MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2019

Volume 6, Number 68

EIR Daily Alert Service

P.O. Box 17390, Washington, DC 20041-0390

VIPS Urge Trump, Don’t Let Neocon Policy Trap You on Venezuela, but Talk to Putin Instead!

Trump Makes Case for Arms Reduction Talks with Russia and China

Kremlin Spokesman Peskov Says Trump Calling for Disarmament Is ‘Commendable’

U.S. President Confirms Relations with China Are Best They Have Ever Been

Former CIA Russia Director Beebe Slams Russiagate Narrative as Threatening Nuclear War

Nunes Will Send Eight Criminal Referrals This Week of Obama Intelligence Officials

Subscribe to EIR Daily Alert

EDITORIAL

Commence the Era of LaRouche—The NASA Mission in Context

April 7 (EIRNS)—On Monday, April 1, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine made clear that President Donald Trump’s March 26 declaration to boldly put “Americans Back on the Moon,” a declaration which was issued just days after the conclusion of the failed legal assassination of President Trump by Robert Mueller, was not simply just another paper proposal. That declaration, which began, “This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprint, we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars and perhaps, someday, to many worlds beyond,” was fine in itself, but similar to many proposals which are left on paper, it was not yet “on the ground.” Yet, Bridenstine’s presentation, a rare publicized town hall with top leaders of NASA’s main directorates, for all of NASA and the world to see, made clear that Trump’s program is not a paper policy, but a tangible change in U.S. economic policy. The entire presentation is available from NASA.

The basics are clear:

1. President Trump has changed the time frame for a manned-Moon landing from ten years to five, meaning that it will happen before the end of his second term. Bridenstine said repeatedly that the President has taken personal responsibility to make this happen during his Presidency. It was also clear that Bridenstine is putting his own career and credibility on the line. He said repeatedly that he has heard the Lucy and Charlie Brown football story over 100 times since arriving at NASA, (where the ball is pulled from beneath NASA like a sadistic joke, or the policy is changed from the Moon to Mars to an asteroid, creating an institutional whiplash), and so he said definitively: “This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for all of us. These are the moments, if—no, when—we succeed, that we will tell our grandchildren about. The President is committed to this.”

2. The President has insisted that we will go to the Moon with the intent of developing and using Lunar resources, and we will plan for a sustained human presence, and a future launch from the Moon to Mars. This is the Krafft Ehricke-LaRouche policy without compromise. He made it clear we are going to the South Pole of the Moon, specifically for the water ice resources, for use in water, oxygen, and rocket fuel potential.

3. The President has insisted that we will go to the Moon with international partners. Though it was left unsaid, the leading partner in manned-space exploration today is Russia, and China is the leader of current Lunar exploration.

4. The President has insisted that we will put men again on the Moon, and we will put the first woman on the Moon. This is the right kind of #MeToo moment, and is an echo of the March 3, 1988 LaRouche broadcast “Woman on Mars.” There is also a new Directorate of NASA—like the Science Directorate, there is now the Moon-Mars Directorate, an entire branch of NASA dedicated to developing and implementing this approach for the coming generation(s).

Besides emphasizing these points throughout the discussion, Bridenstine had a clarity and passion uncharacteristic of what one might expect. He presented a knowledge of various rocketry problems, using his experience as a top gun Navy pilot, to provide a working sense of the physical issues. Perhaps most importantly for various skeptics, he presented in detail the current approach to the national space program’s frontier project. Instructed by the President to consider all private options for the current mission, he detailed five possible, private company options to provide the heavy lift rocket to launch both the Orion manned-module as well as a European research module to the Moon. In all of the five possibilities, due to the lack of strategic planning beyond a basic supply program to low Earth orbit and the ISS, all the private options failed to provide any benefit. These companies, unlike the Oberth team of the early 20th century, had not considered the various possibilities of payloads, the launch pad requirements, or other technical concerns, implicitly because of their lack of commitment to human exploration and discovery rather than immediate and practical financial options.

This means we will go with NASA’s plan, which is a variation of the same Constellation program put into operation over a decade ago, but dumped by the Obama Administration. The Space Launch System (SLS), which is a variation of Constellation’s Ares rocket system, and the most powerful rocket ever designed, will be the system the United States uses for the colonization of the Moon. To overcome the delays which have occurred, Bridenstine detailed how they have changed the development process into a “crash program” of horizontal production, so that multiple steps of SLS rocket development can now be done simultaneously, rather than the time-consuming, vertical, bottom-up process. This expression captured the requirements for the entire endeavor.

He then detailed aspects of the Gateway project, much of which is left undetermined. Gateway is to be an orbital port in Lunar orbit. What it will become is still under discussion, as is much of the process, except for the SLS rocket system and the Orion manned craft. The Gateway could become a Lunar space station.

The whole project, and Bridenstine himself, pulse with an energy and mission long unseen in this nation. It will require new ideas, will need to be constantly revised and updated as the process evolves, and will require the best of our nation’s scientists, engineers, and industry. It also requires the commitment of the American people, of whom 99% are kept in the dark by the fake news media, media which may be willing to cover aspects of the British role in the coup against our nation, but will never, ever, raise the specter of a mission of scientific optimism, exploration, and development in their mainstream coverage.

As Lyndon LaRouche said in 1985, “For a period of perhaps the next 20 years, let us write ‘Moon-Mars-colonization mission-assignment’ wherever present custom would have us write the words ‘science’ and ‘technological progress.’ ”

It should be noted that just three days after Bridenstine held this unprecedented town hall meeting, President Trump presented his strategic view of the coming period while in a press conference in the Oval Office. Sitting next to special envoy Vice Premier Liu He of China, President Trump responded to a question on the potential benefits of the new trade deal between the U.S. and China, once again going off-topic, saying “this may be going one step ahead,” but stage two, after this current deal is signed, we should get together with Russia and China, end the dangers of nuclear war, and create a sustainable peace. He said this at precisely the same time as NATO leaders were meeting in Washington to spit fire and fury at Russia and China.

We are seeing a potential transformation in which a LaRouche paradigm, of a shared space exploration and colonization initiative, combined with global infrastructure platforms and development, and a Four Powers strategic alignment against the British Empire, is more alive today than ever before. These last two weeks, since the British-Mueller attempted coup passed its last gas, we have seen President Trump first demand that the industrial plants of our nation open immediately; then launch the most extensive scientific mission of space exploration ever seen, and on an accelerated scale; and finally, propose that once the largest trade deal ever created is signed by the U.S. and China, that we immediately move to use the trade deal as a platform for higher strategic discussions between the U.S., Russia, and China, on ending nuclear war permanently, and creating lasting peace. Simply breathtaking!

This is not a fait accompli, as we are all aware that such statements are not shared by leading policymakers and advisers. Yet, if we want it, it’s there for us to take. The next 500 years of the LaRouche-era are within our grasp.

U.S. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC

VIPS Urge Trump, Don’t Let Neocon Policy Trap You on Venezuela, but Talk to Putin Instead!

April 5 (EIRNS)—In an April 4 memorandum to President Trump, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), urge him not to “let yourself be egged on into taking potentially catastrophic military action” on Venezuela, in response to Russian activities in that country.

Accepting the policy recommendations of the gaggle of neocons in the administration—Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Pompeo, National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Special Envoy for Venezuela Elliott Abrams—can only lead to disaster, the VIPS warn. Nothing the U.S. has done so far, including draconian sanctions, has succeeded in forcing President Nicolas Maduro out of office, or weakening his military support. As for “interim President” Juan Guaidó, he’s clearly just a puppet “totally scripted by U.S. government agencies.” The momentum for regime change has in fact slowed, they observe.

But the Cold War rhetoric from John Bolton, ranting against the “Troika of Tyranny” (Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua), and making thinly disguised swipes at Russia and China, is dangerous.

Stating that some in the media “are trying to egg you on in taking forceful action,” the VIPS urge Trump “not to fall into this trap. This is not 19th century Latin America, and it is far cry from the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.” The best way to prevent dangerous miscalculation, they propose, “would be for you to speak directly with President Putin. Washington’s energies would be better spent clearing up differences, adjusting failed policies and promoting a peaceful resolution on Venezuela.”

Trump Makes Case for Arms Reduction Talks with Russia and China

April 5 (EIRNS)—Speaking to journalists at the White House before his bilateral meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He regarding the trade talks on April 4, President Donald Trump brought up (without being asked) the urgency of the U.S., Russia and China negotiating an arms limitation agreement.

“Between Russia, China and us,” Trump said, “we’re all making hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, including nuclear, which is ridiculous. … I think it’s much better if we all got together and we didn’t make these weapons. So I think that’s something that could be a phase two after this is done. But, as you know, China is spending a lot of money on military. So are we. So is Russia. And those three countries, I think, can came together and stop the spending and spend on things that maybe are more productive toward long-term peace.”

The President then turned to Liu He, saying: “I don’t know if I’m speaking out of turn.  We haven’t discussed this very much, but I feel that, you know, the military expenditure of you, and Russia, us—it’s a lot. A lot of money could be put in other things.  Would you like to respond to that?”

Liu He replied: “I think it is a very good idea,” and Trump agreed.

Kremlin Spokesman Peskov Says Trump Calling for Disarmament Is ‘Commendable’

April 6 (EIRNS)—Commenting on President Donald Trump’s April 4 remarks to the press in the White House that it would be better for the U.S., China, and Russia to invest in peace than in nuclear weapons, Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov expressed the Kremlin’s acknowledgment that “any call for disarmament is commendable and worth considering…. The important thing is that, rather than be limited to words, this call should be translated into specific initiatives and suggestions that would be handed over to partners through official channels.” President Trump was speaking to media before a bilateral meeting with China’s Vice Premier Liu He.

Peskov said further that the Kremlin had not received any suggestions of that kind from the United States, according to TASS.

U.S. President Confirms Relations with China Are Best They Have Ever Been

April 5 (EIRNS)—Before his bilateral meeting with China’s Vice Premier Liu He in the White House yesterday, President Donald Trump was effusive about both the scope of the trade deal being negotiated, and the strength of the U.S.-China relationship. Once again, the contrast between what Trump says, and is acting on, regarding China, and the insane China-bashing coming from his Vice President and others in the Cabinet, is startling.

Trump honored Liu He, who had come to Washington for trade negotiations with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin, as a “highly respected man all over the world.” The President reported, “We’re getting very close to making a deal. That doesn’t mean a deal is made, because it’s not, but we’re certainly getting a lot closer.  And I would think within the next four weeks or maybe less, maybe more—whatever it takes—something very monumental could be announced.” He said that Liu He had given him a “beautiful letter” from President Xi Jinping, and twice praising Xi’s strong actions to crack down on the fentanyl production in China.

Liu He concurred that the progress in the trade talks was substantial: “We have made great progress.  I do think that is because we got direct guidance by two great Presidents—President Xi and President Trump. And I will always feel your direct directions, because of your direct involvement, we do have great progress.”

Trump said: “I think a trade deal with China is good for the world.  It’s good for us and China, but it’s good, also, for the world…. But it’s a massive deal.  It could be one of the biggest deals ever made.  There can’t be a deal like this, no matter where you look, there can’t be a deal like this.  This is this is the granddaddy of them all.  And we’ll see if it happens. It’s got a very, very good chance of happening.  I think that it will be great for both countries.”

He repeated that he doesn’t blame China for the loss of American jobs and money to China—“I don’t blame China; I blame the people that sat right at this desk.  They should have never allowed that to happen. And I think very important is: The relationship with China is very strong—probably the strongest it’s ever been, in a sense…. And that’s not a bad thing; that’s a very good thing.”

Former CIA Russia Director Beebe Slams Russiagate Narrative as Threatening Nuclear War

April 7 (EIRNS)—George Beebe, Vice President and Director of Studies at the Center for the National Interest, and the former director of Russian analysis at the CIA and advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney on Russian affairs, wrote on April 4 about the false narrative on Russiagate. Although he accepts the line that Russia hacked the DNC, he considers this of little significance, and otherwise warns that the clearly false “facts” that drove the two years of anti-Russian hysteria have taken us “down the road toward confrontation with the world’s largest nuclear power.”

He writes: “Few questioned how an ex-British agent banned from traveling to Russia could contact highly-placed sources in the Kremlin and Russian intelligence over unsecure email and phone links and get quick access to highly sensitive secrets denied to the world’s most capable intelligence services. Healthy skepticism took a back seat to a story that too many were too eager to believe….

“And they seem loath to look beyond Mueller’s report to investigate what may well be egregious abuses by the FBI and Intelligence Community in spying on an opposition political campaign, which if true would constitute grave threats to civil liberties and to the checks and balances of American governance….

“Yet those judging Russian intentions toward the United States assert with little apparent reflection and no dispositive evidence that Moscow aims to rend our societal fabric because of what we are—a democracy—rather than what it perceives that we do, which is to destabilize established regimes in and around Russia.

“This is a difference with significant implications: we cannot change the nature of what we are, but we can conceivably manage our differences with Russia over involvement in the domestic affairs of other countries. Media voices that uncritically accept the prevailing narrative about Russian intentions are in danger of stepping on the same rake that caused us to stumble into the Iraq weapons of mass destruction failure and subsequent war. Is there really only one plausible explanation of Russian intentions toward us?

“Facts matter. But the narrative tissue connecting these facts into a coherent story matters even more. Before we march even farther down the road toward confrontation with the world’s largest nuclear power, we need to ask ourselves how confident we should be that we have got that narrative right.”

Nunes Will Send Eight Criminal Referrals This Week of Obama Intelligence Officials

April 7 (EIRNS)—California Rep. Devin Nunes (R) announced today on Fox News that he will send eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department this week related to the Obama Administration’s handling of the Trump-Russia investigation. All the referrals will be classified.

Nunes, ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said that five of the referrals are straightforward, naming specific persons suspected of specific crimes.

The other three are more complicated—conspiracy cases under the conspiracy statute. These are:

1. Conspiracy in defrauding the FISA Court;

2. Conspiracy in the manipulation of intelligence, which “could involve many Americans” (implying that this will go after Steele and the British role as well);

3. Conspiracy to leak classified material, what he called a “global leak referral.”

On the leaks, he said that his committee had gathered evidence for two and a half years, and he had a “pretty good idea who is behind them.” They were always reported as coming from “unnamed sources” and from “high-level” members of the intelligence community. He also stated that he did not know whether the DOJ had been investigating these leaks already.

STRATEGIC WAR DANGER

Russia Responds to Warmongering at NATO Meeting in Washington

April 5 (EIRNS)—Russia responded to statements made at the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Washington, D.C., this week with multiple declarations pointing out that while NATO constantly hypes the alleged Russian threat, it is the Alliance which has become the global strategic threat of the 21st century. “The agenda of the meeting and the decisions taken at it by the North Atlantic Council show that the Alliance is not going to stop building up its military and political confrontation with Russia. The bloc’s key goal—to rally its allies for containing ‘the threat from the East’—has not changed since its establishment in 1949,” said the Foreign Ministry in a statement issued yesterday. The statement explained that while NATO has claimed on numerous occasions that it is ready for dialogue with Russia, it has taken no practical steps in this direction. “The channels of dialogue between the sides’ military remain blocked,” the Foreign Ministry said.

During her regular briefing on April 4, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also addressed the real meaning of the NATO meeting, stating that while the Soviet Union dissolved almost 30 years ago, NATO not only still exists but its methods and targets have not changed. “Moreover, NATO’s actions place it in a position as the main geopolitical threat. Cold War rhetoric is back, more weaponry is being placed in Eastern Europe, and the military infrastructure near Russian borders is being upgraded,” she said. Zakharova also said added that judging from the statements coming out of Washington, “the Alliance is not letting up and will continue to escalate tensions in Europe.”

“Today, NATO says its priority is the defense of its East European allies from the so-called Russian threat by filling the region with weapons and stepping up military exercises that include offensive scenarios. This is indeed a strange way to promote ‘calm,’ as everyone is first being scared and then the region is being turned into a powder keg,” Zakharova continued. Furthermore, “One feels uneasy speaking about NATO’s successes in military history. Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya—the alliance’s operations there have resulted in chaos and destruction, accompanied by civilian death.”

NATO Was, and Remains, a British Project

April 7 (EIRNS)—For those who nurse the myth that NATO is an American project, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), also known as Chatham House, has cleared up any doubts about the British role in the Alliance. “It often seems to be completely forgotten that NATO, which celebrates its 70th anniversary on 4 April, was a British initiative. Specifically, the idea came from Ernest Bevin, the foreign secretary in the radical Labour government of Clement Attlee,” Hans Kundnani, a senior research fellow in Chatham House’s Europe Program, wrote on April 1. Kundnani reports that Bevin delivered a speech to the House of Commons in January 1948 in which he called for a “Western Union” that would provide the security on which the reconstruction of Europe depended. “Over the next 14 months, he turned his vision into a reality in a series of carefully calibrated steps. Though of course the crucial element was the U.S. security guarantee to Europe [American muscle—ed.], it is doubtful whether it would have happened without Bevin’s creativity and tenacity [British brains—ed.].”

The situation today with Donald Trump in the White House, Kundnani goes on, is similar to that of 1945-1948, when American commitment to the “security” of Europe was not a certainty. “Britain once again needs to think as creatively as Bevin did about how it can shape European security,” he writes, continuing that “it seems pretty clear that the only way the U.S. security guarantee to Europe might be made sustainable in the long term is for Europeans to make a greater contribution to their own security.” In other words, by spending more on defense, the Europeans might convince the U.S. to stay in Europe, sort of a European core within NATO. “The U.K. is the only power that can take the lead in such a rebalanced NATO,” he writes.

U.S. Envoy Volker Tells Ukrainians, Vote for Poroshenko; Vitrenko Counters ‘Anyone but Poroshenko’

April 7 (EIRNS)—The presidential election process is now heading for a run-off, while Kurt Volker, the U.S. special envoy for Ukraine and a long time adherent to the late warmonger Sen. John McCain, is intervening to get the “right result,” in the aftermath of the NATO ministerial meeting in Washington in which the Alliance promised to increase its presence in the Black Sea.

The run-off is between incumbent Petro Poroshenko, the current hit-man for NATO, and the relatively unknown comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, who became famous impersonating Poroshenko in comedy routines. In an April 4 interview with PBS NewsHour, Volker explicitly compared the present circumstance in Ukraine to that in the U.S., Britain with Brexit, and France with the Yellow Vests, and told Ukrainian voters they need to vote for incumbent President Petro Poroshenko. In Ukraine, “It’s a candidate who has established himself as against the establishment vs. the incumbent President, who is saying that, you know, I have worked hard, I have made a lot of accomplishments, we have more to do,” Volker said. “And now the Ukrainian public is faced with this choice. Do they want someone who is just going against the establishment, promising massive reform? Or do they want someone who maybe has been disappointing to them in some respects, but has done more on reform than anyone else has in Ukraine for the past 20 years and stood up to Putin?”

“You’re talking about the incumbent, Petro Poroshenko,” the interviewer said. “The incumbent President,” Volker replied. “So, they have got this choice in front of them.”

Can you imagine anyone accusing the U.S. of interfering in the sovereign election in Ukraine? Heaven forbid.

Natalia Vitrenko, the friend of the LaRouche movement whose Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine (PSPU) was blocked from participation in the election by the neo-Nazi government of Poroshenko, has put forth the exact opposite recommendation to her fellow countrymen and -women from that of the American interloper—vote for anybody but Poroshenko.

ECONOMY

British House of Commons Strategy Paper Attacks China’s New Silk Road Development Policy

April 5 (EIRNS)—The Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons issued a strategy paper on March 26 which recommends the U.K. government not sign any memorandum of understanding with China on the Belt and Road Initiative, and effectively reverse the “Golden Era” it sought with China during President Xi Jinping’s unprecedented five-day state visit in 2015.

In typical British fashion, the 69-page paper “China and the Rules-Based International System,” acknowledges the positive effect of BRI investments in developing countries, but it warns that the BRI could upset the “liberal” and “rules-based” international order. Here is one key passage in the “Conclusions and Recommendations”:

“The Belt and Road Initiative, in the form it is currently being pursued, raises concerns regarding U.K. interests. These include the risk that Chinese investment will encourage countries to strike deals that undermine international standards that the U.K. seeks to promote, or that leave countries with unsustainable debt that undermines development and political stability. There is also a risk that the promise of Chinese investment, or the coercive leverage of indebtedness to China, could encourage countries to join China’s efforts to undermine certain aspects of the rules-based international system, and could weaken the alliances and partnerships that help preserve international peace and prosperity. We therefore commend the Government’s decision not to sign a Memorandum of Understanding in support of the Belt and Road Initiative on the basis of these risks. Further, the Government is right not to accede to China’s request for the U.K. to give what would be in effect a blanket endorsement of a key pillar of its foreign policy.”

EIR’s Hussein Askary gave his assessment: “The recommendations are terrible. The British are creating a ‘template’ for other undecided EU countries and the U.S. to follow. Although it preaches ‘pragmatism,’ it says ‘don’t sign the MOU on the BRI!’ ”

THE NEW GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER

Iraqi Prime Minister in Tehran

April 7 (EIRNS)—Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi arrived in Tehran yesterday, for a two-day visit intended to strengthen Iraq-Iran ties in all areas of bilateral relations between the two countries. In fact, reports Rudaw, the Iraqi Kurdish news service based in Erbil, Baghdad’s foreign policy is one of friendly relations with everyone, using Iraq’s geographical position to make the country a bridge between regional rivals. After decades of conflict and hostility, the government wants Iraq to leave behind the historic disputes and focus on what it has in common with its neighbors.

The closeness of the relationship between Iran and Iraq was fully expressed in Abdul-Mahdi’s meetings with both Iranian president Hassan Rouhani and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. “The situation we are experiencing today is an excellent one” with respect to relations between their nations, Rouhani said in a joint press conference with Abdul-Mahdi after their meeting on Saturday. Abdul-Mahdi is accompanied by the full panoply of Iraqi ministers, including those of oil, finance, foreign, planning, trade, electricity, and water resources as well as by his national security advisor and army chief, showing that the full range of bilateral relations is on the agenda between Baghdad and Tehran. It’s notable in this regard that Abdul-Mahdi’s trip to Tehran followed by a few days that of a Saudi delegation to Baghdad with pledges of $1.5 billion in loans and other support, including Riyadh opening a consulate in Baghdad after 30 years without diplomatic relations between the two countries. Abdul-Mahdi is also expected to go to Riyadh soon.

Abdul-Mahdi stressed, for his part, that he won’t allow the American military contingent in Iraq to be used against Iran. “Our constitution categorically prohibits the exploitation of Iraqi land against any neighboring country,” he said. “We are informed of the complexities in the region, but in fact we work seriously as do you in order to establish peace and have peaceful and healthy relations. Issues shall always be resolved in diplomatic and peaceful means, not through violence and weapons.”

Khamenei nonetheless urged Abdul-Mahdi to eject the American military from his country. According to Mehr News, Khamenei pointed to the ideological, cultural and historical convergence among the Iranian and Iraqi nations and stressed “the relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq is beyond simple ties between two neighboring countries and the Iranian nation and state consider the progress and prosperity of the Iraqi nation as part of their own interests; however, contrary to their verbal remarks, the U.S. officials assume the democracy and the current assembly of political activists in Iraq as detrimental to themselves. Therefore the Iraqi government should take actions so that U.S. troops will leave Iraq as soon as possible.”

Khamenei suggested to Abdul-Mahdi that he “should take necessary measures so that the U.S. will withdraw its troops from Iraq as soon as possible; because, in any country where the U.S. maintained an enduring military presence, the process of expelling them became more complicated and problematic.”

Laser Weapons for Missile Defense

April 7 (EIRNS)—The Missile Defense Agency is preparing to present to industry, later this month, its proposal for building an air-launched laser system designed to shoot down ICBMs during the early and mid-course phases of their flight. According to an April 2 article in the journal Military and Aerospace Electronics, the MDA’s Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Laser Scaling project will develop a prototype laser weapon system that will weigh no more than about 4 tons, including the laser, electric power, and thermal management subsystems.

Kris Osborn, editor of the Warrior Maven military technology news website, reported the same day that the MDA effort will bring “new levels of offensive and defensive layered firepower to existing missile defense technologies.” Osborn writes that “This involves ground tests, laboratory work and ongoing computer simulations to assess the technical feasibility of firing lasers, traveling at the speed of light, from an air platform to derail, intercept, jam or destroy long-range enemy nuclear weapons—such as an ICBM.”

The proposed system would operate at very high altitude, but not quite in orbit, as the best position to be in to avoid atmospheric deterioration of the laser beam. “Sufficient altitude and a high amount of mobile power are the keys to a successful laser intercept, according to senior Pentagon weapons developers, who add that satellite-fired lasers are not quite there at the moment, yet likely to reach greater levels of operational maturity quickly—in coming years,” Osborn writes. “You want to get into thin atmosphere, and get as high as you can,” a U.S. military weapons developer told him. The higher the altitude, the longer-range a laser can be fired.

Missing from the proposal, indeed from the entire Trump Administration’s Missile Defense Review thus far, is the cooperation with other nuclear powers, as Lyndon LaRouche proposed with what became Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983. If the objective is to really make nuclear war obsolete, as Reagan proclaimed, then it must be done in cooperation with other nuclear powers, starting with Russia. Otherwise, the other side, in trying to avoid becoming the victims of a first-strike scenario, will target U.S. defenses or find ways to outflank them, just as Russia has done with its new generation of strategic weapons announced by President Vladimir Putin in his nationally televised address to the Federal Assembly on March 1, 2018.

President Trump proposed this week, while meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, that China, Russia and the U.S. meet to find a means to limit weapons production—a perfect opportunity to discuss cooperation on missile defense as LaRouche and Reagan intended.

Reach us at eirdailyalert@larouchepub.com or call 1-571-293-0935