MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Nuclear war’

Nuclear War Over Ukraine? – LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Posted by M. C. on January 6, 2022

The other NATO allies are paper tigers. Most important, Germany has no desire to fight Russia. Unlike the snarling Republicans in the US Congress, Europeans want no new wars. Their boys are not ready to die for Luhansk.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/01/eric-margolis/nuclear-war-over-ukraine/

By Eric S. Margolis

How many American soldiers will die in the battle for Luhansk?  Or Kerch?  Not 1 in 1,000 Americans could find these drab Ukrainian (formerly Russian) industrial cities on a map.

How many Americans are aware that a unit of the Florida National Guard is stationed in western Ukraine, of all places?  It’s just a training mission, says the Pentagon.  Right. Training how to pick oranges.  This from the ‘invincible’ US military (I used to be a member) that got its backside whipped in Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan.

No matter. The US, says President Biden, is geared up for a major fight in this obscure coal-mining region of the former Soviet Union.  US Navy vessels and aircraft now challenge Russia’s Black Sea and Azov Sea borders.  NATO units probe Ukraine’s air and land borders.

Washington is warning Moscow not to react to US military intrusions.  And, above all, not to invade Ukraine – which was part of historic Russia and the Soviet Union until the USSR fell apart after a US-engineered coup in Kiev that created western-orientated Ukraine.  Today, Ukraine is governed by a former TV comic whose career was financed by shady oligarchs and western interests.

President Biden has all but threatened war against Russia if Vlad Putin makes good on threats to attack Ukraine.  Putin warns the US of his new arsenal of whizz-bang weapons, many of them nuclear.  This reminds me of an Italian diplomat’s brilliant quip about the regional conflict over a barren Eritrean border region: ‘two bald men fighting over a comb.”

Ukraine is an economic black hole, with massive industrial pollution, titanic debts, unbridled thievery, and staggering corruption.

For Russia, Ukraine was its former industrial and agricultural heartland, and key component of the Russian state.  Think of Ohio suddenly detached from America by pro-Trump rebels or the Red Fleet cruising the Great Lakes.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Europeans Refuse To Defend Selves, Demand US Go To Nuclear War for Them – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2021

But that wasn’t all. They expected the US to use nukes in response to conventional attack. From their standpoint, that was a lot better than having to create effective militaries of their own. It was the miracle of maximum retaliation. Which put the American homeland at risk in any conflict involving Europe.

https://original.antiwar.com/?p=2012344364

by Doug Bandow

Nuclear weapons are terrible, but that gives them greater deterrent power. However, few of America’s allies have them, so Washington has promised to fight potentially multiple nuclear wars on their behalf. It is a great deal for countries that have spent decades cheap riding on the US.

With the Biden administration involved in a “nuclear posture review” and a National Security Council meeting scheduled this month on the issue, a variety of allied powers are afraid that President Joe Biden will adopt a “no first use” policy or at least narrow the circumstances (so-called “sole purpose”) under which he would use them. Then the good times would be over, upsetting Asian and European nations which now rely on the US for their defense.

Indeed, the poor dears are beside themselves. “Allies are essentially, in unison, collectively panicking,” one unnamed American told the Financial Times: “Adopting a ‘sole purpose’ nuclear declaratory policy would be soul crushing to US allies and partners. It would gut our credibility. After Afghanistan and Nord Stream 2, there is a genuine concern as to how much more they can take.”

There apparently is no limit to the whiny outbursts of defense dependents which believe it is America’s job to coddle and succor them forever. There is a simple solution, however. If they are overcome with horror that Americans might not prove willing to fight a nuclear war on their behalf, then all they need do is take over their own defense. Spend more on the military. Build more weapons. Ally with other nations which do the same. Problem solved!

Possession of nuclear weapons is an awesome responsibility. Only America has ever used them, and that was against a non-nuclear power. However, Washington has routinely threatened to employ them in the succeeding years

“Massive retaliation” became the strategy to deter a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Explained Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, the doctrine placed “more reliance on deterrent power and less dependence on local defensive power… Local defense will always be important. But there is no local defense which alone will contain the mighty land power of the Communist world. Local defenses must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power.”

America’s many allies grew to like the idea of the US holding a “nuclear umbrella” over them to ward off any nuclear attack by other states. But that wasn’t all. They expected the US to use nukes in response to conventional attack. From their standpoint, that was a lot better than having to create effective militaries of their own. It was the miracle of maximum retaliation. Which put the American homeland at risk in any conflict involving Europe.

Biden sought to roll back US nuclear support, backing the “sole use” limitation as vice president and 2020 presidential candidate. Moreover, the administration’s Interim National Security Strategic Guidance held: “We will take steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, while ensuring our strategic deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective and that our extended deterrence commitments to our allies remain strong and credible.”

However, since becoming president he has not indicated what he plans to do. Biden committed to “a credible and united nuclear alliance” when meeting French President Emmanuel Macron. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby intoned that “Our US extended deterrence commitments remain strong and credible,” which may be true even without first use, since a nuclear umbrella could be limited to an attack with nuclear weapons.

However, both Moscow and Beijing plan to modernize and expand their forces, allowing the Pentagon to grab the pole position. Observed the Brookings Institution’s Robert Einhorn: “This year, conditions really have deteriorated.”

No surprise, so-called allies want to keep America’s nuclear umbrella open and as large as possible. An unnamed NATO diplomat told the Financial Times that “Allies are extremely concerned and in no uncertain terms have made clear what they thought.” Apparently, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom as well as Australia and Japan all lobbied the president to put their interests before that of the American people. Even some US policymakers worry more about allied governments than Americans. For instance, Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) complained that “to even consider adopting either [no first use or sole purpose] is a complete betrayal of our allies,” apparently forgetting that he was not elected to represent them.

Worse is the chutzpah of the ever hapless, helpless Europeans. One official told the Financial Times: “This would be a huge gift to China and Russia.” Eh? Someone representing a country and continent which won’t use their abundant resources on their own behalf and begging for US support is blaming America for giving China and Russia a gift? How about the European governments and Japan which do so little to defend their independence and freedom? Which bear but a fraction of the burden they expect Americans to shoulder on their behalf?

The arguments offered for eternal US defense subsidies all presume allied incapacity. Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security contended that threats from China, North Korea, and Russia have increased, so it is “not the time for a US ‘no first use’ pledge.” The question, however, is why haven’t the responses of other threatened parties – cheap-riding Asian and European allies all – also increased? A no first use pledge simply indicates that conventional arms would be met with conventional arms. Whose fault is it that the conventional capabilities of Asian and European countries are so inadequate that Washington must be willing to ignite a nuclear war?

Another worry is that US allies would go rogue and create their own nuclear deterrents if Americans didn’t risk their homeland. That might not be a good solution, but it still would be better than Washington promising to go to nuclear war against several antagonistic nuclear powers. It is foolish to risk American cities to protect other nations, especially those insisting that they are too busy to defend themselves.

Michael Green of the Center for Strategic and International Studies argued that “The problem with ‘sole purpose’ and ‘no first use’ is that the allies believe it, and adversaries do not.” In fact, it is difficult to know who believes what. A Chinese general famously doubted that the US would risk Los Angeles for Taipei, whatever Washington officials claimed. And for good reason: it would be both suicidal and stupid to do so, and the Chinese did not believe Americans were either. Indeed, the greater the threat and more peripheral the interest, the less believable any commitment looks. How little the Chinese understand the myopia of Washington policymakers.

The worst argument was repeated by retired national security officials Eric Edelman and Franklin Miller: The “change would strike at the heart of transatlantic ties and would be interpreted as a huge step toward decoupling the United States from Europe’s defense.”

So? Why are the Europeans professing to be helpless if America won’t promise to start a nuclear war? If Russia is a genuine threat, why don’t the Europeans do more? Edelman and Miller complained that the president’s position “assumes that deterrence by conventional means alone can successfully forestall war (an assumption belied by centuries of European history) and that – despite two decades of US disinvestment in armor, long-range weapons systems and short-range air defenses while Russia has advanced in electronic warfare and other conventional capabilities – NATO is not ‘outranged and outgunned’ by the Russians. It also ignores geography: Russia’s superior forces along the European front line could quickly seize NATO territory before U.S. forces even arrived. Finally, and most important, it assumes that NATO governments and populations are prepared to accept victory achieved by a bloody conventional war on their territory.”

All this comes down to the Europeans’ refusal to arm themselves with nukes and willingness to fight with conventional weapons, instead expecting Americans to lead with nuclear weapons against a peer nuclear competitor. In such a war what would they do? Have tea and watch as American cities burned? Don’t the Europeans have any responsibilities? Why does the seeming solution to every allied problem involve the US doing, spending, and risking more for cheap-riding Europeans? Do the Europeans plan to be childlike dependents of America forever, after the Second Coming and even beyond?

The Biden administration should decide on no first use based on what is in the interest of Americans, not allied states. Moreover, it should rethink the doctrine of extended deterrence. That’s become an especially bad idea for Korea, given the North’s rapidly expanding nuclear capabilities. As US military domination fades with the rise of other powers, Washington should expect its professed allies to do more for themselves.

Of course, that guarantees even more allied wailing and gnashing of teeth. How the tears flow when US subsidies ebb. Yet helpless dependence is not a good policy for friendly governments either. While Washington cannot force allies to do more militarily, it can create the right incentives for them to do so by doing less. Much less. Once they realize that they must act for themselves if they are to be defended, they will be more likely to act responsibly.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

‘Will Biden Start Nuclear War with China Over Taiwan?’ – Ron Paul’s 25 Oct Column

Posted by M. C. on October 26, 2021

It was left to the “Chemical Ali” of this Administration, White House Spokesman Jen Psaki, to “clarify” that when the President signaled a major shift in US policy – a shift that could well lead to nuclear war with China – he was just kidding. Or something.

https://mailchi.mp/ronpaulinstitute/chinataiwan?e=4e0de347c8

Oct 25 – President Biden’s “townhall” meeting this past week was a disaster. From his bizarre poses to the incoherent answers, it seemed to confirm America’s worst fears about a president we are told was elected by the most voters ever. Though he didn’t bother campaigning, we are to believe he somehow motivated the most voters in history to pull the lever in his favor. Or mail in a ballot in his favor. Or something.

After the townhall, the Wall Street Journal was early among mainstream media publications to observe that the emperor has no clothes. In an editorial titled “The Confusing Mr. Biden,” the paper wrote, “Even with a friendly audience and softball questions, Mr. Biden’s performance revealed why so many Americans are losing confidence in his Presidency.”

The Journal focused on one of the most shocking and disturbing revelations from the carefully crafted event: asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper if the United States would come to the defense of Taiwan should it come under attack by the Chinese mainland, he replied, “Yes, we have a commitment to do that.”

Anderson threw him another softball in hopes he might correct this dangerous misstatement, but Biden was not nimble enough to see his gaffe. He doubled down.

It was left to the “Chemical Ali” of this Administration, White House Spokesman Jen Psaki, to “clarify” that when the President signaled a major shift in US policy – a shift that could well lead to nuclear war with China – he was just kidding. Or something.

Said Psaki the next day: “Well, there has been no shift. The President was not announcing any change in our policy nor has he made a decision to change our policy. There is no change in our policy.”

In other words: “Pay no attention to the man who pretends to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

But this is not George W. Bush, who was elected in 2000 with zero experience in foreign policy. This is not Trump, who campaigned on a policy of peace then hired John Bolton to carry out that policy.

No, Biden has twice been Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Foreign policy has always been considered his one area of competence. Surely the Biden of even the Obama Administration would have understood the potentially catastrophic implications of his statement.

Strategic ambiguity has been US policy toward Taiwan/China for decades, but the new Biden China policy could be re-named “strategic incoherence.”

The policy of “strategic ambiguity” is foolish enough – who cares who rules Taiwan? – but advancing the idea that the United States is willing to launch a nuclear war with China over who governs Taiwan is a whole other level of America-last foolishness.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Miley was heralded as a hero for betraying his Commander in Chief Trump by seeking to restrict Trump’s access to the US nuclear arsenal. Milley claimed that Trump was so unsound of mind that he could not be trusted with the nuclear football.

Yet when actual unsoundness is there for everyone to see, Milley and the other “woke” generals are silent as the grave. These are dangerous times.



Read more great articles on the Ron Paul Institute website.
Subscribe to free updates from the Ron Paul Institute.
Copyright © 2021 by Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

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

Posted by M. C. on October 20, 2021

https://original.antiwar.com/?p=2012344241

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 RootsAction.org.

Be seeing you

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

Washington’s Energetic Generals and the Emphasis on Preparation for Nuclear War — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on February 22, 2021

This person accountable for employment of nuclear weapons holds that “There is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons, if they perceived a conventional loss would threaten the regime or state…”

It could hardly have been a coincidence that in early February the Pentagon ordered two U.S. carrier strike groups, led by the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Nimitz, to conduct manoeuvres in the South China Sea.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/02/16/washington-energetic-generals-and-emphasis-on-preparation-for-nuclear-war/

Brian Cloughley

The Pentagon’s energetic generals are beating their war drums and the President has as yet done nothing to rein them in, Brian Cloughley writes.

Some senior generals and admirals in and around Washington have been very busy recently, and their activities, while aggressive, have not been associated with directing current combat operations. Rather, they have been directed at attempting to influence the Administration of newly-elected President Joe Biden to restructure military forces, expand the nuclear arsenal and magnify specific warfighting capabilities. All of this is what might be expected of those whose business and dispositions are aimed at organising destruction and death, but the manner in which their aspirations are expressed are not consistent with what is expected of military personnel in a democracy.

The U.S. Department of Defence is now headed by a Biden-appointed retired general who has not voided the directive concerning “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces” which notes that “members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity.”

This long-standing instruction was last reiterated in 2008 but it cannot be said that generals and admirals have followed its letter or spirit, and the present echelons of senior officers appear determined to flout it by wide publication of their personal points of view concerning the military posture of their country. This, by any interpretation, is “partisan political activity.” No government should tolerate meddling by the military.

On February 2 the chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, General Charles Q Brown, and the Commandant of the Marines Corps, General David H Berger, had an opinion piece published in the Washington Post in which they expressed overall support for the 2018 National Defense Strategy but complained that “it has not changed defence investment priorities at the scale or scope necessary to prepare the U.S. military for great power competition.” In other words, they consider their enormous armed forces, on which some 740 billion dollars are to be spent this year, are not ready for war in spite of that allocation of taxpayers’ money being 11 times that of Russia and three times that of China.

Not to be outdone in public pronouncements, the following day the commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe and Africa, General Christopher Cavoli gave a speech in which he said that “the U.S. military needs more long-range artillery and other advanced weaponry in Europe to be able to take on enemy forces . . .”, and it is reasonable to ask if this sort of policy indicator is approved by the new President.

Then the head of Strategic Command, the element responsible, among other things, for “strategic deterrence; nuclear operations and space operations”, Admiral Charles Richard, published his personal take on the future use of nuclear weapons. In the February edition of the Naval Institute’s magazine Admiral Richard wrote that Russia and China “have begun to aggressively challenge international norms and global peace using instruments of power and threats of force in ways not seen since the height of the Cold War.” This person accountable for employment of nuclear weapons holds that “There is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons, if they perceived a conventional loss would threaten the regime or state…”

It could hardly have been a coincidence that in early February the Pentagon ordered two U.S. carrier strike groups, led by the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Nimitz, to conduct manoeuvres in the South China Sea.

Navy Times reported that “the Roosevelt’s carrier strike group includes Carrier Air Wing 11, guided-missile cruiser Bunker Hill, Destroyer Squadron 23 [six ships], and guided-missile destroyers Russell and John Finn. The Nimitz’s carrier strike group includes Carrier Air Wing 17, guided-missile cruiser Princeton, guided-missile destroyer Sterett, and staff from Destroyer Squadron 9 and Carrier Strike Group 11.”

The mission of this enormous force (which has a total of 120 attack aircraft), according to Admiral James Kirk, commanding the Nimitz Strike Group, was to ensure “the lawful use of the sea that all nations enjoy under international law,” and he was echoed by his colleague, Admiral Douglas Verissimo of the Roosevelt Strike Group, saying “we are committed to promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific.” Obviously neither of them is aware that the United States refuses to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which is considered “the ‘constitution of the oceans’ and represents the result of an unprecedented, and so far never replicated, effort at codification and progressive development of international law.” But this does not prevent Strike Group admirals holding forth about their missions of provocation in the South China Sea that appear intended to push China to react.

In this context it is disturbing that the head of U.S. Strategic Command declared “There is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons, if they perceived a conventional loss would threaten the regime or state…”

U.S. forces are threatening China in the South China Sea and confronting Russia all round its borders — and most recently in the Black Sea where the U.S. Navy deployed two guided missile destroyers in January. According to U.S. European Command, these ships are from the Sixth Fleet which is based in the Mediterranean “in order to advance U.S. national interests and security and stability in Europe and Africa.” These same interests are being furthered by the Pentagon’s “China Task Force” whose establishment President Biden announced on 10 February. The mission of this war-planning body is to conduct a review of U.S. “strategy and operational concepts, technology, and force posture” in line with Biden’s declaration that “That’s how we’ll meet the China challenge and ensure the American people win the competition of the future.”

So Uncle Joe has apparently joined the generals in their never-ending pursuit of global military ascendancy. Further, it seems he has accepted the new “Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent” or GBSD, which the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists described on 8 February as “a new weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear missile the length of a bowling lane. It will be able to travel some 6,000 miles, carrying a warhead more than 20 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It will be able to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single shot. The U.S. Air Force plans to order more than 600 of them.”

This imminent leap towards global catastrophe is consistent with the declaration of Strategic Command’s Admiral Richard that “the U.S. military must shift its principal assumption from ‘nuclear employment is not possible’ to ‘nuclear employment is a very real possibility,’ and act to meet and deter that reality.”

The country’s senior military officers are preparing citizens for a terminal nuclear holocaust — for there can be no such thing as a limited nuclear war — and Uncle Joe Biden is permitting them to convey their personal policies directly to the people. This is endorsement of “partisan political activity”, because there are many millions of Americans who, for example, disagree with the GBSD programme and, indeed, a very large number who support their elimination of all nuclear weapons.

The Pentagon’s energetic generals are beating their war drums and the President has as yet done nothing to rein them in. Will he take action to stop this relentless drive towards nuclear war?

© 2010 – 2021 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

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

China Derangement Syndrome: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on May 29, 2020

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/05/25/china-derangement-syndrome-notes-from-the-edge-of-the-narrative-matrix/

Friendly reminder that we’ve invented weapons which can end all life on earth and we’re in steadily increasing danger of setting them all off because some guys in a think tank wrote some words.

~

Believing cold war is no big deal because nuclear war hasn’t happened yet is the same as believing your game of Russian roulette is safe because the gun hasn’t gone off yet.

~

There’s no legitimate reason why nations can’t just mind their own affairs and care for their own people. Having to read news every day about our government and its allies scheming to destroy nations which disobey them is severely disordered, and we should oppose it ferociously.

~

1. We are in the middle of a slow-motion third world war between the US power alliance and the remaining nations which have resisted its aggressive attempts to absorb them.
2. Propaganda is used to move this world war along.
3. Points 1 and 2 explain current anti-China sentiment.

~

China Derangement Syndrome (CDS) is a terrible affliction where someone who has overdosed on mainstream narratives suddenly starts believing a nation on the other side of the planet is a very big problem that “we” need to “do something about”.

~

CDS victims often try to justify their hysteria by saying it’s about ending their country’s economic relationship with China and bringing the jobs and the wealth back home. Which is absolutely adorable. You think that’s where the money will go? To you? That’s precious.

~

Trump supporters are exactly as moronic, brainwashed and hysterical about China as Democrats are about Russia. They’ve forever forfeited all legitimacy in criticizing Russiagate.

~

Every single time the narrative managers shift to a new imperialism target I start writing about it using the same exact logic and understanding that I use to write about all their other propaganda campaigns, and every single time I get a deluge of people saying “Oh my God I can’t believe Caitlin loves that horrible government now! Usually I agree with her but now she’s gone right off the rails!”

Every single time, without exception. “Caitlin, this Official Bad Guy is completely different from all the others!” Syria, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, over and over again. It gets really tedious. Yes, you’ve lived in an echo chamber that opposes some imperialist agendas but supports others. That’s how propaganda works.

~

“China is just as imperialist as America, Caitlin.”

Yes, yes exerting regional power and making deals is exactly the same as dominating the whole planet with hundreds of military bases and endless acts of mass murder, because all things are exactly the same as all other things.

~

“Caitlin you need to understand that the CCP are not the good guys.”

It will never stop being weird to me how many grown adults respond to mature geopolitical analysis by babbling about “good guys” and “bad guys” like children watching a cartoon show. Hollywood is brain poison.

~

“What are you saying Caitlin? We can’t criticize China?”

You can criticize whoever you want. I just think it’s an amazing coincidence how you all became very very interested in “criticizing” that nation at the exact same time the mass media started shrieking about it constantly.

~

Before accusing someone of being an apologist for a foreign government, first contemplate whether it’s possible that they’re just being neutral and you’ve been propagandized into believing everyone needs to hate that foreign government.

~

Beginning sincere research into what’s really going on with our world behind the veils of propaganda and government secrecy reveals many experts with a profound understanding of our actual circumstances. Further research reveals that no, actually they’re all mostly faking it.

~

The neoconservative ideology of maintaining unipolar US world domination at all cost has become so mainstream over the last two decades that “neoconservative” is a mostly meaningless term now.

~

Murder a thousand people and make a fortune selling their organs: You’re a monster.

Murder the same number of people for the same amount of money by selling the weapons used to murder them after lobbying for needless military interventionism: You’re a businessman.

~

Trump could have run as a Democrat in 2016 with a liberal-sounding platform, enacted the exact same policies he’s enacted as president, and, as long as he kept saying nice-sounding things, Democrats would think he’s awesome right now.

~

Ecocide will be a problem as long as ecocide remains profitable. War will be a problem as long as war remains profitable. Politicians will cater to profit-seeking sociopaths as long as profit determines what drives human behavior.

~

You’ve probably heard it said that you’ll never find love if you don’t love yourself, but have you ever thought about why it’s true? It’s true because if you don’t love yourself, someone loving you instantly puts you at odds with them.Like that old Groucho Marx quote, “I refuse to join any club that would have me for a member.” You can’t build on that kind of foundation.

For love to work, you have to love yourself, and you also have to commit to loving yourself more and more. Your lover will always be finding new parts of you to love, many of them parts you dislike, so you’ve got to learn to love those parts too to avoid shutting them out.

This is the main reason why women go for ‘bad boys’ and fall prey to negging. If you don’t love yourself and someone falls for you, then they appear pathetic because they fell in love with you, so wow. Yuck. You know you’re disgusting so they must be disgusting to fall for you.

If you truly love yourself, you’ll welcome someone who truly loves you. When they show up they’ll slide right in, with no rejection and no bouncer at the door, just a smooth “Oh it’s you! I’ve got a place here all ready for you.”

You can learn to love yourself by making a practice of continually bringing an intimate, enthusiastic “yes” to whatever feels like the core of your being in each moment. I wrote an article on how to do this a while back if you’re interested.

________________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics onTwitter, checking out my podcast on either YoutubesoundcloudApple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

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

PETER HITCHENS: The killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani was state murder. | Daily Mail Online

Posted by M. C. on January 6, 2020

For the first 40 years of my life we were supposed to be living on the brink of nuclear war. But it never came, because even the stupidest and most evil politicians could see that you could not win such a war. Now the nuclear threat has slipped away into the background.

Then bear in mind that this country has been supporting an Al Qaeda faction in Syria for several years. These are crazy times.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7852247/PETER-HITCHENS-killing-Iranian-General-Qasem-Soleimani-state-murder.html

By Peter Hitchens for The Mail on Sunday

Did World War Three begin last Thursday night? I fear it may have done. Forgive my language, but on this occasion I think it justified. How can anyone possibly have been so bloody stupid?

We know from history that assassinations can have limitless effects. And when the President of the United States orders the state murder (for this, alas, is what it was) of an Iranian general, it is hard to see a good end.

When the President of the US ordered the killing of Qasem Soleimani (pictured, during an anti-US rally to protest his killing on January 4), it is hard to see a good end. History shows that assassinations can have limitless effects

When the President of the US ordered the killing of Qasem Soleimani (pictured, during an anti-US rally to protest his killing on January 4), it is hard to see a good end. History shows that assassinations can have limitless effects

There will be retaliation. Other countries will be drawn in. Our own ability to make moral objections to such acts is gravely weakened because Donald Trump’s action lies miles outside the laws of civilised war. Iran has no long-range drones (as far as we know), but can you begin to imagine the justified rage in the USA if a senior American general were shot dead on the steps of the Pentagon by an Iranian hit team? Yet what, in the end, would be the moral difference between the two acts? Now we can only tremble at what might come next.

People protest the US military involvement in the Middle East, in Times Square, New York, on January 4

People protest the US military involvement in the Middle East, in Times Square, New York, on January 4

Any fool can see that this action was perilous beyond belief. Anyone wise and mature enough to say ‘That’s enough!’ after the first retaliation would have had the sense not to start this in the first place.

For the first 40 years of my life we were supposed to be living on the brink of nuclear war. But it never came, because even the stupidest and most evil politicians could see that you could not win such a war. Now the nuclear threat has slipped away into the background. I am not saying it will not return. But a US President can now start a war, if he picks his enemy carefully, without needing to fear a nuclear exchange.

We have seen this already in Iraq, a continuing disaster, and in Afghanistan, where, as newly released secret papers show, nobody ever had a clue what they were doing. We see it in Ukraine, where American and EU aggression finally came up against hard resistance. We see it in Syria. Britain and France started their own war in Libya, so destroying that country and beginning one of the biggest waves of uncontrolled migration in human history, and unqualified disaster.

Pictures from Syria after the war we caused show a country that has truly been bombed and shelled back into the Stone Age

Pictures from Syria after the war we caused show a country that has truly been bombed and shelled back into the Stone Age

 

How odd it is that we persist with these follies.

Modern non-nuclear weapons are quite terrifying enough in themselves. I visited Baghdad soon after the 2003 invasion and was repeatedly astonished by the vast destruction caused by the power and accuracy of 21st Century conventional munitions. Ramadi and Fallujah later ended up as moonscapes. Pictures from Syria after the war we caused show a country that has truly been bombed and shelled back into the Stone Age.

A man pushes a bicycle while walking past burning cars in the aftermath of a car bomb explosion at the industrial zone in the northern Syrian town of Tal Abyad on November 23

A man pushes a bicycle while walking past burning cars in the aftermath of a car bomb explosion at the industrial zone in the northern Syrian town of Tal Abyad on November 23

And now we have drones, which turn murder into a video game. You can sit in front of a screen and arrange the killing of another human being, at no direct risk to yourself, thousands of miles away. Then you can lock up your office and go out for a beer or, if you don’t like beer, you can have a cheeseburger.

But above all, what is all this about? It does not defend us, but exposes us to danger that may reach our towns and cities.

At least in the past we could say we were defending liberty against a defined menace that would not stop threatening us until it was defeated in the field. But in these cases, what precisely are we fighting for? How will we know if we have won? Or are we heading for the permanent war envisaged in George Orwell’s 1984, in which we can switch from one enemy to the other in the blink of an eye, and pretend nothing has changed, but the fighting never stops?

You think this far-fetched? Then bear in mind that this country has been supporting an Al Qaeda faction in Syria for several years. These are crazy times.

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

https://www.rt.com/news/468899-nuclear-war-strategic-weapons/

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 »

Moon of Alabama – On Eve Of 4th Of July Parade U.S. Attempts To Lure Iran Into Shooting Down Another U.S. Plane

Posted by M. C. on July 3, 2019

 A million troops is the only way we can defeat Iran in a shooting war. But…

Nuclear war is winnable. Washington says so.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/

Today a manned U.S. reconnaissance plane entered Iranian airspace in a clear attempt to provoke Iran into shooting it down. Such an incident would have created an occasion for Trump to give the American people a special 4th of July fireworks.

On July 3 1988 the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down the civil Iranian Flight 655 with 290 people on board. The U.S. claimed that the plane’s transponder was signaling an Iranian military identification code, that it was seemingly attacking the Vincennes, that the ship warned the plane 12 times, and that the ship was in international waters when the incident happened.

The crew of the Vincennes received medals for killing the Iranian civilians.

Investigations showed (pdf) that all the above claims were false. The shoot down was intentional. Iran sued the US in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over it. The case was settled in 1996 when the U.S. agreed to apologize and to pay $61.8 million to the families of the victims.

On June 20 a large U.S. reconnaissance drone, accompanied by a manned U.S. military airplane, flew into Iranian air space east of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran shot the drone down. The U.S. threatened to strike Iran over the incident but Trump did not follow through.

There were reports that some people in the White House doubted that the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. military command for the Middle East, told it the full truth about the incident. Two days before the drone incident happened Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the former CIA director, had unusual talks with the U.S. Central Command. This led to speculations that the incident was designed to provoke Iran into a shoot down and to push Trump into a war on Iran.

The case today is not in doubt. The U.S. military definitely tried to provoke Iran into shooting down another one of its planes.


bigger

Manu Gómez @GDarkconrad – 9:17 UTC – 3 Jul 2019USAF Rivet Joint tracking over The #PersianGulf, spoof Hex Cod 730000 C/S IRI00061

The US Airforce RC-135V Rivet Joint are signal intelligence planes that snoop on other countries.


biggerThe plane flew over the islands Abu Musa and Sirri in the Persian Gulf which are Iranian territory and Iranian airspace. It falsely signaled that it was an Iranian plane…

Be seeing you

A nuclear blast from the past -- FCW

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

The Only Thing Worse Than the World Dying – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 3, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/no_author/the-only-thing-worse-than-the-world-dying-would-be-if-it-died-unseen-and-unappreciated/

By Caitlin Johnstone
CaitlinJohnstone.com

ABC News put an article out the other day titled “Was Tulsi Gabbard’s nuclear war warning during Democratic debate hyperbole, or all too real?“, which makes a surprisingly reasonable appraisal of just how close we all are to losing everything all at once.

It’s a mainstream media piece, so of course it ends with a couple of think tank denizens claiming that Gabbard’s dire warnings during the debate are hysterical nonsense, but the first half of the article quotes authorities on nuclear disarmament confirming that we may very well be as close to nuclear annihilation as we were at the height of the last cold war.

Gabbard’s claim during the Democratic debate that we are at greater risk of nuclear war than at any time in history is entirely reasonable given the relentless escalations against Russia that this administration has been mounting, and is a perspective shared by experts like leading US-Russia relations authority Stephen Cohen.

In the face of mounting escalations, continuing US military expansionism, and flirtation with the possibility of hot war around the world, the possibility of a nuclear warhead being deployed by either side in the chaos and confusion due to malfunction or miscommunication grows ever greater. The increasingly desperate flailings of a weakening empire could set everything off in an instant. It is entirely possible that, when all is said and done, getting this very real danger into mainstream attention will end up having been Gabbard’s single most important contribution to the American political conversation.

Very few people have actually, deeply considered the very real possibility that we may be on the precipice of watching our entire world die as a result of nuclear war. They have not opted out of this consideration due to facts or scientific data, but solely due to intellectual cowardice. It is so much more comforting to hold onto the narrative that the risk of nuclear armageddon is a distant memory left in the dust of the early 1960s, and that since the fall of the Berlin Wall it has remained only a remote possibility held at bay by mountains of redundant safeguards. 

If we somehow avoid nuclear annihilation, the looming threat of climate collapse remains. Taking all the data into consideration, without the overlay of cognitive filters needed to maintain the belief that rugged individualism will save us all, leaves little room for doubt that humanity’s current relationship with its ecosystem is completely unsustainable and will set off a chain of cataclysmic events in the near future if we don’t wildly change our behavior.

We may very well be sitting on the verge of the apocalypse. The end could easily come within a few decades or a few years. With this fact comes a tremendous responsibility.

The only thing worse than this world slipping away forever would be for it to slip away without having been fully seen and appreciated by as many people as possible. If we all spent our time obsessing over our own petty personal dramas with our eyes fixed on glowing screens in between now and when the shit hits the fan. That would be as close a thing to true sacrilege as can happen in the real world. I believe it is our responsibility as human beings to do everything we can to keep it from happening.

By all means, please do keep fighting to wake people up so that we can rise up against the sociopaths who are driving us into disaster. But for the love of all you consider holy please don’t fail to appreciate your time here while you’re doing it. Please don’t fail to take in the beauty and majesty of this remarkable blue planet as often and as much as you possibly can. Because you don’t know how long this will all be here.

Humans have been given the gift of consciousness. As humans we are not only able to absorb and react to sensory input, but also to have a relationship with that information. Our brain creates a stream of thoughts from this sensory information and we observe them. People make the mistake of believing that they are those thoughts, but we’re not, we’re the observer, and in knowing that we have a very powerful tool at our disposal. Once you realize you’re the observer of your thoughts and not the sum of them, then you also realize that you have the ability to change where you place your attention. This might be the only decision you can make outside of the patterns that create your thoughts, but it’s a game changer. 

Let the stream of your thoughts babble on in the background like a radio in another room, and put your attention to what’s really here, beyond the labelling mind. How long has it been since you marvelled at the steam rising from your morning coffee? The play of dew on a flower. The sound and feel of gravel crunching under your feet. The thrum of traffic in the distance, the floofy little monster that roams around your house looking for warm keyboards to sit on, the fact you have hands. You have hands! Check that out. How weird are hands?? So much goes unnoticed.

Lift the veil. We spend so much time staring at a screen, and the rest staring at the screen of our mind. By placing your attention on what’s really here in any given moment, you’re developing a relationship with reality. And reality really craves that. She’s been right here this whole time putting on the performance of her life and we’ve been staring at her sightlessly consumed by the drama of our thoughts on our mind-screens. Let her dance for you a little. Let her show off. Ancient civilizations used to sing to the earth convinced that it enjoyed the attention. Pay her some attention, man. She gives you so much.

___________________

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitterthrowing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandisebuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

 

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