potentially grave implications of the event, the episode quickly leaked to the media, with the Washington Post and The New York Times printing stories on what happened. According to press reports, based on Pentagon briefings, a NORAD staffer caused the mistake by mistakenly loading a training/exercise tape into a computer, which simulated an "attack into the live warning system." This was a distortion because it was not a matter of a "wrong tape," but software simulating a Soviet missile attack then testing NORAD's 427M computers "was inexplicably transferred into the regular warning display" at the Command's headquarters. Indeed, NORAD's Commander-in-chief later acknowledged that the "precise mode of failure … could not be replicated."[4]

The information on the display simultaneously appeared on screens at SAC headquarters and the National Military Command Center (NMCC), which quickly led to defensive actions: NORAD alerted interceptor forces and 10 fighters were immediately launched. Moreover, the National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP), used so the president could control U.S. forces during a nuclear war, was launched from Andrews Air Force Base, although without the president or secretary of defense.

Some of this information did not reach the public for months, but at least one reporter received misleading information about how high the alert went. According to the New York Times' sources, the warning was "deemed insufficiently urgent to warrant notifying top Government or military officials." Apparently no one wanted to tell reporters (and further scare the public) that the phone call went to President's Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The behind-the-scenes story became more complicated because the Soviet leadership was worried enough to lodge a complaint with Washington. The Cold War tensions had already been exacerbated during the previous year and this could not help (nor could an impending Kremlin decision to invade Afghanistan). On 14 November, party leader Leonid Brezhnev sent a message via Ambassador Anatoly Dobyrnin expressing his concern about the incident which was "fraught with a tremendous danger." What especially concerned Brezhnev were press reports that top U.S. leaders had not been informed at the time about the warning. The Defense Department and Brzezinski took hold of the reply to Brezhnev's message which senior State Department adviser Marshall Shulman saw as "gratuitously snotty" (for example, language about the "inaccurate and unacceptable" Soviet message). The Soviets were indeed miffed because they later replied that the U.S. message was not "satisfactory" because it had taken a polemical approach to Moscow's "profound and natural concern."

About seven months later, U.S. warning systems generated three more false alerts. One occurred on 28 May 1980; it was a minor harbinger of false alerts on 3 and 6 June 1980. According to the Pentagon, what caused the malfunctions in June 1980 was a failed 46¢ micro-electronic integrated circuit ("chip") and "faulty message design." A computer at NORAD made what amounted to "typographical errors" in the routine messages it sent to SAC and the National Military Command Center (NMCC) about missile launches. While the message usually said "OOO" ICBMs or SLBMs had been launched, some of the zeroes were erroneously filled in with a 2, e.g. 002 or 200, so the message indicated that 2, then 200 SLBMs were on their way. Once the message arrived at SAC, the command took survivability measures by ordering bomber pilots and crews to their stations at alert bombers and tankers and to start the engines.

No NORAD interceptors were launched so something had been learned from the November episode, but SAC took same precautionary measures. The Pacific Command's airborne command post ("Blue Eagle") was launched for reasons that remain mysterious.[5] NEACP taxied in position at Andrews Air Force Base, but it was not launched as in November. That missile warning sensors (DSP, BMEWs, etc) showed nothing amiss made it possible for military commanders to call off further action. According to a Senate report, NORAD ran its computers the next 3 days in order to isolate the cause of the error; the "mistake was reproduced" in the mid-afternoon of 6 June with the similar results and SAC took defensive measures.[6]

When Harold Brown explained to President Carter what had happened and what was being done to fix the system, he cautioned that "we must be prepared for the possibility that another, unrelated malfunction may someday generate another false alert." This meant that "we must continue to place our confidence in the human element of our missile attack warning system." Brown, however, did not address a problem raised by journalists who asked Pentagon officials, if another false alert occurred, whether a "chain reaction" could be triggered when "duty officers in the Soviet Union read data on the American alert coming into their warning systems." A nameless U.S. defense official would give no assurances that a "chain reaction" would not occur, noting that "I hope they have as secure a system as we do, that they have the safeguards we do."

How good the safeguards actually were remains an open question. While Secretary of Defense Brown acknowledged the "possibility" of future false alerts, he insisted on the importance of human safeguards in preventing catastrophes. Stanford University professor Scott Sagan's argument about "organizational failure" is critical of that optimism on several counts. For example, under some circumstances false alerts could have had more perilous outcomes, e.g. if Soviet missile tests had occurred at the same time or if there were serious political tensions with Moscow, defense officials might have been jumpier and launched bomber aircraft or worse. Further, false warnings were symptomatic of "more serious problems with the way portions of the command system had been designed." Yet, defense officials have been reluctant to acknowledge organizational failings, instead blaming mistakes on 46¢ chips or individuals inserting the wrong tape. Treating the events of 1979 and 1980 as "normal accidents" in complex systems, Sagan observes that defense officials are reluctant to learn from mistakes and have persuaded themselves that the system is "foolproof."[7]

Bruce Blair also sees systemic problems. Once a "launch-under--attack" strategic nuclear option became embedded in war planning policy during the late 1970s, he sees the weakening of the safeguards that had been in place, e.g., confirmation that a Soviet nuclear attack was in progress or had already occurred. One of the arguments for taking Minuteman ICBMs off their current high alert status (making virtually instantaneous launch possible) has been that a false warning, combined with an advanced state of readiness, raises the risk of accidental nuclear war. The risk of false alerts/accidental war is one of the considerations that is prompting other anti-nuclear activists, including Daniel Ellsberg, to protest at Vandenberg Air Force Base against the Minuteman ICBM program and the continued testing of Minutemen.[8]

The Soviet nuclear command and control system that developed during the 1980s provides an interesting contrast with the U.S.'s. While the United States emphasized "human safeguards" as a firewall, the "Perimeter" nuclear warning-nuclear strike system may have minimized them. In large part, it was a response to Soviet concern that a U.S. decapitating strike, aimed at the political leadership and central control systems, could cripple retaliatory capabilities. Reminiscent of the "doomsday machine" in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Perimeter could launch a semi-automatic nuclear strike under specified conditions, for example, no contact with political or military leaders, atomic bombs detonating, etc. If such conditions were fulfilled, a few military personnel deep in an underground bunker could launch emergency command and control rockets which in turn would transmit launch orders to ICBMs in their silos. According to David Hoffman's Pulitzer-prize winning The Dead Hand, when Bruce Blair learned about Perimeter, he was "uneasy that it put launch orders in the hands of a few, with so much automation." While the system may have been operational as late as the early 1990s, only declassification decisions by Russian authorities can shed light on Perimeter's evolution.[9]

According to Bruce Blair, writing in the early 1990s, warning system failures continued after 1980, although they did not trigger alert measures.[10] The U.S. nuclear incidents that have received the most attention have not been false warnings, but events such as the Air Force's accidental movement of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB in 2007 and the mistaken transfer of Minuteman nose-cone assemblies to Taiwan in 2006. In any event, more needs to be learned about the problem of false warnings during and after the Cold War and pending declassification requests and appeals may shed further light on this issue. 
More  The National Security Archive >>

The Cruelest Cuts

FrontPageMag/ By Arnold Ahlert

On January 3rd, President Obama released his vision for military expenditures going forward. It is a plan that calls for reducing troop strength by tens of thousands because, Mr. Obama contends, ”we’ve succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of Americans in harm’s way, and we’ve restored America’s global leadership.” An integral part of the new strategy? Abandoning the capability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously. ”Yes, our military will be leaner, said the president, “but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.”

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, cut right through the rhetoric. ”This is a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind America,” he contended. “The president has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense.”

The scope of the divestment is daunting. The additional $500 billion in new spending cuts come on top of the $480 billion this president cut out of the military budget his first three years in office. Neither of these cuts reflect the possibility that an additional $500 billion in possible cuts will kick in next January, under “sequestration.” And since the 2012 budget request already calls for the reduction of 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines over the next four years, it is likely those numbers will increase as well.  Read more »

After a week US left: Baghdad Blast Wave

El castrismo y la vulnerable democracia latinoamericana ( I )

The Communications Lab’s Blog

Cubanálisis El Think-Tank/ Eugenio Yáñez y Juan Benemelis

Uno de los aspectos que se muestran con mayor orgullo en cualquier balance contemporáneo de América Latina y el Caribe es la existencia de un gigantesco arco democrático que se extiende desde México hasta Argentina y Chile, cubriendo también a todas las islas del Caribe, con la única y bochornosa excepción de la Cuba castrista, donde hace más de medio siglo impera un régimen totalitario.

 

Sin embargo, eso mismo que resulta motivo indiscutible de sano orgullo para todo el hemisferio, está basado en fundamentos y cimientos para nada sólidos, tremendamente vulnerables, y que podrían revertirse en cualquier momento si se dieran las condiciones propicias para ello. Porque las democracias en América Latina y el Caribe, a diferencia de las realidades de América del Norte y Europa, resultan endebles, no se basan en un verdadero Estado de derecho, y sufren de innumerables males y tropiezos que pueden dar al traste con todo lo logrado en poco tiempo, pasando de democracias representativas a democracias “participativas” o “bolivarianas”, como estuvo a punto de suceder en Honduras hace poco, y como no puede descartarse que suceda en otras naciones donde el populismo sienta raíces junto a la corrupción y la indolencia de las élites.

 

En las “democracias” de América Latina no se cumple la regla de oro del barón de Montesquieu, aquella del balance entre los tres poderes de la democracia: el poder ejecutivo, el poder legislativo y el poder judicial. Las repúblicas que nacieron del hecho descolonizador en el continente, allá por el siglo XIX, tuvieron como punto común el desbalance entre los tres poderes. En ellas, el poder ejecutivo, con un “presidente fuerte”, se fue por encima de las legislaturas y del entramado judicial. Así, desde la silla presidencial se gestaban caudillos o iluminados que regían estas repúblicas cual si fueran granjerías de ultramar. Mas >

Drone On: Will the FAA Open U.S. Skies to Unmanned Aircraft?

 

TAKING OFF: The FAA is expected to release a proposed rule governing the use of small UAS in the national airspace system as early as December, after which there would be a comment and review process that could last a few years. Image: Courtesy of Wutthichai Meepo, via iStockphoto.com

 

Scientific American
Drone strikes have proved an effective, if controversial, weapon in the hunt for al Qaeda operatives in the Middle East and beyond. The use of such unmanned aircraft systems  (UAS) domestically for civilian jobs such as U.S. border patrol, weather research, pipeline inspection or even real estate photography has lagged, however, because of a cumbersome Federal Aviation Administration​ (FAA) case-based approval process. This could change within the next few years as the FAA considers relaxing some restrictions on certain small UAS that would allow them to share the national airspace system with manned aircraft.

The FAA is expected to release a proposed rule governing the use of small UAS domestically as early as December, after which there would be a comment and review process that could last a few years before a final rule is administered. Whereas details about the proposed rule are not publicly available, it will be based at least in part on recommendations made by the Aviation Rulemaking Committee, which the FAA chartered in 2008 to examine UAS operational and safety issues and make recommendations on how to regulate them.
More >

How the Debt Ceiling Deal Endangers National Security

New Zeal Blog

Debate on the “Debt Ceiling” crisis has almost entirely ignored one major point – perhaps THE major point.
That is how will this deal impact US national security, and by extension, international security.

Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D. Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, and Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, addresses that key issue in this must read  article posted on the Heritage Foundation website.

The deep cuts in defense spending envisioned in the just-announced debt ceiling deal raise a fundamental question for Americans: Will we let a deal stand that promises to end American security as we know it? Or will Americans demand that the deal, born of crisis-driven politics in Washington, be abandoned as they come to understand what is at stake?
The deal promises to raise the debt ceiling by the highest amount ever—more than $2 trillion—while reducing spending by close to $1 trillion over the next decade. It envisions 6 percent and 7.5 percent cuts in defense spending from the President’s budget request in February for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, respectively. It sets a non-binding goal of $1.5 trillion worth of deficit reduction to be recommended by the congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which the legislation creates.
If Congress does not enact a sufficient deficit-reduction plan by this December, the deal calls for an automatic sequestration that would authorize making half of the cuts only in security spending, with the bulk coming out of the Department of Defense. Thus a single federal agency—one that is actually doing a good job and serving a constitutionally mandated role—will have to bear nearly the same amount of cuts as all the remaining domestic agencies combined, including Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Interior, Energy, Justice, and Labor.
As if that were not enough, there are no automatic cuts in entitlement benefits. We will have to sacrifice the future security of all Americans without actually getting at the cause of the debt crisis—namely, runaway spending on Social Security and the other big social entitlements.
Liberals Closing in on the Ultimate Goal
The politics of this deal are obvious. Liberals have long been trying to force conservatives to choose between tax hikes and defense cuts, and this deal would force them to make that choice. Liberals want to preserve high-cost social programs. They would like to raise taxes to “pay” for them, but if they cannot get that, they will take big defense cuts to save entitlements and other domestic programs.
In the future, the GOP will have to accept the defense cuts, raise taxes, or abandon the deal altogether, none of which they will want to do. Many liberals, on the other hand, will be happy with any of these outcomes.
Essentially, this deal just postpones the day of reckoning on entitlement spending while sacrificing America’s security interests. It is hard to imagine a more short-sighted political decision by Congress.
America Cannot Afford Defense Cuts
If the defense cuts in the debt limit deal take effect, the cost to national security will be huge. Do we really need to remind ourselves that we are still a nation at war? These cuts will only worsen the already looming problem of declining military readiness. Over the past year, a full half of the Navy fleet was either underway daily or engaged, which has reduced the fleet’s quality and condition. The Air Force, which has been involved in combat operations for 20 years, has seen aircraft tragically fall out of the sky, likely because of wear and tear.
Engaged in 10 years of war, the armed forces are stretched thin and reaching the breaking point. Has anyone advocating defense cuts thought about how cutting up to $1 trillion in defense would break the armed forces as we know them? All the service chiefs have indicated that defense cuts of even half of what is envisioned in this debt ceiling deal would force “fundamental changes” in America’s military strategy. Has anyone involved in these debt ceiling talks actually asked themselves—or those service chiefs—what effect these cuts would have on military strategy?
To meet the military spending cuts of the debt deal, at least one and possibly two Navy carrier strike groups will disappear. A large part of the U.S. missile defense program will have to be scaled back, exposing millions of Americans unnecessarily to nuclear attack. Overseas bases will have to be shut down, meaning that it will be far more expensive and take far longer to move U.S. forces where they need to be in the future—assuming they can even get there at all.
There will be only enough armed forces to fight at best one military operation overseas (historically we have been able to fight two or even more). Some might say this is fine because they are tired of the Iraq and Afghan wars—but America’s enemies are not tired of threatening us. What do we do if the U.S. is hit with another terrorist attack orchestrated from some safe haven overseas, and at the same time a nuclear-armed Iran starts to shut down U.S. access to Middle Eastern oil? Do we just show up at the United Nations and complain?
Future Weapons Required
Next-generation weapons like a new bomber, a stealth helicopter, and a new nuclear submarine will never see the light of day. If you think America is so far ahead of the rest of the world that we can afford to miss the next generation of weapons modernization, think again. Russia and China are developing next-generation stealth fighters, and Russia is developing new nuclear missiles. If we stand still while they move ahead, it is only a matter of time before they catch up and possibly surpass us in some key categories of weapons capabilities.
Some defense experts predict that cuts as draconian as those envisioned in this deal could kill the nuclear triad of bombers, missiles, and submarines. Bombers are already aging, and there is no program to build a new one, while a next-generation nuclear submarine could be axed. Nuclear stockpiles will be reduced, and promised modernization will likely be dropped.
The triad has been the foundation of national security since the end of World War II, and it is pure folly to fool with it. President Dwight Eisenhower cut conventional forces drastically in the 1950s after World War II, but he at least had the wisdom to bolster America’s strategic deterrent to make up for it. The path we are now on will gut both conventional and nuclear forces, leaving the U.S. exposed for decades.
If these cuts go through, we are facing the end of American security as we know it. There is no escaping the fact that we are making a strategic retreat—not through a debate about defense, but through decisions about money completely divorced from a discussion of defense.
This is playing with fire. As we have seen many times in history, when America disarms (often after wars) and leaves itself exposed, some threat comes rushing in to awaken us. Then we have to build up our forces frantically, at a cost much higher and with far greater loss of life than if we had maintained our deterrent.
An Unworkable Deal
In the end, it is hard to see how this debt ceiling deal is sustainable. The Joint Select Committee theoretically is supposed to consider entitlement reductions, but sequestration applies only to discretionary spending, which includes 50 percent of defense. Knowing full well that the Republicans will not support tax increases and the Democrats will balk at entitlement cuts, the sequestration “trigger” is rigged to ensure that the sword will fall on the defense budget. If after careful review Congress concludes that such draconian defense or other cuts are not acceptable, the only choice at that point is to change the nature of the process and abandon the main elements of the deal. If that happens, then this entire deal will have been little more than a ruse to raise the debt ceiling without deep reductions.
This deal aside, Congress’s mission in the year ahead will be figuring out how to sustain robust defense spending so we can modernize the armed forces, meet the global commitment required to keep America safe, and reduce the strain on an overworked force. Congress must approve the level of funding that will not put our troops at risk or leave Americans vulnerable—providing an average of $720 billion per year for defense for each of the next five fiscal years in addition to the funding needed for ongoing contingency operations. Congress should work to make the defense budget as efficient as possible and redirect the dollars achieved by any reforms in the military to offsetting the cost of modernizing the military and developing next-generation equipment.
America is different from other countries for many reasons, but surely one of the biggest is that we are masters of our fate. We are fortunate to have an armed force that not only defends us but also keeps us from being at the mercy of other countries, many of whom wish us ill.
If Americans do not wake up soon and see what is at stake, we will surely lose that mastery and, with it, our most cherished freedom.

Canada in 2020: Identity Politics and Security Future Scenarios

Development of Scenarios:
Themes, Axes, and Quadrants

The choice of driving forces and themes had to respect the parameters established in the definition of identity politics and those of the security analysis method, but it also had to play a key role when defining the axes and quadrants. Furthermore, as previously explained, the team selected scenarios which allowed us to describe and study security issues in which identity politics also played a leading, albeit a more “explicit”, role. In short, the team used the six themes to select the axes likely to be interesting in the context of its scenarios.

These axes are as follows:

• Participation and confidence in Canadian institutions (“PC”)
• Innovative (particularly technological and economic) capacity (“IC”)
• Participation and confidence in international institutions (“PI”)
• Disparities between various affinity groups and various communities (“DP”)

Using the following four quadrants, the team selected the four most promising scenarios for the purposes of studying the issues surrounding national security and identity politics. Each of the scenarios was named after a work of literature with which it shared elements in common.

Scenario 1 L'Étranger	Scenario 2 Lord of the Flies	Scenario 3 Canada Shrugged	Scenario 4 Brave New World

Scenario 1: L’étranger

Axes

Scenario 1
L’Étranger

A decrease in participation and confidence in Canadian institutions (“PC”).

A decrease in innovative (particularly technological and economic) capacity (“CI”).

Context

L’Étranger [The stranger] symbolizes decreased participation and confidence in Canadian institutions because of Canadians’ lack of innovative spirit to counter the current political and economic crisis. This situation will divide the society and open the door to the emergence of organized crime. We have chosen L’Étranger as the title, as this scenario reminds us of Albert Camus’ novel in which people become strangers to one another.

Scenario

In response to the economic crisis raging since fall 2008, Washington has strengthened the stimulus plan for the US economy. Protectionist policies such as those adopted in early 2009 to help the steel industry have been expanded to most products and services. As these US policies have helped to revive the economy of the United States, a number of countries have adopted similar policies. Thanks to the numerous protectionist economic recovery measures implemented around the world, the global economic situation has gradually improved. The European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have isolated themselves. Shortly thereafter, new regional economic unions, notably Eastern Europe, South Asia, the Middle East, and South America, emerge. Most of these unions have been formed with one of the emerging nations of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) which, since the crisis, have played a growing role internationally because of their ability to innovate.

On the other hand, the situation has been altogether different in Canada. As the United States is economically independent, it did not deem it necessary to conclude regional alliances. However, as the Canadian economy largely relies on exports to and trade with the United States, it is suffering from protectionist policies that have helped to stabilize the crisis globally and to restore the confidence of a number of investors, while plunging Canada into a downward spiral. Canada’s lack of innovative capacity has limited the number of economic recovery projects, which has thus further plunged Canada into turmoil and further isolated it. Despite some very minor stimulus measures adopted too late, the Canadian government has not succeeded in dealing with the situation and continues to amass huge debts. The crisis and the government’s debt are affecting an ever-increasing portion of the population: Canadians can no longer maintain their spendthrift lifestyle. The government has had no other alternative but to reduce expenses and services which Canadians have so far taken for granted. In 2013, the government is forced to provide fewer very poor quality services. As participation and confidence in government institutions were already low, these events have deepened the pessimism regarding the government, pessimism which has now reached an unprecedented level.

The persistent economic crisis in Canada, the closing of the trade border with the United States, the loss of any competitive advantage, and the lack of innovation on the international market have forced a number of companies to close their doors and to throw thousands of Canadians out of work. Numerous Canadians who have specialized skills and are highly educated have thus emigrated to regions of the world with more prosperous economies. Not only is Canada unable to stop the brain drain, but also it can no longer attract immigrants as it did in the past. Those immigrants who are educated and who could enrich Canadian society no longer want to come here to work. Those who have remained are generally immigrants who still have not obtained Canadian citizenship which would enable them to migrate, as well as native, less educated Canadians.

As of 2012, Canadians are turning towards traditional networks, towards a model of society in which personal contacts within affinity groups take precedence over everything else. As people turn increasingly towards their family, their friends, and members of their religious and cultural communities, the Canadian society is more and more divided. Employment opportunities are rare. An individual now finds employment and obtains most services which were previously provided by various levels of government through “contacts”. Given that native, highly qualified Canadians have mostly emigrated to the more prosperous countries of the Persian Gulf and Asia, only less qualified Canadians and highly qualified immigrants with much sought-after skills remain for the most part. As a result, professional associations no longer impose obstacles to the recognition of the experience and education of immigrants. Some of these associations have even been dissolved. The rare positions remaining are now held by these immigrants. This situation deeply shocks native Canadians, particularly those of British and French origin. The hostility between ethnic groups is increasingly palpable and the fight to obtain these specialized jobs is intensifying.

Top of Page

In 2014, a computer technician in London attacks an Asian engineer who obtained a contract at his expense. The words “Jobs to Canadians” were scrawled on the victim’s body. Proudly claiming responsibility, the criminal posts video images of his crime on a Web site. This hate crime leads to increased tensions and violence between groups of Identity Politics and Security ( Future Scenarios Canada in 2020 ) Canada in 2020 recent immigrants and European-descended Canadians. Segregation between these groups is now almost complete, which helps to strengthen links within groups for the purposes of obtaining services.

In 2015, these segregationist movements lead to the emergence of criminal groups, which are organized according to ethnic or national group, and which offer services previously provided by the State. Modus operandi of these groups resembles that of Hamas or of the Hizballah. They provide social services only to members of their social, cultural, ethnic or religious group. They are involved in apparently charitable causes, but they remain illegitimate State sub-players.

In 2017, these groups control key elements of Canadian society. Hospitals are in the hands of the Southeast Asian mafia and provide care only to individuals of Asian origin. The Middle Eastern and Latin American mafia have become the masters of Alberta’s natural resources by acquiring significant financial shares on the market. In exchange for millions of dollars, they offer the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to reduce the production and distribution of Canadian petroleum, so that the price of petroleum will increase. There is no longer any loyalty to Canada, only to the common interests of affinity groups. Some of these groups are trying to get elected to parliament, but in vain. The population is disillusioned, and nobody believes that the government will intervene to remedy the situation.

Meanwhile, the population is still seeking scapegoats to hold responsible for economical problems and growing unemployment. Canada’s young people harbour increasing resentment towards baby boomers and seniors who “wasted” natural resources and drove the country into debt. Given that pension funds are no longer what they were, baby boomers who should normally retire refuse to abandon their stable jobs, resulting in young, unemployed Canadians. Tensions between the two groups are on the rise. Two criminal groups, the Young WASPs and the FrancoJeunes, join forces to deceive seniors, the sick, and baby boomers, and convince them to go and live in distant retirement communities. These communities are isolated and have no access to any services. The two criminal groups are trying to rid themselves of people whom they consider to be a burden on the society and whom they accuse of hindering Canada’s development. Corruption among criminal groups and the ghettoization of communities based on ethnic origin and age have not improved the situation. Canada is caught up in a vicious circle which is plunging it even more deeply into the crisis. The situation is increasingly affecting Canada’s relations with the international community. In 2018, emerging countries of the BRIC have started to question Canada’s role in several international cooperation organizations. In 2019, China and Brazil have become allies to expel the country from the G8 and have succeeded in doing so. Canada is currently Identity Politics and Security ( Future Scenarios Canada in 2020 10 ) Canada in 2020 a member of the G20+ only. It no longer has any influence within major international organizations, and government representatives generally no longer have any legitimacy in the eyes of foreign leaders, which only exacerbates Canada’s economic and social problems.

A decrease in innovative capacity and in confidence in Canadian institutions have stripped Canada of any legitimacy, in the eyes of its population and the rest of the world.

Security risk evaluation

The events described in this scenario have important consequences for Canada’s national security. Foreign-influenced activities at the expense of Canada’s interests have weakened the legitimacy of institutions and of Canada’s government apparatus. Specifically, the fact that criminal groups’ control of Canadian petroleum resources is for sale to member countries of OPEC represents a good example of the threat to Canada’s national security. Several examples of the threat to the economic well-being and competitiveness of Canada are also illustrated in this scenario, including control over natural resources, US protectionism, and the growing influence of the BRIC countries, among others. Finally, the threat to law and order, social peace, and good governance is clearly revealed in this scenario. The fragmentation of the society, the eruption of violence between affinity groups (age, religion, ethnic group, nationality etc.) and criminal groups’ control over key sectors of the Canadian economy and society pose a serious threat to Canada’s national security.

Read more...

Canada in danger?: Stephen Harper and the conditional country

by Paul Wells 

This is getting to be worth noting. From the Prime Minister’s speech in Calgary this weekend:

“In a few short years, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of our united country. If, in 50 more years, we wish our descendants to celebrate Canada’s 200th anniversary, then we must be all we can be in the world today, and we must shoulder a bigger load, in a world that will require it of us.”

It’s no accidental phrasing. From his speech to the Conservative convention in Ottawa in June:

“In a few short years, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of our united country. If, in 50 more years, we wish our descendants to celebrate Canada’s 200th anniversary, then we must be all we can be in the world today. Therefore, my friends, our party’s great purpose is nothing less than to prepare our nation shoulder a bigger load, in a world that will require it of us.”

Pretty much verbatim. So a question arises. What does he mean, “if?” 
The plain meaning of Stephen Harper’s chosen and repeated language is that Canada’s survival over the medium term is not guaranteed, and that the threat comes from outside, not from within. (Well, I suppose he could have been suggesting that Canada will see its 200th anniversary but won’t bother to celebrate. I’m going to assume he has a larger purpose here than to critique our willingness to get our party on.)
All right, then. The question for Stephen Harper — indeed, the question he himself has now raised repeatedly — is: what is the external threat to Canada over 50 years that makes the country’s very survival, in his eyes, uncertain?
—–
UPDATE: In case it will help readers decipher the PM’s argument, here’s a fuller excerpt from his Calgary speech. Again, much of the language appeared at the same spot in the Ottawa convention speech:

“Friends, remember we are not here to do politics. Sure, we do politics. But that’s the instrument – it’s not the music. Our party is called to a great purpose. Our mission is to preserve and promote the future of our great nation and its people in a time of extraordinary, global change.
“That is our purpose. Power is shifting. New forces are coming to the fore. Some we will be pleased to work with. Some we must resist. In such a world strength is not an option; it is a vital necessity. Moral ambiguity, moral equivalence, are not options, they are dangerous illusions. And national unity, in fact and in purpose, is our greatest asset.
“In a few short years, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of our united country. If, in 50 more years, we wish our descendants to celebrate Canada’s 200th anniversary, then we must be all we can be in the world today, and we must shoulder a bigger load, in a world that will require it of us.
“We campaigned on this new Canadian reality. Not on a dream or a fantasy or a slogan, but upon the reality of this great country rising – a country founded on great principles – a courageous warrior, a compassionate neighbour, a confident partner – and under a strong, stable, national, majority, Conservative government – the best country in the world.”

#WikiSecrets -The inside story of #Manning, #Assange and the largest intelligence breach in U.S. history

It's the biggest intelligence breach in U.S. history -- the leaking of more than a half million classified documents on the WikiLeaks website throughout 2010. At the center of the controversy stands Bradley E. Manning, the Army intelligence analyst who's charged with handing them over.

Who is Bradley Manning, and what does his story tell us about how and why the secret cache of documents may have been leaked? In WikiSecrets, FRONTLINE correspondent Martin Smith gains exclusive access to those closest to Manning -- including his father, close friends and his Army bunkmate -- and uncovers video of Manning taken around the time of the alleged handover of classified information. Read more »

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/#ixzz1P0yqsNix

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

Ex-CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] official sentenced to prison

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

A former Council on American-Islamic Relations official will serve more than a year in federal prison for violating U.S. sanctions against Iraq, according to a Justice Department spokesman.
The FBI in 2008 charged Muthanna al-Hanooti with conspiring to work for a foreign government and with making false statements to FBI agents. On Friday, the former CAIR regional director was sentenced to serve one year and one day in a U.S. prison during a federal court hearing in Detroit. Prosecutors had sought a sentence of 46 months.
Al-Hanooti's home was raided by FBI agents, who also searched the offices of his front group, Focus on Advocacy and Advancement of International Relations, which al-Hanooti operated out of Dearborn, Mich., and Washington, D.C. FAAIR claims to be a consulting firm raising awareness of Sunni Muslim grievances in Iraq, but investigators say it's a front that supported the Sunni-led insurgency in Iraq.
Get "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," autographed, from WND's Superstore.

Read more: Ex-CAIR official sentenced to prison http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=277349#ixzz1H9cImwN7

#FBI chief confirms ties cut with U.S. #Muslim group

---

Posted: March 18, 2011
2:00 am Eastern
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Robert Mueller

In stunning testimony on Capitol Hill, the head of the FBI explained his agency has cut off ties to the most influential Muslim organization in America due to concerns over its leaders' association with terrorism.
Since the Justice Department linked the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations to a 2008 terror-finance case, the FBI has refused to work directly with the group's national office or any of its 30-plus chapters across the country.
Get "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," autographed, from WND's Superstore.
Wednesday's hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee marked the first time FBI Director Robert Mueller has narrowed down the cause of concern to CAIR's "national leadership."
"We have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to the national leadership," Mueller testified.
CAIR's current executive director is Nihad Awad.
Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land Foundation terror-finance case put Awad at a Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charity. Wiretaps also record them stating the need to deceive Americans about their true aims.

Read more: FBI chief confirms ties cut with U.S. Muslim group http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276289#ixzz1H9ZndJml

King hearings on homegrown terrorism [Update 1]

Most Americans Back Muslim Hearing

• Fox News
• New York Republican Rep. Peter King bolsters his security detail ahead of Muslim radicalization hearing today, while a new poll shows 52 percent of Americans think his plans are appropriate.
• YOU DECIDE: Should Congress Hold Muslim Radicalization Hearings?
• Witness: Debate Stifled by 'Political Fear'
• Battle Lines Drawn Over Hearing
• Congress Readies for Hearings
• OPINION: A Muslim Weighs In

USA: King hearings on homegrown terrorism

Peter King, a senior Republican congressman in the United States, is launching a hearing into what he describes as a rise in violent extremism in the country. King, who is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the House of Representatives, will focus on whether or not American Muslims have become "radicalised".

Demonstrations have been held by both Muslim and non-Muslim Americans, decrying King's hearings as a repeat of the infamous "witchhunt" hearings held by Senator Joe McCarthy decades ago. The King hearings will begin on March 9.

Standoff! Nation of Islam confronts Secret Service

Stewart Stogel
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Louis Farrakhan

NEW YORK – Secret Service agents and security officers of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam engaged in what the White House called a "standoff" near President Barack Obama's Chicago home last night.
Obama, who is spending the holiday weekend in Chicago, decided to pay a visit to a friend, Marty Nesbitt, for an old-fashioned barbeque.
Nesbitt, however, is a neighbor to the controversial Farrakhan, and that is when problems began.
According to White House press pool reports obtained by WND, a group of reporters were staking out the Obama family and were holding on a city street in front of the Farrakhan mansion.
At one point, the Secret Service allowed reporters off the van they were traveling in to get some fresh air.
About a dozen journalists congregated on the sidewalk in front of the Farrakhan home, which quickly prompted a visit by a so-called "polite man," who asked the group "to stay off the grass," though the White House pooler insisted they were on city property.
The Farrakhan agent eventually asked the accompanying Secret Service officer to "move the van and its occupants," an interaction that soon escalated to a contest of machismo between Nation of Islam officers and the Secret Service.

Read more: Standoff! Nation of Islam confronts Secret Service http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=160417#ixzz1Eto4ZGQB

"See Something, Say Something" Exposed As Hoax by Alex Jones

Egypt Crisis -- Don't Blame the Intelligence Community ....

By Kerry Patton

With the continued crisis in Egypt and today’s rumors of Mubarak stepping down from office as early as this evening, many U.S. policy makers are questioning the capabilities of the intelligence community. 

Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein has taken the lead in questioning our country’s intelligence. She is not alone; in fact, earlier this week we have observed similar government leaders who question the U.S. intelligence community reject an extension on the U.S. Patriot Act, -- the one piece of legislation which could arguably be construed as the key in preventing additional terrorist attacks inside the United States since 9/11.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/10/egypt-crisis-dont-blame-intelligence-community-failing-predict-unrest/#ixzz1DbQJ8vUZ

Avion a control remoto sobrevuela la Estatua de la Libertad

Continuando con la seguridad aeronautica de los Estados Unidos, aqui les dejo un video de un "simpatico" que vuela un avion a control remoto por encima del puente de Brooklin y la Estatua de la Libertad, sin que ninguno de los encargados de la seguridad aerea de un area tan sensitiva como esa se percataran. A lo mejor ni porque ha sido visto 674,489 veces se han enterado.

Estrategas de la agricultura cubana

Con el titulo Buscan fórmulas para mejorar la agricultura, Juventud Rebelde reseña la presentacion del Informe del Ministerio de la Agricultura a la flamante Comisión Agroalimentaria de la Asamblea Nacional [no se cuantos guajiros autenticos habran en esa comision].

El viceministro de la Agricultura Alcides López reconoce que los problemas que atraviesa hoy el sector no tienen por causa solamente el período especial, sino que existen problemas estructurales y de fondo que requieren con urgencia la adopción de nuevas medidas. Se le puede dar una C+.

Pero ni corto ni perezoso el viceministro Lopez rapidamente enyunta los bueyes para arar por el surco equivocado: "Estamos hablando de organizar la producción" afirma, tratando de olvidar que todas las estrategias de organizacion de la produccion agricola en Cuba por parte del estado han fracado estrepitosamente. Pero sorprendentemente no se detiene ahi y señala que para ello tenemos que lograr que exista una verdadera contratación de la producción, porque solo el 89% de nuestras cooperativas están asesoradas jurídicamente, y el objetivo es que todas tengan su abogado. La nueva meta, todos los abogados para las cooperativas y como no seran suficientes pues entonces crearemos un plan de formacion emergente de abogados "agricolas". Ya no solo esta suspenso, sino que hay que mandarlo para una escuela de discapacitados mentales.

El funcionario expresó que se le ha dado prioridad a la constitución de las Delegaciones Municipales de la Agricultura [primero se habia dicho empresas], las cuales podrán tomar decisiones y asumir responsabilidades en el propio territorio, donde está la base productiva. Es decir, mas jefes que le dirán al sabio y esforzado campesino que debe y que no puede hacer y a cambio autos, motos, mas jefes, secretarias, ABOGADOS, planificadores, inspectores, auditores, oficinas, papeleo y denuncias de violaciones y corrupción.

Control y siempre control; si alquien considera que debe sembrar ajos y lechuga y no papa y boniato, el nuevo delegado municipal le dirá que no puede hacer eso. La atención integral, técnica y económica de las entidades que es el objetivo de las nuevas delegaciones nadie la ha solicitado y debe ser responsabilidad de los productores. La principal medida que impulsa la producción agropecuaria es el mercado; otras medidas ayudan, pero sin un mercado libremente estructurado sobre la base de la oferta y la demanda no hay estimulo a la producción. El controvertido tema de las empresas de acopio y sus red de recogida y comercializacion ha fracasado absolutamente; deje en manos campesinas y de la iniciativa privada la conformación de la red logística de la comercialización y pronto vera malanga, calabaza y todo lo que la gente demanda donde la gente lo requiere; si el campesino considera que necesita un camión que vaya y lo compre a precios modestos, si por el contrario considera que necesita rentar uno, ahí debe estar el camión listo para ser alquilado. Si el guajiro quiere ir al guateque de Tinguaro en su camión el sabrá lo que esta haciendo, pero si le ponen a un delegado municipal este señor le dirá al campesino que no puede usar el camión para pasear y que se le acabo la cuota de combustible del mes y entonces se la compra de contrabando al "pistero" municipal o consigue que el delegado le asigne una cuota "extra" a cambios de un par de jabas semanales también "extras" de malanga y carne de puerco. La pretendida sustitucion de importaciones de alimentos por la implementacion de estas medidas, constituye un capitulo mas de los sueños en toda "buena" estrategia castrista I o II.

Por si no fuera suficiente lo dicho hasta aqui, anunció ademas que algunas empresas cambiarán su objeto social y se convertirán en entidades que prestan servicios a la base productiva, como sus representantes. Representantes???, el campesino no necesita representantes, el campesino necesita total y absoluta autonomia que le permita representarse a si mismo y si en algun momento lo considera necesario delegara su representatividad en la persona o identidad que considere apropiado. Por otra parte, servicios???, que servicios van a brindar esas nuevas aberraciones estructurales?; lo que necesita el campesino es tiendas de ventas de insumos agropecuarios bien surtidas, incluyendo nuevas tecnologias, pues con guatacas y palas no se desarrolla un agricultura en el siglo XXI; a precios razonables y mercados de ventas de sus productos abiertos al publico. Las demandas estatales se concretarían mediante contrato de compra y venta a precios de mercados acordados por ambas partes y en dependencia del volumen de la misma con el consiguiente anticipo o deposito monetario. Ofrecer financiamientos o microcreditos a bajas tasas de interés, o mejor aun sin intereses y con periodos de gracia al menos por un cosecha de ciclo largo.

Pero el pollo de este arroz con pollo es el que implementara en la practica las fantasias de los estrategas cubanos. El que estara 12-14 horas bajo el sol o la lluvia implacable, doblado en el surco atendiendo sus cultivos como a sus propios hijos, es tratado por este eminente ejecutivo con la simpleza y ligereza del que desconoce las reales coordenadas de lo que esta hablando: "la fuerza de trabajo" expresa, al referirse al campesino, desconociendo que el campesino es una clase social y una cultura. Y continua mostrando su ignorancia plena de prepotencia voluntarista: "...se da prioridad a la continuidad familiar en la formación del personal para la agricultura ... estamos hablando de 'sembrar' hombres y mujeres en el campo. Y para lograr eso debemos poner en práctica medidas destinadas a que esa persona se quede en el campo, tenga un reconociendo social y se sienta orgulloso de ser campesino". Este señor se refiere a la familia campesina en los mismos terminos en que cuenta cangres de yuca y semillas de calabaza.

En algun momento retoma algo de contacto con la realidad: "Pero eso no basta. Hacen falta palancas económicas que motiven al campesino a producir de una forma variada y a bajo costo".

La palida ministra en funciones, María del Carmen Pérez, expresó que las normas que se tomen requerirán de una implementación gradual, un establecimiento de prioridades, y el desarrollo de iniciativas locales; algo asi como una receta de manual sovietico en el siglo XXI donde la realidad tiene que ajustarse al manualito y a las directivas y no al axioma de que la practica es el criterio de la verdad. En realidad Maria del Carmen esta pidiendo un break antes que la manden de asesora para un municipio.

La verdad simple y demoledora que la gente tiene que alimentarse todos los dias no esta en la agenda de las estrategias de estas personas y por lo mismo los aplastara.

Otros articulos sobre el tema:

Inversion extranjera y oportunismo

Lugo Fonte: Cuba desestima abrir inversión extranjera en agro

Agricultura y alimentacion: Entre el voluntarismo y la necesidad de cambios/ Antonio Arencibia

Cumbre chavista de alimentos. Costa Rica, Mexico y El Salvador objetan la declaracion final

Cuba: Mercado agropecuario y Seguridad Nacional. Apuntes para un debate

De burocratas y modelos/ Antonio Arencibia

Reforma de la agricultura en Cuba: Angel Castro observa orgulloso al Sub-Latifundista de Biran al Mando*

Espinaxiones: Las falacias totalitarias

El gobierno cubano alista un paquete de reformas/ Wilfredo Cancio Isla

El Segundo en Jefe no para de correr

Martha Lomas: Cuba "abierta" a inversión extranjera en agricultura

El mito de las reformas y los miedos del raulismo/ Dr. Eugenio Yáñez

Adelantos de la ciencia cubana: Moje la semilla antes de sembrarla

Cuba comienza a descentralizar su agricultura

Acceso y disfrute del Granma/ Espinaxiones

Cuba 2007: Produccion de arroz. Un dedo de arroz por persona al dia

Seguridad alimentaria: Planteamiento correcto con metodos obsoletos

Asamblea del Partido en Pinar del Río llama a incrementar producción de alimentos, Machado y Lazo insisten en que: "... la seguridad alimentaria es hoy un asunto directamente relacionado con la seguridad nacional y con la garantía de la continuidad de la Revolución".
Casi imperceptiblemente la seguridad nacional se desplaza de la amenaza norteamericana a la amenaza del hambre. Es un planteamiento correcto, solo que intentan garantizar la seguridad alimentaria con mecaniscos obsoletos.