Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Armageddon’

“Putin Has Misread the West And if He Doesn’t Wake Up Soon, Armageddon Is Upon Us” |

Posted by M. C. on December 29, 2022

In other words, by his inaction Putin has convinced Washington and its European puppet states that he doesn’t mean what he says and will endlessly accept ever worsening provocations, which have gone from sanctions to Western financial help to Ukraine, weapons supply, training and targeting information, provision of missiles capable of attacking internal Russia,

Dear friends, This website is read by many and supported by few.  I ask those readers who have never contributed to consider responding to this last request of 2022.

“Putin Has Misread the West And if He Doesn’t Wake Up Soon, Armageddon Is Upon Us”

Mike Whitney Interviews Paul Craig Roberts

Question 1—You think that Putin should have acted more forcefully from the beginning in order to end the war quickly. Is that an accurate assessment of your view on the war? And—if it is—then what do you think is the downside of allowing the conflict to drag on with no end in sight?

Paul Craig Roberts—Yes, you have correctly stated my position. But as my position can seem “unAmerican” to the indoctrinated and brainwashed many, those who watch CNN, listen to NPR, and read the New York Times, I am going to provide some of my background before going on with my answer.

I was involved in the 20th century Cold War in many ways: As a Wall Street Journal editor; as an appointee to an endowed chair in the Center for Strategic and International Studies, part of Georgetown University at the time of my appointment, where my colleagues were Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor, and James Schlesinger, a Secretary of Defense and CIA director who was one of my professors in graduate school at the University of Virginia; as a member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger; and as a member of a secret presidential committee with power to investigate the CIA’s opposition to President Reagan’s plan to end the Cold War.

With a history such as mine, I was surprised when I took an objective position on Russian President Putin’s disavowal of US hegemony, and found myself labeled a “Russian dupe/agent” on a website, “PropOrNot,” which may have been financed by the US Department of State, the National Endowment for Democracy, or the CIA itself, still harboring old resentments against me for helping President Reagan end the Cold War, which had the potential of reducing the CIA’s budget and power. I still wonder what the CIA might do to me, despite the agency inviting me to address the agency, which I did, and explain why they went wrong in their reasoning.

I will also say that in my articles I am defending truth, not Putin, although Putin is, in my considered opinion, the most honest player, and perhaps the most naive, in the current game that could end in nuclear Armageddon. My purpose is to prevent nuclear Armageddon, not to take sides. I remember well President Reagan’s hatred of “those godawful nuclear weapons” and his directive that the purpose was not to win the Cold War but to end it.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The most important lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis

Posted by M. C. on October 14, 2022

The carefully concealed truth did not emerge for more than a decade. Kennedy, it turns out, had made a secret deal with Khrushchev. He promised to remove US nuclear missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviet removal of missiles from Cuba. So the crisis was ended not by threats of force, as Rusk suggested, but by the precise opposite: diplomatic compromise.

By Stephen Kinzer Contributor,

It’s been 60 years since our last brush with nuclear suicide. Humanity barely survived that encounter in 1962, known to history as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Never since then has nuclear apocalypse been as close as it is today. Take it from President Biden.

“We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Biden told a California audience a few days ago. His aides, The New York Times reported, have been studying the secret deal that averted catastrophe 60 years ago and “debating whether there might be an analogous understanding” to end the Ukraine war. The central lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis provides our only extant guide to defusing a nuclear crisis.

A generation of American politicians and strategic thinkers misunderstood this lesson. They may be forgiven, because our government covered up the real story for years. Americans were told that the missile crisis taught one lesson. Later we discovered that it taught the exact opposite.

The missile crisis seized the world’s attention in October 1962. President John F. Kennedy announced that the United States had discovered Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba “capable of striking Washington.” He demanded that the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, remove them. That led to the most crucial long-distance negotiation in human history.

All of Kennedy’s military advisers urged him to order massive bombing of Cuba. “The operation is fairly simple, it could be accomplished in a few minutes,” General Curtis LeMay assured him. “We see no problem with this.”

Kennedy did. He worried that subduing Cuba would require not just bombing but a full-fledged invasion, to which Moscow might respond with devastating force. His speech to the nation on Oct. 22, 1962, was delicately balanced. He repeated his demand that the Soviets remove their missiles from Cuba but said the United States would act with “patience and restraint” and not “prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Refusing To Oppose US Tyranny Is Siding With It: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

Posted by M. C. on December 30, 2021

The world is burning and psychopaths are brandishing armageddon weapons in the name of global domination. If you are going to spend any of your remaining time on this planet fighting, it would probably be wise to spend it fighting for something that truly matters.

Caitlin Johnstone

The US and its allies are pushing the world toward nuclear armageddon. The US and its allies armed Al Qaeda in Syria. The US and its allies are carrying out a literal genocide in Yemen. The US and its allies are deliberately starving children by the thousands. Shut up about Russia and China.

Desmond Tutu said “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” This is especially true of the unjust situation in which the largest power structure on earth oppresses and tyrannizes populations around the world to force their obedience. Refusing to take a clear stance against that power structure is siding with it.

William Van Wagenen has a new article out with The Libertarian Institute documenting the mountains of evidence that the US and its allies were supporting Al Qaeda-tied militias in Syria from the beginning of the war, in direct contradiction of the mainstream narrative that that started later. 

This is what happened in Syria, it’s what happened in Libya, and it’s what was on track to happen in Xinjiang before Beijing said “nah” and launched its crackdown. The west isn’t mad at Beijing for committing a “genocide”, it’s mad at Beijing for preventing one.

Like so many other western propaganda operations these days, this one is predominantly about China’s Belt and Road Initiative which it plans to use to help rise above US hegemony and create a multipolar world. The actual interest in Xinjiang has been about the fact that it is a key geostrategic region that the western empire would greatly benefit from balkanizing away from China so it can’t fulfill the crucial role planned for it in the BRI.Benjamin Norton @BenjaminNortonThis map says more than any article you’ll ever see in corporate media about why Western imperialist countries (that have spent decades killing Muslims) suddenly pretend to care about Uyghurs in Xinjiang, China. They want to break China up and stop its Belt and Road Initiative. July 25th 20201,087 Retweets2,278 Likes

Criticize Beijing’s crackdown in Xinjiang all you want, but it is indisputably orders of magnitude less draconian than the US “war on terror” approach which has killed millions and displaced tens of millions since 9/11.

Yes, China’s government is more authoritarian than yours in some ways. Also, you’re being deceived by a massive, sweeping propaganda campaign about the things China’s government does and the threat it poses to you. Both of these things are true. They do not contradict each other.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

To Avoid Armageddon, Don’t Modernize Missiles – Eliminate Them – Original

Posted by M. C. on October 20, 2021

by Daniel Ellsberg and Norman Solomon

Reprinted from The Nation

The single best option for reducing the risk of nuclear war is hidden in plain sight. News outlets don’t mention it. Pundits ignore it. Even progressive and peace-oriented members of Congress tiptoe around it. And yet, for many years, experts have been calling for this act of sanity that could save humanity: Shutting down all of the nation’s intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Four hundred ICBMs dot the rural landscapes of Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Loaded in silos, these missiles are uniquely – and dangerously – on hair-trigger alert. Unlike the nuclear weapons on submarines or bombers, the land-based missiles are vulnerable to attack and could present the commander in chief with a sudden use-them-or-lose-them choice. “If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route to the United States, the president would have to consider launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them. Once they are launched, they cannot be recalled,” former Defense Secretary William Perry warns. “The president would have less than 30 minutes to make that terrible decision.”

The danger that a false alarm on either side – of the sort that has occurred repeatedly on both sides – would lead to a preemptive attack derives almost entirely from the existence on both sides of land-based missile forces, each vulnerable to attack by the other; each, therefore, is kept on a high state of alert, ready to launch within minutes of warning. The easiest and fastest way for the US to reduce that risk – and, indeed, the overall danger of nuclear war – is to dismantle entirely its Minuteman III missile force. Gen. James E. Cartwright, a former vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had been commander of the Strategic Command, teamed up with former Minuteman launch officer Bruce G. Blair to write in a 2016 op-ed piece: “By scrapping the vulnerable land-based missile force, any need for launching on warning disappears.”

But rather than confront the reality that ICBMs – all ICBMs – are such a grave threat to human survival, the most concerned members of Congress have opted to focus on stopping new ones from taking the place of existing ones. A year ago, the Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a $13.3 billion “engineering and manufacturing development” contract for replacing the current Minuteman III missiles with a new generation of ICBMs named the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. Current projections peg the overall cost over the next five decades at $364 billion. Northrop Grumman calls the GBSD “the modernization of the ground-based leg of the nuclear triad.” But if reducing the dangers of nuclear war is a goal, the top priority should be to remove the triad’s ground-based leg – not modernize it.

Many arms-control advocates, while understanding the inherent dangers of ground-based nuclear missiles, have largely stuck to opposing the GBSD. Instead of challenging ICBMs outright, a coalition of organizations has concentrated on aiming a fiscal argument at Capitol Hill, calling the GBSD program a “money pit” that would squander vast amounts of taxpayer dollars. But the powerful chair of the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith, executed a deft end run around that strategy in early summer when he declared that “Minuteman extension, as it is currently being explained to us, is actually more expensive than building the GBSD.”

The same Congressman Smith said less than a year earlier, “I frankly think that our [ICBM] fleet right now is driven as much by politics as it is by a policy necessity. You know, there are certain states in the union that apparently are fond of being a nuclear target. And you know, it’s part of their economy. It’s what they do.”

Senators from several of the states with major ICBM bases or development activities – Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah – continue to maintain an “ICBM Coalition” dedicated to thwarting any serious scrutiny of the land-based weaponry. Members of the coalition have systematically blocked efforts to reduce the number of ICBMs or study alternatives to building new ones. They’re just a few of the lawmakers captivated by ICBM mega-profiteers. In a report issued this year by the Center for International Policy, nuclear weapons expert William Hartung gives readers a detailed look “Inside the ICBM Lobby,” showing how ICBM contractors get their way while throwing millions of dollars at politicians and deploying battalions of lobbyists on Capitol Hill. As the recipient of the sole-source contract to build the proposed new ICBMs, Northrop Grumman has joined with other top contractors to block efforts to reduce spending on these dangerous and unnecessary systems – or even simply to pause their development.

When opponents of the GBSD decline to challenge the currently deployed Minuteman III missiles, the effects are counterproductive if their ultimate goal is to get rid of ICBMs. Tacit acceptance of the Minuteman missile force while attempting to block the GBSD sends a message that the ICBM status quo isn’t so bad. Such a tactical path might seem eminently pragmatic and realistic. But sooner or later, the extraordinary dangers of keeping any ICBMs in place must be faced, exposed, explained to the public – and directly challenged.

Getting trapped in an argument about the cheapest way to keep ICBMs operational in their silos is ultimately no-win. The history of nuclear weapons in this country tells us that people will spare no expense if they believe that spending the money will really make them and their loved ones safer – we must show them that ICBMs actually do the opposite. Unless arms-control and disarmament groups, along with allied members of Congress, change course and get serious about addressing the fundamentals of why ICBMs should be eliminated, they’ll end up implicitly reinforcing the land-based part of the triad.

“First and foremost,” former Defense Secretary Perry wrote five years ago, “the United States can safely phase out its land-based [ICBM] force, a key facet of Cold War nuclear policy. Retiring the ICBMs would save considerable costs, but it isn’t only budgets that would benefit. These missiles are some of the most dangerous weapons in the world. They could even trigger an accidental nuclear war.”

Contrary to uninformed assumptions, discarding all ICBMs could be accomplished unilaterally by the United States with no downside. Even if Russia chose not to follow suit, dismantling the potentially cataclysmic land-based missiles would make the world safer for everyone on the planet. Frank von Hippel, a former chair of the Federation of American Scientists and a cofounder of Princeton’s Program on Science and Global Security, wrote this year: “Eliminating launch on warning would significantly reduce the probability of blundering into a civilization-ending nuclear war by mistake. To err is human. To start a nuclear war would be unforgivable.”

Better sooner than later, members of Congress will need to face up to the horrendous realities about intercontinental ballistic missiles. They won’t do that unless peace, arms-control, and disarmament groups go far beyond the current limits of congressional discourse – and start emphasizing, on Capitol Hill and at the grassroots, the crucial truth about ICBMs and the imperative of eliminating them all.

Daniel Ellsberg is a former American military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation who precipitated a national uproar in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, the US military’s account of activities during the Vietnam War, to The New York Times. The release awakened the American people to how much they had been deceived by their own government about the war. Ellsberg has continued as a political activist, giving lecture tours and speaking out about current events.

Norman Solomon is is the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, the author of War Made Easy, and a cofounder of

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

My Corner by Boyd Cathey

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2021

“Slouching towards Armageddon”

American Foreign Policy’s Death Wish

If Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) had their way American troops—boys, men, women, and, yes, transgenders—would not only be in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, “for as long as it takes” uttered an unchastened Cheney (re-affirmed in her congressional positions of power by gutless fellow Republicans), but everywhere else in the world where “the ‘democratic’ way of life” must be imposed by American might. And the result? A continuation of thousands of body bags…


If Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) had their way American troops—boys, men, women, and, yes, transgenders—would not only be in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, “for as long as it takes” uttered an unchastened Cheney (re-affirmed in her congressional positions of power by gutless fellow Republicans), but everywhere else in the world where “the ‘democratic’ way of life” must be imposed by American might. And the result? A continuation of thousands of body bags, billions of dollars from an already desperate American middle class, and the destruction of indigenous cultures dating back thousands of years, to be replaced with feminism, same sex marriage and gender fluidity, and the fruits of robber baron capitalism.

The response of those two leaders and others in the Washington establishment bespeak the era of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton when Neoconservative scribblers like Bill Kristol and the late Charles Krauthammer (canonized now by Fox News), and the globalist policy wonks at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), ruled the roost…and America’s international role of spreading democratic, secularist…and ultimately anti-Christian…dogma was riding high. It was the time before the advent of Donald Trump and “Make America Great Again,” before the scales and blinders began ever-so-slightly to come off the eyes of millions of Americans.

Back in April 2014, at Communities Digital News, I noted that:

“Today, Republican Party leaders, like those over in the Democratic Party, endorse what they call ‘equality’ and believe generally in imposing ‘liberal democracy’ around the world. Recall leading Neoconservative writer Allan Bloom’s dictum that he famously penned a few years back, which serves as motto for most in the current Republican leadership: ‘And when we Americans speak seriously about politics, we mean that our principles of freedom and equality and the rights based on them are rational and everywhere applicable. World War II was really an educational experiment undertaken to force those who do not accept these principles to do so’.”

Those Neoconservatives have never given up, and many of their major mouthpieces—a Max Boot, Jonah Goldberg, the writers at National Review—became leaders of the Never Trump movement. Others, less honest and more corruptive and evil about their motives, with dishonest smiles on their faces, buried into the Trump administration (e.g., think here of a John Bolton or General Mattis) where they could subvert and impede even the slightest movement toward realism in American foreign policy. (My constant belief is that a major failing of Trump and his presidency was his inability to surround himself with advisors and officials who would genuinely carry out an America First agenda; many acted consistently and fervently to sabotage and undermine it.).

What I wrote back in 2014 came to mind during these past few weeks. And two events—two items in the news—triggered my thoughts.

First, came a subdued report earlier this month, barely noticed by national media that the much-ballyhooed accusations in June 2020 of the Russians paying financial bounties to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan to kill American servicemen was essentially based on nothing—no solid intelligence –just the “assessment” of some of those same inflamed global policy wonks who continue to dwell in the bowels of the permanent managerial state bureaucracy. Remember how the media and politicians reacted last June and July? For days there was hardly anything else of any import on MSNBC or CNN. “The Russians are paying the Taliban to kill American boys!” cried Nancy Pelosi.  “Trump’s a Russian stooge!” bellowed Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff, “maybe taking direct orders from the Kremlin! He must be impeached!”

And so it went, with headlines on the national (and local) news for days and days. But now some of the media most culpable for spreading and propagating that falsehood—think here of The Daily Beast—casually admit (usually buried way back on page 13) that what they reported was wrong. Indeed, the US intelligence agencies have, surprise surprise, walked back the accusation. The story, they now maintain, “is, at best, unproven — and possibly untrue.” 

It was all political, but it also demonstrated once more the incredible power and reach of our corrupted Intel agencies whose ideological subinfeudation to and use by Neocon globalism remains unbroken and unbreakable.

The second item that caught my attention was a fascinating essay in The Asia Times (March 19), and the title tells all: “Life after death for the neonconservatives.” The author, David P. Goldman (from whom I would not have expected such realism), asserts that “[t]he obsession of American foreign policy after the fall of communism was [imposing] pro-Western democracy in Russia, and the foreign policy establishment have never forgiven Vladimir Putin  for returning Russia” to its older, pre-Soviet traditions. But now, “the obsession is back with Joe Biden—and with it, the neoconservatives who dominated the failed administration of George W. Bush. For several reasons, President Biden’s March 16 denunciation of Putin as a ‘killer’ without a soul ranks among the dumbest utterances ever by an American leader – and that’s a crowded field. To begin with, heads of state do not insult each other this way, except in wartime.”

Goldman continues that the idiotic and senseless American (and presidential) insults and the accompanying ratcheting up of tensions along the Russian-Ukranian border, largely pushed and encouraged by the US handing a blank check to Ukraine, have forced a wary Russia, the world’s second major power, into a reluctant alliance with China, the world’s third major power which is something that foreign policy realists have always dreaded and worked to avoid.

Not only that but Russia’s collaboration, at least tacitly, is needed for any lasting deal with a nuclear Iran. And there is little inclination now in Moscow to assist the Neocon blockheads at the State Department to facilitate this.

This latest bout with “Russians did it!” hysteria appears to be largely the result of the Intel agencies’ recent  “assessment” (March 16), once again charging those utterly beyond-the-pale demiurges from Moscow, who want to re-create the Soviet empire, “of operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy, and the Democratic Party.” As Goldman observes, that report is more of the same unsupported drivel, the fluff, we’ve been hearing for years from Democratic AND Republican political leaders. And a continuation of the fatal fascination that establishment Neocons have with Russia—“It won’t act like a responsible democracy! It wants to do its own thing!” Or, to paraphrase Allan Bloom, if they won’t do what we tell them to do, steps must be “undertaken to force those who do not accept these principles to do so.”

Despite their apparently weakened position after four years of Trump and a gradual realization among millions of Americans that Neoconservative solutions to global problems are not only wrong, but positively dangerous, they’re back and occupy positions of authority in the Biden presidency. Thus, while the administration tacitly encourages the BLM/Antifa mobs in our streets, pushes Critical Race Theory in our schools, and opens the floodgates for illegals at our border, we venture ever so close to world conflagration internationally.

During the Bush and Obama years the Neocon foreign policy establishment got the US to spend over $6 trillion for foreign wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. And more than 801,000 people have died (up to now) as a direct result of the fighting (Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs). And at the same time, again Goldman: “America lost industrial jobs at the fastest rate in its history, and America’s trade deficit ballooned to $600 billion a year. It failed to export democracy, but also failed to export anything else,” except misery, dislocation and upheaval.

Goldman correctly labels the essential ideology of the Neoconservatives as “right-wing Marxism.” He continues:

“Being determines consciousness, taught Marx, and ideology arises from the social structure. For Marx, that meant that communism would create a New Man free of the vices of capitalism; for neoconservatives, it meant that the mere forms of democratic governance would create democrats.”

It took no less an observer than Joschka Fischer of the German [Leftwing] Green Party to notice what had happened and what my friend Dr. Paul Gottfried calls the “strange death of Marxism”:

“When I came to Washington as German foreign minister during the [George W. Bush] administration and met the neoconservatives, I instantly recognized them as the old comrades! I got the book by [neocons] Richard Perl and David Frum, An End to Evil, and took Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution from my bookshelf, and compared them page by page. Except for some changes in terminology, they were the same book.”

I am sure that Lindsey Graham and Liz Cheney would object strenuously to the comparison. And I am certain that Jonah Goldberg and the National Review crowd would cry “fascist” if made the butt of such a comparison.

But the comparison holds and will not go away. The establishment “conservative movement” long ago accepted the progressivist version of history and its idea of inevitability, and the national GOP has done its best to rationalize politically that vision. In the end, the conservative/Republican establishment—what Gottfried calls “ConInc”—and the post-Marxist Left emit from the same fetid and poisonous philosophical swamp. And, despite its protestations to the contrary and its sometimes defensive appearance against the rot, that pseudo-Conservatism is essentially antithetical to Western Christian civilization.

Until it is overthrown our precipitous decay will continue. 

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

World sleepwalking into total nuclear war as callous elites fear no bloodshed – Russian scholar — RT World News

Posted by M. C. on September 17, 2019

Limiting nuclear arsenals doesn’t make the world safer – not while the elites, who have never seen a big war, complacently believe they never will. This dangerous illusion invites apocalyptic conflict, a renowned scholar believes.

Humankind’s history might be a history of wars, but for several decades there was a sort of lull, with no really big armed conflict affecting leading world powers. That is, in part, thanks to nuclear weapons. Fear of their power kept the Cold War from becoming a hot one and restricted the actual fighting to proxy conflicts.


And that, in turn, has led to a situation where many of those currently in power don’t take the threat of war with the gravity it deserves, says Sergey Karaganov, a researcher of international relations and a dean at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics.

Complacency breeds danger

“The previous generations had a gut fear of war because their fathers or they themselves experienced World War II. But modern generations think of war very lightly,” he told RT.

This attitude is a major reason why the world now is in fact a more dangerous place than it was at the height of the US-Soviet confrontation, he believes. Some powers believe they are entitled to live in peace and cannot imagine that a smaller conflict elsewhere may escalate into a nuclear Armageddon. Meanwhile old mechanisms meant to prevent such a disaster are rapidly deteriorating, he said…

These days, it’s more complicated than just nukes

That said, those old mechanisms are also failing for purely technological reasons. In the 1970s there was a reasonably clear distinction between strategic weapons and everything else, so ensuring parity was relatively simple. Basically the US and the USSR settled on numbers of missiles, long-range bombers, submarines and warheads they were comfortable with and agreed ways to verify that each party sticks to the limits…

But the distinction between “nuclear and non-nuclear, conventional and non-conventional” is blurred today…

Stop trying to limit nukes – change the thinking

Karaganov recently co-authored a report on this persistent danger. He admits it doesn’t have all the right answers, but offers some ideas where to begin – and philosophy is at least as important as politics or technicalities.

For example, nations should acknowledge that geopolitical rivalry was not an aberration of the ideologically-divided past but rather a natural order of things. Strong players have great appetites and will use any means to impose their will on weaker ones. Unfair, but such is life.

The next step would be to embrace a new multilateral deterrence arrangement that would include additional players, first and foremost China, and somehow incorporate non-nuclear things like cyber weapons into the calculation…

Be seeing you

endless war

The good thing about nuclear war-it won’t be endless.



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

What Can Be Done? — Paul Craig Roberts –

Posted by M. C. on May 2, 2018

Paul Craig Roberts

It is up to Europe whether or not the Earth dies in nuclear Armageddon.

European governments do not realize their potential to save the world from Washington’s aggression, because the western Europeans are accustomed to being Washington’s vassal states since the end of World War 2, and the eastern and central Europeans have accepted Washington’s vassalage since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Vassalage pays well if all the costs are not counted. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Another Step Toward Armageddon –

Posted by M. C. on January 12, 2018

Adjustable yield bombs is helping to make this happen.

Being able to destroy just one city as opposed to an entire region makes nukes “acceptable”.

It seems to me proliferation of nuclear weapons a violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But then what does a dum ‘ol country boy know?

The US military/security complex has taken another step toward Armageddon. The Pentagon has prepared a nuclear posture review (NPR) that gives the OK to development of smaller “usable” nuclear weapons and permits their use in response to a non-nuclear attack.

As Reagan and Gorbachev understood, but the warmongers who have taken over America do not, there are far too many nuclear weapons already. Some scientists have concluded that even the use of 10 percent of either the US or Russian arsenal would suffice to destroy life on earth… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »