Home | About | Donate

With Trump's Nuclear Doctrine the Cold War Resumes


#1

With Trump's Nuclear Doctrine the Cold War Resumes

Robert Dodge

While elected officials of our increasingly dysfunctional democracy debated “memogate”, the world became more dangerous as Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review was officially released on Friday. Ignoring scientific studies of the past decade and growing global sentiment by the world's non-nuclear states to abolish nuclear weapons, with this announcement the new arms race begins and the Cold War resumes.


#2

Yet another truly ignorant piece that attributes the post-WW2 nuclear policy of terrorizing the entire globe with nukes to the Tweeting Idiot of Orange. Total U.S. nuclear domination has been the bedrock of bipartisan U.S. Duopoly capitalism since Einstein and that gang got together because the Nazis were trying to cook up their own. Let’s grow up and stop falling for the Dems Weapon of Mass Distraction because they don’t want to create a truly progressive program that would start with a massive military build-down of U.S. force and cutting off weapons spending to mercenaries and puppets (allies).


#3

I’m not quite following you here.

Are you actually saying that there is nothing to be alarmed at relative to the right wing dickhead Donald Fucking Trump’s NPR?

I’m also no following your assertion that this author is attributing every action taken since Einstein as you cite, to Trump.

This author points to supporting movements that call to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Can’t we be alarmed at the NPR in the meantime? Just like we were alarmed when Obama set for the program of “modernization”?


#4

In reality, the Cold War only paused (during the Yeltsin [a drunken, blind-eye turning tool of the western banksters] years). It resumed when Putin stepped in and gave the finger to the neoliberal agenda. However, that never made the news.


#5

Yes, Putin is an anti-capitalist Man of the People. Sure thing…

I don’t see Russian-style authoritarian, nationalistic, oligarch-gangster capitalism as any kind of improvement over neoliberal capitalism whatsoever - in fact, it is a step downward from neoliberalism.

How would you define “neoliberalism” anyway? It is an economic philosophy, not an “agenda” whatever spooky thing that might mean…


#6

Most sentient people have been alarmed since the dawn of the nuclear age and the Atomic Bulletin has charted how close we have been throughout the decades. All the alarms in the world have not worked since Jimmy Carter and the Rooskies actually took positive build-down actions under the SALT guidelines. But even those build-downs and slowing of growth have not come close to doing the job. Tens of thousands of warheads still exist when it only takes a fraction of those to kick-off an ongoing nuclear winter.


#7

All true, and so it is also true that this new NPR relative to the shocking “updates” matters greatly in understanding just how close to the precipice we all stand.

Thus, this article is absolutely on point.


#8

It was neoliberalism that rapidly built up the oligarchs under Yeltsin’s “watch”, acquiescing to that very model for which you provide a definition. Yes, Russia’s economic model varies from that of the USSR, but I see it a resumption of the Cold War because the core enemy, the Bear, remains the same.


#9

For those that want to abolish nuclear weapons, what is your solution for international violence against US allies? For example:

  1. China is currently laying claim to over 90% of the south china sea, and building military outposts on man made islands in areas that by international maritime laws are a part of countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippians and Taiwan. Without US interference there is nothing stopping China from attacking islands that belong to these countries thus resulting in a major international Asian conflict with 6 nations. Can you really say that without US interference and the threat of nuclear deterrence that this region would be safer?

  2. Russia wants to expand its control over Baltic nations due to supply of natural gas in the region. Without nuclear weapons, what is an acceptable US response if Russia invades and takes over Baltic nations including countries like Estonia, which is a NATO nation. Without nuclear deterrence extended to NATO allies, there is really nothing in terms of a military response that is preventing Russia from invading these countries, so can you really say that abolishing nuclear weapons would make the Baltic region safer?

  3. Without the threat of nuclear war, what exactly is stopping major military power nations from invading other nations, or even dictatorships from attacking other nations that are allies with the USA? Sure we can put economic sanctions on these nations, but that in turn can have economic effects on the entire world economy. If the world economy suffers as a result of economic sanction, can you really say that economic sanctions are preferable to nuclear deterrence?


#10

But when Democrat Harry Truman dropped two atomic bombs on densely populated civilian targets and annihilated a few hundred thousand lives in micro-seconds, these were “humanitarian” acts. And, Democrat President Obama had no choice but to allocate $1 trillion for nuclear weapons modernization. (Sarcasm)

By the way, right now I’ve been trying to get folks in STEM to publicly state that they will refuse to knowingly engage in the development of ‘usable’ low-level nuclear weapons. Some progressives folk in STEM are supportive. However, despite the wide spread ‘March on Science’ / ‘Stand for Science’ position taken by many in STEM, a lot of folk are not supportive. Most folk who refuse claim to want to agnostic. Some denigrate my efforts as lacking in ‘objectivity’. Some have denounced me as as bad as Trump for politicizing science. And, some have labeled me a ‘social justice Nazi’ for, in their eyes, promoting the ‘fascist’ notion that scientists should be compelled to adhere to rigid political principle.


#11

Yeh. There are a lot of folks in “science” who think that it is neutral and immoral, so anything goes in the names of discovery, curiosity, objectivity, etc. Einstein (who turned against nuclear weapons) and many others on the Manhattan Project and in nuclear weapons/power/waste were moral people who soon saw its scientifically totalitarian pay ower. Others continue to pursue the evil journey to see where it goes and there are many more like Edward Teller and the pissants Truman and Trump who just get off on using the incredible power, even if it means total annihalation.


#12

No.

With Trump’s nuclear doctrine, the Cold War escalates.

Why need we pretend to ignore the collusion of Barack Obama in moving NATO east? Why need we pass over the involvement of Hillary Clinton in the fascist coup in Ukraine? Why need we look away from the extensive Cold War and Grand Chessboard concepts behind the Democrats’ black ops funding of ISIS in Syria, the Cheney-Bush invasions before, or Bill Clinton’s sanctions and bombings in Iraq before 9/11?

Why do we need to exclude the Democrats from culpability to attack the Republicans?

It goes on. But of course if we go before that, a Cold War was acknowledged, however much was not acknowledged about it.