All Episodes
Previous Next
April 13, 1999 - Art Bell
02:01:10
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Jeffrey Nyquist - Yugoslavia War
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thanks for watching!
free international line call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893
Good morning everybody, I'm Art Bell. Jeffrey Nyquist is coming up shortly and I'll tell you all about him.
What a tangled web we have all over now.
you April 1st, I did something that some might call a prank.
Well, it was a prank, but it wasn't intended to be funny.
A lot of people, I guess, thought it was intended to be funny.
It wasn't.
It was intended to make a statement.
And let me read what I said back then.
Alright, that's a couple of weeks ago now.
That was just into the bombing.
That now, by the way, is escalating into 300 more airplanes, half a billion dollars spent already, the reserves are being called up, and they are now, of course, talking about strategy for putting hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground to invade Yugoslavia.
What I said on April 1st was the hack seen on this site was an April 1st prank by myself and Keith Rowland.
However, it was to make a point.
Though I do not agree in any way with what the Serbs are reported, in caps, to be doing, it is none of our damn business The UN might make a case for intervention when one nation invades another as a libertarian.
Even that causes me pause.
To bomb until the Serbs agree to change their internal policy is folly.
Will we bomb for a few more days, weeks, months?
Will we declare victory if they agree to talk?
Will that end differences that have been festering longer than we have been a nation?
If this is the New World Order, I want no part of it.
If we must act beyond our own borders, then let us help those displaced by the madness.
The real flow of refugees did not begin until our, in quotes, goodwill bombing began.
Is our next act to be American troops on the ground?
Would you see your son or daughter die to change attitudes in Serbia?
If war is to begin once again in Europe, it is sad indeed we should not be the ones to light the fuse.
If this is the new world order, then where were we when half a million Africans were hacked to death?
Where were we when millions were slaughtered in Cambodia?
The world is not a nice place, and our bombs will not make it so, Art Bell.
That's what I said.
Jeff Nyquist is author of a book called Origins of the Fourth World War, and he works as a columnist for Newsmax.
Mr. Nyquist has been an independent researcher on mass destruction weapons and state militarism for 11 years.
He has published articles in the New American, the Conservative Review.
Mr. Nyquist recently completed a series of speeches and lectures in 31 American cities.
He has been a teacher in the social sciences.
Two years of graduate work at the University of California.
Lives in Eureka, California.
Publishes his own monthly newsletter.
Nyquist is an independent researcher of international affairs, author of Origins of the Fourth World War, explains why Russia has been planning, now, brace yourself, planning a surprise attack against the United States, and how Bill Clinton has made it possible.
Nyquist details the disturbing facts.
From the building of nuclear bunkers, to brand new ICBMs, the Russians have not changed their ways.
Nyquist believes that Russia's planned surprise nuclear attack against us will come sooner rather than later.
Quite possibly within the next year if the U.S.
continues on its present reckless course.
Nyquist makes a very convincing case and demonstrates a powerful intellect.
He listed signs that would indicate that a Russian attack was being planned.
He predicted the authorities in Russia would deliberately implode their own economy to advance their political and military agendas.
That would have to be the part of the economy yet not yet imploded.
That Russia would ally with China.
That Russia would stockpile huge quantities of food and other supplies for war, and begin moving their nuclear weapons onto their naval ships, where they are much more difficult to monitor and deter.
All of these things have already occurred.
I got a little blurb here, breaking news from Newsmax.com.
Clinton may trigger World War III, and it, of course, Suggests that Russia is engaged in a full mobilization for global war.
That Russia has called up a quarter of a million troops, making their army five times larger than ours, in number.
That Russia and China are using NATO aggression to win popular support for a global war.
That the war is going to spread.
Already, North Korea has slipped dozens of commandos into South Korea to destroy communication and transportation centers, one sign of an imminent war.
And so in a moment, we are going to talk with Jeffrey Nyquist, and a lot of bombs have blown up the bridge since he was last on, so we've got a lot of catching up to do.
In 1850 is Jeffrey Nyquist.
Jeffrey, welcome back to the program.
Thank you, Art.
It's a really Good time to have you back on the program, Jeffrey.
You heard what I wrote a couple weeks ago about... So you know my feelings without question about what's going on right now in Yugoslavia.
And tonight there's a lot of news.
Oh man, we're sending 300... We've been bombing the hell out of them now for about three weeks.
We're sending 300 more airplanes.
We are calling up the reserves as of now.
Well, we're announcing we're about to do it.
We're talking about the various ground war strategies involving hundreds of thousands of troops.
We've come a long way in three weeks, haven't we?
Yes, we have.
It's hard to imagine that we are this close to a major conflict in Europe.
You know, this would not have been expected at the beginning of the year.
Oh, no.
I should say not.
I should say not.
In fact, a lot of people, I think, thought that we were going to bluster our way into getting Milosevic to agree to allow peacekeeping troops in there or something or another.
Anyway, that didn't work.
Let me ask you a question, because you're a little bit older than me.
Do you remember any time during your life that Russian leaders threatened global war over some incident?
Yes.
What would that be?
Well, I mean, it depends on how you look at it.
Certainly, we've been to the brink with them.
Cuba, the Bay of Pigs, of course.
There were various communiques that went back and forth during the Vietnam War with regard to what Russia would do if we did the following.
So, in a way, yes.
I know what you are suggesting, I guess I do, that we are the ones who threaten it.
Well, what I'm saying is that every one of the leading Russian leaders has basically made the global war threat in the last few weeks.
Khrushchev pounded, I was old enough to remember Khrushchev pounding on the podium.
Right, well what's interesting is during the Cuban Missile Crisis the Russians never threatened global war the way they have here.
They didn't say, obviously it was known that if we fired on Russian ships it would be dangerous.
But here you have a case where on Friday Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Federation, He said, quote, I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans, don't push us towards military action.
Otherwise, there will be a European war for sure and possibly a world war.
And as far as putting troops in there, here's what Yeltsin said about NATO putting troops.
He said, quote, they want to bring in ground troops.
They are preparing for that.
They want simply to seize Yugoslavia to make it their protectorate.
We cannot let that happen to Yugoslavia.
I repeat again, Russia will not get involved if the Americans do not push us.
Well, is it your view, Jeffrey, that the break point for Russia is the entrance of ground troops?
Is that the break point for Russia?
That's what the Russian leaders are saying.
And my knowledge of the Cold War history is that the Russian leaders Uh, are not bluffers.
Uh, when they say they're going to do something, they usually do it.
Yeah.
Uh, these, these are people who are very careful.
Uh, you have, and it isn't just Yeltsin.
Uh, it's very funny.
Uh, Mr. Ivanov, the foreign minister of the Russian Federation said when this began, he said that we are keeping extreme measures in reserve.
And he has basically called the American attacks genocide, kind of using our language on us.
He has said this is very serious.
And of course, Mr. Sergeyev, the defense minister, has also made serious threats.
The Russians have mobilized naval units.
They have called up 170,000 new recruits, a draft of 18 to 27-year-olds.
new recruits, a draft of 18 to 27 year olds. Since when?
That was a week ago Thursday.
A week ago Thursday?
They called up 170,000 new ones.
They have, as of a week ago, they had 65,000 volunteers, Russians who have volunteered to go and fight NATO in Serbia.
Why has this not made the regular media outlets?
I mean, 170,000 Troops in Russia called up.
Yeah.
That should make the nightly news.
Why has it?
You know, that's got me.
These are in AP wires.
Reuters and AP have been pretty good about covering it.
But the major newspapers and television media just don't pick it up.
Why not?
Perhaps, you know, it's interesting.
We don't take the Russians seriously.
We think that because they need money, that they don't dare oppose us militarily.
But last I checked, you can't kill someone with a billion dollars.
A billion dollars... Well, depending on how you use it now, we have so far devoted about a half billion dollars to the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, and we have killed brothers successfully.
Well, you know what is interesting?
We think in dollar terms, yeah, but to convert a billion dollars into weaponry takes years.
What's interesting is the Russians have the weaponry already, they don't need the money.
They've got tens of thousands of tanks sitting in their country, and as I pointed out before, this idea that Russia's not ready for war, because they're on the edge of starvation, is very dangerous.
Because the Russian people are a proud people, and the assumption that they will sell out their Serb brothers is an insult to them, and they feel that insult very strongly.
What are Russia's capabilities, Jeff?
Let's talk.
You know, you want to talk about two things.
Capabilities and then intentions.
Yes.
What are Russia's capabilities?
Now, a lot of people are under the impression, Jeff, that Russia's military is decimated, morale is down, they haven't been paid, people are deserting, military hardware is rotting.
Sounds like our military.
What is the actual status of the Russian military?
The Russian ground forces have been neglected in the last several years.
Their navy has been modernized.
They've gone to fewer ships, but more modern, quieter submarines, more deadly.
They have created a new generation of road-mobile ICBMs.
They deployed a regiment of them in December, the Topol-M.
It has a trans-antarctic attack capability.
That means it can, instead of attacking America over the North Pole, it can come under the South Pole and come up behind our radars.
It would come from the South?
Right.
To get around our defenses.
They have an extensive anti-ballistic missile system.
I didn't know about this when I was on your show last July.
So in other words, let me get this straight.
If we were attacked from the south, some DEA border guard would say, oh my god.
And that would be as they were about 20 miles out.
Yeah, we have three radars, major defense radars, that are looking north.
One in Greenland, one in Alaska, and one in the Dakotas.
Right.
And then we have special radars that watch the Pacific and Atlantic coasts for Russian submarine launch missiles.
Yes.
But we don't have any major system facing the South Pole.
That's what I said.
Some DEA guy looking for what might be a drug plane would go, oh my God, what's that?
And about two minutes later, he'd know.
Yeah.
And what's disturbing about the Russian deployment of this weapon is that it's not a defensive weapon.
It's a first strike weapon.
All right.
Conventional theory, Jeffrey, is that first strike What difference would it make?
In other words, they would hit us.
We would launch on warning.
We would certainly launch once we were aware there was a major launch that had been made from Russia.
And there would be a full exchange.
How do you read that differently?
Well, the first thing you do when you're going to attack a country with nuclear weapons is you blind its sensors.
Right.
You use particle beam weapons or lasers to blind the DSP satellites that watch for launches.
We have three of those.
Right.
Or you can attack the ground relay stations that carry the signals from the satellites.
And you can also use Spetsnaz commandos, which is standard Russian procedure.
You've talked to Colonel Stanislav Lunev.
I have, indeed.
He has stuff in that in his book, and I've talked to him about this, too.
They would put 7,000 Spetsnaz commandos in this country before they would attack, and their prime targets would be to blind our radars.
So that all we would know is that our radars weren't working, and that there was some kind of terrorism in the United States.
And we would not, so they would not launch so we would see it.
They would be sure to make sure we couldn't see it.
And all you have to do is create 30 minutes of confusion, and you can get the attack in.
Now, as far as us firing back at them, Russia has extensive underground shelters for their people.
So I have heard.
Hold on right where you are, Jeffrey.
It's going to be a long night with lots to say.
I'm Art Feldt.
Jeffrey, you said 30 minutes.
30 minutes of confusion and radar confusion and that's all they'd need.
The mushroom clouds would be rising in 30 minutes because that is the rough travel time from there to here, right?
Right.
And of course, you know, William Lee, a former official with the Defense Intelligence Agency, wrote a book that came out last summer called The ABM Charade.
And in that book, he documents that Russia has 10,000 to 12,000 ABMs ringing the country with 18 battle management radars.
I'm curious, what do we know about the probable effectiveness of their ABMs?
That's good.
I got to meet Lee in February in Washington.
I got a chance to talk to him about that.
Yes.
And the Russian interceptor missiles are not point-to-point, like our Star Wars concept, like the Patriots.
Yes.
What they have is they have two different kinds of warheads.
Actually, these interceptors can carry up to one megaton warheads.
And they have a kind of bomb that puts out x-ray radiation.
So in other words, in this case, what you're saying is close counts.
Yeah, they don't have to get that close.
In fact, what Lee told me was in exo-atmospheric detonation, these x-ray producing bombs have a very wide kill radius against incoming American warheads.
Even, presumably, hardened against some sort of EMP pulse, I would imagine our warheads would be, to some degree, hardened, wouldn't they?
Yeah, they would, but this is different than EMP.
This is x-ray radiation.
Okay.
And then once, he explained to me that once the warhead enters the atmosphere, you have to use a neutron warhead, which of course has to get considerably closer than the x-ray warhead would have to outside the atmosphere.
And they have both kinds of warheads, apparently, in their interceptors.
Great.
And they have how many of these ABMs ringing cities like Moscow?
Actually ringing their country.
They've got ten to twelve thousand.
Holy smokes.
Yeah, and you know how they got away with it?
This is the fascinating part.
They built these things and pawned them off as surface-to-air missiles.
Well, they are that.
Yeah, they are that.
And of course, there was actually a debate within the CIA as to whether these were ABMs or really SAMs.
And of course, being wishful thinkers, the party of the wishful thinkers won because the powers that be in the White House did not want a big flap over ABMs.
I hear you.
So, in other words, you're telling me they have a full anti-ballistic missile system... Yes, they have a Star Wars.
...in place around their whole countries.
Essentially, Star Wars.
Yeah, they do.
What would be the implications for them if they had to use these weapons?
Would there be implications?
In other words, would they be poisoning themselves?
No.
The bombs today are very clean burning.
They are not the dirty bombs that we had before.
Remember, fission bombs and fusion bombs are different.
Yes.
In a fusion bomb, most of the fuel is consumed.
There's not as many isotopes created.
If you airburst them, you don't even create a long-term fallout.
And, you know, the Australian government did a study on the effects of this long-term radiation and the hazard.
And they determined that in Australia, the long-term fallout problem would, yes, there would be some increase of cancers, but overall cancer would go down in Australia because the import of tobacco from the United States would be cut off by the war.
Oh God.
I know.
Well, do you remember on the beach?
I just re-read, it's funny you should mention, I just re-read on the beach, and of course the contention was, if there was a full nuclear exchange between North America and the Soviet Union, that Australia would for at least some period of time continue to exist, but slowly, The massive amount of radiation would be exchanged in the normal wind exchange between the northern and southern hemispheres and eventually they would be poisoned and die too.
Yeah, well thank goodness that's completely fiction.
There is no scientific evidence for it.
All the studies show that is untrue.
You know, it's funny.
One of the studies that I read Uh, about this.
It said that the amount of radioactive particles put out by a full-blown hydrogen bomb war in the northern hemisphere would be less than from the above-ground fission bomb tests in the 40s, 50s, and early 60s.
How could that be?
Because these bombs are just much cleaner burning.
Oh, I see, I see.
Yeah, they just don't... and of course, you know, the cancer rate did go up in the 50s and the 60s because... Well, don't they... don't they... don't they have, though, in their arsenal some very big, very dirty bombs?
Intentionally dirty.
Uh, I don't know.
You know, nobody knows for sure, but there'd be no reason for it.
You see, the purpose of war is to win, not to contaminate the environment.
Right.
I agree with you.
If war is possible, if MAD is no longer true, Mutual Assured Destruction, then you would of course be correct.
The only motivation for going to war of that sort would be To win and to have something left to eventually occupy and dominate.
Yeah.
Right?
Right.
Russian military theory is very clear on this.
Nuclear war is possible.
It is winnable.
It is not the end of the world.
And of course, they are scientifically correct.
There is no nuclear winter.
That's a complete... That theory has been done away with for more than a decade now.
If you keep up with the literature.
Uh, no serious scientist in that area would maintain it.
All right, then let's talk about, actually, worst case scenario.
Let's say that you were right.
Russia confused our radars.
Russia came from the south.
Russia came from submarines offshore.
And attacked us.
They would attempt to cut our head off.
To kill as many missiles in the ground as they could.
To take out our political leadership.
To take out as much infrastructure as they had to.
They would no doubt target some cities.
And then they would have to face, at the very least, the possibility of our submarines doing a full launch against them and whatever we could get
out of the ground would would go toward them so what would we be left with at
the end of the day over there and over here well there's no doubt that the
Russian Federation would would suffer serious damage but if you look at their
economy now it's seriously damaged already
Oh yes.
And the Russian planners, it seems from looking at the literature, would move the Russian population into Western Europe, and other places in Europe would resettle their population.
What would you expect, and I know you've thought about this kind of thing, in the kind of exchange we just talked about, We're no doubt they'd get a lot of our missiles in the ground, in surprise.
But we've still got part of the triad that would work.
How many people would die here?
How many people might die there?
What's likely?
Well, Edward Ludvac wrote about this in the late 70s and early 80s and he said that at most we would kill 11% of the Soviet population then.
I have seen figures as low as five to eight percent of their population would be killed.
That is if our missiles got through, if there was no interception of the missiles.
You know, figures run from that to killing a third of their population, but you got to remember their underground shelter system, a lot of these underground bunkers and nuclear-proof cities and towns are more than a thousand feet under the ground.
Not even the tunneling missiles that we have can reach them.
This kind of extensive preparation, which they've spent billions and billions on, really does give good protection to their people.
On our side, if they wanted to, they could kill 80-90% of our population if they went for the cities.
Would they?
Russian military doctrine does not seem to favor mass extermination.
In their military doctrine called unsalvageable populations, that's the term they use, it means that populations that are irredeemably bourgeois, that cannot be re-educated or reoriented to a socialist way of life.
And this is, of course, under the old Soviet period.
And, of course, if they determined that the population was unmanageable, that they couldn't occupy it or change its form of government, they would then go to exterminate.
Well I can tell you here in Nevada we'd be the first to go.
I mean we'd be right at the top of the list.
I'm sure.
So that's what could happen?
That's what easily could happen and like I've been following this for many years and they are preparing for this.
It is not... In fact, J. Michael Waller, writing in the Washington Times on the 15th of December,
if you go back and look, the first paragraph of his article says the most striking thing.
He says, Prime Minister Primakov of Russia and the other Russian leaders have been spending
much of their time and energy getting Russia ready for, of all things, global nuclear war.
That is astonishing.
So this, then, represents their capability, what they are capable of doing and preparing to do, in fact.
Yeah.
When I talked to Colonel Stanislav Lunev, I spoke together with him in February in Washington, and he made a very striking statement.
He said that in his 30-year career in the Soviet and Russian military, they were They were preparing the whole time for a future war against America.
Not a future war against China, not a future war against Western Europe, but a future war against America.
And he said when the Soviet Union collapsed and it became the Russian Federation, that did not change.
Now, there are those who would say, Lonov, and others like him, Are tools of the old guard right wing in America trying to scare the hell out of people.
And that this stuff is just being said so that we buy more weapons, bolster our military, feed the industrial complex that gets so happy when we start dropping bombs because then you gotta have new bombs and all the rest of it.
That's the accusation they would make, that it's propaganda.
I hope they're right.
I don't want to be right about this.
And of course, you know, we all make mistakes, you know, and I can get certain facts wrong, or I can, you know, and I'm glad when people correct me.
But there is so much here that, and I don't have an agenda, I don't work for the Pentagon or a big defense contractor.
I'm just a guy who's done all this research and follows it, and I would suggest your listeners, if they want to read the most recent stuff I've written, to go to Newsmax.com on the internet and look at my articles.
There's about eight of them there.
I've been writing intensively about this since January and February, and look at those and see that I have developed this pattern.
These are things that are happening, that have happened.
in the last several months, especially in the last four months,
Russia and China have allied themselves.
They are sharing all intelligence with each other.
They demilitarized their border last year.
Russia pulled 300 combat units off the Chinese border.
I am aware of that. The Chinese pulled a similar number off of the Russian border.
This is a tremendous, this is the biggest shift in the global balance of power since World War II.
When Kissinger went to China, China wasn't really a world power
in 1971.
China is a world power now.
And so these are very significant.
And for those who can't get on the internet, they can dial 1-800-NEWSMAX and they can get Chris Ruddy's news magazine, Vortex, and read the articles in there, especially the ones that Chris and I have done on this, that we did starting back in January.
And they can see how these events add up.
And also, at that number, 1-800-NEWSMAX, we have a video, one with Chris interviewing Colonel Lunev, and one with him interviewing me.
And they can ask for the Russia Y2K package, and they can get updated on all this.
All right.
For quite a while, we were blustering Clinton, NATO, Blustered with Milosevic.
Threatening airstrikes, threatening airstrikes, threatening airstrikes.
Didn't work.
The peacekeepers were not allowed in.
The airstrikes began, what, three weeks ago now?
Mm-hmm.
And were you surprised when they actually began the airstrikes?
Well, Uh, no, because there was talk of this last fall, and there was talk of this in the middle of February, so it was something that was always threatening to happen.
What surprised me, though, was that the Russian defense minister, when the bombing started, he came forward and he said, we have intelligence that NATO and the Americans are planning to send ground troops after these airstrikes.
And, you know, the Russian intelligence, I think, is the best in the world.
It's very interesting now that we're starting to hear about the insertion of ground troops.
Interesting, yes.
Yeah, it is like the Russians knew it all along.
Well, I think I knew it all along, too, and I think anybody familiar with how you win a war and, you know, they're calling this Strike on Kosovo.
Crisis in Kosovo.
They're full of you-know-what.
It's a war in Yugoslavia.
We're at war and we're about to back that up with ground troops.
Now, of course, that's what they're talking about now.
How many ground troops are we going to have to put in to win the war?
Well, the word is that it's 200,000.
Is the number that's being... Bandied about?
Yeah, bandied about.
200,000, that's about 18 divisions.
The United States Army currently has 10 divisions.
We have a division... Wait a minute, back up.
You said 200,000 is how many divisions?
It's about 18 divisions.
And the U.S.
Army has how many?
10 divisions.
Ten.
Yeah.
Now, the Marine Corps has a division and a half.
All right.
And, of course, they would have to call up reserves if they were going to send more.
Well, they are tonight, talking about reserves.
And, of course, this is a considerable call-up.
This would be a very significant one.
Now, the Russians have already had their call-up.
The Russians also, although I haven't read it in the press, if you follow the stories about the Russian naval maneuvers?
Yes.
The Marine Divisions that they're doing the amphibious maneuvers with are Reserve Marine Divisions.
Well, I heard that the Russians were, first I heard they were sending as many as seven ships.
Then I think I heard a Russian official say, no, just one to observe.
Yeah.
And I'm not exactly clear on what they're actually sending, are you?
No, and the Russians like to keep it that way.
They're going to probably send about 14 to 20 ships.
14 to 20.
Yeah, that's probably what they'll end up sending, by the way they're talking and by the way they're preparing their Black Sea forces.
Their Black Sea forces?
Uh, yeah.
That's where these ships are coming from.
Uh, Jeffrey, hold on.
We're at the top of the hour.
Give you a little perspective, um, electronic telegraph, dateline, Saturday, June 20th, 1998, in other words, almost a year ago, Alan Phillips filed the following from Moscow.
The Russian military issued a warning yesterday that NATO would provoke a new Cold War if it intervened in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo in the face of opposition from the Kremlin.
A senior general responsible for cooperation with the Western Alliance, Leonid Ivashov said, Uh, quote, Europe does not want to go back to where we were a few years ago, but someone is trying to push it there, and it is not Russia.
End quote.
Uh, that was their attitude about a year ago, uh, Jeffrey.
Yeah, you know what's interesting is, is as a matter of good strategy, you don't want to strengthen your opposition.
And, uh, the communists in the Duma have been incredibly strengthened by the bombing in Serbia.
They did a poll last week in Russia, and this was in the Dow Jones Newswire, April 8th, and it said that the Russian Communists would sweep aside all opponents in both parliamentary and presidential elections now since the bombing in Serbia.
Well, I know that certainly they're lining up now behind President Milosevic, even his potential Opposition factions have been forced to get behind him in a wave of nationalism as the bombs have been raining down.
Yes, and in Russia too.
Even those liberals in Russia who are critics of Milosevic, they are lining up as well behind the bandwagon.
Yes.
In fact, a poll was done that determined two-thirds of the Russian people believe that Russia will be attacked by NATO next.
Oh my God.
Yeah.
In fact, a week ago Thursday, there was a big march in Russia, in Moscow, and the banners that were being carried called for all-out war on NATO, and the scariest banner that was carried by the marchers said, it's time to start bombing the military bases in the United States.
I think the last time you were on this program, you said something that shocked a lot of people.
Again, let's go over it.
Launch on warning means if our northern defense network of radar were to detect a massive launch coming from Russia, it would, on warning, turn the keys and we would launch our missiles, causing a full exchange.
And I've got a little fax here reminding me, David, in Salinas, California, that our president apparently has done away with Launch on warning.
In other words, and what that means is, that before we would launch anything, a nuclear detonation would have to occur on the U.S.
mainland.
Yes?
Yes, uh, that's right.
We have ground sensors to detect the nuclear hits on our territory, and the rule now is, from a presidential directive decision, that we will not launch our rockets until our ground sensors have detected this.
Now, to be fair to the President, I think that this was anticipating the Y2K problem.
Because of the possible failure of early warning systems this year, we don't want to trigger an accidental nuclear war.
And the only surefire way of knowing for sure you've been hit is to register with those ground sensors.
The thing that is most disturbing, though, is the permissive action links on the submarines.
And I haven't been able to confirm this, but I've been told by various sources That Clinton has taken the capability of independently launching the missiles from the submarines.
I'm well aware of that, yes.
Yeah, and they're called PALs, or permissive action links, so that the president has to send the code to the submarine commander, and of course if you enter the wrong code in to arm the missile, it will dump the warhead.
So you have to have the right code.
In order to launch.
Alright, I'm going to read you a critical fax.
Most I'm getting are supportive of you, but in order to elicit a response, I'm going to read you a very critical one, alright?
Your guest Art should change his medication.
I have yet to hear one good reason why Russia would start a nuclear war or attack the U.S.
in any way.
Russia exists only because of aid, particularly food, from the U.S.
The U.S.
economy drives much of the world's economy.
Our purchases of oil and other products support The Persian Gulf, South America, Asia, our food is sent to Asia, Europe, and Africa.
Can a nuclear war happen?
Sure.
Will it happen?
Maybe.
Will it be because Russia attacks the U.S.?
Not freaking likely.
That's Bud in San Diego.
Um, you know, with all due respect to Bud, uh, I'm afraid that, uh, the Russian leaders talk of war and our leaders talk of money.
His attitude is the same arrogance that we see in Clinton.
That because Russia has no money, that we can insult them, we can attack their ally, we can call their diplomacy into question, we can make their leaders look totally ineffectual to the world.
I mean, Russia defeated Hitler while they were starving.
They have won a number of wars Well, they were very poor and starving, and they can fight World War III the same way.
Let's, for a second, even though I don't believe that you can separate Russian involvement with what apparently lies ahead, let's just say we send 200 troops, 200,000 troops, into Yugoslavia, and we intensify the bombing campaign, double it, triple it, quadruple it, whatever we're gonna do.
What do we face when our troops hit the ground In Yugoslavia, what do we face if, even if we don't face something from Russia, what kind of war is going to be occurring?
Well, let's look at history.
The World War I was started when the Austro-Hungarian Empire attacked Serbia.
Russia mobilized and the end result was the Austro-Hungarian Empire ceased to exist after the end of that war.
That was the primary country that attacked Serbia.
Now, in World War II, Nazi Germany attacked Yugoslavia, Serbia, and at the end of that war, not only did the Serbs, without the help of any Allied forces, liberate their country themselves and kill some huge number of Germans, I forget whether it's 500,000 or a million Germans, or Axis troops, but Germany itself was totally leveled.
I mean, Serbia has been on the winning side in most of the wars in this century, in all the wars in this century.
They're tough fighters.
They're very tough fighters.
The terrain is very difficult.
They are famous fighters, in fact.
And they are seasoned fighters because there has been civil war in that country for the last several years.
Sir, we have been bombing the hell out of them.
It is our position I saw President Clinton earlier today saying we are now beginning to dilapidate their air defenses, their ability to wage warrants and so on.
I see other newspaper articles that say the anti-aircraft capability of the Serbs is largely, almost completely intact.
Yes?
No?
Well, that's hard to determine.
The Russians undoubtedly We'll be sending them new anti-aircraft missiles and equipment.
Oh, oh, oh, yes!
By the way, I'm hearing rumors of a meeting between Russia and Yugoslavia.
Yes.
What can you tell me?
Are you hearing that?
Yes, well, in fact, there have been a number of AP stories about it.
What it's about is that Alexander Lukashenko, the president of Belarus, has suggested this, and there's been talk about it in Russia.
In fact, on Friday, Mr. Seleznyov, the speaker of the Russian Duma, actually said it was going to happen, although Boris Yeltsin came back and said it wasn't.
It was just being talked about.
This idea of a union of a new giant country being formed that consists of the Russian Federation, Belarus, and Yugoslavia.
In fact, just the other day, the Yugoslav Parliament, both houses, drafted an application to join the Russian Federation, this
new union with Belarus.
Now, we've got Yeltsin who probably does oppose this, but I think the valid then question,
the question then is, A, how long Yeltsin is going to be there? B, as we escalate what we're
doing in Yugoslavia, how much opposition to Yeltsin is going to build and how much that will
shorten his life, political or real? Well, there's this impeachment
uh... which is uh... of yeltsin which is coming up on the april fifteenth yes
that's a bad timing for nato to be hitting you up you'll go for a ride
um... when yeltsin made a speech last week earlier last week saying that the
russians are a cool it on their anti-americanism in their war hysteria
uh... mister zyuganov the head of the communist party in russia i said hey boris you don't get it
You know, if you talk like this, we're just going to get rid of you on April 15th.
And I'm not sure what the process is.
It's not clear to me.
But since Yeltsin made a very tough speech on Friday, they're starting to say, OK, well, maybe we'll let Yeltsin stay.
And we won't go after him on the 15th after all.
So you see the kind of politics that's being played within Russia.
What do you think really is happening?
In other words, you can conclude that yes, Yeltsin has warded this off successfully, or that you could also conclude, with the talk now of ground troops going into Yugoslavia, That the communists are going to harden their position and maybe even try something drastic.
Well, right now the communists would sweep in a presidential election.
This was what the Dow Jones Newswire April 8th story showed with the big poll that was conducted in Russia last week.
And they would sweep the parliamentary elections.
I mean, in December the doom is going to come up for an election.
And of course, if Yeltsin is removed by impeachment this month or next month, and they have presidential elections, you know you're going to get a hardliner in there.
You bet.
Another subject, I'm jumping all around, but I have so many questions.
At the beginning of the war with Yugoslavia, and I do call it a war, we There were reports that we used some kind of EMP non-nuclear weapon.
What do you know of anything?
Well, it's the hottest area of weapon development.
I think I touched on it when I was on your show in July.
There is a new kind of ...of weapon, new kinds of bombs, that basically when they go off, they fly all the electronics within a certain radius.
Right.
And, you know, we all know about the large bombs, the big nuclear ones that are blown up up in the atmosphere that can fly the electronics in a whole continent.
You bet.
But these are more localized.
These are smaller, they're conventional, they do put out radiation.
Uh, and that's how the Russians have detected it.
The Russians... Yeah, I was sitting here trying to figure out how that could have been done without the detection of radiation, and the answer is it couldn't, right?
Right.
They... The Russians' defense ministry says they found radiation, and that it is from... It is the kind of radiation that would be created by these kind of bombs.
That there have been certain electronic infrastructures fried in Yugoslavia.
Correct.
And therefore they have deduced and are claiming, in fact, that we have used this new unconventional weapon against the Serbs.
And you know, this is really more bad strategy, okay?
Not only is the President empowering the Communists, who we do not want to empower over there by this bombing, but he is also Uh, he is also, by using a weapon like this, opening ourselves up to this same thing in return.
Non-conventional.
Which society, which society here is more vulnerable to electromagnetic attack?
Theirs or ours?
Who is more computer dependent?
Who is more electronic?
Who would be hurt more by this?
Us or them?
This is bad strategy.
You do not want to start this game.
Yeah, I don't even want to dignify that one with an answer.
It's obvious.
Yeah.
It's obvious.
We are so dependent.
We could be hurt so badly.
And as you pointed out, even if you move one step more into a high altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon, you could literally You could wipe out an entire continent worth of electronics, computers.
Yeah.
And even if Y2K doesn't do it, that certainly would.
Alright, we will get to the phones shortly.
Hold on, Jeff.
Jeffrey Nyquist is my guest.
And in a moment, when we come back, I'm going to ask Jeff about what the President thought he was doing when he began all of this.
Because you will recall, he said, we will do this from the air.
We will not, uh, introduce ground troops.
Good morning.
I'm Art Bell.
Jeffrey Nyquist is here.
Jeffrey, a couple of quick ones.
One, uh, there are a multitude of reports that our president was advised heavily by those who advise presidents, national security advisors and military people generals and so forth, that, um, A near-war campaign in Yugoslavia would not do the job, and that he went ahead with this strategy anyway.
Any input on that?
Yeah, that's true.
The stories have been out that first the CIA warned the President that this was a no-win kind of situation.
Then the military itself told him that they really didn't want to do this, they didn't think it would be successful.
But the Secretary of State thought it would, and of course she sports herself as an expert in this part of the world, and the Russians were about to ask for this large sum of money to be released that the IMF had promised I asked him last summer, which I think was around 17 billion dollars, which is quite a sum, and Primakov was in fact on his way to the United States in a plane before the bombing started to request this money.
And he had to turn the plane around and go back to Russia empty handed.
And of course I think the calculation was, and it's been speculated, that the President thought That the Russians didn't dare say anything about this if they wanted the 17 billion dollars.
But the reaction was not what Clinton had expected because Russians are not Americans.
When Primakov came back empty-handed, one of the leading Russian dailies said, Mr. Primakov is coming back without the money, but with authority.
And it was very popular in Russia what he did.
All right, from Joe in Philadelphia, a couple of questions that I agree with.
One, Joe says, I believe that our country's push-button mentality has reduced a lot of the population to that.
of armchair warriors, similar to those beer-drinking kick-butt bullies who are not interested so much in justice, but rather blood.
I think that if our mainland were ever to get a taste of what there's being... we are, in fact, dishing out now in Kosovo, we'd realize the reality of war and regret what we're doing to date.
Most Americans' experience with war is limited to TV images on CNN.
You agree with that?
Yes, I do.
I am about the most anti-war person you could talk to because I've studied it and it's very ugly.
There's nothing positive in war.
It is a tragedy.
We have to fight wars to defend ourselves.
That brings me to my second question.
I was always under the impression that NATO ...was an alliance which was organized for the purpose of coordinating a multinational defense to protect against attack against any one of the member nations.
In view of that fact, what, in fact, is the authority under which NATO now switches its charter to defend, to offensively invade a sovereign nation?
It is ironic that NATO is taking the very type of offensive action Which it is, by its own charter, designed to protect against.
It is also ironic that we are supposedly taking this action to ensure European stability.
However, it appears our actions are having the opposite effect.
Therefore, on this basis alone, should we not stop now, rather than risk a world war?
Yes, well, if 200 million people die in a nuclear exchange because this thing gets out of hand, the whole idea of preventing a humanitarian catastrophe will have been lost in the shuffle.
Talk to me a little bit about propaganda.
I've been trying to talk to my audience about this the last few days now.
The Serbs are sure as hell no angels, Milosevic no angel.
I imagine there are probably some mass graves.
There has been some genocide that has gone on.
It's a civil war going on there, virtually a civil war, and there's a lot of killing going on.
I'm sure all of that is true, but do you think, Jeffrey, that all of the stories we're hearing now about the mass genocide That is accurate.
I noted that the stream of refugees, the hundreds of thousands of refugees, did not really begin until after our bombing.
Yeah, you know what, a good sign that you're hearing propaganda is when certain words are being misused.
And the word genocide is being cheapened in a most dishonest way.
Genocide means an attempt to exterminate a whole people.
You know, you could apply that to the two million who died in Cambodia by the hands of the Khmer Rouge.
You can talk about Hitler's persecution of the Jews as genocide.
You can talk about what the United States Cavalry did to the Indians as genocide.
But you cannot say that when 2,000 people die over the course of a year, That it's genocide.
And that is what the figure is for this area of the world over the last year.
In that case, I want to know when we're going to start bombing China for Tiananmen Square.
Because more than 2,000 people there died in one day.
It's a very good point.
A very good point.
And all I've heard them talk about so far was possibly Hundreds of people in mass graves.
And of course, that is horrible.
But as you point out, a couple of thousand died in Tiananmen Square.
God knows how many died in Cambodia, Africa, a half million macheted to death and so forth and so on.
All right, Jeffrey, I would like to open the lines and let the people ask you some questions or give you some comments and let you respond.
How about that?
Sounds great.
Here it comes.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Jeffrey Nyquist.
Hi.
Hi.
Joan in Menlo Park.
Yes, several months ago, Art had a guest, Joel Spooson, who spoke about a plan, which he had heard about.
It was associated with the FBI for A long-standing plan for an alliance between the Muslim world, the Chinese, and the several financial or economic powers in socialist powers in Europe.
And the plan was also involved people high up in the United States, including perhaps Clinton.
and several other people perhaps in the DIA or NSA or FBI but carefully placed.
This plan involved provoking a war with Russia so that the United States military would try to destroy the Russian
militarily and then the Russians would try and destroy us and we would
wipe each other out essentially and allow a complete change in the balance of power.
change in the balance of power. And it looks to me that this is exactly what he was predicting.
And it looks to me that this is exactly what he was predicting.
This is actually, this was not started by Russia. This was not what we're not reacting to Russia.
This is actually, this was not started by Russia.
This was not, what we're not reacting to Russia.
This was started by NATO and the United States. And it looks like the aim of this war is not
This was started by NATO and the United States and it looks like the aim of this war is not liberating Kosovo.
liberating Kosovo. It is not to attack Serbia. It is not to save any European powers that are
It is not to attack Serbia.
It is not to save any European powers that are members of NATO.
members of NATO. It is simply to provoke Russia into a war.
It is simply to provoke Russia into a war.
The United States and NATO, the socialist leaders of NATO are trying to provoke Russia into
a war with the United States. And not only will we be wiped out militarily, and so will they
probably, but our civilian populations will suffer millions and millions of casualties. And I
think people think that this is, maybe we're bungling our way into this war, or that Clinton isn't very
smart, or, but this was planned.
Clinton knows what he's doing. This is not a mistake. It's not bungling on the part of
NATO leaders. All right, Jeffrey, what are our objectives with this?
I'm not clear about what our entrance strategy was.
I'm not clear about what our goals are.
And I'm sure as hell not clear about what our exit strategy is going to be.
I don't know about any of that stuff.
Do you?
Yeah, I do.
It's been pretty clearly stated.
You quoted H.L.
Mencken earlier.
I did.
And he's one of my favorite writers.
My favorite quote from H.L.
Mencken is, no good deed goes unpunished.
That's right.
And I think that there are two things we're doing here.
First, we're trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.
This has been stated in all the capitals in Western Europe.
Two, we are attempting to find something for NATO to do since the Soviet Union has collapsed.
Okay, those are the two things at work here.
Unfortunately, my personal belief, of course, is that the Soviet collapse is deceptive and is not what it appears to be.
That the old oligarchy is still in place, they are still preparing for war, and they have merely reorganized their war machine.
And right now, this crisis is serving to mobilize the Russian army for them to rebuild that part of their military that has gone sour.
Well, I can guarantee you this.
I was there, and I know for a fact The old Russia is absolutely still there.
The old Soviet Union mentality among the Russian civil servants, government workers, everybody down below Yeltsin that I can think of, it's all still there.
I saw it.
I heard it.
It's the truth.
Yeah.
Yeah, and that's what Colonel Lunev says, too.
And see, the thing that's dangerous about this is that the great advantage we had during the Cold War is the Russian people did not believe their leaders in Moscow.
They were skeptical of the anti-American propaganda.
They wanted blue jeans, they wanted coke, they wanted to live like Americans.
And this really made it impossible for the Soviet Union to proceed with any kind of aggression.
We are, we are demonstrating the aggressiveness of the NATO alliance by attacking an ally of Russia and in fact Izvestia has said, the liberal, now liberal newspaper in Russia, Izvestia, has said that this Attack is a golden gift to the communists in Russia, in the Duma.
Shouldn't we change the acronym for NATO to North American Tactical Organization or, I don't know, something other than what it is?
Because obviously it is now, as this Faxer pointed out, it is certainly not within the charter of NATO to be doing what they're doing right now, not even close.
No, it's against the NATO charter.
What will come of this crisis, I believe, is the disintegration of NATO.
If we put ground troops in there, the result will be that NATO will break apart and America will be asked, first by the Germans, then by the Italians and the others, to pack our bags and leave Europe.
And the European Union will take over the security arrangements for Europe and Europe will become neutral vis-à-vis Russia and America.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jeffrey Nyquist.
Hi.
Good morning, Art.
I was going to ask your guest... OK, speak up good and loud, please.
Is this better?
That's better.
Right into the phone, it projects.
All right.
That's the way.
I was just wondering, in the event that NATO were to send in ground troops and, say, a Russian-Chinese consortium were to start moving Do you have any general idea of where they would branch out towards first?
Where, who would branch out?
Well, he's saying if some sort of Russian-Chinese alliance would begin to move, where they would begin to move and how they would move.
Yes, the Far East.
You know, it's interesting, the bombing began on the 24th of March.
On the 23rd of March, a mysterious naval incident occurred off of Japan.
And I know Art read the story and he probably didn't believe that Japan was the one involved, but this came from the Sankai newspaper in Japan.
That this mystery ship incident involving Korean ships entering Japanese waters was a diversion.
Oh yes.
And that diversion was so that on the Pacific side of Japan, the North Koreans could land dozens of their Spetsnaz commandos Who were trained in sabotage of trains, telephone exchanges, and military facilities into Japan and that they had dispersed throughout Japan.
This was a story that Sankai put out, and there's been some confirmation since that that happened, because some of the news is that some of these have been arrested, that they've caught some of these North Korean commandos.
Now, when a country as rabid as North Korea starts deploying large numbers of commandos into countries like Japan, and when the North Korean military's already mobilized, and North Korea has been saying war is imminent, Oh, I know, I know, I know.
In fact, in fact, in earlier this year, the North Koreans said that this year, the United States will be turned to ash, and the American people will be wiped from the face of this planet for good.
And they told their people in their New Year's message this year to study the arts of war, to love rifles, and make North Korea into an impregnable fortress.
Jeffrey, just a logistical question.
If we were to send, let's say we sent 200,000 American troops to Yugoslavia.
Now, suppose that hostilities broke out in, oh let's say, Korea.
Let's say the Koreans came south.
What would we be capable, logistically, of doing to prevent that?
We would be very hard put.
You gotta remember that we're pinned down in the Middle East because in January Saddam Hussein mobilized.
Right.
Okay, put the pressure on Kuwait.
North Korea mobilized its military in December.
That's putting the pressure on there.
China has been mobilizing opposite Taiwan.
And has invaded the Spratly Islands and has been building bases there.
Correct.
And has built 100 to 150 new missiles opposite Taiwan to bombard it in the event of war.
And so you have this huge circle.
And not only that, but the Russian-backed general in Afghanistan is advancing on Kabul now.
And you've got Russia and China have now brought India into their alliance, have brought Iran into their alliance, and of course Syria and Iraq are there already.
So you have this massive, massive frontal block of countries ready to move.
And right now we're down from 37 Air Force wings to 13.
Our Navy has gone from 541 ships down to 339.
Our Navy has gone from 541 ships down to 339.
We're down to 10 divisions in our Army.
And unless we have a major mobilization in the next weeks, we would be absolutely flat-footed.
We could not prevail on all those fronts.
We would have to lose on, I would say, two out of three of them, but that may be debatable.
I've heard that even now our military services have dropped, for the first time in recent memory, the requirement that you have a high school education to get into the military.
In other words, they cannot get enough people to volunteer.
So the standards have been dropped.
Yes.
Can you confirm that?
Yes, there are shortages of pilots coming up.
The ships are going to sea with not quite as many crew members as they ought to have.
The infantry formations are not completely filled up in our army.
Then is it not possible that if we were faced with Two or three theaters of operation, or more bluntly, put war, we would have to go back to the draft, wouldn't we?
Yes, we would have to call up people with a draft, that's true, if we wanted to have the manpower that we needed.
Because, you know, unlike the Russians, who are volunteering to fight in Yugoslavia by the tens of thousands, no Americans are rushing to volunteer to fight this war.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jeffrey Nyquist.
Hi.
Good evening, gentlemen.
You are putting on one of the best shows I've ever heard.
This is Marion from KBC in Pasadena.
Yes, sir.
One of the other callers had asked you about, or spoken something about Joel Skousen, and it would be excellent if you could have him back on.
But I would just like to pose a question to you both.
Doesn't it seem like, I believe that everything that you're saying is true.
I've been following it myself.
I've been reading.
Doesn't it seem like we are witnessing the death of a nation?
You mean ours?
Oh, yes.
Jeffrey?
The death of a nation.
Well, I don't think we're dead yet.
We're in a serious crisis of leadership.
We've got a president who does not understand foreign policy.
I mean, let me quote Eugene McCarthy, my favorite liberal.
He said that these people don't know anything about other countries and they never learn.
And he said, this administration is born yesterday, every day of the week.
And you know what?
I love Eugene McCarthy.
He's a very smart guy.
Yes.
Born yesterday, every day of the week.
Yes.
What do you believe that our president will do, faced with the realization that the air war is not working?
Do you think it inevitable he will go along with and prove Of ground troops?
Well, if Russia accepted, yes.
Well, even Russian intelligence aside, our president's past record of saying one thing and then later doing another, that alone doesn't require KGB credentials to discern.
Alright, Jeffrey, hold on.
We are at the top of the hour.
And we will continue with Jeffrey Nyquist.
If you want to understand each discard what you refuse to believe, we will nevertheless present it because this is Coast to Coast AM.
As I said in my statement April 1st, the world is not a nice place.
It is not a safe place and our bombs will not make it so.
From the very beginning, in fact the genesis of this whole thing, I have been doggedly opposed to it.
Rapidly opposed to it.
And you can expect me to remain so for as long as they let me do it.
Once again, Jeffrey Nyquist.
Jeffrey, are you there?
Yes, I'm right here.
Okay.
Lots and lots of people would like to talk to you, so let us continue in that vein and kind of get an idea of generally what's out there.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Jeff Nyquist and Art Belheim.
Hello.
Hello?
Yes, sir.
Hi, Art.
My name is Dale, and I'm listening to you on KFYI in Phoenix.
In Phoenix.
Hi, Dale.
How are you doing?
All right.
My question is for Jeffrey.
I was wondering, sir, have you heard of the Air Expeditionary Force?
The Air Expeditionary Force?
Yes, sir.
Which one is that?
Well, it's going to be kind of hard to explain.
After Desert Storm, the Air Force decided to quickly mobilize its troops and equipment That it didn't need to send people and equipment from different bases all across the United States.
Well, let me fill in.
I know, for example, that we store equipment No sir, this is completely different.
Obviously we have stuff stored over in the Middle East.
so that we can simply mobilize troops and their armor awaits them so we can attack Iraq if we have to.
Is that what you were talking about?
No sir, this is completely different. Obviously we have stuff stored over in the Middle East.
Then what are you referring to?
Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho was the first air expeditionary force.
Which did what?
What is its mission?
It's a combination of fighters, bombers, and tankers.
So if they have to go somewhere real quick, they can call up that base and send everything they need to that base.
Oh, I see.
I see.
What I'm getting at is that's why, that's the main reason why the Air Force has dropped from roughly 35 wings to 13 wings.
Do you think 13 wings is a safe level in view of what we are endeavoring to do and what may be on the horizon?
Oh, yes, sir.
I do believe that.
If you can bear with me for a moment, I can give you a little bit of background on myself.
That's not necessary.
I don't need to know about you.
Oh, well, I've been a bomb loader in the Air Force for 14 years.
I understand.
But you're saying 13 is sufficient?
Oh, yes, sir.
Jeffrey, do you take on board?
Yes I do.
What he's saying is correct if we are massing our forces against one point that is threatened, but if we are pressed on multiple points and we do not have the reserves It doesn't matter how quick we are.
What are we going to do?
Move suddenly from our bases in Italy over to South Korea and then back to the Middle East and then back to Italy?
Is this force that super that it can fight three wars simultaneously because it's so fast?
I don't think so.
I don't think so either and I think the testimony in Congress recently suggested that was in fact the case, caller.
Well, from my personal experience, I believe that we can handle at least three conflicts at one time.
Our own military certainly doesn't think so, and they testify to that effect.
That's right.
Well, I'm just talking from the Air Force, you know.
I can't comment on the other services because I have no common frame of reference for those services.
I'm talking on an Air Force example.
I see.
I appreciate the call, but the wars, if they should erupt, As you can now see in Yugoslavia, the air campaign is not doing the trick.
And they're preparing to have ground forces go in.
That would mean armor.
That would mean grunts with guns.
That would mean all kinds of things.
That's what you really have to have.
You have to have all kinds of forces that complement each other.
Ground, air, and in some cases, of course, naval as well.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Jeffrey Nyquist.
Hi.
Hi, good morning.
Jeffrey, if President Clinton went against the CIA's advice and his military advisor's advice, and then turned NATO from a defensive force into an attacking force, then it's obviously Mr. Clinton calling the shots.
And when you look at the characters who are behind this whole situation, You get Schroeder from Germany, a little bit to the left, I'd say.
You get Blair Way to the left, and Clinton himself.
And these people have embraced the ideology of a thing called the Third Way, which is, to me, nothing more than a socialist, fascist thing.
And my point here being, there's a couple of things, but one of them is, no one wants to talk about The New World Order, because people will look at you like you're a kook, or they want to talk about conspiracy.
Do you think that this is a huge movement by the New World Order, or maybe a faction of it?
Their credo always seems to be chaos, out of chaos, order.
And I think we're seeing that.
And I don't want to sound like a nut, because for years I kind of thought that they were those people who would talk
about things like this but now it seems to me this is the only scenario that fits here.
Okay just before you comment uh Jeffrey I have said that I consider this to be the first giant step
in fact of the new world order what do you think? Um I would call it the first giant misstep of a
bunch of people who think money you know uh... alexander sold any considered best
He said there's this money mob that runs the West, and there's this Communist Party mob that runs the East.
Both of them are materialistic, they are godless, they are cynical, and on the American side, you know, Americans should take a very close look at themselves, because it's not just their leaders.
There is a tremendous arrogance that Americans project, and we're not aware of it, we're not conscious of it, and we don't realize how it comes across to those people over there.
And you know what?
Think about in your own life, when someone behaves arrogantly to you, how exasperating it is, how angry it makes you.
And try to understand what the Russians are feeling right now, being told, you don't have any money, so you don't matter, and we'll cut you off if you make a peep, and we're going to bomb your brothers over here in Serbia.
I mean, that is so nasty.
And then to say, for us to then say, ho ho ho, they can't do anything to us.
They have thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us, I have no doubt, right now.
Right now, the Russian Northern Fleet has more ballistic missile submarines in it than the entire United States Navy.
Which has 18.
They have 22 in that one fleet.
Russia has 42 total.
I mean, we are not the only Superpower in this world and we better learned to respect other people before we go around Talking about war well since the supposed end of a Cold War that has been the political line that we are the last surviving superpower in the world But it really just ain't so is no and as soon as the Russians fill up their divisions They'll have a hundred divisions to our ten and
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jeffrey Nyquist.
Where are you, please?
Yeah, I'm right here.
I'm John from New York.
Hi, John.
And I'd like to explore something here.
You know, the first night of the war, NBC News Tom Brokaw covered the secret weapon.
I don't know if you saw that piece or not.
The EMP weapon?
Well, was it an EMP weapon?
This is what I'm wondering.
Did you see the news thing or not?
Well, I recall This was, I believe, a couple of days into the bombing.
I did see an explosion on CNN that I talked about quite a bit that night.
One that lit up the entire sky.
It lit up rivers and geography way into the camera shot.
You know, far away from the explosion itself.
And then there was an obvious mushroom cloud.
It obviously was not a nuclear detonation, but it sure as hell looked like one.
The NBC report showed a command control center, whose it was I don't know, but I guess it was theirs, I don't know, and it said we momentarily interrupted power.
Now I would assume a command control center would not be on the power grid, that they would have their own power.
Right.
It also showed a SAM site, a mobile SAM site.
Right.
I'm wondering, you know, for one thing, is this the same thing, you know, you get reports when a UFO goes over a car, the car lights go out, the car shuts off.
That's actually a pretty good observation.
UFO is gone, car starts up.
Yep.
If it's an EMP pulse, that car is not going to start again.
Well, it's going to depend.
It's going to wipe out the electronics, no doubt.
Well, Art is right.
It does depend.
Sometimes with a car, depending on the year of the car, it will just knock the motor out and then you can restart it.
Right, if it doesn't have the electronics.
Right, if it doesn't have a computerized ignition.
Right.
Here is an article in May.
Popular Mechanics.
Well, not an article, but a little news thing.
Page 22.
And catch this.
A dynamite generator, a novel generator developed by the Russian Institute of Chemical Physics, can produce the equivalent of one billion watts of power, but only for one millionth of a second.
The trick to the generator's high output is its two pounds of high explosive.
Now catch this one.
The Air Force, our Air Force, has purchased three of the generators.
They're 18 inches, like a pipe, 18 inches long, 5 inch diameter, and for testing in
its missile defense program.
Now was it a Russian weapon we used?
No, I don't think so.
No.
I think you're on the right track with the nature of the weapon, but I think it was our
own, Jeff.
Yeah, we were actually surprised a year or two ago when we found out that the Russians
were right up there with us in the development of these weapons.
And I think that there's been some exchanges, obviously, between the U.S.
and America in technology and, you know, they want what we have and we want what they are working on, so then we can peek at yours if you let us peek at ours.
You know?
Do you have any idea, Jeffrey, how conventional weapons or explosives can be used or the energy can be converted to create an electromagnetic pulse that would leave traces of radiation?
I haven't got that one worked out in my mind.
Obviously, they can do it, but how?
I don't know either.
I'm not a physicist, so I don't understand.
I've had certain bombs explained to me, but that one has never been explained to me.
I doubt it will either.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jeffrey Nyquist and Art Bell.
Good morning.
Good morning, gentlemen.
Where are you, sir?
I'm actually on the West Coast, the actual location.
I'd like to kind of keep to myself.
That's fine.
Get good and close to your phone.
You're a little hard to hear.
I'm terribly sorry.
A couple of things I'd like to point out.
Number one, we already do have actual ground troops in the area.
These are the gentlemen that are risking their lives to paint these targets we're so lovingly seeing splashed all across CNN.
Absolutely.
Having been one of those individuals and worked within that community for quite some time, I'd rather first-hand understand and actually deal with their knowledge of the things that they're going through right now.
When we do send troops over, we'll be a bloodbath.
I think we all agree on that.
My question, Mr. Nyquist, is this.
The recent pact between the Soviet Union And China, we know that China now has our missile technology.
Yes.
How long do you feel before we see repercussions from that?
I think we already have.
The Chinese stole the W88 warhead.
They think they stole the neutron bomb.
They think they stole technology to be able to merve their warheads, so instead of having 24 ICBMs with 24 warheads,
they could have 24 ICBMs with 240 warheads.
And I believe that this is already, within weeks or months, we're going to see these things coming on the line
with the Chinese Navy and with their missiles.
Uh, have you, uh, been to Newsmax and read my articles?
Uh, no sir.
Okay.
Alright, let me, uh, give you an opportunity to promo Newsmax.
I think we probably got a, uh, a link to it on our website right now.
Good.
Which would help people.
If not, Keith, if you would please.
Yeah.
How do they get, it's Newsmax.com?
Yeah, it's Newsmax, www.newsmax.com, and they can explore the site.
And my name is there on the left-hand column with all the articles I've done.
And then Chris Ruddy has done some articles.
And for those who can't get on Newsmax, we have a magazine that comes out every month.
It's called Vortex, and they can call 1-800-NEWSMAX.
That's 1-800-NEWSMAX.
And they can ask for the Vortex magazine, they can ask for the Russia Y2K package, in which there's a video that I appear in, and there's a video also with Colonel Lunef.
Alright, that's 1-800-NEWSMAX.
Do you have the numbers for that, Jeffrey?
Well, I can look at my phone.
1-800-639-7622.
I'm going to give you the numbers.
1-800-639-7622.
I'm going to give you the numbers.
1-800-639-7622.
I'm going to give you the numbers.
1-800-639-7622.
I'm going to give you the numbers.
1-800-639-7622.
I'm going to give you the numbers.
1-800-639-7622.
I'm going to give you the numbers.
1-800-639-7622.
I'm going to give you the numbers.
1-800-639-7622.
I'm going to give you the numbers.
1-800-639-7622.
I'm going to give you the numbers.
1-800-639-7622.
I'm going to give you the numbers.
Caller, anything else?
Actually, I had a little humorous note for you specifically, Art.
Okay.
I had a memo come across my desk today from one of my gentlemen that does Intel work for me, and he had written across it in bold letters, well, we keep secret tomorrow, or tonight, Art talks about tomorrow.
So you may consider that a little bit of humor or a compliment, depending on how you want to look at it.
First time caller line, you're on the air with Jeff Nyquist.
Hi.
Hello.
Hello there.
And how are you, Mr. Bell?
Reasonably well.
Where are you?
I'm in Wisconsin.
My name's Roy.
Okay.
Mr. Nyquist, I am taking a look at your website right now, and I'm seeing you're saying from Sun Tzu, where all warfare is based on deception.
And can you hear me?
Yes.
Okay.
And I was just wondering, I don't know if y'all have brought this up, but when I was looking at this, I was just wondering how much that is going on over there in the Kosovo and that right now could possibly be to delay our attention away from Saddam so he could possibly do something to us instead.
Okay.
Jeffrey?
Uh, yeah.
You know, the Russians developed this concept called reflexive control.
It was actually developed by a Russian military mathematician, a psychological mathematician named Vladimir Lefebvre.
Reflexive control.
Reflexive control.
And what it is, is that you see reality through the eyes of your enemy.
You look at what fact he believes are true, and then you decide what, if this happens, what decision would he arrive at.
Oh, I see.
It's another kind of, it's another way of playing a kind of a war game.
Hold on, Jeff.
We're at the bottom of the hour.
Words of love, but acts of war.
I'm Art Bell.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
Words of love, so soft and tender, oh, when a girl smiles...
First time caller aligned, you're on the air with Jeffrey Nyquist and Art Bellah.
Hi.
Hello?
Is that our bell?
Yes, it is.
Turn your radio off.
It's off.
Okay, go ahead.
Um, this is Mary in Houston.
Yes, Mary.
And Jeffrey, I have a question for you.
Um, I have just heard this once, but the other day on television, I did hear that when NATO expanded, they included a new clause In the NATO agreement that gave us the power to go in and create war or anything else we wanted to do.
Jeffrey?
I have never heard of this at any other time.
All right.
All right, ma'am.
Hold on.
Jeffrey?
Yeah.
No.
In fact, in the Partners for Peace program that NATO had with Russia, The negotiations were that if Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary entered NATO, that certain assurances were given to the Russians that NATO would not be used as an aggressive alliance against Russia or its allies.
And of course, what happens ten days or so after these countries enter NATO, what happens?
NATO attacks Russia's ally, Serbia.
I don't know if you missed NBC's translation here last week of what Yeltsin had to say, that is, Yugoslavia is Russian and don't push Russia, but it looks to me like we are in a lose-lose situation here.
We have a possible bloodbath, or if we pull out Surely red propaganda would use this to alienate the Muslim world against us.
So, I think there's a way to defuse this.
First is with the realization that by calling such things as ethnic cleansing instead of genocide, and Yugoslavia was part of the genocide convention, by calling it ethnic cleansing, we never got Milosevic labeled, you know, as a criminal.
So we are almost part of this orchestration.
I mean, well, what's happening?
They've been grinding up our air-launched cruise missiles that we haven't manufactured for, we haven't had a production line for over 10 years, and some of them 15 years old.
We're destroying the penetrators that make the B-1, the B-2, and the B-52 viable.
And could this have been engineered?
Or are we using ordnance that we really don't have replacements for?
Jeffrey?
Yes, we're using up our cruise missiles, and my understanding is that we are converting nuclear-armed cruise missiles into conventional.
Are we sticking our neck out?
Yeah, I've heard that.
That we are taking the nukes and we're converting them and putting conventional warheads on them.
Yeah.
This is basically a unilateral disarmament move.
I should say, with the START I Treaty, The deadline for reducing the nuclear arsenals is 2003 and we're already there.
Excuse me, we've been putting dummy warheads on the MX, we've put tunnel systems on our Trident boats.
I mean, it looks to me like, of course, the Soviet rocket forces, considering their throw weight, considering their refusal to disarm, you know, to unilaterally, bilaterally destroy their chemicals and biologicals, I mean, it looks to me Like we might be sticking our neck out a mile and at the same time the way to me that obviously is to defuse this because you know I've been listening to their news media translations from Belgrade and also translations from the Soviet excuse me the Russian and they don't say anything at all about the genocide that their troops are doing in Kosovo and I think we ought to we ought to push this in the UN and
We ought to use it as a sounding board, a forum like it's supposed to be.
We ought to realize that they're trying to polarize the Muslim world against us if we don't follow through, and surely offer to rebuild, help Serbia rebuild the damage we've done if they pull out.
We need to put this in pamphlets and drop it on them because it's the only way we're going to get the news through to Belgrade, and that's where the majority of their people are, isn't it?
Well, the real problem here is, as you said, the Russians The Russians are really, you know, I got a note from a famous Russian journalist because I asked her what she thought of this, Yevgenia Albats, and she said that Russia's cynical leaders were using this, what she called stupid patriotism, as an excuse to empower themselves.
And what you just said about the Russian arsenal is true.
In fact, last summer, after I was on Art's program, Russia announced that it was not going to meet the Start 1 deadline of 2003, which we are already there.
They say that they're not bound by any agreements the Soviets entered into.
Right.
Well, Start 1 was entered into by the Russian Federation.
Well, you know, it is interesting, but to me, you know, we're between a rock and a hard place here, and if we're not very careful, we will polarize the Muslim world against us.
Or obviously we will be in a situation because literally these people are not telling their own people what's going on and we have, while we have air superiority, we can drop pamphlets.
And what Jesse Helms suggested I think might be viable, put a hundred million dollars on Milosevic's head and tell the people we will help them build a truly I heard the German defense minister say something similar, which he said that basically Milosevic should be taken out.
And when I hear the leaders of democratic countries When I hear them advocating what is essentially the assassination of foreign heads of state, I shudder.
Because just like with the explosion of EMP bombs, we're the side that's going to be destabilized by that kind of rhetoric.
They have... Yugoslavia is a communist country.
It is a police state.
They have very good security there.
You try to assassinate that guy, it's not going to be as easy as it is to knock off the Chancellor of Germany or the President of the United States.
This is a game that we don't want to start because we'll lose our freedom in that game.
All right, Jeffrey.
Interesting words.
I didn't expect that from you.
But interesting, that's your view.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jeff Nyquist.
Hi.
Yes, good evening, Mr. Bell.
And Jeff, how are you?
I'm fine.
I'm glad that I was able to make it through.
I was just going to request to ask you something.
I have to say that I agree with Mr. Bell that we're actually at war in Europe and we're
now building up to the progression that we have to in order to achieve the goals that
have been set from the beginning, even though they have been shifting.
I am very, very happy to say that today I saw that Israel had joined the nations in
the process of supporting the people that are walking out of Kosovo.
And the reason for that is because they are putting their moral support to the cause that this is really, in reality, a genocide process that did start.
No matter if you do it to 20, 50 or 60, how many you have done so far, it's plenty to say that there's a genocide process that has been the ethnic cleansing that these people have done.
But the fact is that we are at war, and therefore we are committed.
And at this time, our forces are there, our people are fighting, and we're killing those bastards.
At the same time, we're getting ready to go even stronger.
But we're not alone.
The NATO Alliance is an alliance.
It's not the United States show.
We are the leaders, but we have our groups that are supporting us and working with us side by side.
And yes, it could end up in a World War.
And I tell you something, we had done this 45, 50 years ago, when Hitler began the persecution of the Jews, there would have been no genocide of Jewish people, and we probably wouldn't have had a Second World War.
So the Russians understand only one thing, Jeff, and that's force.
And trying to create a paranoia environment in the United States is basically running propaganda for the enemy.
And we should consider very highly and very carefully not to talk in diminishing terms of our power and trying to empower by illusion misinformation Uh, the power that the enemy has, which is not there.
Yes, there is power, but it's limited by the resources of the countries.
Russia does not have the resources to go in a world war at this time.
That's all bravado and a lot of presentation of faith and trying to save faith within their borders.
But the reality is the real power is right now falling down from the airplanes of NATO and will continue and will increase and Milosevic will be defeated.
And we have to uplift the spirit of the American people and not be sending out propaganda.
Do you realize that everything that we have heard in the show so far tries to undermine the power of NATO and tries to put out there an image that the all-powerful Russia may come and China will come.
China will not lift a finger for Russia because they are natural enemies from the beginning.
There's no way in the world that Mao Zedong would have gone to war to save Russia from anything.
And the fact is that today those Chinese people are as conservative as Mao was in the principles of Chinese communism.
They are not going to support the Korean matters and all these facts Please, if you have been in the Army like I was, you will learn that we do not spread rumors.
We do not spread misinformation.
All the information that you have is non-qualified, is not presented with supportive information, does not come from any military command or intelligence center.
So, what are we doing?
Just telling the people to get scared and run?
I think that if anybody is scared in the United States or what's going on, well, we can move
over to Kosovo and, or move over to Yugoslavia and sit down with Milosevic and then maybe
there the people will think they are safer. But we are Americans and by God we are not
going to let anybody else tell us how we live outside of our place or how we have to live
in our country. And if we stand by the principles of the forefathers made this
country as we are doing now in Europe, we need to support our people there and uplift the spirit
of the American people to back them up and not be afraid of anything.
All right. You want to respond to that, Jeffrey?
Yeah, George Washington, the founder of our country, said, beware foreign entanglements.
Do not become involved in the affairs of Europe.
That's what our founding father believed.
And, you know, with due respect to the gentleman, I believe in a strong America.
But I also believe that a strong America must have good strategy and not walk headlong into a blind alley.
Because this is a blind alley.
We cannot win here.
The Russians are not weaker than we are.
The alliance with China is not some kind of a fantasy that I cooked up.
On the 22nd of January, President Jiang Zemin of China flew to Moscow.
And at that time, the Xinhua News Agency, the official state news agency in China, said that there is now a new strategic partnership Challenge the perceived global dominance of the United States and that Russia has attempted to sell an aircraft carrier to China It has been selling diesel submarines the most modern diesel submarines to China.
It has been selling China a modern fighter aircraft.
And not only this, but Russia is upgrading 180 MiG-29s to what they call the MiG-29 SMT.
And you know what that upgrade is?
They're adding a fuel tank to it to extend its range 34...
3,500 kilometers and they're giving it in-flight refueling capability so that it can fly a total of 14,000 kilometers.
Now, why would Russia want a fighter-bomber to be able to fly that far?
Why don't you go ahead and answer that?
For those who just might not be able to answer it themselves. Yeah.
Why?
Because they're planning a war against the United States, and we're giving them a reason.
We need to sober up, have some good strategy, not concentrate our forces all in this conflict here where we expose ourselves and our flank.
We need to strengthen ourselves before we start pushing our weight around and recognize those people over there aren't stupid.
And we better get it through our heads that our arrogance is looking more and more stupid by the day.
Okay, Jeffrey.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jeff Nyquist and Art Bell.
Hi.
Good morning, Art.
Good morning, Jeffrey.
Boy, I can barely hear you, sir.
Yell into that phone.
Oh, okay, Art.
Is that better?
Much better.
Okay.
My wife and I, we have talked about this all the time.
I've told her our Y2K problem is going to be nothing compared to what could happen with the Balkans states.
And, uh, but, you know, things awfully odd that Pakistan and India are firing off, uh, their missiles to test their, uh, their, um, boosting systems right now in all this turmoil.
And, plus, like, I'm not sure whether it was mentioned, but the, uh, our cruise missiles, We're running out of standard warheads and we're scavenging.
Yeah, it's absolutely been mentioned.
Jeffrey, very quickly, I understand that, well, I heard, I think, two or three days ago, the Air Force has now less than a hundred cruise missiles left.
They said the Navy may have as many as 2,000, but we're using them at a pretty fast clip.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's what keeps our pilots alive.
And when we run out of those, you're going to see very heavy casualties in the air.
In other words, for those who don't know, an aircraft is able to stand off, a B-52 or whatever kind of aircraft, is able to stand off from the target and from the air launch a cruise missile, which then travels, I believe, subsonically, just barely, and screams just off the ground to its target.
And once we run out of those, that means that our airplanes have got to go to the targets, correct?
Yes, that's right.
Also, they use these missiles to suppress enemy anti-aircraft, because it's safer to directly attack enemy anti-air defenses with these, and then that leaves the skies open for our fighter-bombers to come in.
They're talking about sending 300 more airplanes over there right now.
Do they have enough cruise missiles to equip them?
Well, the question is, do they have enough cruise missiles to back them up?
To back them up, that way.
Yeah, I, you know, certainly they do if they want to expend a good portion of the rest of the missiles.
The problem is that once the Navy, what do we say, once the Navy goes down to 1,500 or 1,000 cruise missiles, what's the vulnerability of the Navy?
Um, first time caller on the line, before the top of the hour, you're on the air with Jeffrey Nyquist and Art Belheim.
Yes, Mr. Nyquist, um, I want to say thanks, too, for Art Belfer letting me talk.
But who is left to defend the mainland with all of our troops deployed overseas?
Who's left on the mainland?
Let's say, let's say somebody decided to pull a surprise attack out of, let's say, Mexico, for example.
Who's left to defend the mainland with all the base closing that they had during the 80s and early 90s?
Yeah, there is a vulnerability in North America.
You know, I talked to Colonel Lunev about this, and his expertise was Russian plans.
The Russians, they have amphibious and airlift capacity, the Chinese as well, and what fascinates them about World War II is Hitler's invasion of Norway.
In which Hitler put troops in merchant ships, and sent troops into Norway disguised as civilians, and perpetrated this kind of stealth invasion, when Norway was still a neutral country.
And, uh... Sir, is this possible with what China is trying to do with the Long Beach in the Gulf, um, or, you know, the...
Overseas shipping company, Costco?
Yeah, it's been suggested and it's very interesting because Hitler stockpiled arms in Norway before the war started with Norway in Germany.
And the German soldiers didn't call their way up any Normandy beach.
They walked into the country on airliners and in freighters.
That's interesting.
Yeah.
So, you know, we're not a security conscious nation here.
I don't believe so either, sir.
No.
Thank you very much, though.
I appreciate that.
All right.
Thank you, caller.
Jeffrey, can you afford to stick around for the final hour?
Sure.
All right.
Consider it done.
Stay right where you are.
We will be right back.
Here is Jeffrey Nyquist.
Jeffrey, welcome back.
How are you holding up?
Fine.
I heard a little sort of a I'm fine!
Yeah, it's late.
Yeah, I know.
I've got coffee in me, so... This is good.
Alright, you're on the West Coast, right?
Yes.
Okay, this is good, too.
You'll get to see what happens to my guests on the East Coast.
I mean, the sun's coming up by the time we're done.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Jeff Nyquist.
Hi.
Hi, hello.
Thank you for having me.
I'm honored.
Sure, where are you?
I'm calling from Las Vegas, hot tub 105.1.
Yes, sir.
First, there are other people saying, which of course would affect the guidance system, I guess, of the cruise missiles, or perhaps not.
I think they have dual guidance systems, the crane following as well.
I'm not sure, I'm not an expert on these matters, but there is a question about GPS, and there have even been almost jokes about Y2K compliance.
Do you know anything about any of that?
Well, I know that the GPS will affect the ability of ground and surface naval forces to navigate.
I don't know how seriously, because there are other methods available for navigation.
And I believe it's true.
As you pointed out, I believe the missiles have a backup navigational systems.
Because obviously, our military also has anticipated the possibility of satellites being attacked.
And it would be idiotic if our military were dependent on a satellite.
I mean, we just had a DSP satellite that just went haywire when we launched it just recently.
Right.
These things, they fall out of the sky.
They have to be replaced.
There's failures in launches.
You know, I don't know.
I hope that we don't have that.
Even big solar storms come along and put them out of commission.
Yes, that's true, and we're having record solar storms this year.
Oh, tell me about it.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Jeffrey Nyquist.
Hi.
Hello.
Hello there.
Yeah, I can't believe I finally made it.
I don't know how many times I've heard it said on the radio, too.
People tend to say the same things.
Yeah, I've noticed.
Usually, are you really Art Bell?
You're not Art Bell.
I followed you for a long time.
Okay, sir.
And long before your incident when you left and then came back to us.
Yes.
I was one of the ones that was on the hands and knees praying for you.
Thank you.
I had a thought that came to mind regarding this thing in Kosovo, and I've never heard anybody address it, but a few years ago, the Russians had what's supposedly what they call the four-day uh... invasion plan for Europe where each day they had a pacific piece of ground they had to cover by the fourth day they had to own Europe or the war was lost and to promote this because they knew the the biggest liability in a blitzkrieg campaign like that is your supply line they buried caches of
Weapons and material and tanks and equipment and armaments and everything else.
And secret locations.
And as their armies would progress, they would take these caches and continue the war.
Jeffrey, are you aware of any of this?
Well, yes.
That's what he's describing as standard Blitzkrieg tactics.
The Russians believe in pre-positioning military supplies The only thing to me that makes sense about Sarajevo and Kosovo, like Art says, I can't understand anything except for one thing.
Sarajevo is sitting on top of a huge cache of nuclear weapons and missiles and tanks and launchers and everything else, and they want to get everybody out of there so they can turn it into a missile base.
You mean Kosovo?
Kosovo, yes.
Yeah, I think that what is really going on here is that we are being drawn in to a situation and so that our flanks are exposed either in the Middle East or the Far East and we are also allowing ourselves to become politically overextended.
I don't think people realize what's going on in Europe that there is pressure on the political parties, the governing parties in Germany and Italy and especially in Greece To break out of this thing, to stop it.
And if this support erodes in Germany, especially in Germany, if Chancellor Schroeder's party starts to fall apart and not be behind him, as there's been some signs of that, you could have a major split in NATO.
Are you surprised, Jeff, at the polls that show, at least marginally, the US people approving of what we're doing in Kosovo?
Yes, I am surprised, but then I'm not surprised at this overstated propaganda about genocide.
I mean, you know, I have a lot of respect for the caller who called earlier.
He made some very many intelligent points, but I want to say that the overuse of this word genocide is not very helpful and intends to inflame the situation.
Well, you have to inflame the situation to get The polls support numbers to do what we're doing.
Yes.
It's called propaganda.
Yeah, it is.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jeff Nyquist.
Hello?
Yeah, Thomas from Tulsa.
Every time I hear about a country and mass murders or genocide, I wonder about their strict gun control laws and the populace's inability to defend themselves.
Do you think there's a correlation?
If the Kosovars had individual weapons, perhaps they could have avoided the slaughter?
Well, the problem is that they did.
And the Albanian Kosovars were gunning down Serbian police officers.
I'm talking about individuals having their own weapons.
Yeah, I'm afraid that the fighting has been a two-way street there.
You know, it's funny, I don't know... How can you know what the truth is about things?
Like this.
If you look at the Rockford Institute, they have a website for their Chronicles magazine.
And they have run some stories about these massacres, both in the Bosnian War and here in Kosovo.
And there's evidence that some of these massacres are fabrications.
Jeffrey, we certainly know there were fabrications of massacres and babies tossed out of Um, you know, tossed onto the floor in Iraq and all the rest of that.
It all turned out to be baloney.
Yeah.
Now, I note that we hit a train.
I think everybody's probably seen the pictures on CNN by now.
Which was amazing to me because we hit the train as it was about to go across the bridge and then the plane turned around and fired another missile or dropped another bomb, I'm not sure, and hit the train a second time Which, everybody agrees, is a great tragedy.
It looked terrible for us.
And, the very next day, we're hearing these reports about... about the Serbs crossing into Albania.
Which I am very skeptical about.
Very, very skeptical about.
Because, of course, the big criticism has been that NATO is invading a sovereign nation that has not invaded another.
So, I don't know.
This whole propaganda thing...
I really tend not to believe most of what I hear.
Yeah, you know, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed after the first week of American bombing that we had killed a thousand Serbians.
Now if that's true, and in the second week we killed another thousand, that means that we have killed more Serbians in the bombing than the so-called genocide in Kosovo to begin with.
All right, according to even the estimates of, and I've seen an awful lot of people lately, pointing to these satellite photographs of what they think are mass burial grounds that they say could contain, their words, hundreds of bodies.
Yeah.
So your point is well taken.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jeff Nyquist.
Hello.
Hello.
Yeah, you just brought up a subject there I was listening to.
It's very interesting.
What do you think about Presidential Directive Decision 25?
What's your opinion of it?
I've never read it.
You've never read it?
No.
Have you?
Oh, yes.
I had it out of all of California.
I only found one newspaper that printed the article.
My understanding is that it is a secret directive, sir.
So, I don't know how you could have read it.
Well, it was classified.
Exactly.
So, what is your opinion?
What is it?
Presidential Directive Decision 25.
Do you remember the specialist who was being court-martialed because he wouldn't follow a directive of the United Nations?
Yes.
Well, Presidential Directive Decision 25 gave the United Nations power and authority to have control over our military troops.
And in an event of a war or a catastrophe, they could come in and take over our military and its infrastructure.
Okay, I don't know that to be true because I haven't seen it, so I really can't confirm that.
Jeffrey, what do you know?
Well, what I can say is that we still live in a world of nation-states.
And the United Nations is really pretty empty.
The fact of the matter is, countries make use of the United Nations to carry out their own agendas.
That's why there's the Security Council.
We have a veto on that council.
And in bombing Serbia, we just broke the UN Charter.
So how come the UN hasn't taken us over for breaking the Charter?
It's because the UN has no power.
It's an awfully good point.
Awfully good point.
First time.
West of the Rockies.
Call toll-free 1-800-618-8255.
I'm going to have to cut that out.
I got it.
Sorry, I forgot.
That's alright.
Let us start all over again, fresh.
You are Bill, and where are you calling from, Bill?
790 KNST, Tucson.
Alright.
Really appreciate the show.
In fact, you ought to mention your Buy a tape line because I just bought the tape for this.
It's very good.
Already you bought the tape?
Just now.
I just ordered it.
We don't know how long it is as well.
Ordered it anyway.
All right.
It is a four hour program and the number is 1-800-917-4278.
That's 1-800-917-4278.
1-800-917-4278. That's 1-800-917-4278 for our program.
My question for Jeff is, I've been hearing a lot about Chinese involvement in the two ports on either side of the
Panama Canal, which we give up in the number of months.
End of 99.
Any comment on that?
Yes, William Bright Marine, a Panamanian presidential candidate, wrote to the State Department last May pointing out that the Panamanian legislature, which has come under the influence of Chinese agents, had passed this Panama Law No.
5, which gave control of the ports of entry on either side of the Panama Canal to what is essentially Chinese front companies controlled by the People's Liberation Army and the Chinese Intelligence Service.
Admiral Moore, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been testifying before the Senate on this.
In fact, I met Admiral Moore in February, and he was talking about how the Chinese have made moves to try to control the Malaccan Straits on the other end of the Pacific.
So that China is making very significant military moves to control the Pacific, which are quite ominous.
In fact, On January 8th, President Jiang Zemin of China made a speech, and he told the People's Liberation Army to get ready for two things.
One was world nuclear war, and the second thing was to suppress uprisings in China.
I'll tell you kind of an interesting story, Jeffrey.
I went through the Panama Canal.
A few years ago, three years ago, four years ago, I went through the Panama Canal on a ship.
It's really, really interesting as you go through the various locks, and you can look actually directly down.
We were such a big ship.
We were so big, in fact, that we actually scraped the sides of the locks.
But you could look down on ships going in the opposite direction.
And you could look at these cargo ships, and it was Chinese ship after Chinese ship after Chinese ship.
And on the decks, you could see these crates full of AK-47s.
Yeah.
And full of Chinese ammunition.
It was astounding to watch.
Yeah, they were caught trying to smuggle in a large number into Oakland a couple years ago.
And the...
The thing is, it is suggestive.
What the Chinese are doing is suggestive of what the Germans did in Norway.
And that's why I am concerned, because they are attempting to get access to American harbors.
They've gotten access to the Panama Canal.
They have mobilized this military.
In fact, ten days after Jiang Zemin made this speech about nuclear, getting ready for nuclear war, China had all arms nuclear war exercises in which they targeted American troops in the Far East.
Before the bottom of the hour, wildcard line, you're on the air with Jeff Nyquist.
Hi.
Yes, hi, Art.
It's good to be on the show.
I'm Richard in Humboldt County, California.
Jeff, listen, what's going to happen to my family if this war escalates, you know, here in Northern California?
And also, are we going to see ever foreign troops on American soil?
Russians, Chinese?
Okay, let's take one question at a time.
If this war escalates and hundreds of thousands of Americans go to Yugoslavia to fight, how will that impact the average American?
You'll probably see a rise in the price of oil.
It will hit you at the pumps.
If it expands to the Far East and the Middle East, you might see unrest.
You would see the breakup of NATO, and it could go nuclear.
Otherwise, it'd be all alright, sir.
Any other questions?
Well, yeah.
I mean, what could happen to my family on American soil?
I mean, are we going to have bombs dropped on us?
What part of Northern California do you live in?
Humboldt County, Arcata, California.
Okay, you live near where I do.
I moved here specifically because this is the safest area in the country.
So you would hope not.
But the question is, could bombs begin to go off here?
And I think clearly the answer to that has to be, of course, yes, they could.
Yes.
Not directly from planes, perhaps, but carried in.
We'll be right back.
You could read my mind, love.
What a tale my thoughts could tell.
▲
Export Selection