Mouood Mouood English Edition
Let me explain.
Thus far international law and conventions demarcates between military and civilian air-space as well as how civilian and military satellites are deployed in outer space.
This has created critical problems for all manner of aerial intelligence surveillance, interceptions etc.. This “unnecessary hindrance” must be cast aside.
How??? This was the US$ Trillion dollar question that has perplexed war planners for decades. Even after 9-11, the impetus could not be harnessed to introduce a global policy which would blur, if not obliterate the demarcation.
This is because 9-11 was a “terror attack” false flag operation and its leading operatives had a different post false flag operation OBJECTIVES.
There was not in place a Vision for Space Command as embodied in the US Space Command, Vision for 2020 as well as Cyber Security and Command (which only evolved in 2011).
Essential to such dominance, there must be in place the infrastructure for:
1) Secure Global Communications;
2) Secure Global Surveillance;
3) SecureGlobalInterceptions;
4) Secure Global “Hidden-in-Plain-Sight” Locations other than existing military Installations;
And more importantly, DOMINANCE OF CIVILIAN AIR-SPACE AND CIVILIAN OUTER SPACE!
Dominance in outer space has been difficult to achieve and at the present state of play, all the significant players are well entrenched and are evenly matched and balanced in technology.
But, the global air-space tells a different story.
This is where the US war party and its European allies have an edge, a decided advantage which they will now exploit before they decide to unleash the next war.
As at December, 2013, the military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with 164,227 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories and an additional 118,966 deployed in various contingency operations. US troops are spread across the globe: over 66,000 are stationed in Europe; over 51,000 in East Asia and the Pacific region; over 4,500 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia; over 1,600 in the Western Hemisphere; 332 in Sub-Saharan Africa; and less than 100 in states of the former Soviet Union. Of those in Europe, most of the military personnel are located at installations activated during the Cold War, by which the US government sought to challenge the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II. (Source: Wikipedia)
The military bases in themselves provide a formidable global reach for the war party.
Just imagine the extended scope and dominance if they command and control the global civilian air-space through a new system that would be implemented under the cover “to avoid the repetition of MH 370”!
Let me bring you up to speed!
Let the territorial waters of a country, the airspace of a nation is subject to the command and control of a nation. The system of “controls” and related issues differs from regions to regions and countries to countries depending on the availability of technologies and their sophistication.
Let me illustrate what I mean by reference to the Flight Information Region (FIR) Map below which shows the point of “disappearance” of MH 370 where the four “air-zones” overlapped.
(The Red Spot is where MH 370 changed course and turned back)
Once a plane leaves a FIR as in the case of MH 370 from Malaysia and enters another FIR such as Vietnam, the pilot must sign off with Malaysian ground controllers and establish communications with the Vietnamese ground controllers.
Control is transferred from one air-space to another. From the map, Singapore may well have “heard” the exchange between MH 370 with Malaysian ground control and that of Vietnam, but she may not have recorded it as such as the plane was not entering its sphere of control.
The majority of the planes used by the world’s airlines are mainly from Boeing and Airbus. Most of the systems for air traffic control etc. are manufactured in the US and or in Europe.
Once a new system is installed in the majority of the airports of the world (which would bestow hundreds of billion US$ of profits to major global companies) even though some countries may opt out and or use their own system (which can be adapted to the new system) the end result is that the country and or countries that own the international consortium providing the technologies and services would be assured of total control of the global civilian airspace.
Earlier, I alluded that such a system would be costs-effective for the war party. This is common sense, for unlike the need to build and establish military bases, all existing civilian airports are ready-made bases for total control, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT FOR NO ONE AND NO ONE WILL EVER SUSPECT THAT NEFARIOUS ACTIVITIES CAN BE AND WOULD BE CARRIED OUT UNDER THE COVER OF A GLOBAL UNIFIED SYSTEM OF CIVILIAN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL.
