Does the U.S. policy of Nuclear Primacy mean a quick end for us all?

[recovering conservative]

Just when you think you were up on everything important that's happening in the world today, I discover not too long ago that the Cold War never really ended. They told us it was over back in 1991, when the Berlin Wall fell, Gorbachev conceded to allowing East Germany to be absorbed by the West, and Yeltsin dissolved the Soviet Union, and that was about it! The End Of History...at least according to Francis Fukuyama. But, he called that one wrong. As U.S./Russia relations turned cold in the 90's due to continued Nato and E.U. expansion through the former Soviet republics*, until a Russian president is elected mostly on an anti-American campaign platform, the new president - Putin vows to rebuild and restore Russia and end U.S. humiliations in the future...and serendipity provides him the major tool he needs to carry out a revitalization of Russia - rising oil prices.

*Clinton started the process of breaking the deal made between Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush to end the Cold War

During the Cold War, we knew not everyone believed in MAD. There was that insane general - Alexander Haig, who used Red Scare rhetoric to try to win the Republican nomination in 88, and of course Ronald Reagan and his staff were going after a workaround strategy (Star Wars) of making an ABM system that could destroy all incoming missiles coming from the Soviet Union. But, nobody worried too much about Star Wars, except for taxpayers who were seeing billions of dollars wasted on one failed scheme after another.

But recently, as mentioned previously elsewhere, I learned that Foreign Affairs Magazine, the mouthpiece for the Council on Foreign Relations, has been publishing stories by their writers for at least the last eight years, claiming that the U.S. now enjoys "Nuclear Primacy" over Russia and China, and should take advantage of that opportunity for a first strike, while they still have the chance! And remember, that these advisers at the CFR are a who's who of the same misfits who brought us regime change in Iraq.

It's in this context, and only in this context of Nuclear Primacy, that the U.S. continued push against Russia makes any sense. Otherwise, why take a chance of starting WWIII? Earlier in June, I came across this article on Washington'sblog - Why Ukraine’s Civil War Is of Global Historical Importance, where author - Eric Zuesse makes a case that from an historical perspective the Ukrainian Civil War can be considered as an official relaunch of the Cold War....since all of the previous subtlety has been abandoned. And what is the motive...aside from testing new ABM weapons that contractors are trying to sell?* Well, the most plausible answer is that it all boils down to money again, as Russia's transition from communism to capitalism hasn't turned them into a vassal state, and part of the U.S. based global currency and trading empire.

*U.S. Tests Advanced Missile For NATO Interceptor System | Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism

Now, we here that some online digital library site called Cryptome is going to publish all of Edward Snowden's files later this month "to prevent war! Sounds more than a little ominous. Exactly what is in those files. Here's something to add to speculation:

Former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says the U.S. has plans for nuclear war with our rivals. Dr. Roberts explains, “Washington not only has war plans for launching a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia, and also possibly China, but Washington has a cadre of people who advocate nuclear war. We have people running around Washington saying things such as ‘What’s the good of nuclear weapons if you can’t use them.’ . . . Dr. Roberts goes on to say, “I have been warning about this for some years. I pointed out years ago that the Bush regime had changed U.S. war doctrine such that the role of nuclear weapons was no longer retaliatory to be used in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. It was elevated to a first strike position. It is now our war doctrine that we can initiate a nuclear war on somebody we don’t like, or who we think might not agree with us, or who we think might be prepared to go to war against us. This doctrine applies to countries that do not have nuclear weapons.



Why isn’t the national media reporting this? Dr. Roberts, who was also a top editor at the Wall Street Journal, contends, “The New York Times and Washington Post are part of it. They are all for these wars. The answer is they are all bought off. They are bought off or they are intimidated because if you say anything negative about Washington, you must be an anti-American. The whole thing is at the point of absurdity.

What about Russia and China making a first strike of their own? Do you think that is far-fetched? Dr. Roberts points out, “What I am telling you is in the public record. This isn’t an opinion. This is all in the public record. Anyone can read it. The Russians and the Chinese are both fully aware of it. . . . This is very dangerous for Washington to have this doctrine and to be implementing it by putting ABM bases in Poland. . . . The bases are already established in Poland and there will be more. The Polish government has signed the death warrant for humanity. . . . It gives Washington the confidence that we can attack Russia without any consequences. . . . Of course, these systems never work like people think they will work, they never do. There are no winners. It is impossible to win. This is ignorance, and the belief you can win a nuclear war makes it possible, makes it likely.

U.S. Has Plans for Preemptive Nuclear Attack- Paul Craig Roberts | Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog

[LarsMac]

Well, on the bright side, the resulting Nuclear Winter would forestall the threat of Global Warming for a couple of centuries.

I really don't see the Gnomes allowing that to happen.

[FourPart]

The whole point of setting up NATO & the Nuclear Deterrent was to keep Russia in check. However, it doesn't seem to have worked. They set about annexing other countries, knowing full well that no-one will ever have the nerve to actually use the missiles.

There is everything to be said against them, but nothing to be said for them. They cost a fortune to operate, and the only chance of them ever being used is either by some nutty dictator (such as with North Korea) deciding that he wants to rattle his sabres, but even then the missile defences would just shoot them down before they got anywhere near their target. The other possibility is all too frighteningly a real possibility - an accidental firing, based on a computer glitch, or something - much like a real life version of the film "War Games".

All the Super Powers have enough Nuclear arms to destroy the world at least 25 times over. The question has to be asked - why? It can only be destroyed once. Surely that's enough for anyone.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1458858 wrote: Well, on the bright side, the resulting Nuclear Winter would forestall the threat of Global Warming for a couple of centuries.

I really don't see the Gnomes allowing that to happen.


Then again, if the Cretaceous/Tertiary Extinction 63 million years ago (the one that wiped out the dinosaurs is any guide, the equivalent to nuclear winter - caused by a large asteroid/comet impact, only lasted for a relatively short period of time until the dust settled. After that, the pattern of extinctions continued on for at least two million years afterwards because of massive amounts of carbon released into the atmosphere by widespread fires and dead plants and animals....it's possible that volcanism was a factor also, but still, we could only consider a nuclear winter to be a brief break in the warming. Not that it would be of much help of course! Surviving the years of no harvests caused by nuclear winter, and the long term effects of radiation, would be bad enough.

But, then after the dust settled, it would be back to warming again as all the carbon released resumed the heating of the planet, and freed up the stored carbon in Arctic permafrost and underwater methane ice.....well, it would definitely be game over for any survivors trying to survive the next thousands of years in a hot world equivalent of the Permian-Triassic Extinction!

[recovering conservative]

FourPart;1458899 wrote: The whole point of setting up NATO & the Nuclear Deterrent was to keep Russia in check. However, it doesn't seem to have worked. They set about annexing other countries, knowing full well that no-one will ever have the nerve to actually use the missiles.
We, were told it was to keep the Soviet Union contained and prevent the Soviet Invasion of Germany; but if that was true, we would have seen the gradual dissolution of NATO once the Cold War ended. Instead, NATO kept expanding and turning former Warsaw Pact nations into members....the Warsaw Pact dissolved, why not NATO as well? Obviously, there was another purpose to NATO, since the expansion continued, and it even started being used in small proxy wars like the aerial bombardment of Serbia...supposedly to convince the Milosevic Government to withdraw from Kosovo. Now that Newer NATO members like Poland, are hosting American ABM bases pointed at Russia, it's becoming obvious what the purpose of NATO is today. I just wonder if that was the purpose all along, rather than a change of strategy when the Soviet Union started to fall apart.



There is everything to be said against them, but nothing to be said for them. They cost a fortune to operate, and the only chance of them ever being used is either by some nutty dictator (such as with North Korea) deciding that he wants to rattle his sabres, but even then the missile defences would just shoot them down before they got anywhere near their target. The other possibility is all too frighteningly a real possibility - an accidental firing, based on a computer glitch, or something - much like a real life version of the film "War Games".


I've heard a number of critics of the arms supply industries, say that the contractors throw money at Neocon clowns like John McCain and Lindsey Graham for example, because new wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the assorted bombing raids to support "freedom fighters" on the ground, get their weapons used up and re-ordered. Their greatest fear is that the Pentagon will scrap new orders and they will lose billions in future profits.

I can't help wondering if the thinking of the nuclear arms merchants is much different than the ones making drones, airplanes, tanks, guns etc., except that their need is a Great Enemy...like Russia....or in a pinch, the Arabs will have to do! The shift to hysteria about a Muslim takeover of the West after 9-11, may have been partly fueled by the collapse of the Soviet Union. But, now that Russia is back as the Great Boogeyman, the threat of the Caliphate taking us over gets moved to the background.

What I am sure of, is that these are not the sort of people who would stop making nuclear weapon systems for fear of accidentally triggering nuclear annihilation, as long as there is great short term profits to be made!

All the Super Powers have enough Nuclear arms to destroy the world at least 25 times over. The question has to be asked - why? It can only be destroyed once. Surely that's enough for anyone.
That would be assuming that we are dealing with sane, sensible people here! That might be asking too much, since it's largely the same brain trust that claimed Saddam had WMD's...we will be welcomed as liberators...the active phase of this war will be over in six months....and who can forget "this war will pay for itself!" And did switching from Pepsi to Coke in 2008 change military policy? Nope:

Obama Orders Up More Money for Nukes, Less to Keep Them in Safe Hands

"It's troubling that for the third year in a row, the President's budget proposal funds nuclear weapons programs at the expense of virtually every nonproliferation effort," Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement provided by his aides. "Maintaining our existing nuclear weapons stockpile is already unsustainable, and it makes little sense to increase investments in weapons that matter less and less for our national security."

[High Threshold]

recovering conservative;1458850 wrote: Just when you think you were up on everything important that's happening in the world today, I discover not too long ago that the Cold War never really ended. They told us it was over back in 1991, when the Berlin Wall fell, Gorbachev conceded to allowing East Germany to be absorbed by the West, and Yeltsin dissolved the Soviet Union, and that was about it! The End Of History...at least according to Francis Fukuyama. But, he called that one wrong. As U.S./Russia relations turned cold in the 90's due to continued Nato and E.U. expansion through the former Soviet republics*, until a Russian president is elected mostly on an anti-American campaign platform, the new president - Putin vows to rebuild and restore Russia and end U.S. humiliations in the future...and serendipity provides him the major tool he needs to carry out a revitalization of Russia - rising oil prices.

*Clinton started the process of breaking the deal made between Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush to end the Cold War

During the Cold War, we knew not everyone believed in MAD. There was that insane general - Alexander Haig, who used Red Scare rhetoric to try to win the Republican nomination in 88, and of course Ronald Reagan and his staff were going after a workaround strategy (Star Wars) of making an ABM system that could destroy all incoming missiles coming from the Soviet Union. But, nobody worried too much about Star Wars, except for taxpayers who were seeing billions of dollars wasted on one failed scheme after another.

But recently, as mentioned previously elsewhere, I learned that Foreign Affairs Magazine, the mouthpiece for the Council on Foreign Relations, has been publishing stories by their writers for at least the last eight years, claiming that the U.S. now enjoys "Nuclear Primacy" over Russia and China, and should take advantage of that opportunity for a first strike, while they still have the chance! And remember, that these advisers at the CFR are a who's who of the same misfits who brought us regime change in Iraq.

It's in this context, and only in this context of Nuclear Primacy, that the U.S. continued push against Russia makes any sense. Otherwise, why take a chance of starting WWIII? Earlier in June, I came across this article on Washington'sblog - Why Ukraine’s Civil War Is of Global Historical Importance, where author - Eric Zuesse makes a case that from an historical perspective the Ukrainian Civil War can be considered as an official relaunch of the Cold War....since all of the previous subtlety has been abandoned. And what is the motive...aside from testing new ABM weapons that contractors are trying to sell?* Well, the most plausible answer is that it all boils down to money again, as Russia's transition from communism to capitalism hasn't turned them into a vassal state, and part of the U.S. based global currency and trading empire.

*U.S. Tests Advanced Missile For NATO Interceptor System | Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism

Now, we here that some online digital library site called Cryptome is going to publish all of Edward Snowden's files later this month "to prevent war! Sounds more than a little ominous. Exactly what is in those files. Here's something to add to speculation:

Former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says the U.S. has plans for nuclear war with our rivals. Dr. Roberts explains, “Washington not only has war plans for launching a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia, and also possibly China, but Washington has a cadre of people who advocate nuclear war. We have people running around Washington saying things such as ‘What’s the good of nuclear weapons if you can’t use them.’ . . . Dr. Roberts goes on to say, “I have been warning about this for some years. I pointed out years ago that the Bush regime had changed U.S. war doctrine such that the role of nuclear weapons was no longer retaliatory to be used in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. It was elevated to a first strike position. It is now our war doctrine that we can initiate a nuclear war on somebody we don’t like, or who we think might not agree with us, or who we think might be prepared to go to war against us. This doctrine applies to countries that do not have nuclear weapons.



Why isn’t the national media reporting this? Dr. Roberts, who was also a top editor at the Wall Street Journal, contends, “The New York Times and Washington Post are part of it. They are all for these wars. The answer is they are all bought off. They are bought off or they are intimidated because if you say anything negative about Washington, you must be an anti-American. The whole thing is at the point of absurdity.

What about Russia and China making a first strike of their own? Do you think that is far-fetched? Dr. Roberts points out, “What I am telling you is in the public record. This isn’t an opinion. This is all in the public record. Anyone can read it. The Russians and the Chinese are both fully aware of it. . . . This is very dangerous for Washington to have this doctrine and to be implementing it by putting ABM bases in Poland. . . . The bases are already established in Poland and there will be more. The Polish government has signed the death warrant for humanity. . . . It gives Washington the confidence that we can attack Russia without any consequences. . . . Of course, these systems never work like people think they will work, they never do. There are no winners. It is impossible to win. This is ignorance, and the belief you can win a nuclear war makes it possible, makes it likely.

U.S. Has Plans for Preemptive Nuclear Attack- Paul Craig Roberts | Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog


This, I think, is the meat of it:

recovering conservative;1458850 wrote: We have people running around Washington saying things such as ‘What’s the good of nuclear weapons if you can’t use them.’

It is now our war doctrine that we can initiate a nuclear war on somebody we don’t like, or who we think might not agree with us, or who we think might be prepared to go to war against us. This doctrine applies to countries that do not have nuclear weapons.

Why isn’t the national media reporting this? ¦.. The answer is ¦... They are bought off or they are intimidated because ...


... yes ... ?

recovering conservative;1458850 wrote: ... because if you say anything negative about Washington, you must be an anti-American.


Ah. Haven't we heard this before? On a daily bases ..... ever since McCarthy had his run.

[High Threshold]

FourPart;1458899 wrote: All the Super Powers have enough Nuclear arms to destroy the world at least 25 times over. The question has to be asked - why? It can only be destroyed once. Surely that's enough for anyone.


Is it enough? Do you really think so? Well what if only one human were to survive and he (or she) turned out to be a Communists?!!!!!!!!! Good Lord it would be the end of civilization!!!!! More bombs please!

[gmc]

Sadly when it comes to nuclear weapons there are otherwise seemingly intelligent people who can convince themselves that if they strike first there will be no one left alive on the other side to retaliate or if they do any losses to their side would be within "acceptable" limits. Presumably that means nobody important will get killed.

Now that Newer NATO members like Poland, are hosting American ABM bases pointed at Russia, it's becoming obvious what the purpose of NATO is today. I just wonder if that was the purpose all along, rather than a change of strategy when the Soviet Union started to fall apart.


Ostensibly they were to defnd europe in case iran launched a nuclear attack. You can understand why the russians see it as a hostile.

[LarsMac]

I would question the motivation of your sources there, before I got too concerned.

This kind of discussion was a lot more relevant back in the post-Reagan / Pre-Globalization days

One of the advantages of the globalized market is that every country now is in some ways, both the customer and the merchant to nearly every other country.

We can not blow up China, because we would run out of sneakers and knick-knacks. Likewise, they can't blow us up because that would destroy WalMart, who is their biggest customer. We can't blow up Russia, because you guys all like Putin, and he's is promising y'all a bunch of Natural Gas and such. We can't blow up the Middle East because you folks still get a lot of oil from there.

That leaves Africa and India-Pakistan.

Africa is still pretty much in the stone age, economically speaking, thanks to all of the Europeans stealing all their resources since the New World Colonies all revolted and ran you off. No point in bombing them. India and Pakistan are both in a nuclear Arms race of their own, and may one day actually get mad enough at each other to push the button.



So, here we sit with all of the big toys we can't use, yet. But, since nobody has ever really worked out a good disposal process for nuclear waste material, we can't just toss them out on the trash heap. Those pesky Taliban, or some loonie toon right wing nutjob group would grab them and run off to have a fireworks party with them.

By the way, you know that Russia probably still has all theirs stashed away somewhere just in case those rightwing nutjobs over here get their finger on the button, don't you?

All of this ignores the idea that those guys that have actually been running the world for the last century or so would really never let such a thing happen, because it would play hell with their profit margins. They just want us the think it could happen. keeps us on our toes, so to speak.

[recovering conservative]

gmc;1459017 wrote: Sadly when it comes to nuclear weapons there are otherwise seemingly intelligent people who can convince themselves that if they strike first there will be no one left alive on the other side to retaliate or if they do any losses to their side would be within "acceptable" limits. Presumably that means nobody important will get killed.
Yes, but we were always under the implicit assumption that cooler heads prevail among the elites with decision-making power. Sure, there was a inconsistency in rhetoric in U.S. nuclear policy, like:

why did the U.S. consistently refuse to rule out a first strike....even Jimmy Carter (the so called peace president) refused Leonid Brezhnev's direct offer of a ban on first strike at a major conference of world leaders back in the 70's, and Reagan started sinking billions into developing ABM weapons systems, even though the Soviets directly warned that a successful "Star Wars" would be viewed as an act of war...but all that aside, we thought it was only the loons who would advocate launching first!

But, as mentioned in the opener, when the argument has been presented a number of times in a government policy mouthpiece like Foreign Affairs, that means that there are a lot of very powerful players, who are in and out of government, the military and contractor industries who want it put out there to build support for a nuclear first strike.

Since past failures...most notably the 3 trillion dollar Iraq Invasion & Occupation, seem to have done nothing to dampen their rhetoric, can we safely assume that this braintrust will be thoughtful and weigh all of the options before launching a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia and China to guarantee U.S. hegemony over....well, whatever the hell is left of the world to rule over?

Ostensibly they were to defnd europe in case iran launched a nuclear attack. You can understand why the russians see it as a hostile.
Yep! I know the Russians have their own dreams of recovering their former status as a world power (that's the major source of Putin's popularity), but with U.S. bases and ABM launchers being placed all around their borders, the attempts by our coopted mainstream media to present flashpoints like the civil war in Ukraine as a story of Russian aggression, fall flat!

[LarsMac]

recovering conservative;1459025 wrote: Yes, but we were always under the implicit assumption that cooler heads prevail among the elites with decision-making power. Sure, there was a inconsistency in rhetoric in U.S. nuclear policy, like:

why did the U.S. consistently refuse to rule out a first strike....even Jimmy Carter (the so called peace president) refused Leonid Brezhnev's direct offer of a ban on first strike at a major conference of world leaders back in the 70's, and Reagan started sinking billions into developing ABM weapons systems, even though the Soviets directly warned that a successful "Star Wars" would be viewed as an act of war...but all that aside, we thought it was only the loons who would advocate launching first!

But, as mentioned in the opener, when the argument has been presented a number of times in a government policy mouthpiece like Foreign Affairs, that means that there are a lot of very powerful players, who are in and out of government, the military and contractor industries who want it put out there to build support for a nuclear first strike.

Since past failures...most notably the 3 trillion dollar Iraq Invasion & Occupation, seem to have done nothing to dampen their rhetoric, can we safely assume that this braintrust will be thoughtful and weigh all of the options before launching a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia and China to guarantee U.S. hegemony over....well, whatever the hell is left of the world to rule over?



Yep! I know the Russians have their own dreams of recovering their former status as a world power (that's the major source of Putin's popularity), but with U.S. bases and ABM launchers being placed all around their borders, the attempts by our coopted mainstream media to present flashpoints like the civil war in Ukraine as a story of Russian aggression, fall flat!


If you and I were boxers and we feel destined to one day meet in the ring, do you see me promising to not throw the first punch?

Fairly simplistic, I know, but it boils down to that. There is no strategic or tactical advantage to promising not to shoot first, unless one is simply lying.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1459023 wrote: I would question the motivation of your sources there, before I got too concerned.

This kind of discussion was a lot more relevant back in the post-Reagan / Pre-Globalization days

One of the advantages of the globalized market is that every country now is in some ways, both the customer and the merchant to nearly every other country.


Not exactly! One of the frauds we were presented about globalization and removal of tariffs, was that trade interdependence would reduce the risk of war....hasn't worked so far! And, the assumption is based on the premise that capitalism is a logical economic system of supply and demand....also a wrong assumption! Lately, there have been a spate of articles by economists showing graphs and data sets to inform us that war is bad for the economy. So, if logic prevailed, we would be entering an era of peace promised by the Neoliberal capitalists 30 to 40 years ago....but, we're not! Not as long as some capitalists benefit enough from war to hire politicians who advocate for war.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1459027 wrote: If you and I were boxers and we feel destined to one day meet in the ring, do you see me promising to not throw the first punch?

Fairly simplistic, I know, but it boils down to that. There is no strategic or tactical advantage to promising not to shoot first, unless one is simply lying.


And, what if our gloves were packed with high explosive plastics....would you throw the first punch?

[FourPart]

Whenever politicians give their word regarding their peaceful intentions, I am always drawn to the clip of Neville Chamberlayne waving his treaty - "Here is the paper", and Russia saying that they had no interest in annexing Ukraine.

[LarsMac]

recovering conservative;1459029 wrote: And, what if our gloves were packed with high explosive plastics....would you throw the first punch?


Whether I would, or not, what would be the point of promising that I would not?

[LarsMac]

recovering conservative;1459028 wrote: Not exactly! One of the frauds we were presented about globalization and removal of tariffs, was that trade interdependence would reduce the risk of war....hasn't worked so far! And, the assumption is based on the premise that capitalism is a logical economic system of supply and demand....also a wrong assumption! Lately, there have been a spate of articles by economists showing graphs and data sets to inform us that war is bad for the economy. So, if logic prevailed, we would be entering an era of peace promised by the Neoliberal capitalists 30 to 40 years ago....but, we're not! Not as long as some capitalists benefit enough from war to hire politicians who advocate for war.


It has reduced the risk of war between countries that participate in the globalized market.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1459035 wrote: It has reduced the risk of war between countries that participate in the globalized market.


Is that a statement of fact, or a profession of faith?

[recovering conservative]

FourPart;1459033 wrote: Whenever politicians give their word regarding their peaceful intentions, I am always drawn to the clip of Neville Chamberlayne waving his treaty - "Here is the paper", and Russia saying that they had no interest in annexing Ukraine.


If you think the story of the Ukraine's troubles is about Russia "annexing Ukraine" we need a whole new thread!



It's unfortunate that Chamberlain had to pay the price for the post war allied powers (including England) who drafted such repressive land and economic rules against Germany after the First War, that it led to the most fanatical, aggressive fascist leader assuming power (Hitler), who made revenge and retribution his main policy objective. FWIW, Chamberlain was the British Prime Minister who signed the declaration of war against Germany....not Churchill...but his credibility as a leader was permanently damaged by suing for peace rather than following Churchill's McCain-like aggressive style. In reality, Chamberlain was quietly at work trying to rebuild England's defense capabilities - such as secretly authorizing the development of what at that time was the state-of-the-art radar warning system that covered England's southern coasts. The existence of that radar system in 1941, was the major flaw in the German war plans of a quick invasion of England. They expected to completely destroy their air defenses and begin a land invasion in a matter of months.

Now, aside from the oft-mentioned WWII, what other examples do you have where the war hawk (Churchill) is the one who was right? I can think of dozens of examples of the opposite scenario! And, especially in the nuclear age, the existence of war hawks is an existential threat to the whole world.

[LarsMac]

recovering conservative;1459037 wrote: Is that a statement of fact, or a profession of faith?
I pretty much already spoke to that.

Show me where I am wrong.

There will always be those guys in every country growling and barking, ready to attack, but they generally are on pretty tight leashes.

Only the renegades like Saddam need fear a serious mobilization, these days, but I doubt the US and Britain will be allowed to pull of another "Operation Iraqi Freedom" very soon.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1459044 wrote: I pretty much already spoke to that.

Show me where I am wrong.

There will always be those guys in every country growling and barking, ready to attack, but they generally are on pretty tight leashes.

Only the renegades like Saddam need fear a serious mobilization, these days, but I doubt the US and Britain will be allowed to pull of another "Operation Iraqi Freedom" very soon.
But, the main issue here is that the U.S. is using a combination of economic warfare and military provocations to attack Russia and China. Now that you mention him, the no.1 reason for taking out Saddam was likely because he was the one making the loudest noises about getting rid of the U.S. Dollar for oil trades, and trying to convince all of the other oil exporters to do likewise.

Jim Rickards: All Roads Lead to the IMF; SDRs to Replace Dollar as New World Currency

Rickards - an expert on the IMF, informs us that this global financing system works on a buy-in basis...similar to buying your way into a high stakes poker game. As a result the strongest economy has the most chips to play...explaining why the U.S. has dominated this group which includes the G7, G20 and the BRICS nations. But, as the U.S. becomes increasingly over-leveraged, and loses confidence around the world, the power of the U.S. diminishes, while rising players increase their clout. This is the nightmare scenario for U.S. policymakers of both parties, and the reasons behind covert warfare against Brazil, and overt hostilities intended to cripple Russia. The U.S. doesn't want this so called "Multi-polar" world that this top Russian official talks openly about here: ‘US hegemony in world has ended’ – Russia’s deputy security chief

One thing in Rickard's piece that I wasn't aware of before is that the IMF essentially already has its own currency - called "special drawing rights" or SDR's. These are currencies intended for use between trading partners, and not for average people. Apparently, the IMF is only leveraged 3:1, very conservative compared to the U.S. 80:1, which from what I have gathered, doesn't even include those submerged icebergs known as derivatives on investments. So, if the Dollar collapses, the other players at the table can continue trading among themselves, and can do it better by decreasing their exposure to the risky U.S. Dollar and making direct barter trades (as in Russia and China's case) and buying gold. In recent times, Russia has dumped a large amount of their T-bills and bought gold, and so has China.

As Russia Dumps A Record Amount Of US Treasurys, Here Is What It Is Buying | Zero Hedge

Guest Post: Why The West Sells Gold And China Buys It | Zero Hedge

Worth remembering, to anyone who thinks a world war right now would just be too stupid and too pointless to actually happen, that exactly the same thing happened 100 years ago when we ended up with that first World War. The general consensus I've seen from historians of the war and the leadup to war, was that most of the intelligentsia also believed that a full scale war wouldn't happen....and even if it did, it would be over soon. Instead, what happened was total carnage on the battlefields of Europe, because the underlying factors that precipitated the war: dying, bankrupt empires struggling to enforce their will; along with rising empires fighting against the reigning imperial powers for a greater share of colonial wealth....all led to an overwhelming inertial force to continue fighting until they were completely bankrupt and had nothing left to fight with. And, I see more than a few similarities between the present situation and WWI.

[LarsMac]

You have some good points, but I am suspicious of most of your sources.

And your first incorrect assertion is that the US is actually running the show.

We do like to think so, but that has not really been the case for a while.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1459061 wrote: You have some good points, but I am suspicious of most of your sources.

And your first incorrect assertion is that the US is actually running the show.

We do like to think so, but that has not really been the case for a while.
The only change in recent times has been that "running the show" is requiring more desperate measures. So, the American Empire is willing to use force and intimidation more blatantly than they would have in the past.

The U.S. has overwhelming military power, and in recent years, has been using the military as leverage, to try to maintain the Dollar's status as international reserve currency. Just because they're showing signs of collapse - in particular the oversized and unaffordable military, driving the empire towards collapse.

[FourPart]

LarsMac;1459035 wrote: It has reduced the risk of war between countries that participate in the globalized market.
I believe the exact opposite to be true. It puts tension in the air which is capable of priming a hair trigger. Far from reducing the risk, they are increasing it.

Furthermore, wars have become too sterile, fought between opposing Military Forces, without involving the Civilian population at all. For example, the Gulf War (rights or wrongs of the war aside) resulted in less than 500 Coalition forces being killed, yet the general public (of the Coalition, anyway) were never directly involved or at risk in any way - apart from Terrorist attacks, such as 911. The only connection they had was to see the daily reports on the news, which became such a part of daily life that the reports ended up being accepted as being of no more interest than just another action movie.

War should be dirty. War should be brutal. It's that fear & dread of being faced with such a scenario & that threat of personal involvement that prevents them from being started wars in the first place. If the General Public thought that they would also be at risk from opposition forces in the event of an armed conflict, do you think they would be so keen about getting involved in other countries own disputes to 'Kick Some Ass'? I very much doubt it.

While it's just a matter of Military Manoeuvers, then the powers that be might as well simply settle their differences over a civilised game of Chess.

War is like football - 'supporting' a team at the other end of the country to you, yet never having gone to any of their matches. Glorying in victory, passing off defeat.

[LarsMac]

FourPart;1459126 wrote: I believe the exact opposite to be true. It puts tension in the air which is capable of priming a hair trigger. Far from reducing the risk, they are increasing it.

Furthermore, wars have become too sterile, fought between opposing Military Forces, without involving the Civilian population at all. For example, the Gulf War (rights or wrongs of the war aside) resulted in less than 500 Coalition forces being killed, yet the general public (of the Coalition, anyway) were never directly involved or at risk in any way - apart from Terrorist attacks, such as 911. The only connection they had was to see the daily reports on the news, which became such a part of daily life that the reports ended up being accepted as being of no more interest than just another action movie.

War should be dirty. War should be brutal. It's that fear & dread of being faced with such a scenario & that threat of personal involvement that prevents them from being started wars in the first place. If the General Public thought that they would also be at risk from opposition forces in the event of an armed conflict, do you think they would be so keen about getting involved in other countries own disputes to 'Kick Some Ass'? I very much doubt it.

While it's just a matter of Military Manoeuvers, then the powers that be might as well simply settle their differences over a civilised game of Chess.

War is like football - 'supporting' a team at the other end of the country to you, yet never having gone to any of their matches. Glorying in victory, passing off defeat.


What I said was that globalization reduces the risk of war between countries who are participating in the global economy. The Global countries, Japan, China, the EU nations, Russia, most of the old Soviets, Canada, US, face a far lower risk of war with each other, because of the global market place in which they do business.

Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, CAR, Syria, Ukraine? These are minor players caught up on the old 20th century paradigm. Saddam was an anachronism. He had to go, because he did not understand the new market strategy. The rest are suffering from internal strife and age old disease.

You right. When a country only has to send their young men and women off to a far off location to shoot and maim some distant people, they are not really experiencing war. The ruling powers have cleaned war up very nicely for us. We don't have to know the feeling of having our homes destroyed, businesses torn apart, children becoming collateral damage, women raped and beaten, our whole way of life redefined. Sure we see the occasional funeral procession for a dead soldier, and see the tears of a mother. We see a young man with a broken head, or prosthetic arm or leg, and we thank them for their service, and we sing patriotic songs, and pray for the men who are serving, read about the latest action. Maybe we even talk of the sacrifice we must make or we send care packages off to the brave young people far from home. and we feel good that we are doing something for the effort. But we have not been at war for a very long time.

And you are right that war SHOULD be dirty business. When a country decides to go to war, it should be required to commit its very being to the effort, and risk complete and total destruction. The first into the battle should be those leaders who brought the war on. Their own children should be in the front lines. The first battles should be in their own neighborhoods.

[recovering conservative]

FourPart;1459126 wrote: I believe the exact opposite to be true. It puts tension in the air which is capable of priming a hair trigger. Far from reducing the risk, they are increasing it.


Yes, and the subject hasn't really cropped up yet, but the U.S. Government has resorted to overthrowing governments by force, because the leaders refused to accept Neocolonial terms of U.S. backed corporations and bankers - who want easy plunder of natural resources, "austerity" budgets that jetison social programs and privatize public services etc.. The line of bullshit that globalization is about expanding trade between nations is a sham! The reality is that globalization is about one side plundering and harvesting the resources of weaker nations - including human capital as something close to slave labour.. Let's not forget, that when we see these meaningless "trade" numbers posted about how much China is getting for products shipped to the U.S., those numbers are being calculated at the U.S. retail level! Not at the producer stage. So, what China actually gets is a fraction of those bogus numbers....consider whatever fraction the production revenue is on crap like an Apple Ipod which sells for many times its actual production cost! Not only that, but the new recruits to the globalized capitalism paradigm - Russia and China, have desires of being economic powers in their own right....not being second rate lackies of the Americans....like the Canadian and British governments! So, when China is setting up deals to develop oil in Libya and Sudan, and the U.S. comes in trumpeting how they are going to bring democracy to these peons....which results in China losing billions in potential profits...don't think that they aren't aware of this, and will not be looking for their chance to get even with the global hegemon!

A useful resource to turn to explaining the hows and whys of so called "free enterprize" was layed out in John Perkins book: "Confessions Of An Economic Hitman" published 10 years ago. Perkins, an economist by training, describes in his memoirs his role as part of an interwoven government/corporate system that uses bribes to corrupt government leaders and officials, along with the threat of economic coercion, to convince third world governments to give up any real nationalism and independence, and become a virtual vassal state with no practical control over their own economic policy. If and when the economic teams like Perkins's fail to accomplish the objectives, the third world leaders are either assassinated if possible, or internal coups and regime changes are established.

Not to go too far off, Venezuela is a prime example of one of their few hard targets! Because it's wealth of oil revenues have allowed a non-compliant government to so far, resist the U.S.-funded resistance, which is still carrying out terrorist activities and trying to overthrow the Government there. But, small nations that have no oil, will fold one way or another in a very short time...and that is the whole point behind globalization, and this so called "New World Order," we hear so much about....which is not a secret society, but government and economic policy that is mostly practiced out there right in the open for anyone to see, who makes at least a small effort to look it up.