Home | About | Donate

Do We Really Want Nuclear War with Russia?


Do We Really Want Nuclear War with Russia?

Robert Parry

Through an endless barrage of ugly propaganda, the U.S. government and the mainstream American press have put the world on course for a potential nuclear showdown with Russia, an existential risk that has been undertaken cavalierly amid bizarre expressions of self-righteousness from Western institutions.


Apparently the US does want a Nuclear War with Russia.

"US suspends bilateral contact with Russia over Syria"

"Russia Warns of 'Terrible' Consequences if U.S. Attacks Syrian Government Forces"

"Cold War, Today, Tomorrow, Every Day Till The End Of The World'


What the heck is America playing at?
Stationing large military forces right next to Russia's borders is dangerously provocative.
Imagine America's reaction if Mexico announced that it had agreed to allow Russia to station 5 brigades plus tanks, missiles and war planes on its border with America?
There would be a huge outcry for an American invasion of Mexico.
And Russia is just supposed to stay quiet?
One interesting fact I'd like to add is that intercontinental ballistic missiles travel REALLY fast. I'm talking about 15,000 miles/h (25,000 km/h). In other words, from Moscow to Washington (4800 miles, 7800km) in roughly 20 min. So yeah, world obliteration.


In the meantime, the American people aren't really being told how serious the situation is getting as Professor Stephen Cohen has been saying for many weeks now. I was out doing errands after reading earlier about the breakdown of relations between the State Department and the Russian Foreign Ministry (your first link Ron) and I decided to turn on NPR at 4 p.m. No mention of it. I turned it on at 4:30 p.m. Nothing. This is serious stuff and all they could do was talk drivel about Trump and Clinton.

The American people are in for a nasty surprise.



I think the sociopaths in our gov have delusional desires for world domination. They are so sick. It scares me to see them enticing Russia to do something so they can legitimize attacking them claiming "They started it".


Perhaps threatening nuclear war is the strategy for reaching the real goal to have Clinton restart the cold war with Russia to restore one of the military industrial complex's (MIC) favorite profit center of all time ?


So yeah, no nuclear war. Wasn't that easy?


Just as "liquor is quicker," so nuclear war would be a quicker, less painful, way to "go" than global warming would be.


I get the feeling this really did happen. This was Russian payback for the 67 Syrian soilders that lost there lives to the US and coalition of the killing.


I would implore that you folks, who understand the extent of Russia's nuclear capabilities, get a bit more graphic in your descriptions of what these ICBMs (and even less powerful nukes) can do in terms of destruction. Please correct me wherever I err below.

Imo, most Americans don't seem to be interested in grappling with the concept of world obliteration. Well, what's that mean? Does it mean that a portion of Washington, D.C. around the White House gets nuked like Hiroshima got nuked during WWII; and, the rest of us who live some hundreds or thousands of miles away will still be sitting at the table the next morning enjoying breakfast? - Then, fine...good riddance, D.C.; Well get along fine without you.

No, it means that Russia still has a good many (over a hundred?) 25 megaton ICBMs (improved "Satan"s) among their several thousand nukes, that each of these ICBMs is more than 1000 times as powerful as the 20 kiloton bomb that was detonated over Hiroshima; and, each of these ICBMs is thus powerful enough to destroy an entire U.S. state. How does that go with your coffee?

Furthermore, analysts state that the U.S.'s defense systems against incoming missiles might, at best, be able to take out 10 to 20 of whatever Russia might send our way. In other words, the U.S. is effectively defenseless against a full blown nuclear attack.

Combine these ICBMs with Russia's other means of nuclear and conventional warfare; and, one starts to get an understanding of why Russians living in the U.S., who are familiar with the conventional and nuclear capabilities of both the U.S. and Russia, state that Russia is "...is capable of destroying the US in about an hour....Even if the entire Russian leadership is killed in a first strike, the so-called “Dead Hand” (the “Perimetr” system) will automatically launch enough nukes to wipe the USA off the political map."


I contacted the White House and my senators over this one. But they don't care. At least they won't get away with this without a fight on my part. Time to raise Holy Hell.


I had the same feeling; and, spent a lot of time searching for confirmation; but, found none; except, immediately following the time that this "operations center" would have been obliterated, the U.S. warmonger spokespersons appeared to go ballistic with their criticism of Russia. It was like they were freaking out over some occurrence they never anticipated..


I also called my Congressman and two Senators last week. I told them I would hold them responsible for their lack of action and failure to do the right thing.. If we do have a hot war with Russia and China.


Yes, indeed. I remember when the Soviet Union melted down with all the brave talk of freeing up money, the "peace dividend." But so much of what the US was all about during the entirety of my life was organized into opposing Soviet-Communist conspiratorial expansionism. I remember some of the MIC elite saying the Soviet breakup was a trick, a way to get the US to drop its guard so they could gain a quick sneaky undeserved victory.

Then the MIC elite tried to sell us on Islamic Terrorism as a replacement for International Communism as the enemy de jour. Even after 9/11 when it did work for awhile, it wasn't the same. In their hearts, or what passed for those, they wanted the Evil Empire but they had to wait for Russia to work its way through the post Soviet economic collapse and for Putin to last long enough and get to looking strong enough to be credible as a neoStalin. They got there and now they get back that Old Cold War feeling and do nuclear chessboard games.

They don't really want nuclear war, but they aren't afraid of it enough. They want to be so mighty that the other powerful countries will cringe at the thought of provoking their mighty God-like wrath. They want to be at the Geopolitical equivalent of Too Big to Fail.

Of course, anyone with a half a lick of sense could see that this is unachievable and that attempts to get there only raise the odds of a nuclear war starting against everybody better judgment.


Excerpts from: Prof. Strauss and the neocon takeover - Feb. 6, 2006

Who are the crazies? A militant, anti-communist group of mainly Jewish intellectuals who studied the Trotskyite, Machiavellian political philosophy of Prof. Strauss at the University of Chicago. Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Perle, Abrams, Chalabi, Bennett, Ho, Shulsky, Khalilzad, Schmitt, Kristol, are a few of the invasion architects, intelligence crafters, torture lawyers, Iraq ambassadors and U.S. puppets who studied under Strauss.

Together with Straussian devotees at neocon and pro-Israeli think tanks, they now control all powerful positions in our government.

The Project for a New American Century think tank springs directly from this authoritarian power cult. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Abrams, Libby, Perle, and others signed PNAC documents in 1997 advocating aggressive, militaristic world domination, domination of space, control of cyberspace (they don't want much), permanent bases in the Middle East, and employing troops in constabulatory (police) duties to enforce U.S. world empire, Pax Americana.

Neocon papers are thick with delusional paranoia like the following from Richard Perle, National Security Council: “No stages, this is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.”

Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute Fellow, former NSC, State, and Defense Department consultant and influential White House advisor writes, “We can lead by the force of high moral example ... [but] fear is much more reliable, and lasts longer. Once we show that we are capable of dealing out terrible punishment to our enemies, our power will be far greater. Š We are a warlike people and we love war.”

Perle, Wolfowitz, Bolton and others have a long history of calling for “winnable nuclear war.”



There seems to be a fear mongering campaign about a possible nuclear war with Russia. Since both countries would be obliterated in such a war who would ever launch the first strike. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest we have ever come to a nuclear war and it was too close. The Soviet Union backed down and conflict was avoided. If a nuclear ever occurs it would most likely be stared by a false alarm, There have been a couple scary instances. This actually has a realistic chance of happening. The leader of a country that believes it is being attacked would only have 6 minutes at most to decide whether to launch a counterattack. It is this possibility that people should be most worried about. An intentional nuclear war between the US and Russia seems extremely unlikely.


Yes. We had fun, remarking on this yesterday, noting that the RT person really got to Kirby.


One definition of "monger" is "a person who is involved with something in a petty or contemptible way" (dictionary.com)

Intentional nuclear war is not at all unlikely. See my post above. This is not silly, petty or contemptible conjecture. Many reasonable people are currently alarmed by the U.S.'s warmongering provocations directed at Russia. Even China is voicing concern. The campaign that you are witnessing is directed toward those in power in the U.S.government and military to tone down their rhetoric and intentional provocation.


Can't beat the threat of nuclear war to spread fear and justify a more grotesque Pentagon budget.

Direct Democracy