Jeffrey Nyquist warns NATO’s 1999 Yugoslavia bombing—costing $500M—risks escalating into a global conflict, citing Russia’s surprise nuclear attack plans, 250,000 mobilized troops, and modernized ICBMs with trans-Antarctic range. He argues U.S. military cuts (37 Air Force wings to 13) leave it unprepared for simultaneous threats in Korea, Taiwan, or the Middle East while NATO’s actions strengthen Russian-Chinese alliances, including shared nuclear tech like neutron bombs. Nyquist dismisses humanitarian claims, framing the bombing as a New World Order provocation that could trigger catastrophic retaliation, with U.S. cities facing 80–90% casualties if targeted. [Automatically generated summary]
Jeffrey Nyquist is coming up shortly, and I'll tell you all about him.
What a tangled web we have woven, huh?
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.
All right, 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 fallacy, 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.
A 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.
NyQuest 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 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.
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, 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, 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 rather successfully.
We think in dollar terms, yeah, but to convert a billion dollars into weaponry takes years.
And 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 is 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.
He has stuff in that in his book, and I've talked to him about this too.
They would put 7,000 Spetsnadz 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ABM.
I just reread, it's funny you should mention, I just reread 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.
One of the studies that I read 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.
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 go toward them.
So what would we be left with at the end of the day over there and over here?
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.
And I know you've thought about this kind of thing.
In the kind of exchange we just talked about, where 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.
Well, Edward Ludwig 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 5 to 8 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've 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 to 90 percent of our population if they went for the cities.
Russian military doctrine does not seem to favor mass extermination of the cities.
However, they have a concept 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.
And like I've been following this for many years, and they are preparing for this.
It is not...
He says, Prime Minister Primikov 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.
They, they, I He said that in his 30-year career in the Soviet and Russian military, 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've got to have new bombs and all the rest of it.
That's the accusation they would make that it's propaganda.
And of course, we all make mistakes, 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 if you're, 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.
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.
Well, 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.
The Russians also, although I haven't read it in the press, if you follow the stories about the Russian naval maneuvers, the Marine divisions that they're doing the amphibious maneuvers with are reserved Marine divisions.
Electronic Telegraph date line 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, 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.
That was their attitude about a year ago, Jeffrey.
Yeah, you know, what's interesting is, as a matter of good strategy, you don't want to strengthen your opposition.
And 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.
I think the last time you were on this program, you said something that shocked a lot of people.
You said, again, let's go over 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 facts 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.
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.
You know, with all due respect to Bud, I'm afraid that 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 number of wars while 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 going to 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?
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.
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?
When Yeltsin made a speech last week, earlier last week, saying that the Russians ought to cool it on their anti-Americanism and their war hysteria, Mr. Zyuganov, The head of the Communist Party in Russia 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, okay, 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.
In other words, you could 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 this 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 Duma 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 hard liner in there.
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 weapon, new kinds of bombs that basically, when they go off, they fry 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 fry the electronics in a whole continent.
The Russians' Defense Ministry says they found radiation and that it is from, it is a kind of radiation that would be created by these kind of bombs, that there have been certain electronic infrastructures fried in Yugoslavia.
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, by using a weapon like this, opening ourselves up to this same thing in return.
And as you pointed out, even if you move one step more into a high-altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon, you could literally wipe out an entire continent worth of electronics computers.
And even if Y2K doesn't do it, that certainly would.
All right, 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 introduce ground troops.
Good morning.
I'm Art Bell.
Jeffrey Nyquist is here.
Jeffrey, a couple of quick ones.
One, 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 an air war campaign in Yugoslavia would not do the job and that he went ahead with this strategy anyway.
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 supports 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 IMS had promised them last summer, which was, I think it was around $17 billion, which is quite a sum.
And Primikov 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.
But the reaction was not what Clinton had expected because Russians are not Americans.
When Primikov came back empty-handed, one of the leading Russian dailies said, Mr. Primikov is coming back without the money, but with authority.
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, what we are, in fact, dishing out now in Kozvo, 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.
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?
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.
Wildcard Line, you're on air with Jeffrey Nyquist Heinz.
unidentified
Hi, Joan in Menla Park.
Yes, several months ago, Art had a guest, Joel Skusen, who spoke about a plan which he had heard about.
He was associated with the FBI, for a long-standing plan for an alliance between the Muslim world, the Chinese, and 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 Russians 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.
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 was started by NATO and the United States and it looks like the aim of this war is not liberating Kosovo.
It is not to attack Serbia.
It is not to save any European powers that are members of NATO.
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.
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.
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 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.
And this is my one prediction, is that 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-a-vis Russia and America.
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?
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 Senkai newspaper in Japan, that this mystery ship incident involving Korean ships entering Japanese waters was a diversion.
And that diversion was so that on the Pacific side of Japan, the North Koreans could land dozens of their Spesnest commandos who were trained in sabotage of trains, telephone exchanges, and military facilities into Japan and that they had dispersed throughout Japan.
This was the 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 is already mobilized and North Korea has been saying war is imminent, I know.
In fact, 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.
You've got to remember that we're pinned down in the Middle East because in January, Saddam Hussein mobilized, 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 it.
We are at the top of the hour.
And we will continue with Jeffrey Nyquist.
If you want to understand systems, 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.
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.
I know, for example, that we store equipment close, tanks and other heavy armor, now, close, so that we can simply mobilize troops and their armor awaits them so we can attack Iraq if we have to.
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 are 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.
Wildcard line, you're on the air with Jeffrey Nyquist.
Hi.
unidentified
Hi, good morning.
Jeffrey, if President Clinton went against the CIA's advice and his military advisors' 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 nuts, people who would talk about things like this.
But now it seems to me this is the only scenario that fits here.
I would call it the first giant misstep of a bunch of people who think money, you know, Alexander Sultanitson said it 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 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 learn to respect other people before we go around talking about war.
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.
unidentified
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.
It also showed a SAM site, a mobile SAM site.
Now, 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.
Right, if it doesn't have the computerized ignition.
unidentified
Right.
Here is an article in May Popular Mechanics.
Not an article, but a little news thing.
Page 22.
And catch this.
Dynamite generator, a novel generator developed by the Russian Institute of Chemical Physics, can produce the equivalent of 1 billion watts of power, but only for 1 millionth of a second.
The trick to the generator's high output is it's 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.
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.
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?
Having been one of those individuals and worked within that community for quite some time, I can rather firsthand understand than actually deal with their knowledge of the things that they're going through right now.
When we do send troops over, it will 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.
They think they stole technology to be able to merge 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 onto line with the Chinese Navy and with their missiles.
I mean, I know they're effective because people remember them, but give me the numbers any day.
1-800-639-7629 or 1-800-NewsMax, if that's easier for you.
Caller, anything else?
unidentified
Actually, I had a little humorous note for you specifically, Art.
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, what 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.
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 this Kosovo and that right now could possibly be to delay our attention away from Saddam so he could possibly do something to us instead.
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 them the power to go in and create war or anything else they wanted to do.
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 10 days or so after these countries enter NATO, what happens?
Wildcard line, you're on the air with Jeffrey Nyquist.
unidentified
Hi.
Yeah.
Good morning, Jeff.
Good morning.
You know, 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, you know, 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 Voloshevik labeled as a criminal.
So we are almost part of this orchestration.
I mean, what's happening?
They've been grinding up our air launch 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?
Yeah, this is basically a unilateral disarmament move.
I should say with the START 1 treaty, the deadline for reducing the nuclear arsenals is 2003, and we're already there.
unidentified
Excuse me, we've been putting Dummy warheads on the Yamx.
We've put power 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 their, you know, to unilaterally, they wouldn't have bilaterally destroyed.
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 push this in the UN.
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 the Belgrade, and that's where the majority of their people are.
Well, the real problem here is, as you said, 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, to 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 ARTS program, Russia announced that it was not going to meet the START 1 deadline of 2003, which we are already there.
unidentified
They say that they're not bound by any agreements the Soviets entered into.
Well, START 1 was entered into by the Russian Federation.
unidentified
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 Helm suggested, I think, might be viable, put $100 million on Milosevic's head and tell the people we will help them build a truly democratic society.
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 who ride in open cars, who make speeches before large crowds, who have to appear in public over and over again, exposing themselves to assassination, 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.
Prior, I have to say that I agree with Mr. Bell that we're actually at war in Europe, and we are now building up to the progression that we have to in order to achieve the goals that had 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, there'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 are killing those bastards.
At the same time, we are getting ready to go even stronger.
But we are not alone.
The NATO alliance is an alliance.
And 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 not have been in a world war.
And I tell you something, if 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, very carefully, not to talk in diminishing terms of our power and trying to empower by illusion and misinformation 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 face and trying to say face deceased within the 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 Zetung 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 of what's going on, well, we can move over to Kosovo or move over to Yugoslavia and sit down with Milosevic and then maybe the people who 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 that 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.
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 between Russia and China, and its purpose is to 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 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?
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?
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.
You know, I talked to Colonel Lunov 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 and 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 long before your incident when you left and then came back to us, I was one of the ones that was on their hands and knees praying for you.
Thank you.
I had a thought that came to mind regarding this thing in Kersavo.
And I've never heard anybody address it.
But a few years ago, the Russians had what supposedly what they called the four-day invasion plan for Europe, where each day they had a specific 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 biggest liability in a Blitzgreet campaign like that is your supply line, they buried caches of weapons and material and tanks and equipment and armaments and everything else in secret locations.
And as their armies would progress, they would take these caches and continue the war.
Well, yes, that's what he's describing as standard blitzkrieg tactics.
The Russians believe in pre-positioning military supplies.
unidentified
And the only thing to me that makes sense about Sarajevo and Kersovo, and like Art says, I can't understand anything except for one thing.
If Sarajevo is sitting on top of a huge cast 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 know, 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.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jeff Nyquist.
unidentified
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 Kosovans had individual weapons, perhaps they could have avoided the slaughter?
Jeffrey, we certainly know there were fabrications of massacres and babies tossed out of, you know, tossed onto the floor in Iraq and all the rest of that.
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 on Nuttra 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 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 then 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.
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.
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.
It is a four-hour program, and the number is 1-800-917-4278.
That's 1-800-917-4278, four-hour program.
unidentified
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 a number of months, end of 99.
William Bright Marine, a Panamanian presidential candidate, wrote to the State Department last May pointing out that the Panamanian legislature, which had 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 Malacan 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 a world nuclear war, and the second thing was to suppress uprisings in China.
Yeah, they were caught trying to smuggle in a large number into Oakland a couple years ago.
And 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, 10 days after Zhang Semin 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.