I moved to Brazil and my brother retired to Uruguay only 50 miles from where I live in Brazil - among other reasons, besides beauty low taxes and lifestyle, we figured nukes would never fly to South America since they pose no threats. Guess we are wrong? Only problem with US war plan - is Russia, Finland and a few others have built nuclear shelters for thier populations while in America you're on your own - and only billionaires near bunkers at the time of launches and highest level govt employees would survive - so I think America's war criminals would all excavated from vaults be hung/shot by larger number of Russians. In effect Russia 'wins" a nuclear war.
Anyway, guess I need get to work building a fallout shelter with Scotts information. I only have 20-30 years left according to actuarials, but I like living.
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.
By the way, Ritter, who helped lead the charge against Iraq in Desert Storm, and MacGregor, who helped lead NATO's criminal attack on Yugoslavia in 1998, have nothing to be proud of. No doubt their current stance derives, at least in part, from a guilty conscience.
I was just remarking that to my wife this morning. Certainly Matt Hoh--former Marine and State Dept., served in Iraq and Afghan--has made that explicit.
Excellent input from these esteemed gents. We are led by effeminate man-boys, demented old geezers with fixated hatreds, and stupid women. The common factor among all these fools is a complete lack of real-life experience. Someone, somewhere has to give them that experience in a brutal way for them to call a halt to this madness.
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.
If you were a passenger in a car and the driver was going around bends within a few miles per hour of the 'going off' speed, would you be an alarmist? The point is that you need a margin of safety and the greater the risk the bigger the margin needs to be. Every single expert bar none who has studied the problem has come to the same conclusion: nuclear catastrophe is inevitable. Not likely but inevitable....because if you wait long enough, it's just a matter of time before a silly mistake or misunderstanding or act of insanity will occur in just the wrong way at the wrong time for the World to be destroyed.
Ritter can be irritating because he often blows his stack. This situation requires people who exhibit ice-calm rationality and logic. However, despite this, it's hard to refute him. There are almost no voices of reason in the Western government as there were in 1962, so I'd like to think that some kind of popular reaction would knock some sense into these maniacs. However, as I go about my job, which involves meeting a lot of people, I see absolutely no awareness that anything is amiss. All very eerie and disturbing.
The question becomes, in the nuclear scenario, where and who are the nukes pointed at, it can't just be Russia. So, any nuclear armed countries in the scenario described above should have one or more of our nukes aimed at them so that means we are aiming at our allies, no?
For the pea-brain intellectuals who think a nuclear war is winnable I suggest they watch the 1983 movie “War Games”. Macgregor or Ritter will make their dunce cap laden heads explode.
I moved to Brazil and my brother retired to Uruguay only 50 miles from where I live in Brazil - among other reasons, besides beauty low taxes and lifestyle, we figured nukes would never fly to South America since they pose no threats. Guess we are wrong? Only problem with US war plan - is Russia, Finland and a few others have built nuclear shelters for thier populations while in America you're on your own - and only billionaires near bunkers at the time of launches and highest level govt employees would survive - so I think America's war criminals would all excavated from vaults be hung/shot by larger number of Russians. In effect Russia 'wins" a nuclear war.
Anyway, guess I need get to work building a fallout shelter with Scotts information. I only have 20-30 years left according to actuarials, but I like living.
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/
By the way, Ritter, who helped lead the charge against Iraq in Desert Storm, and MacGregor, who helped lead NATO's criminal attack on Yugoslavia in 1998, have nothing to be proud of. No doubt their current stance derives, at least in part, from a guilty conscience.
The sign of a decent human being is that they can see the error of their ways and change.
True of course.
I was just remarking that to my wife this morning. Certainly Matt Hoh--former Marine and State Dept., served in Iraq and Afghan--has made that explicit.
Excellent input from these esteemed gents. We are led by effeminate man-boys, demented old geezers with fixated hatreds, and stupid women. The common factor among all these fools is a complete lack of real-life experience. Someone, somewhere has to give them that experience in a brutal way for them to call a halt to this madness.
Spot on.
Without launching nuclear weapons at us.
Exactly. A tricky compromise.
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.
If you were a passenger in a car and the driver was going around bends within a few miles per hour of the 'going off' speed, would you be an alarmist? The point is that you need a margin of safety and the greater the risk the bigger the margin needs to be. Every single expert bar none who has studied the problem has come to the same conclusion: nuclear catastrophe is inevitable. Not likely but inevitable....because if you wait long enough, it's just a matter of time before a silly mistake or misunderstanding or act of insanity will occur in just the wrong way at the wrong time for the World to be destroyed.
Ritter can be irritating because he often blows his stack. This situation requires people who exhibit ice-calm rationality and logic. However, despite this, it's hard to refute him. There are almost no voices of reason in the Western government as there were in 1962, so I'd like to think that some kind of popular reaction would knock some sense into these maniacs. However, as I go about my job, which involves meeting a lot of people, I see absolutely no awareness that anything is amiss. All very eerie and disturbing.
The question becomes, in the nuclear scenario, where and who are the nukes pointed at, it can't just be Russia. So, any nuclear armed countries in the scenario described above should have one or more of our nukes aimed at them so that means we are aiming at our allies, no?
For the pea-brain intellectuals who think a nuclear war is winnable I suggest they watch the 1983 movie “War Games”. Macgregor or Ritter will make their dunce cap laden heads explode.