by R.Lesnoix for The Saker blog
Recent events have put the prospect of nuclear war back into the limelight. We believed we had left this behind when the cold war ended. We were wrong. Not only is it back, it is back with a vengeance. We now face the real possibility of non-military confrontations escalating into all-out nuclear war. This worries me as it seems that the thresholds for these are both lower and more obfuscated. What’s worse is that at least some of the people who may trigger this appear to be both ignorant of these risks and have a less than desirable level of competence.
Nuclear war was typically associated with one of two scenario’s: either a gradual escalation of conventional warfare into (total) nuclear war or an all-out first strike. A first strike could be launched in the hope (or expectation) of destroying enough of the enemies nuclear firepower to make the counterstrike ‘survivable’ or it could be launched to preempt such a first strike by the enemy. If a side feels that it’s own counterstrike capabilities are vulnerable to a first strike, the chance of them launching a preemptive strike go up considerably should they feel threatened.
Still, the second scenario typically also involves an initial conventional military engagement. This would likely be a relatively small scale confrontation. Instead of the gradual escalation of the first scenario in this case one side skips the intermediate steps and goes straight for the jugular. This can be either the side who considers themselves strong enough to get away with a first strike or the side that feels it’s weaker and needs to use-it-or-lose-it.
The risk of the opponent opting for a first strike scenario is why sane people avoid any military confrontation between nuclear powers, especially between nuclear superpowers. Those with even a modest amount of military expertise or insight realize how easily even a small confrontation can get out of hand. During the Cuba-crisis in the 60’s a US warship dropped depth charges to force a Soviet submarine that was stalking the task-force to the surface, not to actually sink it. The Soviet crew thought otherwise. The commander and the XO wanted to fire their nuclear torpedo’s in response to what they felt was a genuine attack. The political officer wasn’t so sure and refused to consent to a launch. All three had to agree before the weapons could be fired. The world was spared nuclear war by what amounts to a ‘minority report’.
Did something similar happen a few weeks ago? Were there dissenting voices within the US government that managed to ‘de-escalate’ the confrontation into a mutually face-saving ‘non-event’? Maybe we’ll find out some day what exactly happened, maybe we won’t. Some give credit to Mattis and Dunford for being the ‘sane’ ones. If they did intervene I’m not so sure ‘sane’ is the right description for their motivation in doing so. See, you don’t get to their level in the US military without being a ‘political’ general with all the baggage that comes with it.
As you know the level of corruption in the DoD is quite large. But what does that really mean? Most think of current and former generals consulting in some way for big business and steering procurements but not much else. The implications of the corruption go much further. If most or all of the the top echelons are corrupt and expect to continue this as private consultants once they leave the military they’ll need to have successors who will let them. While still on active duty they need to make sure their colleagues and subordinates won’t rat them out either. So it is in their interest to ensure promotions of the corrupt(able) and stall the careers of the more conscientious. The same applies at lower levels of the hierarchy. It’s unavoidable. The armed forces are therefor filled with officers who owe their careers not to their military competencies but to either their corruptibility or to being too stupid to notice.
It goes further. When corruption is so incorporated into an organization it becomes dysfunctional. Which means it still functions, just not how it is supposed to. It will malfunction unexpectedly and unpredictably. And often. It will regularly fail to meet even minimum standards of performance. Severe underperformance will be standard. Trying to ascertain the cause of specific failures will be illusive and ‘fuzzy’. Fixes don’t work and no-one tends to be held accountable. This also applies to the corporations on the other side of the corruption. Their organizations are likely to be dysfunctional too in varying degrees. If you doubt it, how about the development issues of these: the F35, the Zumwalt, the LCS, the FCS, the Ford, etc.? They are not surprising if you understand the deeper effects of widespread systemic corruption on organizations.
Mattis an Dunford made their careers during this period of endemic corruption. What does that tell you about them? At the very least they had to know and look away. The difference between them and many of their colleagues looks to be that they do have enough military competence to see what’s going on and what it means for the ability of the US armed forces to wage war. I believe that they know all too well how the decades of ever growing corruption have turned the US military into a force incapable of confronting a (near) peer without unacceptable, even catastrophic, losses. So even if they would win, it would be a Pyrrhic victory.
So if Mattis and Dunford did intervene, don’t ascribe them the virtues of saints just yet. It’s more likely they wanted a scenario they could sell as a success without publicly exposing just how overrated the US armed force are. In a way they are tightrope walkers. They must ‘sell’ US supremacy to the rest of the world on the one hand and on the other hand they need to contain those in their own government (and behind the screens) who actually believe the propaganda and require from the military things they can’t deliver. The Pentagon can’t exactly go around telling all of those in the margins of power what the true state of affairs is. So they juggle and scheme to keep up appearances. Their job is to maintain the perceptions (and not risk their exposure) that allow the Empire to continue to cow and subdue around the world.
They also need to keep the ‘small’ wars going off course. Those are what justifies the Pentagons insane budgets. Because the higher this budget the more money is available for graft and other sorts of corruption. The US DoD has become in large part a financial scam to transfer public funds (tax dollars) into private pockets. These private pockets include current and former military officers, politicians, lobbyists and of course corporate America. A real war with an opponent that can actually fight back and inflict losses too serious to hide might ruin this very profitable scam. Lots of people in influential positions don’t want this to end. People like Mattis and Dunford make sure it doesn’t.
The US DoD is now a front for embezzlements and fraud on a scale counted in trillions (over the decades). In this regard the ability to wage war is mostly relevant in as far as its perception allows for greater sums of tax-payer money to be transferred to the Pentagon. Real capability comes second. With all the funds that are being bled off there has to be a significant difference between stated capabilities and actual capabilities. The stated capabilities are based on the official budgets while the actual capabilities are based on a much smaller amount (due to corruption) and has to take the dysfunctionality of both the military and its suppliers/contractors into account. It’s the logical conclusion of accepting the notion that they are thoroughly corrupt and have been for decades.
So far they have only been fighting colonial wars against opponents with very limited military capabilities of their own. The discrepancy between perceived and actual US military power is not obvious from those wars (although you can tell some things are off if you look really close). The perceived ‘size’ of the ability to wage war justifies inflated operating costs. So more tax dollars that can be diverted into private pockets. From this perspective it doesn’t really matter if a warship is operational or not. It’s mere existence justifies more budget for upkeep. If it is kept fully operational that means less money spent on graft and corruption and more or maintenance, training and functional upgrades. That’s not how the scam works.
Again it’s tightrope walking for the top brass. They need to project power to cow and subdue abroad but they also need to find justifications for increased spending (not to be confused with budget for existing operating costs). Those two tasks clash. Are you all-powerful already or aren’t you? So they’ve been looking for enemies to scare the domestic audience with fanciful what-if’s into forking over more and more of their hard earned dollars. It worked well for a long time. But not now. Russia is a whole other kettle of fish. Russia pushes back in many ways including military. Which is why people like Mattis and Dunford say one thing domestically but do other things behind the screens like having their underlings coordinate with the Russians in Syria. I believe they have a vested interest in steering away from any (near) peer military confrontation. It risks the scam and their careers.
Don’t get me wrong, there are elements in the US armed forces that are quite good at what they do. Some weapon systems are impressive and among the best in the world. There are plenty of capable soldiers and officers (who are unlikely to advance past the rank of major and are typically found in the field, not in staff positions). And overall they are still quite powerful, possibly even number one although I personally doubt it. It’s just that they’re not nearly as strong as they want us to believe. Nor is it anywhere near the level that the huge sums spent on it would warrant. And while elements might perform well on their own, together they don’t.
So when I say overrated that is exactly what I mean, overrated. It does not equal non-existent or absent even though the term is all too often misinterpreted as such. US military power is much less than is commonly believed it is. In other words, it’s overrated. Maybe it’s me but I’m just not impressed. Sure, they have the numbers, but quality wise? I don’t think so. Add in the lack of proper training, deferred maintenance, effectively untested systems (‘tests’, if conducted at all, are highly scripted and performed under ideal conditions to get desired outcomes) and a continued reliance in peacetime on contractor representatives to keep critical systems running (especially in the Navy) and I can’t help but wonder how bad they really are.
It comes down to this, you cannot have it both ways. Either they are quite corrupt indeed which means they are also significantly overrated as a military force or they are as strong as they claim they are which means they can’t be as corrupt as commonly viewed. Which one do you pick?
The title of this piece talks about ‘escalation into nuclear war’. Let’s apply what I mentioned above to that. I tried to make clear in the first part that the risk of such an escalation due to purely military events, while very real, is also seriously overrated. The US military is a lot more vulnerable than commonly believed. This vulnerability will make it hard, if not impossible, for the Americans to keep a war against (near) peers conventional. Especially given their reliance on the Navy and Air Force for force projection and the current level of anti-ship and anti-air missiles (and EW) available to potential adversaries, catastrophic losses seem unavoidable for the Americans in a conventional peer-to-peer setting. Then what?
People like Mattis know this. They cannot afford a military conflict with a (near) peer because it is highly likely it would lead to a situation where they would either have to use nukes tactically or admit defeat. Defeat would not just mean losing the specific engagement or conflict, it would also jeopardize the scam and publicly expose the Empire as much weaker than perceived. Their ability to cow and subdue would suffer or even disappear. So they actively work to prevent such a scenario by avoiding (near) peer conflicts even if they need to work around the White House to do so. While it could still happen, there are plenty of idiots in Washington after all, I am more worried about the risks of non-military escalation into nuclear war, given those same idiots.
As I mentioned in the second and third paragraph, escalation into nuclear war is commonly associated with military confrontation. The public perception is that such an escalation only becomes an issue if there is some kind of military on military incident first. Unfortunately this perception is false. There are several non-military escalatory roads that can lead to that same destination. It starts with a misconception of what war is, or what acts of war are. These are not limited to military confrontations or acts by armed forces of one country.
Those of you familiar with this blog will know that you can make the case that the US and Russia are already at war. At the moment most of it is informational, a big chunk is economic and a small portion is ‘kinetic’. In addition to these categories you could also include covert operations (including assassinations and sabotage), cyber-warfare and diplomacy as non-military means through which war can be waged. All of these have the potential to escalate dramatically, even into nuclear war. Keep in mind though that these are unlikely to be used on their own but probably in some sort of combination with each other. This can create synergistic effects that may be hard to contain.
Let’s look closer at informational warfare. Words have power. Words can have enormous power. Words can also trap you. When the fake video’s out of Douma were published a tweet from the White House promised retribution. That made it very difficult for the Americans not to attack Syria. Not doing so would now look weak. And in American politics looking weak is a mortal sin. So even though they must have had at least serious doubts about the validity of the claims they went ahead. If they had said, “sorry our bad, we were fooled by the video’s” they would have looked only a little bit foolish. Now that it’s glaringly obvious that the chemical attack was faked they look much worse. And they have to stick to their story now. They can’t go back without major loss of face. They hope it will blow over without too much backlash. Worse, they may feel they need a bigger incident (Iran?) to cover this one.
Words can have unforeseen consequences. In the context of international relations it takes smart and calculating people to know what to say and what not to say and when to say it and when not to say it. It takes even smarter people to know when to take something back in order to prevent greater harm to oneself. Diplomacy is an art. There’s a very good reason why it has been so important throughout history. These days I see those smart and calculating people in Moscow. I don’t see them in Washington. One of the most important diplomatic posts in a country these days is that of permanent representative at the UN. If like me you thought it couldn’t get worse than Samantha Power, now we have Nikki Haley for the US. We’ll get back to her later.
Words can also twist peoples perception of reality, especially when repeated again and again. Take the blind fanaticism of the Hitler Jugend in the end phase of the second world war. They had grown up with the constant indoctrination and didn’t know anything else. They became zealots. An indoctrinated populace can be dangerous to yourself. They can force you into directions you never intended to go. This makes the constant accusations against Russia of interfering in and undermining of US democracy very dangerous. Be very, very wary if the Democrats come back to power in the near future. Just like Trump had to act on his Tweet about Douma, the Democrats will have to act on their vilification of Russia. Given how strained US-Russian relations already are that will come with considerable risk to all of us.
The most dangerous of the non-military means to wage war would in my opinion be cyber-warfare and economic warfare. Cyber-warfare is so dangerous because it is all to easy to attribute attacks to the wrong party. These can be false-flag attacks where the ‘victim’ attacks itself and uses these as justification for their own agenda. It can also be mistakenly attributed to the wrong party. Damaging cyberattacks by non-state actors for example could be blamed on Russia, Iran, China or North Korea. Any retaliation against them would in fact not be retaliatory but the opening salvo against an innocent party. They in turn would see it as an unprovoked attack on them and be justified to respond in kind. Enter a cycle of escalations. With cyber-attacks you could also deliberately try to shift the blame on someone else for exactly this reason. There are numerous ways how this could go very wrong unless handled delicately and wisely.
The biggest risk would have to come from economic warfare though. We rarely mention or even think of economic measures as a form of warfare but we should. If an economic measure by one or more governments leads directly or indirectly to the deaths of many people in another country, let’s say more than a million, would the suffering country be right as considering it an act of war? Off course they would. Well, the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq between 1991 and 2003 are thought to have caused around 1.5 million deaths. Iraq was off course to weak to do something about it. Well Russia isn’t. Do you seriously believe they would not retaliate if they where in Iraq’s shoes?
We also tend to make the mistake to think of these spheres as separate. In our minds economic sanctions don’t justify a military response or cyberattacks but why wouldn’t they? If sanctions threaten the lives of millions? A threat to the nation is a threat to the nation and you hit the enemy back where it hurts. If that means switching to different types of actions why not? When the US cut off Japans supply of oil from the East-Indies in 1941 that constituted an existential threat to the Japanese nation. Their economy and armed forces needed that oil or face ruin. It was a de-facto declaration of war against Japan. I’m pretty sure they felt it was. And that’s all that matters. You may disagree or it may not have been your intention but if the aggrieved party considers it to be an act of war and responds on that basis your disagreement is moot.
We wrongly tend to think of non-military measures against countries as relatively harmless. We certainly consider them to be far below any sort of direct military act on the ladder of escalatory steps. Just look at the history books on who started a given war. We blame the one who fired first, not the ones who cut the economic lifeblood of the other. See where that kind of thinking, that as long as you don’t ‘shoot’ it’s not really war, can get us in a lot of trouble? Type ‘economic genocide’ in your favorite search engine and see what you get. It’s a thing.
Unfortunately it’s not just all theory. Recently Nikki Haley had stated that new sanctions against Russia were to be announced the following Monday. Instead of announcing these new sanctions however the White House stated, through Larry Kudlow, that she had been ‘confused’ and ‘mistaken’. You may recall her public rebuttal that she was ‘not confused’. Talk about someone who can’t read between the lines and who can’t put her ego aside for the greater good. But she was probably right. New sanctions were most likely on the table. But then those plans were cancelled. Given Haley’s response this was likely something serious. So what happened? Why were the new sanctions scrapped?
Maybe it’s a coincidence but between Haley’s announcement and the White House backpedalling something interesting happened. The Russian foreign minister had an interview with the BBC. He said a lot things in that interview. One little quote has received less attention than it deserves:
Question: Do you feel you are in a new Cold War?
Sergey Lavrov: I think it’s worse.
Question: Worse?
Sergey Lavrov: Because during the Cold War there were channels of communication; and there was no obsession with Russophobia which looks like, you know, genocide by sanctions.
Genocide by sanctions. Words uttered by the Russian foreign minister. Someone who is not known for hyperbole or exaggeration. Someone who’s words matter. A lot.
Now let’s get back to Putins Presidential address of March 1st 2018 for another quote:
“I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state. This all is very clear and specific.”
Putin mentions ‘an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state’. While not conducted with conventional weapons ‘genocide by sanctions’ would certainly qualify as an ‘act of aggression that threatens the very existence of the state’. That puts it awfully close to what the Russians themselves publicly state is a valid reason for responding with nuclear weapons. You could in fact make a case that economic sanctions are a form of ‘conventional weapons’.
It would go too far to state that Russia would likely respond with an nuclear first strike. It is likely though that they would respond with measures unacceptable to the US. These could be economic measures or something else entirely. What if the undersea cables that connect the US internet to the rest of the world would cease to function? Or what if the domestic energy network in the US would suddenly suffer major failures plunging large parts of the country in the dark? There are numerous non-military ways that they could use to try to ‘pull the plug’ on each other. Now if one were to get convinced the other is about to do just that who knows what action they might take? They might skip conventional military operations altogether.
Russia made it clear that they may use nuclear weapons first should the situation warrant it in their opinion. This year the US published its Nuclear Posture Review 2018. Like the Russians, they do not exclude first use. What’s also worrying is that their respective postures leave ambiguity over where they draw the line. This ambiguity may lead either side to seriously miscalculate the others likely response. Given the sort of people in Washington that would need to do the ‘calculating’ would you trust them to get the answer right? Please, let’s not get even close to that point.
The US main stream media is full of politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, accusing Russia of an ‘attack on the USA’ either because of alleged interference in the elections or unproven cyberattacks. While these are mainly for domestic consumption they also call for retaliatory measures such as more and more severe sanctions. Given the power of words and how hard it can be to take back earlier rhetoric that’s scary stuff. I can actually see the idiots in Washington talk themselves into a corner they can’t or won’t get out off and cross that line.
With regards to military escalation into nuclear war we have people like Mattis and Dunford to run interference no matter what their motivation is. When it comes to non-military acts of aggression against Russia (or China, Iran or North Korea) who do we have? Nikki Haley? John Bolton? Mike Pompeo? So yeah, I do worry a bit about getting into a nuclear war through non-military escalation.
R.Lesnoix is a concerned citizen who grew up during the Cold War under the constant fear of nuclear weapons. He is dismayed with the direction the western democracies are going in.
I do apologise for recent events in England. Our Government does not represent us. I have never known such nonsense. However it does provide an opportunity for creativer writers to get published on the internet. I have never heard of this writer, Stephen McMurray, but I have heard of David Icke (ex BBC). In fact I even bought one of his books, and some of it is a bit nutty, but some of what he wrote 20 years ago, when nearly everyone (including me) thought he was mad, has actually come true.
I sincerely hope The Russian Government is not taking The UK Government seriously, because no one else I know does. We have all come to the conclusion, that they have all gone completely mad. Maybe too much BZ / and or LSD on doorknobs in Westminster? There doesn’t seem to be any real problem in the Theatre of Salisbury. The weather this weekend in London is lovely.
Tony
“The Skripal Narrative – Too Ridiculous for Words”
https://www.davidicke.com/article/472400/skripal-narrative-ridiculous-words
If only 5 years ago, somebody would’ve shown me a secret tape of me speaking today, I could’ve passed out in disbelieve. One absolutely has to peal away all this BS that we’ve been rubbed into since our births, in order to see things, the way they truly are. Unfortunately, many who opened their eyes still afraid to speak out, even within the circles of their friends, and families. The west is plunged into oceans of insanity by creatures of insanity.
Ten years ago, after 33 years, I reconnected with a man who served in the same British regiment as my husband.
By then he was seriously committed as consultant/educator with UN.
Separately, I had served on the committee of an international women’s organisation, which distributed funds to young women refugees whose tertiary education/ employment opportunities were disrupted by war or other cataclysms.
In my own life and experiences, the scales fell from my eyes extreme painfully, over many long years.
Not like Paul, on the road to Damascus.
Something was ‘wrong’ and I plugged away with my questions and resistances until I very nearly died.
I never quit. So imagine my shock and pleasure to find this man after all those struggles and all those years!
As there had been nil contact during those 33 years, it was intriguing to discover how we had developed into our respective maturities.
I was aghast to receive from him references to Tom Friedman ‘ in order to widen your perspectives’, while he was aghast to hear from me, pretty much what we are discussing here.
It got to the point where, after a few years, there was nothing left to say.
We could not even be friends.
Very sad.
Tony, I know you rather well from the Craig Murray site. I always enjoy your posts.
The truths of our political systems in the so-called west are extremely unpalatable. Which is why I’m so grateful for this community at The Saker. I’m like so many who have commented here: I don’t feel so alone.
Thanks Babuska, that was very nice of you to say. My wife and I have had a brilliant day, and tonight we went to one of the best 60th Birthday Parties, we have ever been to in our lives. We all felt like Teenagers. Tony xx
Satire and black humor at its best. It is much needed, thanks for the link.
Someone should tell McMurray not to write the future play scripts for them.
Tony, why did you mention a Stephen McMurray? Who’s the guy, he wasn’t mentioned in the article, or was he?
Read the reference:
“The Skripal Narrative – Too Ridiculous for Words”
https://www.davidicke.com/article/472400/skripal-narrative-ridiculous-words
“Commenting on the strange lack of symptoms shown by a boy who just consumed bread contaminated with, according to all the ‘experts’ in the media , one of the most deadly nerve agents ever invented, the journalists simply said that it ‘exposes the limits of novichok.’”
The limitation obviously being that bread neutralizes the stuff. These alleged journalists are bloody geniuses.
I would just like to say, my wife and I and some of our family and friends have been to 4 completely different..loosely based live music events, encompassing most ethnicities, religions and cultures under the sun, and we have encountered absolutely no aggression, no even hint of violence, no fear..our grandchildren have come too to some of the events too.
No one is complaining about anything…except me, but no one takes any notice of me, either.
Maybe the world is largely at peace…bt The RAF pilots really annoy me, and yes I have met some of them accidentally at an RAF wedding whilst we were walking through the beautiful English countryside…They invited us in, but we said no, and kept on walking
How can these “men?” fly these jet aircrafts – and yes sure I would like to do that too..I used to pull quite a lot of g in a glider…But I simply could not drop bombs on completely innocent people in foreign lands, who posed absolutely no threat to us in England whatsover.
How can You RAF Pilots Do That?
You are Killing Completely Innocent People for Who?
Why do you do it?
I do not understand you.
The Children can’t shoot back, and I am on their side no matter where in the world they live.
I would throw rocks at your Spitfires too
Now, I personally find the uk royal air force a complete disgrace to the human race.
i used to feel so proud of you. my dad will be turning in his grave.
Tony
Hillary is a perfect example of how corruption equals malfunction. Hillary campaigned on her great ‘experience’. But, she always seems incompetent at her jobs. The reason why is that her personal goal was never what the job publicly was supposed to be. Hillary was corrupt, and her personal goal was always to put money into the Clinton family coffers.
The first example of Hillary on the national stage shows this. Bill put Hillary in charge of health care reform back in 1993. Hillary created a giant mess of a system that was a complicated mess. The reason why is because she wasn’t worried about designing a good health care system for the American people. Hillary was worried only about how much money the Clintons could rake in. So, every big money player in health care was given a role in HillaryCare. As long as they paid their money, they were given a role. Something simple and with a proven record of keeping administrative costs down such a Medicare For All was immediately rejected by Hillary, in favor of finding ways to make sure profits were guaranteed for every corporation that made big contributions to Hillary. Tens of thousands of Americans died because of Hillary’s failure to reform the for-profit health care system. But the Clintons have been rich ever since.
That’s an example of what this author is talking about. When corruption rules a system, then decisions are made on the basis of how do the corrupt people at the top rake in the most money. What does not happen is that decisions are not made on the basis of what’s good for the country. Thus, we get an F-35 that is horribly expenive to build, horribly expensive to maintain, where half the planes sit on the ground and can’t fly on any given day, but which made a lot of people very, very rich. Corrupt Congresspeople voted for it, and got big campaign contributions. Corrupt executives led the project, and got huge bonuses for the profits they created. Corrupt military officers passed it through the tests and wrote the requirements for it, and then got cushy and very well-paying jobs after their early retirement from the military. The American people got a plane that is over-priced and can’t do its job. But in a corrupt system, the last part is the only part that does not matter.
Anon, I love your comment about Hilary’s experience. Well, it is: “Experience of incompetence”. Wonderful.
My impressions is that Pompeo and Bolton are like Don Tomassino in Godfather III who said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” I seem to sense some wisdom or goodwill –sanity?– underneath their speech and actions. Not so with Haley.
The problem is that when you make peace with one group (the swamp), it necessitates enmity with another.
Excellent analysis and summary. Thanks to both you and Saker for your insights.
I second your point that sanctions constitute an act of war. In my opinion, economic sanctions affecting civil society as a whole are at about two thirds into shooting war on a scale starting at peace time. Given the US economic might by the overrated USD in international trade, the states can effectively wage economic war through sanctions on most countries. These sanctions are only limited insofar as the affected countries shrug off the USD and trade in their local currencies.
The Americans cling not only to delusions of their military supremacy but also their messianic belief in American moral and political supremacy as the self-proclaimed Land of the Free. And this is not to mention the delusion that the American model of free market capitalism is one that the USA has a God-given right to impose on the rest of the world through its doctrine of the Washington Consensus.
But the American Empire will not escape its day of reckoning.
Make no mistake, that day is coming.
The Americans know that damn well.
That is why they have resorted to desperate geopolitical provocations and even more desperate propaganda campaigns from their (snicker) Free Press to forestall this day.
In fact, don’t believe that the United States would not resort to detonating a nuclear war to forestall itsJudgment Day.
This is the American version of the Zionist Sampson Option.
Diplomacy is an art.
Did you want to say Diplomacy was an art.? Look at the documented statements made by Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Biden regarding the Russian President. If that’s considered “diplomacy”, then even the most prole craftsman should be able to become ambassador or even high ranking politician.
“then even the most prole craftsman should be able to become ambassador or even high ranking politician.”
Change craftsman to salesman and that is american politics in a nutshell.
I was referring to the way American politicians talk. You will not hear such statements as “our Eastern partners” (that would be similar to the way how President Putin and Sergey Lavrov often refer to the West). From a salesman you’ll hear only sweet talk (they’re basically a$$kissers in order to sell their trash). In the past mainly craftsman used some rough (and direct) language. With regard to the politicians of my first post I was referring Hillary comparing President Putin with Hitler (Hillary Clinton clarifies Putin-Hitler comments, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMDeOwHEXb8 Hillary Clinton: Putin is arrogant and tough, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rtCDnuDXk4) or Joe Biden’s “diplomacy” (Joe Biden to Vladimir Putin: ‘You Have No Soul’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm_N5WciKdA). Only a dimwit compares the President of another country with Hitler or calls them arrogant (especially if the other country can push back).
Or what if the domestic energy network in the US would suddenly suffer major failures plunging large parts of the country in the dark?
I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but afaik the US energy network is shitty planned and shitty maintained with power outtakes being quite normal.
It is interesting that the perpetrators of the “Metcalfe Incident” have still not been apprehended.
Slightly more than hundred rounds of 7.62mm non-AP ammunition caused over $15 million worth of damage. A quick Internet search suggests that the price for 7.62×39 is around the $5 per 20, so the ammo cost was a measly $25.
Whoever “done it” managed a 600,000 x “return” on their “investment”, and we can all rest assured that Countries such as Russia have watched this lack of apprehension progress with considerable interest.
Replace the 7.62 x 39 rounds with 0.50 BMG rounds (with their 18 KJ impact energy) and the same (or considerably greater) degree of damage could be produced with a handful. Considering that perpetrators may have State backing, they might even have access to the DU flechette 0.50 BMG rounds – which, whilst having the same impact energy, spread this energy over a smaller target area = higher penetration performance.
some 15 years ago I read a report, that stated that the failure in just three or four Electrical substations
(situated in midwest states, they were specifically mentioned) would cause a catastrophical cascade failure in all the US electrical network. Producing a blackout on a nationwide scale.
the report recommended some measures to correct those problems, measures that affected those electrical substations and some other points to implement in the grid.
since then, nothing has been done! things are simply worse.
when the “Metcalfe Incident” happened I though that whoever did it was simply probing, or checking the feasibility of such an event, and that they knew perfectly what they were doing.
well the writting is on the wall. I hope you all keep batteries at home.
Back in the 1980s I had a conversation with a pindo Vietnam vet who at the time was still in the marine reserves. He was a catholic neocon. One of the things discussed was ICBMs. He didn’t know what that was. I explained what they were. His response that these were not a threat because “we can jam them”. This was a marine who did 2 tours in Vietnam and had been in the military all his adult life.
We also talked about politics, current affairs and general stuff. At one point he cracked a Jew joke. What struck me was that just about everything this guy had parroted and supported was disinfo he got from Jewish zionazis one way or another. And he was as clueless about it as he was about ICBMs.
A soldier who did not know what an ICBM was. An anti-semite who internalised the Jewish zionist propaganda. The guy epitomized the raygun regime changes in the u.s. military, where fanatical right wing subservience to a hostile foreign power took precidence.
Before then, in the 70s, there was an effort to clean up the american military of its fascist, extremist right wing elements and their brain dead bum boys. It was short lived, the raygun regime freakshow pushed out the reformers and reinforced the extremists big time. Who facilitated this? The zionazis. The neocons. Each year sees their influence get stronger.
Contrary to what many claim, the u.s. military is not a repository of the brightest and best informed. Far from it, it more the opposite. And this lack of independent, intelligent thinking is the desired outcome. The zionazis have been in the forefront of this regression, where a return to pindo fascist 1950s mentality was “upgraded” to serve israeli interests.
Point I’m making here is the elephant in the room is there whether it is acknowledged or not. Ignoring it, one can not really confront the problem. Reading this article, I noticed the elephant was being ignored. Did a word search for israel, nothing, for zionist, nothing. Then tried masada, again nothing.
The latter’s absence is remarkable in an article about the threat of nuclear war. Especially when it is understood the extraordinary extent of zionazi influence in the west, the people most likely to start a nuclear war now, and the masada complex mentality of israelis.
I noticed that, too… I think these articles are intentionally written or published – they serve the zio propaganda (in disguise).
Here’s a little info on the vast complex of MIC. Lots of screaming for eons as to the ungodly amounts of money poured in to that kettle to line someone’s pockets. Well, guess who’s pockets?
1. In excess of 95% of monies paid for weapons systems in any form, from aircraft carriers to the little company that makes the snaps and rings on the battle harness and everyone in between, goes to workers in one form or another. “Worker” means everyone from the top dog of a massive multinational behemoth to the guy who empties the shop floor trash cans every Friday.
2. Any of you who have any type of retirement or investment fund of any kind, be it federal, state, local or private, it may behoove you to take a look at what these funds are investing in plus the often massive ‘administration’ costs of these funds.
Anyone with the aforementioned has a finger in the pie, one way or another.
Auslander
Author
Never The Last One https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK A Deep Look In To Russia, Her Culture And Her Armed Forces
An Incident On Simonka https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ERKH3IU NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.
Excellent comment! I hope many will realize that the whole “system” we live in is so interconnected that we’re unknowingly (and unwillingly) assisting the evildoers. Who is aware that even buying a regular cup of coffee may fill the pockets of those exploiting child labor for harvesting the coffee beans? Really fair trade (not some fair trade label for solely marketing purposes) could solve the problem in the latter case. If we don’t attempt to change the system the problems only will get worse. Taylorism and the “anonymity” of the supply chain are very useful to hide the dirty secrets.
You made me feel very guilty… I am retired with a small pension….
Anonymous 08:15
‘Child labor’ is everywhere. Shucks, I grew up on a farm and I guaranty you that at the age of 10 I was putting in more hours than the vast majority of US workers today, and those hours were in addition to school work for 8 months a year.
Anonymous 11:10
Why feel guilty? You worked for it, it’s yours. I’m in the same boat, small pension that I worked for.
Auslander
As someone born (way after 45), raised and living in Western Europe I didn’t have to experience anything like this. I’m aware that this hadn’t been always the case, especially shortly after the postwar period. People had to get by somehow and often children had to help with the work.
The situation of the African child labor I was referring to resembles the novels of Charles Dickens with the only difference being the different location.
Instead of the example of child labor I could’ve used the example of the workers in clothing factories in Bangladesh, South America or meanwhile Africa working for next to nothing. In some cases the clothes end up for some cheap price in clothing stores (also affordable for the poor in so called First World Nations). In other cases it ends up for an immense high price. For example during the last Soccer World Cup adidas got some negative PR, when it was revealed that t-shirts produced for the Soccer World Cup in Brazil were manufactured in some South American country by seamstresses for a few cents, but sold for about 70 EUR (total production cost of about 4-8 EUR). So, if the seamstresses got such low wages that they barely could make a living and the finished products got sold for 70 EUR, where did the missing 62 to 66 EUR end up? Probably they ended up in the hands of merchants, management, PR companies and investors (those can be single persons or funds) of adidas. I’m not against profits, but if the situation of the poor (adults and children alike) is used to exploit them for next to nothing, then something is still going into the wrong direction.
In the past the German pension system (before some economists pushed for the US fund system) was excellent. The money that people paid into the system was distributed among the pensioners. Basically no fund manager or banker could charge fees for managing the money. Nowadays the collected money has to be invested in order to keep funds afloat (and to pay for the wages of the fund managers). There’s quite the possibility that some of the invested money had been used to buy shares of weapons manufacturers. One step to change this money flow (into the MIC) would be to imitate the system Germany had used until the late 80’s. Probably this wouldn’t fix everything that’s wrong, but it could be a step in the right direction.
by Anonymous 08:15
Aus,
The money the USofA spends on military is one puzzling thing (to say the list) as many times I have read that the real money spent is in the range of 1.1 Trillion, if not more.
Its really scary, The US Pres. Choose his cabbinet warmongerer Pampeo, Bolton,Nikki these three will never stop pushing on containing Syrian, Iran and RUSSIA they believe they will win because they have more then enough power the EU UK FRANCE ISRAEL are with them in all their cruel activities… How long can Russia hold their patient??? As things goes on US is pushing more difficult to Russia Iran Syrian to breath. They want to show to the world ‘Who is there can challenge the US might? They believer America is the world. These people are arrogant.. Most of American people are still sleeping. Only honest good media can wake them up but most US media are not doing their job they are corrupt.. We must be ready…..My God forbid..
Is it a coincidence that ‘Lesnoix’ translates to ‘nuts’?
That is why I am in favour of complete and ruthless nuclear disarmament. No nuke is too small to notice — not even Little Izzie’s sweety box of 200 assorted Smarties. Truman was a Lunatic in a Business Suit. There are even more such today. So dumb they think nuclear weapons fly one way only — from Me to You but never back to Me.
The sadistic and arrogant regimes of Bush the father, Bush the son and Cheney the unholy spirit have generated a cold disregard for human life not seen since the Nazis (of whom Bush the grandfather was a sponsor). Just like the Nazis, too dumb to imagine bombs ever falling on their own heads.
I saw the Aldermaston marchers in the Cold War; they were right.
The are two key points that are much more critical in terms of risk of use of nuclear weapons:
-1- The number of groups with nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan going nuclear created all sorts of issues. Saudi Arabia and Iran going nuclear would dig the hole deeper. Plus the risk that if a nuclear nation fails, those weapons could leak to non-state parties.
-2- The fear those groups create, especially in each other. A given group may try to define some other group’s fear as “rational” or “irrational”, however that debate actually does not particularly matter. The fear is just as real either way. Theocracies are especially prone to generating fear in others.
__________
Russia is not at war with the U.S., despite the attempts of the Fake/Globalist media machine to create that impression. U.S. citizens understand that the so-called investigation of election interference is bogus and intended to divert attention from crimes by the Obama administration and Clinton as Sec State.
The U.S. and Russia/USSR have been pointing nukes at each other for generations. Neither side is going to start a nuclear engagement with the other. They have been quite careful to keep their forces apart in Syria.
The real risk is smaller groups with more volatile leadership. Fortunately, North Korea appears to be headed in a desirable direction. Trump cut-off the Bush/Obama appeasement payments that effectively subsidized their nuclear program. Without that money, North Korea had to become more reasonable. That opened the door for China and South Korea to successfully engage in diplomacy.
North Korea never had been a problem. You may compare the nuclear program and the missile tests as life insurance. Without that insurance you would’ve already witnessed some North Korean Libya. You’re also forgetting about the non-existent peace treaty. Since the end of the Korean War the US never sat down on a table with NK to negotiate a peace treaty. The risk of (nuclear) war pushed (US puppet) South Korea to flip the finger to Uncle Sam.
How is South Korea doing exactly what the U.S. wants “finger flipping”? A unified, democratic, non-nuclear Korea is a “best case” outcome.
____
Almost every nation on the planet considers the NK nuclear program a threat. The lack of specific pieces of paperwork between the U.S. and NK is a non-issue. Both China and Russia signed on to unanimous sanctions back in September.
https://sputniknews.com/news/201709121057302002-un-security-council-sanctions-north-korea/
The problem with total de-nuclearization is, just like with Chemical Weapons. Some people do it, others drag their feet. The ones who drag their feet use them and blame the fact on the ones who de-weaponized themselves. Also the ones who drag their feet pass that$hit to non-state third parties. Remember the motto: Total Deniability? Will never work. Once that devil is out of the bag it can never be put back into it.
@A123: “The number of groups with nuclear weapons”.
A1. The USA, the only country that couldn’t wait to use them.
A2. Israel, the only country with a history of paranoia and a Samson Option.
A123. 1 is already 1 too many!
Although I consider this article to be the best single statement about what realistically could produce a world-ending nuclear war, and to be the most comprehensive statement about the geostrategic realities and especially the U.S. internal realities, which could produce that, the many grammatical errors are irksome; and, so, I would hope that the author, whom I agree with 100% on what he says, would learn grammar (such as the difference between “who’s” and “whose”) as a professional writer, in order that this gifted presenter might become more widely published, both on this topic and on others. The only other point that comes to mind as regards possible improvements to this terrific article is that some links to the key sources regarding its many allegations that only a small minority of the readership might be likely to be aware of, would also have improved it and made it even more deserving of being linked-to by other writers as being a source, than it already is.
Tout à fait d’accord!
Eric, sounds like a job for you–rewrite the article–the ideas there really belong to all of us it’s just this particular author emphasized the corruption angle as a feature of the system and followed the logic to where it leads. We all need to do what we can to make it very clear that corruption not policy is the major dynamic of U.S. Deep State. Without that concept at the center of any critique everything is nonsensical.
Eric, thank you for your kind words on my article and for the constructive comments. English is not my native tongue and for this piece I should have spend a little more time getting the grammar right. Self-editing in a foreign language is a challenge. One at which I failed for this piece. Reading it now there are obvious mistakes and sentences that could have been phrased a lot better. For me these articles are also a learning experience so I appreciate the comments.
This is a brilliant analysis and one that needs to be spread by all of us who read it. What we have in the USA is a federal gov’t that is systemically and radically corrupt but it is “functional” for what it is. The system is complex and robust enough to maintain its basic form without totally degrading its capabilities which, in my view, remain stable. In fact the keyword in USA politics is stability.
I don’t believe there is as serious a danger as the article indicates. The System, in my view, is a system of algorithms that have developed over many decades. No one is in charge but rather a virtual Emperor has emerged out of a series of organizations and individuals organized into a neural-like network. This explains the constant zig-zags in military and diplomatic policies depending on which particular set of nodes makes the most “noise” at any one time. Since the only goal is to survive anything else is excluded from significant consideration. Major war whether nuclear or conventional is just not going to happen. Iraq taught the System that actual troops on the ground war did not help the System but wars like Libya, Syria and Yemen work very well because what dead bodies of Americans there may be are easily kept secret and massive amount of arms and ordinance still must be purchased which makes everyone happy. Also, we now have the perfect mix with the new Cold War against Russia which fits nicely into the mix so that an all-purpose villain can be resurrected using all the anti-Russian stereotypes developed during the Cold War including Russia’s “threat” to the integrity of the country. Since the nature of American culture is also focused on stability and stasis–no one really wants change either politically, socially or culturally the majority of Americans ignore public affairs and focus on career, money, family. Nearly everyone I know avoids talking about “politics” or, indeed, anything but the strictly personal.
The one problem for the System that remains unsolved, from the view of the System is Donald Trump. Somehow he emerged out of this highly corrupt society as a caricature of corruption and the nonsensical nature of U.S. culture as it expresses itself in domestic and foreign policy. This is why the System appears so deeply against Trump–he is a crazy drunk ruining the party. But, actually, he is the crazy drunk that seems to know what he is doing. Most of his political moves have been deeply Machiavellian either because he is a political genius or a complete fool like Chauncey Gardner or Mulla Nasrudin.
absolutely great article – thank you so much for writing it – I wanted to add something to this sentence –
” Defeat would not just mean losing the specific engagement or conflict, it would also jeopardize the scam and publicly expose the Empire as much weaker than perceived. Their ability to cow and subdue would suffer or even disappear.”
What I think maybe you didn’t imagine as fully as you could – or that you kind of rushed on without mentioning – is this –
Defeat would also EXPOSE the corruption and the people running the scam…the ones siphoning off the top cream….and they don’t want to get exposed and at this point they are possibly capable of anything to prevent that.
————
I also think there’s another possible scenario explanation for the Douma ‘symbolic’ attack. It was even synchronized time wise I think – almost to the day of the one last year ? So maybe Trump said ‘I want to do another symbolic attack on Syria because the neo-cons need to be fed.”
you kind of lost me after this last paragraph I copy pasted – maybe Iran – genocide by sanctions – blah blah
but its still an excellent article – especially the first two thirds…thanks alot
The “Defense/Pentagon Budget” is a kind of nice term for what is in fact department of centrally managed industrial policy, which the United States has had for a long time, just like every other industrial nation. Keeping in mind this most peculiar use of the word “Defense” is particularly essential when discussing military capabilities of the United States. The US does have of course a hugely powerful military, but any kind of comparison, analysis or inference made from the “budget” numbers is clearly useless. Meaning it has exactly zero value.
I am not particularly keen on Chomsky on various levels due to what I see as some suspiciously selective blind spots on his vision. But there are some things he does help illuminate.The following quote from a Chomsky interview describes the gist of the system
https://chomsky.info/prosperous01/
“So you could say that one alternative to the free market system is the one we already have, because we often don’t rely on the market where powerful interests would be damaged. Our actual economic policy is a mixture of protectionist, interventionist, free market and liberal measures. […]
For example, the US has always had an active state industrial policy, just like every other industrial country. It’s been understood that a system of private enterprise can survive only if there is extensive government intervention. It’s needed to regulate disorderly markets and protect private capital from the destructive effects of the market system, and to organize a public subsidy for targeting advanced sectors of industry, etc.
But nobody called it industrial policy, because for half a century it has been masked within the Pentagon system. Internationally, the Pentagon was an intervention force, but domestically it was a method by which the government could coordinate the private economy, provide welfare to major corporations, subsidize them, arrange the flow of taxpayer money to research and development, provide a state guaranteed market for excess production, target advanced industries for development, etc. Just about every successful and flourishing aspect of the US economy has relied on this kind of government involvement.”
He described the system in more lively detail in this 1993 article
The Pentagon System
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/PentagonSystem_Chom.html
” What if the domestic energy network in the US would suddenly suffer major failures plunging large parts of the country in the dark?”…
Many Americans( and non Americans) have already been “plunged in the dark * permanently into their deaths* through these forced upon devices called ” smart” meters.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gRR_u3oooHw