Discussion about this post

User's avatar
AmericanCardigan's avatar

IDK; I have to believe in humanity that someone sometime somewhere would have some general prudence and common sense about this. Ritter seems to me to be an "alarmist" and while I enjoy reading/listening sometimes its definitely not ALL the time. Further, with so many nuclear "armed" countries these days I could see a response from multiple directions that would invalidate the survivor instincts described by the US.

Expand full comment
Richard C. Cook's avatar

In 1940-1941, the U.S. made a decision, based on studies by the Council on Foreign Relations, to achieve full military dominance of the entire world. The purpose was mainly to control global trade and finance. That is what the U.S. was fighting for in WWII.

That objective never changed. It later became the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance.

After nuclear weapons arrived on the scene in 1945, nuclear war was ALWAYS an option for U.S. military planning. Later this was supplemented, but not replaced, by chemical and biological WMD and the search for space-based doomsday weapons.

We should not imagine for an instant that the U.S. military has ever seen things differently. It is pretty clear right now that the U.S. is trying to bait Russia into using nukes "first" so that they might "respond" in full force.

That has always been the American way: bait an enemy into attacking, maneuver them into a corner where they have no choice, then react "defensively." A good example is getting the Japanese to attack at Pearl Harbor, then declaring it a "Day of Infamy."

Of course it is the way of the craven coward, but that is what characterizes those who rule the U.S. and their military minions: craven cowards all.

But this time, they may have bitten off more than they can chew.

https://rickycook21.substack.com/

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts