THE LEAD

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Put Obama Under Lock and Key To Avert Immediate Danger of Nuclear War

November 28, 2015
A Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile accelerates across the planet on a test flight.

Lyndon H. LaRouche today reiterated, with added urgency, his previous warning that U.S. President Barack Obama is on a determined path toward nuclear war and must be removed from office immediately. The warning comes in response to the escalation of Obama's ongoing nuclear confrontation policy towards Russia as exemplified by the shooting down of a Russian jet over Syria by NATO member and U.S. ally Turkey. The Turkish action could only have occurred with the blessing of Obama. LaRouche's warnings are underscored by assessments of security experts in the U.S. Yet, there is a foolish reluctance among these experts to demand the one remedy that can pull the world back from the threat of nuclear war—removing Obama from control of the U.S. nuclear forces, by impeachment or the activation of the 25th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The latest warning about possible imminent nuclear war was just published in Politico Magazine by a former nuclear-missile launch officer, Bruce G. Blair, titled, "Could U.S.-Russia Tensions Go Nuclear?" Blair points to the Obama Administration’s launch on warning policy and the shortening of the response time for making a decision about launching nuclear forces. He states that this puts the world on a nuclear hair-trigger more dangerous than during the Cold War.

Blair warns,

"That’s especially true since the public doesn’t realize just how little time exists for our leaders to make a decision to use nuclear weapons, even today—and if anything the atmosphere has become even more hair trigger with the threat of cyberwarfare. A launch order is the length of a tweet. Missile crews in turn transmit a short stream of computer signals that immediately ignite the rocket engines of many hundreds of land-based missiles. For the United States, this takes 1 minute. As a former nuclear-missile launch officer, I personally practiced it hundreds of times. We were called Minutemen. U.S. submarine crews take a little longer; they can fire their missiles in 12 minutes."

"Given the 11- to 30-minute flight times of attacking missiles (11 for submarines lurking off the other side’s coasts, and 30 for rockets flying over the poles to the other side of the planet), nuclear decision-making under launch on warning—the process from warning to decision to action—is extremely rushed, emotionally charged, and pro forma, driven by checklists. I describe it as the rote enactment of a prepared script. In some scenarios, after only a 3-minute assessment of early warning data, the U.S. president receives a 30-second briefing on his nuclear response options and their consequences. He then has a few minutes—12 at most, more likely 3 to 6—to choose one."

In that context, Obama's deployment of U.S. and allied forces against Russia can only be seen as an escalation towards nuclear conflict. For example, Blair cites the deployment of U.S. Aegis destroyers in the Black Sea armed with cruise missiles that could strike Moscow in minutes. Or the deployment of U.S. strategic bombers flying toward Russia. This, in turn, forces Russia into an escalatory response.

Blair asks, "Do U.S. leaders understand that the Russians may fear a decapitation threat is emerging, and that this threat may be the underlying driver raising the stakes for Russia to the level of an existential threat warranting preparations for the use of nuclear weapons? I doubt they do."

The frightening conclusion that Blair does not draw, however, is that U.S. President Barack Obama does know, and intends, to create an existential crisis for Russia, and thus, bring the world to the brink of thermonuclear war. Since the beginning of Barack Obama's Presidency, LaRouche has warned that Obama is a narcissistic killer. Everything that Obama has done since has proven LaRouche right. One need only look at Obama's assumption of the role of global executioner, presiding over the regular Tuesday sessions where he personally decides the kill lists for U.S. drone attacks. Or, his confrontational behavior towards Russia in the wake of the Turkish downing of the Russian fighter jet.

There is no time or room for a long debate on this matter. Obama's nuclear war provocation poses a threat to the existence of the human race. He must be removed now. A single Congressman can initiate impeachment proceedings. Responsible officials within the Presidency can initiate the 25th amendment on the basis that a President intending to provoke nuclear war is no longer fit for office. The American people must now heed LaRouche's warning. Remove Obama Now!

I'm interested, keep me up to date

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

SUPPORTING MATERIAL


Putin, Hollande Meet in Moscow—Agree on Coordination, Targeting Oil Smuggling, and More; Obama Sidelined and Exposed

French President Francois Hollande and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Moscow, Friday, following Hollande's meetings with his German, Italian, and American counterparts in the days before. For Hollande, the contrast is dramatic between his time at the White House on Tuesday, Nov. 24—the day the Turks downed the Russian fighterjet—with Obama, who denounced Russia as an isolated loser, and Hollande's time with Putin Friday, where the two of them made joint commitments to defeat terrorism.

Recall Obama's exact, wild-man words on Nov. 24 at the Obama-Hollande press briefing: "Russia right now is a coalition of two—Iran and Russia—supporting Assad...Russia is an outlier..."

In Moscow yesterday, Putin and Hollande, after their meeting, gave statements, then took reporters' questions.

Putin said that they had "agreed to step up our joint efforts on the anti-terrorist track, to improve the exchange of operational information in the fight against terrorism and establish constructive work between our military experts in order to avoid overlapping incidents and to focus our efforts on ensuring that our work in fighting terror is more effective, avoiding any strikes against territories and armed forces that are themselves fighting terrorists." He also expressed confidence that a political settlement could be found in Syria after terrorism is eradicated.

Hollande stressed that unity is essential but not enough. There must also be action. Nations must take responsibility, as France is doing with the deployment of the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. He also emphasized the importance of a transition process in Syria, the emphasis of which is largely in line with the Vienna document, but he added that "it goes without saying that Assad does not have any role to play in the future of his country." Despite that, in order for the transiton to succeed, "it is imperative that Russia should play the main, one of the main, roles in this process." As for the specifics of Franco-Russian cooperation, Hollande said that they had agreed on three points: 1) stepped-up intelligence cooperation; 2) coordinating intensified strikes against ISIS; and, 3) concentrating those strikes on ISIS and terrorist groups.

In response to questions, Putin once again went hard after the matter of oil smuggling from ISIS-controlled territory into Turkey. He pointed out that at the G20 summit in Turkey just a few days before the shoot-down, he had shown to other G20 leaders the photographs taken from Russian aircraft of lines of oil trucks extending as far as the horizon.

"Oil is being supplied from territories controlled by terrorists in Syria at an industrial scale. It comes from these territories, not from somewhere else," Putin said. "We can see from above where these trucks are heading. They are driving towards Turkey, day and night. I can presume that Turkey's top leaders are unaware of this. This would be hard to believe, but it is possible theoretically. However, this doesn't mean that the Turkish authorities shouldn't cut off these illegal transactions." And if Turkey is destroying all of this oil, as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan claims, "we don't see any smoke or flames" from it.

Putin also raised the point: what use is the Oct. 20 Memo of Understanding between Russia and the United States, if the U.S. does not preclude such incidents at the Nov. 24 strike on the Russian jet?

"We exchange information with them, but now we're very worried about the nature of this exchange and the results of this cooperation," he said. "Look, we informed our American partners in advance when our pilots were going into action and where, in what air corridors. The American side, which leads the coalition, to which Turkey is also a party, knew about the location and time of our operation. And this is precisely where we were hit." The question that arises, therefore, is "why did we pass this information to the Americans? Either they are not in control of what their allies are doing, or they hand out this information every which way without understanding the implications."


Cheminade: Turkey Must Be Expelled from NATO, or France Should Quit

The president of France's Solidarité et Progrès party Jacques Cheminade, a longtime friend of Lyndon LaRouche's, told Sputnik that France must not stay in the NATO alliance if Turkey is allowed to remain, after Ankara's unapologetic shootdown of a Russian bomber over Syria, where the Russians have been engaged in the fight against ISIS at the invitation of the Syrian President.

Here is an excerpt of the English-language dispatch from Sputnik, posted Friday, and headlined "France Should Leave NATO if Turkey Preserves Its Membership in the Alliance after the Downing of a Russian Su-24 Aircraft.".

France should leave NATO if Turkey preserves its membership in the alliance after the downing of a Russian Su-24 aircraft, head of the French Solidarity and Progress party told Sputnik France on Friday.

"Either France should leave NATO at this stage, or to demand suspension or exclusion of Turkey [from the alliance members] as part of NATO," Jacques Cheminade said.

On Tuesday, the Su-24 bomber crashed in Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the plane was downed by an air-to-air missile launched by a Turkish F-16 jet over Syrian territory, falling 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) from the Turkish border. Putin described the Turkish attack as a "stab in the back" carried out by "accomplices of terrorists."

The full article can be found here.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Related