Original Proposal

.
Unfortunately, our website was sabotaged on 2/18/2022.

And just as unfortunately, its contents had not been saved since 1/20/2022.

This section and its contents were originally created pre-dawn on 2/17/2022.

Accordingly, it is unclear whether the venom of the saboteur(s) was aimed at this section and its contents.

Or whether the venom of the saboteur(s) was aimed at the “Discussion Outline” section and the “Participant Comments” section for our 2/16/2022 meeting on the subject of “NYC Harvard Club Book Promotion – ‘Our Broken Elections: How The Left Changed The Way You Vote.’”
Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Original Proposal

Post by johnkarls »

Originally Posted by johnkarls » Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:27 pm – 447 views in Sec. 3 (Proposed Topics) before being transplanted here
.

America’s 12/5/1994 Written & Signed Agreement That If Ukraine Surrendered Its 1,900 Missiles Containing Multiple-Nuclear-Warheads, America Would Guarantee The Independence And Territorial Integrity Of Ukraine


On occasion, we are forced to focus on a topic that neither the news media nor book publishers are willing to let “see the light of day.”

And America’s refusal to honor its commitment to Ukraine has grave implications for nuclear proliferation as will be briefly explained below.

Accordingly, I propose we focus on this topic and its implications for nuclear proliferation.

Using such materials as can be gleaned from the public record to piece together the frightening picture.


*****************
America’s 12/5/1994 Signed Guarantee to Ukraine

On 12/26/1991, the USSR (aka Soviet Union, aka Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) dissolved.

[The leaders of the three largest “Soviet Socialist Republics” – Russia, Ukraine and Belarus – declared that the USSR no longer existed and the remaining 11 “Soviet Socialist Republics” joined them shortly thereafter in recognizing that all of the SSR’s were now independent.]

The dissolution left Ukraine with 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles.

Ukraine had had its share of USSR nuclear scientists and the USSR military had contained enough Ukrainian nuclear-missile techies that Ukraine would have had no trouble in remaining the world’s THIRD-largest nuclear power – behind the U.S. and Russia BUT AHEAD OF Britain, France, China, etc.

However, as a new “world citizen,” Ukraine signaled its willingness to surrender its 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles and its nuclear-weapons program IF ITS INDEPENDENCE AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY WERE GUARANTEED.

On 12/5/1994, President Bill Clinton for the U.S., Prime Minister John Major for the U.K., and President Boris Yeltsin for Russia signed an agreement GUARANTEEING UKRAINE’S INDEPENDENCE AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY if Ukraine would surrender its 1,900 multiple-warhead nuclear missiles and its nuclear-weapons program.

Ukraine immediately did so.

THREE DISPICABLE STRATEGIES BY AMERICAN POLS FOR JUSTIFYING STABBING UKRAINE IN THE BACK???

First, falsely claiming that Ukraine wanted to get rid of its nukes because of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident.

Second, noting that the 12/5/1994 agreement was NOT a “treaty” requiring a 2/3 ratification vote by the U.S. Senate.

THIRD AND THEIR FAVORITE, simply ignoring the 12/5/1994 Agreement.

[For the sake of brevity, the first two will not be destroyed here.]


*****************
President Obama Dis-Honoring President Clinton’s Solemn 12/5/1994 Agreement

In Feb/March 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine – annexing the Crimean Peninsula and asserting permanent control over the Donbas Region of Eastern Ukraine.

President Obama refused, in effect, to “lift a finger” – providing Ukraine with ONLY NON-LETHAL AID in the form of blankets and pillows!!!


*****************
President Biden Dis-Honoring President Clinton’s Solemn 12/5/1994 Agreement

At his news conference this past Wednesday, President Biden said that a Russian “incursion” into Ukraine would be A-OK!!!

And he had long-since ruled out any military response to Russia’s build up of more than 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders with the threat of SOLELY economic sanctions if Russia “invades” (vs. has a mere “incursion)!!!


*****************
Worldwide Nuclear Proliferation – A.Q. Kahn and North Korea – Iran – Libya

Abdul Qadeer Khan (aka A.Q. Khan, and aka “Father of Pakistan’s Nuclear Bomb”) provided all Pakistan’s nuclear-bomb technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya.

He was prosecuted in 2004 in order to appease President Bush, but freed 2/6/2009 as soon as Bush left office.

Recognized throughout his life as a Pakistani national hero, he was given a “state funeral” 10/10/2021.


*****************
A Tale of Four Nations

I trust that any copyright has expired on Charles Dickens’ famous novel on the French Revolution entitled “A Tale of Two Cities” referring to Paris & London and its famous last sentence – “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known” – uttered by Sydney Carlton before being guillotined after surreptitiously traveling to France to take the place of his “look alike” Charles Darney who had married Carlton’s life-long love.

Because I confess the obvious –

I am plagiarizing “A Tale of Two Cities” with “A Tale of Four Nations.”

And how the lesson being taught the world by Messrs. Obama and Biden is that any country would have to be INSANE to give up its nuclear-weapons program.


*****
Libya

In December 2003, when it had become clear that A.Q. Khan had provided Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi with a nascent nuclear-weapons program, Qaddifi agreed (like Ukraine in 1994 but without any formal agreement) to surrender his program.

The result of Qaddafi’s STUPIDITY???

In 2011, Obama “green lighted” Britain’s and Italy’s program to colonize Libya’s oil industry with a military invasion which would have been impossible without U.S. military support.

Obama dismembered Libya and it has been an Al Qaeda “hot bed” ever since.

[What was Obama thinking??? “Muammar al-Qaddafi” means Muammar, Head of the Quaddaf’s, and the land under Libya’s largest tribe contains all the oil!!!]


*****
North Korea

Kim Jong-il (Supreme Leader of North Korea from the 1994 demise of his father, Kim Il-sung in 1994 until his own demise 12/17/2011 whereupon his own son, Kim Jong-un became North Korea’s third and current Supreme Leader) KEPT HIS NERVE!!!

He was NOT STUPID like Qadaffi in 2003 (and Ukraine in 1994)!!!

He proceeded to develop successfully North Korea’s nuclear-weapons & nuclear-missile programs.


*****
Iran

Iran’s second SUPREME LEADER following the 1979 revolution facilitated by Jimmy Carter “cutting off at the knees” the Shah of Iran, is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has been ruling since 1989 as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s successor.

Ayatollah Khamenei also was NOT STUPID like Qadaffi in 2003 (and Ukraine in 1994)!!!

He kept his nerve and continued to develop Iran’s nuclear program – indeed, news reports of many North Korean nuclear tests record that Iran’s nuclear scientists were prominent observers at the North Korean tests.

Ayatollah Khamenei was shrewd enough to permit Obama to enter into the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (aka JCPOA) which –

(1) did NOT provide for “anytime anywhere” inspections,

(2) did NOT impede at all Iran’s development of nuclear-capable short-range and inter-continental ballistic missiles (which are typically launched with such slogans painted on their sides as “Death to Israel” and “Death to the Big Satan” aka the United States – BTW, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has often, even in the wake of the JCPOA, led crowds in chants of “Death to America”), and

(3) did GUARANTEE Iran nuclear weapons by 2030.

[Please see our PROTEST to President Biden dated Inauguration Day 1/20/2021 NOT to grovel his way back into the JCPOA as he had said he would do, unless he corrected these three deficiencies – text available with FedEx tracking info at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2021&sid=4b9437326 ... 9913385b7b.]

So what did Biden do???

He attempted to grovel his way back into the JCPOA without the corrections!!!

Did he succeed???

Of course not!!!

The only reason Ayatollah Khamenei had permitted Obama to enter into Obama’s face-saving 2015 JCPOA was trade restrictions.

The most important of which was cutting Iran’s oil exports by 3 million barrels/day.

At today’s oil price of approx. $87/bbl, that’s $95 billion/year!!!

And with an Iranian population of 84 million, that’s $1,131 per capita per year – or $4,524/year for a family of four!!! That in a country which, according to the World Bank, had a per capita GDP in 2020 on a “purchasing power parity” basis of only $13,330/year!!!

Unfortunately, Biden destroyed America’s “energy independence” that he inherited.

And in order to TRY to control inflation which is largely driven by ballooning world oil prices, Biden “green lighted” Iran’s producing oil “flat out”!!!

Is it any wonder that Iran’s JCPOA negotiators announced in the wake of that “green lighting” that any and all concessions made to date for permitting Biden to grovel his way back into the JCPOA are now “off the table”!!!

Biden’s apparent attitude???

Israel be damned!!!

After all, as Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei loves to proclaim every chance he gets, Israel is only a “one bomb” state!!!

And so what if Israel’s current population of 9.5 million exceeds the number of 6 million Jews killed in the World War II “holocaust”???

johnkarls
Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Winston Churchill, Appeasement and The 1994 U.S. Guarantee of Ukraine’s Independence & Territory

Post by johnkarls »

Originally Posted by johnkarls » Sun Jan 30, 2022 3:00 pm


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Winston Churchill, Appeasement and The 1994 U.S. Guarantee of Ukraine’s Independence & Territory
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sun, January 30, 2022 1:51 pm MST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Bcc: Recent Attendees of RL Meetings
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Recent Attendees of RL Meetings

Dear Friends,

This is a FIVE-ALARM FIRE!!!

There follows immediately below my e-mail of last Tuesday to my law school classmates following our weekly Zoom chat. The e-mail focuses almost-wholly on modern-day appeasement.

As should be obvious in retrospect, I was “loaded for bear” following my Jan 21 Reading Liberally topic proposal entitled “America’s 1994 Guarantee of Ukraine’s Independence and Territory for Ukraine’s Surrendering Its 1,900 Nuclear Missiles” which is available at viewtopic.php?f=679&t=2160&sid=4b943732 ... 9913385b7b.

BTW, Jan 21 was the pivotal date in negotiations between Biden/Blinken and Putin, and I would like to think that even though a mere topic proposal, it provided Biden/Blinken with some backbone. After all, many Reading Liberally actions (which are closely followed by the media, some of whose members comprise more than 10% of our weekly e-mail recipients and many more of whose members regularly monitor our website) are demonstrably effective.

We now have a “breather” until Feb 20.

The reason???

Russia is unlikely to invade Ukraine (and China, Taiwan) until after the Winter Olympics.

What you can do???

Sec. 1 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org contains details of our 49 “Six-Degrees-Of-Separation” E-mail Campaigns over our 16 years of existence.

Each was sent by cooperating recipients of our weekly e-mails to the appropriate nation’s decision maker (Pres. Biden in this case, at www.whitehouse.gov/contact selecting “Contact the President” from the pull-down menu for the first item in their contact form).

And by each cooperating recipient to all of her/his friends and acquaintances requesting them to do the same.

Hence, the “six degrees of separation” doctrine which should, in theory, produce 330 million e-mails in Pres. Biden’s in box in no time flat.

FYI, my e-mail to Pres. Biden of a few minutes ago said “Re Ukraine & Taiwan, please provide as much support against Russian & Chinese aggression as possible INCLUDING USE OF OUR MILITARY IF NECESSARY.” Though, of course, you and/or your friends/acquaintances may want to substitute something else for the all-caps closing clause.

Also FYI, although this is not an official Reading Liberally e-mail campaign, we have always recognized that “Freedom of Speech” empowers ANYONE to launch her/his own “Six Degrees of Separation” E-mail Campaign.

If anyone has any comments or questions, please let me know.

Your friend,

John K.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: HLS-1967: Two Item’s Re Yesterday’s Zoom Chat
Date: 2022-01-25 01:53 EST
From: john@johnkarls.com
To: john@johnkarls.com
Bcc: Participants in the Harvard Law School Class of 1967 Weekly Zoom Chats

.
Dear Friends,

For the sake of good order, two items re yesterday’s Zoom chat merit additional comment.


**********
Don Leka’s Branding My Report Of Cyber Theft of Fingerprints as a “Tin Hat” Theory

It is respectfully suggested that you check my statement with your own provider of security for your computers (mine is Norton Utilities).

Norton Utilities, at least, has long since advised its clients that hackers can not only monitor every one of your keystrokes.

But perhaps more importantly, they can access your fingerprints from your keyboard’s built-in touchpad that you use to point your cursor and then click.

Please ignore Don and check it out before you have trouble.


**********
The Report of a Neville Chamberlain “Documentary”

One of our members reported having seen a TV “Documentary” about Neville Chamberlain claiming that his appeasement at Munich “bought more time” for the USSR to prepare for war.

I immediately but briefly debunked the “Documentary” by pointing out that Munich produced the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact comprising instead the USSR “buying itself more time” at Britain’s expense.

Re Bona Fides, please permit me to recount that I was married for 33 years to the Co-Author of the nation’s best-selling high-school world-history textbook (McGraw Hill with National Geographic Illustrations) and that one of my three simultaneous careers was reading annually in my spare time 12-15 thick history tomes & bios to uncover overlooked nuggets for possible inclusion in the next edition, of which there were six during the 33 years. [That’s 500-600 tomes/bios by the time the gavel went down 21 years ago and since “old dogs don’t learn new tricks” the total today is well over 1,500.]

Accordingly, I hope everyone can understand why I immediately jump into our conversations to provide and/or correct historical facts (even though my undergrad major was economics).

But back to Munich and Molotov-Ribbentrop.

Hitler’s annexation of Austria was 3/12/1938.

Chamberlain’s “Peace In Our Time” (sic) Munich Agreement was signed 9/30/1938 allowing Hitler to annex the Czechoslovakian Sudetenland.

In March 1939, Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia.

On 8/23/1939, a non-aggression pact was signed by Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov (as in “Molotov Cocktails”).

The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact also partitioned Poland.

The invasion/partition of Poland began 9/1/1939.

And as they say “the rest is history.”

Britain finally/reluctantly declared war on 9/3/1939 (despite still being unprepared due to Chamberlain’s appeasement policy) following which was the 9-month so-called “Phony War” featuring no military hostilities between Britain and Germany.

The “Phony War” abruptly ended after nine months on 5/10/1940.

Illustrating the historical maxim in the case of Chamberlain and the USSR – “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.”

Most decent historians view Munich as a desperate attempt by Chamberlain to “knife in the back” the USSR hoping Hitler would look East – after all, his speeches and writings often featured the idea of Lebensraum (living space) for the German people by expanding eastward.

It backfired with Molotov-Ribbentrop.

Having secured his rear, Hitler launched his Blitzkrieg against the BeNeLux countries on 5/10/1940 and within 6 weeks France had also surrendered.

And also on 5/10/1940, Churchill succeeded Chamberlain as Prime Minister.

BTW, our classmate who reported about the Chamberlain “Documentary” has served as our Ambassador to Norway.

An interesting tidbit involving Churchill and Norway???

Anticipating that he would soon be Prime Minister (despite the attempts of the Appeasement Wing of the Conservative Party to install Lord Halifax as Chamberlain’s successor), Churchill feverishly made plans to invade Norway before Hitler could grab it.

Unfortunately, Hitler invaded Norway 4/9/1940 (32 days before Churchill assumed office) and subjugated it completely by 6/10/1940 before Churchill could organize an opposing military action.

As a result, when Hitler finally invaded the USSR a year later on 6/22/1941, Churchill’s desperate program to keep Stalin in the war with convoys of arms/supplies to Murmansk had to pass along the extensive now-hostile Norwegian coast before turning right in the Arctic Ocean to reach Russian territory on the far side of the Scandinavian countries.


**********
I humbly apologize for such a lengthy rebuttal to the Chamberlain “Documentary” (sic).

It is revisionist history by bald-faced propagandists (modern-day appeasers???).

Respectfully submitted,

John Karls

solutions
Site Admin
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Authority For The 1,900 Ukrainian Nuclear Missiles Statistic

Post by solutions »

Originally Posted by solutions » Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:35 pm
.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Authority For Your 1,900 Ukrainian Nuclear Missiles Statistic
From: Solutions
Date: Wed, February 2, 2022 10:41 am PST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

I was just re-reading your 1/21/2022 Topic Proposal whose entire subject (vs. the abbreviated version to comply with the listing limit which was recently expanded by the software provider of our website from 40 characters to 120 characters) was –

“America’s 12/5/1994 Signed Agreement That If Ukraine Surrendered Its 1,900 Missiles Containing Multiple-Nuclear-Warheads, America Would Guarantee The Independence And Territorial Integrity Of Ukraine.”

The body of your Topic Proposal also mentions that at the time of the 12/5/1994 Agreement, Ukraine was “the world’s THIRD-largest nuclear power – behind the U.S. and Russia BUT AHEAD OF Britain, France, China, etc.”

I know you’ve used these two statistics since time immemorial.

Nevertheless, I suddenly became curious about their source.

Wikipedia’s “Nuclear Weapons and Ukraine” agrees with your statistic that on 12/5/1994 Ukraine was the world’s third-largest nuclear power. However, Wikipedia claims Ukraine had only –

“130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.”

In addition, Wikipedia claims – “Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.”

So what was the source of your statistics?

BTW, a quick Google search unearthed a 12/5/2019 Brookings Institution article entitled “Why We Care About Ukraine and [America’s 12/5/1994 Guarantee]” by Steven Pifer, a Brookings “Nonresident Senior Fellow” and Director of Brookings’ Center for Strategic International Studies – he also served as our Ambassador to Ukraine 1998-2000 for Pres. Clinton who signed the 12/5/1994 Guarantee.

That lengthy 2019 article stated early on that in the 12/5/1994 Agreement, the U.S. “committed ‘to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine’ and ‘to refrain from the threat or use of force’ against the country. Those assurances played a key role in persuading the Ukrainian government in Kyiv to give up what amounted to the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, consisting of some 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads.”

Even though it may seem that Brookings is agreeing with all of your statistics, they are speaking of 1,900 “warheads” rather than 1,900 “missiles.”

So what is the source for your statistics?

Your friend,

Solutions


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: Authority For Your 1,900 Ukrainian Nuclear Missiles Statistic
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Wed, February 2, 2022 9:12 pm MST
To: Solutions
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Solutions,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Before answering your question, please permit me to comment on the Wikipedia and Brookings articles.


******************************
Wikipedia Articles Are Only As Good As Their Footnotes

Even though Wikipedia (established 1/15/2001) is older than our organization (Reading Liberally – Salt Lake was established Fall 2005), we have often marveled over the errors in Wikipedia articles as a result of which we do NOT cite any “facts” they contain without at least evaluating their sources (if any).

The source for their Ukrainian nuclear statistics is disclosed in Footnote 3. Footnote 3 cites “Norris, Robert S. (January–February 1992). “The Soviet Nuclear Archipelago". Arms Control Today. Arms Control Association. 22 (1): 24–31. JSTOR 23624674.”

If you read the Robert Norris article, his only source for any statistics (per a table on p. 2 of his article) is The Natural Resources Defense Council.

[BTW, that table only provides stats as of January 1992, which is nearly THREE years before the 12/5/1994 Agreement.]

If you then search the website of The Natural Resources Defense Council, I defy you to find any statistics that they have published about Ukrainian nuclear weapons. It would appear that if Robert Norris is to be believed, he must have contacted some undisclosed person at The Natural Resources Defense Council for the stats in his table.

*****
Re the Wikipedia claim – “Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States” - the sole source per Footnote 4 is a British Parliament colloquy WHICH OCCURRED ON 6/22/1993 –

Mr. David Evans : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries which possess nuclear weapons capable of being delivered to targets in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley) : Such weapons are possessed by Russia, China, France and the United States. Some weapons are also possessed by Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, but these are controlled by the Commonwealth of Indpendent States.
Mr. Evans : Is the Minister aware that the list is growing ever longer, with the Ukraine selling missiles to whoever is prepared to pay for them? Does not that mean that this country's safety is threatened even more? Does he agree it is important that the Walworth road is protected because we want our children and grandchildren not only to read about the demise of socialism in libraries and schools but to be able to go down the Walworth road to see for themselves where the last of the Bolsheviks lived and worked? Does he agree that the Walworth road should be a nuclear-free zone because the safety of that lot is in our interests?
Mr. Hanley : I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that all tactical nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from the Ukraine and, as I said, strategic weapons are not under its control. I am sure you will agree, Madam Speaker, that it is just possible that if we had four seagoing versions of my hon. Friend, we would probably need no other equipment. However, in the absence of three clones of my hon. Friend, I think we perhaps need to maintain our minimum deterrent.

Please note that Mr. Hanley’s second 6/22/1993 response begins with the FALSE CLAIM that “all tactical nuclear weapons HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE UKRAINE” (all caps emphasis added).

No wonder Mr. Hanley thought Ukraine’s nukes were under the control of the Commonwealth of Independent States!!!

He thought they had been “withdrawn from The Ukraine” as of 6/22/1993 – which is more than 17 months before the 12/5/1994 Agreement to guarantee Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity in order to induce Ukraine to surrender their nukes!!!

And the typically-sloppy Wikipedia article author(s) should have realized that their FALSE CLAIM about the “control” of the Ukrainian nukes was based on an ERRONEOUS CLAIM by a British MP!!!


******************************
The 2019 Brookings Article About 1,900 Nuclear Warheads (vs. 1,900 Nuclear Missiles)

First, please permit me to say that I have great respect for Brookings and Mr. Pifer.

When you weigh his statement (for which he does NOT provide any authority) against our source that 1,900 related to missiles rather than warheads, it would seem that the most reasonable explanation is that Mr. Pifer mis-spoke or mis-remembered.

After all, he wrote his article 19 years after leaving Ukraine as our ambassador.


******************************
Harvard Kennedy School’s Founding Dean Graham Allison, Former Sen. San Nunn (D-Ga and long-time Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee), Former Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind and long-time Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), et al.

I see you didn’t join our organization until 7/13/2007.

Which is nearly two years after we got started.

From our earliest days in the fall of 2005, we were interested in, inter alia, two inter-related issues –

(1) nuclear proliferation, and

(2) authoritarian rule by our intelligence services.

The reason why they are inter-related???

Osama bin Ladin’s fatwā to nuke 4 million Americans was the subject of The Harvard Kennedy School of Government Founding Dean Graham Allison’s 2004 book entitled “Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.”

[NB: Osama bin Ladin issued another fatwā after 2004 which OBLIGATES EVERY MEMBER OF AL QAEDA to try to nuke 10 million Americans.]

HKS Founding Dean Allison noted that the U.S. never had any trouble keeping track of every ounce of gold at Fort Knox and, although more daunting, the proper defense against Osama bin Laden’s fatwā would be to keep track of all of the world’s fissile material (uranium, plutonium, etc.) so that it did not fall into the hands of terrorists.

Former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga and long-time chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee), after leaving office 1/3/1997, served as a Distinguished Professor at Georgia Tech’s “Sam Nunn School of International Affairs.”

In addition, in 2001 he founded “The Nuclear Threat Initiative” for which he served as CEO until 2017. NTI’s most recent Annual Report (2019) discloses 2019 expenditures of $24.5 million.

On 5/29/2005, Tim Russert’s “Meet the Press” interviewed on the subject of “The Threat and Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism” on the occasion of the release of the movie “Last Best Chance” the following guests (as listed by “Meet the Press”) –

Former Senator Sam Nunn, (D-Ga.) Nuclear Threat Initiative
Senator Richard Lugar, (R-Ind.) Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee
Former Governor Thomas Kean, (R-N.J.) Chairman, 9/11 Commission
Former Representative Lee Hamilton, (D-Ind.) Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission
Former Senator Fred Thompson*, (R-Tenn.) "Last Best Chance"

* Fred Thompson had been a long-time actor (28 credits per IMDb before joining the Senate 12/2/1994 including The Hunt for Red October). He returned to acting as he was leaving the Senate 1/3/2003 (27 more acting credits per IMDb including Secretariat (2010) after finishing 140 TV episodes as District Attorney Arthur Branch for Law & Order 2002-2007).

MOST IMPORTANTLY, he played fictitious U.S. President Charles Ross in “Last Best Chance” (2005), which per IMDb was a “Thriller about governments around the world racing to attempt to stop a terrorist organization from gaining loose nuclear weapons and supplies before it's too late. DVD includes a 15 minute round-table discussion about the threat of nuclear weapons with Tom Brokaw, Senator Richard Lugar (R) and former Senator Sam Nunn (D).”

“Last Best Chance” also featured NBC’s Tom Brokaw as himself, Sam Nunn as himself and Richard Lugar as himself.

As you probably guessed from the IMDb description in the second-preceding paragraph by IMDb, “Last Best Chance” was a Cri de Coeur for employing HKS Founding Dean Graham Allison’s approach of tracking the world’s fissile material.

Tim Russert’s 5/29/2005 “Meet the Press” interview transcript was posted on our website as a Reference Material for our 12/13/2007 meeting on “Osama’s Fatwā to Nuke 10 Million Americans” – please see viewtopic.php?f=25&t=166&p=212&hilit=uk ... 64282#p212.

The result???

Despite the support from Tim Russert’s Meet the Press, “Last Best Chance” did not make the theaters and “went directly to video” (which pre-COVID, was a damning description for the vast majority of movies).

And Congress defied Graham Allison, Sam Nunn, Richard Lugar, Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, Thomas Kean, Lee Hamilton and Fred Thompson.

Congress chose instead to combat nuclear terrorism with FISA Sec. 702’s extraordinary grant of power to our intelligence services to spy on terrorists, including their communications with American citizens.

That is why on at least 3 occasions (the most recent when FISA Sec. 702 came up for renewal) we focused on Authoritarian Rule By Our Intelligence Services – please see our 5/16/2018 letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions available at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1762&sid=832c121e1 ... ffca333808.


******************************
Conclusion

Unfortunately, our bulletin board was not established until 2007, two years after Reading Liberally - Salt Lake was, itself, established Fall 2005.

One of our pre-bulletin board meetings focused on Graham Allison’s “Nuclear Terrorism” and the Sam Nunn - Richard Lugar “Cooperative Threat Reduction” Program enacted in 1991.

As you can see from Tim Russert’s 5/29/2005 Meet the Press transcript, Sen. Sam Nunn says –

“Tim, there's a lot of [nuclear] material that's not accounted for. That doesn't necessarily mean that it has been sold or stolen, but it means we don't have a good baseline inventory of how much material there is and where it is. And that is one of the first steps that we've got to take….. if you don't have a baseline, you don't know when something is missing. And it's not only what may be missing in the past, but we don't have a baseline going forward. And so we've got to have that baseline. We also need a baseline on tactical nuclear weapons. These are small weapons that are portable that could be stolen or sold. And we don't know how many the Russians have. We hope they know how many they have. That's where we need real presidential leadership; not just President Bush, but also President Putin. They need to step up to the plate, because there's a very large missing agenda here in terms of what we're even addressing.”

BTW, Sen. Nunn’s reference to “tactical nuclear weapons…..that are portable that could be stolen or sold” is a reference to the USSR’s 132 suitcase-size nuclear bombs that went missing, 84 of which have never been located.

Bottom line???

The 1,900 nuclear MISSILES in Ukraine on 12/5/1994 was, despite Sen. Nunn’s Meet the Press caveat about the lack of a “baseline,” the best guess of Allison/Nunn/Lugar et al.

Though if Brookings’ Steven Pifer’s memory in 2019, two decades after leaving Ukraine as our ambassador, that it was 1,900 nuclear WARHEADS rather than MISSILES, is somehow more accurate than Allison/Nunn/Lugar et al., who am I to argue???

[BTW, since the 1994 guarantee of Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity was signed by Russia as well as the U.S. and the U.K., and since Ukraine’s next-door neighbor Russia was remaining the world’s second-largest nuclear power whom Ukraine would not to offend, and since Ukraine’s SOVIET nuclear weapons were identical to Russia’s SOVIET nuclear weapons, wouldn’t you have to be a proverbial “babe in the woods” who “was born yesterday” to suppose that many, if not most, of Ukraine’s nukes were NOT simply moved to Russia before the arrival of the Americans to “clean up” the obsolete nukes (and, perhaps, a few “token” then-current nukes)???]

BUT WHETHER 1,900 MISSILES OR 1,900 WARHEADS, the United States has A MORAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATION to defend Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity WHICH WE GUARANTEED IF UKRAINE WOULD SURRENDER ITS MEANS OF DEFENDING ITSELF.

AND this is a MUCH HIGHER moral and legal obligation than our NATO obligation – after all, we did NOT dupe any of the NATO countries into surrendering the means to defend themselves AND many (if not most) of the NATO countries do NOT spend 2% of their GDP on defense which is the minimum requirement for receiving our protection.

Thank you again for your e-mail.

Your friend,

John K.

Post Reply

Return to “Original Proposal – America’s 1994 Written & Signed Guarantee Of Ukraine’s Independence and Territorial Integrity For Ukraine Surrendering Its 1,900 Nuclear Missiles – March 16”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest