Last month two nuclear-armed countries, India and Pakistan, came to the brink of war. Their border skirmish was a scary message from the future. If controls on nuclear weapons continue to weaken, more countries will probably develop those weapons. Each time one does, its rivals are likely to do the same. Local conflicts will suddenly have the potential to explode into nuclear war.
Pence is pushing for the rapture. The Kerch strait is NOT deemed international waters nor is the Sea of Azov. Pence pushing Germany to send warships through the Kerch strait would be like Russia sending warships to steam into Lake Superior . The Sea of Azov , much like Lake Superior is considered an internal sea. Other nations can not demand right of passage.
In other news, even as the US Navy sailed near islands in the South China Sea getting a harsh rebuke form China for sailing in what they deem Chinese territorial waters , a US admiral charged China with Militarizing the region. Apparently as far as the USA concerned the South CHINA Sea is not militarized when the US or its allies sail it but if China does it an escalation.
Pence is a deranged individual. According to an article I read it was he who promoted the US recognizing Guadio as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. He had a meeting with Guadio sometimes before this occurred where Guadio assured him he would get the support of over half the Venezuelan Military if the US declared him as the official leader. Pence brought this back to Washington.
Everything you write, Stephen, is correct, but the scariest thing is what is happening in the relationship between the US and Russia, and also, not perhaps as serious, but serion enough, between the US and China.
During the Obama administration, the US pushed its military alliance up against Russia’s western border, and moved to put advanced anti-missile batteries along that border, in Poland and to the south in, I believe, Rumania. The US has also continued to expand its submarine-launched missile fleet, each of 18 Ohio class subs holding 24 Trident II missiles with 8-10 highly accurate independently targetable nuclear warheads. Do the math. There are virtually undetectable and unstoppable subs off Russia’s coasts contaning a total of, at a minimum 3500 nuclear warheads. Four more Ohio class subs carry tomahawk nuclear-armed cruise missiles, also supremely accurate. Why do we have these weapons? We’re told they are a deterrent against any Russian thought of a nuclear first strike against the US, but if that were so, why would so much money have been spent on developing such accurate weapons that they can hit a target within a range of a few hundred feet? The reason is obvious – they are designed to take out Russia’s entire land-based missile silos, as well as bomber bases, basically eliminating any real chance of Russia retaliating against a US first strike. Accuracy is pointless in a retaliatory strike, since all the Russian missile silos and airports would, by definition, already be empty, their attack having been launched already. And the purpose of anti-missile systems in Europe? Not to protect Europe from attack, but to knock down Russian missiles as they are ascending, to eliminate any stray missiles that might have survived a US surprise attack. There is no other explanation. The Obama adminsitration simply lied to us, as it also lied in ordering a $1.3-trillion “refurbishment” of the US nuke arsenal. Actually part of that money has gone to developing new first strike weapons, like the so-called B61-12 dial-able variable power nuclear bomb cleverly misnamed as if it were just an upgrade of an existing 1960s weapon when it is actually a wholey new weapon specifically designed to be carried by the Pentagon’s new stealth plane, the F-35A Block 4, hundreds of which will be stationed along Russia’s border in Europe and in Asia. And why would that be? It’s not a very good interceptor, we know, nor a good ground support plane, but assuming its stealth design works, it’s a great first strike weapon for slipping past the radars of an advanced nation (Russia) to hit command-and-control and government targets, crippling any response to a US attack. Again a first-strike weapon, as I have been told by Pentagon experts off the record.
The reason for the US pulling out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty negotiated by President Reagan and President Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s is to be able to put back the Pershing II missiles removed under that treaty, giving the US the ability to strike Russia in minutes, not half an hour like with ICBMs, or 15 minutes as with sub-launched Tridents, making a Russian retaliation even less likely.
All of this is forcing Russia, a far less technologically advanced nation with very severe budgetary constraints (Russia’s entire military budget is $66 billion, down $20 billion from a year ago, smaller than Saudi Arabia’s and a third of China’s, and miniscule compared to the US military budget of $716 billion), to respond by developing hypersonic cruise missiles that could be produced enmasse relatively cheaply and evade most conceivable countermeasures, changing flight path and target automatically, and probably, like Russia’s retaliatory missiles, put on automatic or hair-trigger launch status.
Is that what we want from our government? A first-strike capability against Russia? Because that’s what we’ve got. As Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod documented in their 1986 book “To Win a Nuclear War,” and as Dan Ellsberg in his more recent book “The Doomsday Machine” also documents, the US, since 1945 before WWII even ended, has been trying to achieve the ability to destroy the Soviet Union/Russia with a first strike that could guarantee no effective retaliation against the US. Some US strategists were suggesting that some retaliation, as long as it killed fewer than 20 million of us, would be “acceptable” if it destroyed Russia as an adversary/rival. Thankfully, saner heads from Eisenhower and Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Reagan, were unwilling to go that far, while they did support efforts to develop the ability to have a cost-free first strike on Russia. But now the US is getting closer to being able to achieve that goal.
We don’t know what the Trump administration and Trump Pentagon’s thinking is about “acceptable US casualties” from a Russian counterstrike might be, but even if it were 1 milllion or 100,000 it would be an incredible crime. So would killing tens of millions or more than 100 million Russians, a prospect that should be simply unthinkable and would make US leaders far worse than Hitler in the annals of genocidal monsters.
The American people need to rise up against this madness. We need to return to the INF Treaty, to shut down the F-35A Block four stealth fighter/bomber and the planned stealth B-21 bomber, cancel the B61-12 bomb with it’s 0.3 kiloton to 50-kiloton adjustable warhead – a weapon designed to be “useable” not just in a first strike on Russia, but against non-nuclear nations, and we need to aggressively slash our outsize military budget, currently representing 34% of all global military spending.
The reality: The United States is today the greatest threat to mankind in the history of the world, run as it is by a gang of crazy bastards like National Insecurity Council Director John Bolton and the armageddon-believing Christian fanatic Sec. of State Michael Pompeo, who are hell-bent on making or keeping the US as a global hegemon at whatever the cost in money and life. We need to eliminate these psychopaths from government and demand that the US join the community of nations, refocussing our resources to combating the climate catastrophe that is building day by day through our inaction.
founding editor of ThisCantBeHappening
Pence is a deranged individual as are many or most of the Fox news clones.
No doubt. Why else would Trump, the insane, pick Pence for president of vice.
So damn true!
Your comment and Suspire’s above are the amongst the top reasons I love to visit this site. Thanks for your inputs!
We are on the brink of World War Three, as Stephen Kinzer says. Humanity has not learnt the lessons of history. The pattern is clear. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics - everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above concepts, that is the cause of war. As a result, because it will not relinquish power or genuinely compromise, every civilization/nation eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid: utter defeat. This applies as much today as any other time in history. Leaders and decision-makers delude themselves, thinking they can avoid that fateful war, that the conflict can be limited in scale or even won. History has always proven them wrong. The nuclear powers are blindly leading us to nuclear Armageddon.
Here is Dave’s website:
Allow me to outline the theme of the above book: it is about humanity’s inability to stop war. That is so because nations are not prepared to face up to the reason they fight: it is for power, manifested as interest.
I wonder, can’t help wondering, if underneath such quest for power fear is lurking. Right now I am thinking of Albert Einstein who has pointed out out that our first decision must be how we view the universe as friendly or not.
Thank you for posting the link to his site. Appreciate your doing this.
On the bright side, there is a real possibility that the only thing which could ensure future life on this planet in any form would be a nuclear winter.
There will never be World War III.
Only, the "End of World Wars."
Only a malcontent, moronic, imbecile would consider pushing the button. And boy, do we have enough of those to choose from?
Not one single mention of Israel in this entire article. Who has nukes? Who has not ever signed the non-proliferation treaty? Who has never allowed inspectors in or admitted they have nuclear weapons? Who has threatened on various occasions via mad dog generals and others to pull the Samson option and blow up everything in sight if worst comes to worst? Not … one … single … mention.
You forgot, “suicidal.”
So, you liked that old Byrds song, well, have another…
One of my favorites for the past almost 50 years.
Back in the 60’s when my favorite band was the Beatles, my brother who was 3 years older than me, his favorite was the Byrds.
He went so far as to buy a pair of those little colored glasses like Roger McQuin wore.
It helped in our house that our folks both enjoyed both of our favorites, God rest their Souls.
Oh man…great song
Glad you enjoyed it, here’s another…