Home | About | Donate

The Nuclear Codes Come With Big Challenges For Clinton Or Trump


#1


#2

The absolute folly of Mars Rules on full display:

"The prioritization of arsenals over arms control is pronounced. Russia is increasing the role of road-mobile missiles and is doubling the share of intercontinental ballistic missiles equipped with multiple warheads (from 35% to 70%). The Chinese are deploying strategic submarines, land-mobile rockets and early-warning systems that can support dangerous high-alert postures. India and Israel are making similar moves to operationalize their arsenals and command systems for rapid response. North Korea, under an impulsive dictator, continues to hammer away at its own nuclear weapons capability while ratcheting up threats of pre-emptive nuclear attack. And Pakistan is on track to double its arsenal over the next five years, including development of so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons for use on the battlefield (this is, perhaps, a too-fine distinction: when a nuclear weapon goes off, nobody will stop to ask whether it was tactical or strategic)."

So the estimated Trillion that will be spent on all this "Defense" will meanwhile guarantee a dearth of investments in Green Energy and thus the more sure demise of the Living World... and with it, most if not all sentient life.

Fine decisions, Defense Ministers everywhere! Gather up the weapons while the world burns... and consign us all to the equivalent of a mass suicide pact.

Jim Jones is smiling from whatever ethereal (or lesser) realm his soul has been sent.


#3

I would encourage the article's author, Derek Johnson to use more critical acumen in his apparent reflex to digest MSM stories whole... that is, consume certain Official Narratives without question.

This is one example:

"A few short years ago, it was conventional wisdom that Iran would never agree to forgo weapons of mass destruction. We know now that the skeptics were wrong."

Iran was not seeking the nuclear weapons that advocates of the Project for a New American Century asserted.

This is also way OFF the mark:

"We did not imagine then that just three years later President Putin would invade Ukraine and upend the security paradigm in Europe. Nor could we have predicted that President Obama — the man who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his commitment to nuclear disarmament — would embark on a $1 trillion nuclear spending spree of his own, one that threatens to lock in a new nuclear arms race."

An orchestrated coup in Ukraine on Russia's border led to some response from Putin. However, the idea that he invaded Ukraine is farcical and miles from any honest assessment.


#4

This report is a gross understatement. What with the bloody fools running the USA putting nuclear weapons in Romania, Poland and UIkraine and flitting around former Warsaw Pact countries in B-52s and B-2s and God knows what other wastes of money, all it now takes is for a flock of geese to fly towards Russia on a dark and stormy night and be seen on radar by a tired Russian radar operator, and BANG, the whole bloody show, including Chelsea Clinton, goes up in the air.

There will be no time for a telephone call or whatever from Russia to whatever fool gets elected as POTUS.


#7

Just so. As Robert Parry recently wrote in "The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?"

.............................................
"In Clinton’s world view, President Vladimir Putin, who has been elected multiple times and has approval ratings around 80 percent, is nothing more than a “dictator” who is engaged in “aggression” that threatens NATO following the U.S.-backed “regime change” in Ukraine.

“Moscow has taken aggressive military action in Ukraine, right on NATO’s doorstep,” she declared. But stop for a second and think about what Clinton said: she sees Russia responding to an unconstitutional coup in Ukraine – which installed a virulently anti-Russian regime on Russia’s border – as Moscow acting aggressively “on NATO’s doorstep.”

That’s the same NATO, whose job it was to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union, that — following the Soviet Union’s collapse — added country after country right up to Russia’s border. In other words, NATO muscled its way into Russia’s face and has announced plans to incorporate Ukraine as well, but when Russia reacts, it’s the one doing the provoking.

Clinton’s neoconservative interpretation of what’s happening in Eastern Europe is so upside-down and inside-out that it could ultimately become the flashpoint for a nuclear war between Russia and the West.

While she sees Russia as the “aggressor” against NATO, the Russians see NATO moving troops up to its borders and watch the deployment of anti-ballistic-missile systems in Romania and Poland, thus making a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia more feasible. Russia has made clear that it views these military deployments, just kilometers from major Russian cities, as an existential threat.

In response, Russia is raising its alert levels and upgrading its strategic forces. Yet, Hillary Clinton believes the Russians have no reason to fear NATO’s military encirclement and no right to resist U.S.-supported coups in countries on Russia’s periphery. It is just such a contradiction of viewpoints that can turn a spark into an uncontrollable inferno.

What might happen, for instance, if Ukraine’s nationalist — and even neo-Nazi — militias, which wield increasing power over the corrupt and indecisive regime in Kiev, received modern weaponry from a tough-talking Clinton-45 administration and launched an offensive to exterminate ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine and to reclaim Crimea, where 96 percent of the voters opted to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia?

A President Hillary Clinton would have talked herself into a position of supporting this “liberation” of “Russian-occupied territory” and her clever propagandists would surely present this “heroic struggle” as a war of good against evil, much as they justified bloody U.S. invasions of Iraq and Libya which Clinton supported as U.S. senator and Secretary of State, respectively."

--Clinton's inability to see beyond her own extreme belligerence could easily escalate hostilities to war, even nuclear war.


#8

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#9

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.