The U.S. government’s approach to storm Russia is relying on a perception in, and the fundamental strategy to set up, “Nuclear Primacy” in opposition to Russia – an American capability to win a nuclear war in opposition to, and so storm, Russia.
This idea became reputable in U.S. academic and governmental policymaking sectors when practically at the same time in 2006 a short-form and a long-form variation of an article promoting the idea, which the article’s two co-authors there named “nuclear primacy,” were publicized correspondingly in the world’s two most influential journals of international affairs, Foreign Affairs from the Council on Foreign Relations, and International Security from Harvard. (CFR got the more well-liked short version, titled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, and Harvard got the more academic long version, that had been titled “The End of MAD?”.)
This content stated that the central geostrategic idea throughout the Cold War with the Soviet Union, Mutually Assured Destruction or “MAD” – in which there is no such thing as the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. beating the other, because the first of the two to strike will itself also be demolished by the surviving nuclear forces of the one responding to that attack – will rapidly be simply past history (like the Soviet Union itself currently is); and, so, as the short form of the content says, “nuclear primacy continues to be a goal of the United States”; and, as the long form says, “the United States currently stands on the cusp of nuclear primacy.” In other words: arms-control or no, the U.S. should, and soon will, be able to seize Russia (the greatest land-mass of any country, and also the one richest in natural resources).
Neither variation of this content pointed out the key cause why nuclear victory is extremely harmful even under the most ideal conditions, which reason is the idea (and the probably reality in the event of nuclear war between the two superpowers) “nuclear winter” – the scientific studies demonstrating that a resulting abrupt sharp cooling of the atmosphere after all those tremendous explosions would generate a global die-off.
America’s aristocracy and its vassal-aristocracies controlling the U.S.-allied nations (billionaires, centi-millionaires, and their leading agents in both the public and private sectors) are purchasing and building deep-underground nuclear shelters for themselves, but they would not be in a position to stay underground and survive on stored feedstuffs forever. (As for everybody else, those other folks are not included in geostrategic decisionmaking, and so are being disregarded.) Nevertheless, many of America’s (and associated) elite are shelling out those bomb-shelter costs, but none of the West’s elite are condemning the route toward nuclear war that their governments are on. So: purchasing or building nuclear-war shelters is more realistic to them than is stopping America’s intended conquest of Russia. The higher goal is to conquer Russia.
A far less persuasive scholarly journal, China Policy, published later in 2006 a critical article reasoning against nuclear supremacy, but that article has had no effect upon policymaking. Its title was “The Fallacy of Nuclear Primacy” and it contended that, “American nuclear supremacy removes the root source of stability from the nuclear equation: mutual vulnerability.” It introduced a moral argument: “U.S. leaders may attempt to exploit its nuclear superiority … by in fact launching a cold-blooded nuclear attack in opposition to its nuclear rival in the midst of an powerful crisis. The professors disregard significantly the power of the nuclear taboo to inhibit U.S. leaders from crossing the fateful threshold. If crisis circumstances grow serious enough, the temptation to attempt to disarm their nuclear adversaries through a nuclear first-strike might be too strong to avoid, they claim.” The concept of “nuclear winter” wasn’t even so much as just pointed out (much less addressed) in this article, just as it was disregarded in the two that it was arguing against.
The co-authors of (both variations of) the content that had suggested and recommended nuclear primacy, then published in 2007 (this one also in International Security), a reaction to that critical content. This reply’s title was “U.S. Nuclear Primacy and the Future of the Chinese Deterrent”. But it had no more influence than did the obscure content it was arguing against.
Therefore, nuclear primacy has become U.S. policy, and MAD no longer is U.S. policy (though it continues to be Russian policy). The U.S. government is arranging to take over Russia (essentially, to set up a puppet-regime there). That’s the truth.
Central to the nuclear-primacy idea is that of what’s variously called a “Ballistic Missile Defense” (BMD) or “Anti Ballistic Missile” (ABM) system: a system to deactivate or knock out Russia’s retaliatory nuclear weapons so that a U.S. flash nuclear attack will not be able to be met by any nuclear counter-attack.
As “The End of MAD?” indicated: “Russia has approximately 3,500 strategic nuclear warheads today, but if the United States struck before Russian forces were alerted, Russia would be lucky if a half-dozen warheads survived.”
Quite simply: America’s aristocracy are not actually hoping to protect all of the U.S. population from a counter-attack, but are prepared to sacrifice perhaps a few million Americans here and there, to be able to achieve the supposed outcome: conquest of Russia.
That content then states that a BMD-ABM system will not necessarily reveal America’s determination to pursue nuclear primacy in opposition to Russia, because it could alternatively be intended purely and authentically defensively, to safeguard against nuclear attack from Iran, North Korea or some other country. Nevertheless: “Other U.S. nuclear programs are hard to explain with any mission other than a nuclear first strike on a major power adversary. For example, the decision to upgrade the fuse of many SLBM warheads (the W76s) to permit ground bursts makes sense only if the mission is destroying hundreds of hardened silos. One might argue that ground bursts could be useful for a variety of other missions, such as destroying North Korean WMD bunkers or remote cave complexes housing terrorist leaders. The United States, however, already has a large number of highly accurate, similar-yield warheads that would be ideal for these purposes.”
The content even records that: “Other analysts have noted that the current U.S. nuclear force looks surprisingly like an arsenal designed for a nuclear first strike against Russia or China.” Plus, “A group of RAND analysts agrees: ‘What the planned force appears best suited to provide beyond the needs of traditional deterrence is a preemptive counterforce capability against Russia and China. Otherwise, the numbers and the operating procedures simply do not add up.’” Therefore: the co-authors here are declaring to be simply giving a name, “nuclear primacy,” to America’s existing strategic military policy – not to be inventing or creating it. They are, above all, stating that this is the reality currently in U.S. policy-making circles; that MAD no longer is.
And their article has, certainly, explained the guiding strategic-planning goal not only of the George W. Bush Administration, but also of Barack Obama’s – as will at this point be documented.
U.S. President Obama has always been declaring that the reason why America is installing anti-ballistic missiles (“ABM”s, often referred to as ballistic-missile defense or “BMD”) in Romania, Poland, and other nations that border (or are close to) Russia, is to be able to protect Europe against Iranian missiles that could be aimed in opposition to Europe. He states that this is solely defensive, not aggressive, and that what it’s defending from is Iran, not Russia – so, Russia has no reason for grievance about it.
But then, Obama arrived at his nuclear deal with Iran; and this deal concluded, for at least ten years, any practical chance that Iran would acquire any nuclear-weapons capability – Obama himself stressed that this was the case; he was not doubting it.
Thus: Obama’s believed reason for installing ABMs in Europe was at this point, quite simply, eliminated. (Not that it had been credible anyway, since Iran did not have any nuclear weapons. It was simply a pretext, not honestly a explanation.)
Here is how Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, explained the issue, at that time, during the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, on 22 October 2015:
The usage of the threat of a nuclear missile attack from Iran as an justification, as we understand, has ruined the fundamental basis of modern international security – the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States has unilaterally seceded from the treaty. By the way, now we have resolved the Iranian problem and there is no threat from Iran and never has been, just as we stated.
The thing that appeared to have led our American partners to develop an anti-missile defense system is eliminated. It would be sensible to anticipate work to create the US anti-missile defense system to come to an conclusion as well. (But) What is truly taking place? Nothing of the kind, or truly the opposite – everything carries on.
Lately the United States carried out the first test of the anti-missile defence system in Europe. What does this indicate? It indicates we were right when we contended with our American partners. They were basically attempting yet again to deceive us and the whole entire world. To put it simply, they were lying. It was not about the hypothetical Iranian threat, which never existed. It was about an effort to eliminate the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to control, but to have the chance to dictate their will to all: to their geopolitical competition and, I think, to their allies too. This is a extremely risky scenario, dangerous to all, which includes, in my viewpoint, to the United States.
The nuclear deterrent lost its worth. Some most likely even had the illusion that victory of one party in a world conflict was again achievable – without irreversible, unacceptable, as professionals state, consequences for the winner, if there ever is one
He called Obama there a “liar,” and that’s a brazenly truthful characterization of the circumstance. But Putin missed there stating what’s even more fundamental for an understanding of what Obama was doing in this issue – and which makes that “lie” from Obama specifically atrocious: Putin missed stating that an anti-missile system can be at least as essential as an aggressive weapon as it is as a defensive one, because if a first-strike attacker desires to get rid of the defender’s capability to strike back from the attacker’s first-strike attack, then an anti-missile system is the weapon to do that, by getting rid of the defender’s missiles before those strike-back missiles can achieve their targets.
It nullifies the other side’s defense – and to do this is tremendously aggressive; it strips the victim’s retaliation. The complete differentiation between offensive and defensive can therefore be real propaganda, nothing having to do truly with aggressive and defensive. Whether the usage will be defensive, or alternatively offensive, will not be recognised until the system is in real battlefield implementation. Only the propaganda is obvious; the weapon’s usage is not.
Consequently, Putin understated the heinousness, and the risk to Russians, that was in fact involved in Obama’s tricks. All that Putin did was to vaguely indicate an aggressive probability: “It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all.” Most people don’t relate to such abstractions as “strategic balance.”
Obama and other agents of the U.S. aristocracy understand that their public are trained for decades, to hate, fear, and dislike, Russians, and particularly the Russian government, as if it were the Soviet Union, and as if its Warsaw Pact and communism still was around and Russia hadn’t finished its hostility to the U.S. in 1991 (though the U.S. persisted its hatred to Russia – that rump remaining country from the ex – communist empire – and in the course of Obama’s second term the hostility rocketed). So, for instance, at the conservative website Breitbart, when that statement quoted here from Putin was published as part of an genuinely written and displayed post titled “Vladimir Putin: U.S. Missile Defense System Threatens Russia”, almost none of the reader-comments indicated any ability or inclination of the readers to sympathize with the plight for Russians that Putin had just expressed. Instead, to the extent that the comments there were relevant, they were generally hostile, such as:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday he has concerns that the
U.S. ballistic missile defense system threatens Russia’s nuclear
Vlad, its meant to, its called defense. The only way it could ruin your nukes is if they were shot down…………….after you launched them!
How can a defense system threaten anything at all? Like Obama would strike Russia. That’s ludicrous!!!!
Most folks minds are straightjacketed in bigotries of numerous styles, preconceptions such as that a “missile defense” system, and a “Defense” Department, can’t be aggressive – even highly aggressive and war-mongering. The first idea that comes to mind about anything that’s ‘defensive’ is that something in addition has to be ‘aggressive’ or ‘offensive’, and that whatever is ‘defensive’ (like an ABM) is as a result good and even necessary.
That certainly is thinking, and receiving the term “defense,” like thinking just one move ahead in a chess-game, but this is the mental limit for the majority of folks, and every propagandist (such as the individuals who professionally structure propaganda or PR slogans and campaigns) do exactly what Obama and the rest of the aristocracy and their agents do in order to deceive their gulls: they phrase things for one-move-ahead-limit thinkers, like that. The cardinal rule in the deception-professions is therefore, first, to find people with the desired prejudices, and then to play them as that, with one-move-ahead-limit sales-pitches, which are focused to exactly those prejudices. This report at the Breitbart site was instead showcasing a high-quality news-report, to a low-quality audience, and so the reader-comments it generated were few, and often hostile.
Obama is a master at deceptiveness. One more good example of this was 26 March 2012, in the course of Obama’s campaign for re-election, when he in complete confidence informed Dmitry Medvedev, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [the incoming President Putin] to give me space. … This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” Obama was privately speaking to Putin (via Medvedev) that Obama was forcing the ABM installations only so as not to be politically weak to charges from the knee-jerk Russia-haters, Republicans, and that Obama’s fakery concerning the supposed ABM-target’s being Iran was only in an effort to appeal to yet another Republican bigotry (in opposition to Iran), and so Obama was planning to back away from aiding the ABM system in the course of his second term.
But truly, Obama had had Russia in his gunsights even in advance of his coming into office. Two specific items in focus were Moscow-friendly leaders of nations: Assad of Syria, and Yanukovych of Ukraine. America’s strategy, since 24 February 1990, has been to remove Russia of allies and associates – to leave Russia significantly isolated and enclosed by enemies. When Obama inserted the White House on 20 January 2009, there already was a request in the pipeline from the Syrian government for urgently required food-aid to address the all-time-record drought there, which had decimated Syrian agriculture. Obama’s Administration never even responded to it. Well before the Arab Spring protests in 2011, Obama was wanting for turmoil in Syria and the overthrow of Assad – plenty of starving Syrians would be just the element.
Also, the organizing for the February 2014 coup to overthrow the Moscow-friendly democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, began in the U.S. State Department by no later than 2011.
Thus: when Obama informed Medvedev and Putin, on 26 March 2012, not to worry about Obama’s objectives toward Russia, he was lying. He needed his planned victim to be off-guard, unsuspecting for what was shortly to come.
On Obama’s way out the door, he performed two things that drastically advanced America’s ABM-BMD threat in opposition to Russia.
On 10 December 2016, ‘Defense’ Secretary Ashton Carter said, burying it in a speech he gave in Bahrain – site of a major U.S. military base – “just this week, we reached an agreement for Qatar to purchase a 5,000-kilometer early-warning radar to enhance its missile defenses,” and he mentioned nothing at all more about it, as if this story weren’t the bombshell it truly was. Alex Gorka headlined about that at Strategic Culture, “US-Qatar Deal Threatens Russia: Reading News Between the Lines” and he described that this system “is designed to be used as an early warning system against strategic offensive assets – something Iran does not possess.” Near the start of Carter’s speech, Carter had said that he would be talking about “checking Iranian aggression and malign influence, and helping defend our friends and allies,” which includes Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Gorka observed, “The announced range of 5,000km (3,100mi) by far exceeds the requirement to counter a missile threat coming from Iran,” and, “There is no other reasonable explanation for the choice, except the fact that the AN/FPS-132 can monitor large chunks of Russian territory,” the objective being “to surround the Russian Federation with BMD sites and neutralize its capability to deliver a retaliatory strike if attacked.”
One of Obama’s last steps as the U.S. President was to approve into law a bill that had been silently passed in Congress, which provided a key change in U.S. law that would allow the government to spend limitless funds on realizing ex – President Ronald Reagan’s dream of a space-based ABM system, “Star Wars.” On December 22nd, David Willman of the Los Angeles Times, headlined “Congress scrapped this one word from the law, opening the door to a space arms race”, and he reported that the eliminated word was “limited.” Willman described that, “The nation’s homeland missile defense system is designed to thwart a small-scale, or ‘limited,’ attack by the likes of North Korea or Iran. As for the threat of a large-scale strike by China or Russia, the prospect of massive U.S. retaliation is supposed to deter both from ever launching missiles.” He said: “The bill awaits action by President Obama. The White House has not said what he will do.” Willman also mentioned that on an earlier affair, “the Obama administration criticized the changes in the Senate bill, declaring it ‘strongly objects’ to taking away ‘limited’ and to placing anti-missile weaponry in space. The announcement stopped short of threatening a veto.” But then, the next day, on December 23rd, Willman bannered, “President Obama signs defense bill that could spur new space-based arms race”. While Obama’s public rhetoric pictured himself as being the type of person who had earned to win the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, almost all of his true actions in office were the precisely opposite – and here was a outstanding instance of that.
No matter if Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, will proceed with that longstanding (ever since 24 February 1990) approach to storm Russia, or rather ultimately finish the Cold War on the U.S. side (as it already had concluded in 1991 on the U.S.S.R.’s), certainly is not yet apparent.
This is what takes place when what President Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex” takes over the country, and all kinds of things (which includes the ‘news’ media) serves it, instead of the military-industrial complex’s serving the public.
It matches in with the enormous data which implies that the U.S. government is operated by an aristocracy or “oligarchy”, rather than operated by folks who defend the public – a “democracy.” Obama as President fit right in.
These People Are A Danger To Themselves And Others! Wake Up!!!!!!
Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this article or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Fusion Laced Illusions content!
Contact Fusion Laced Illusions by email.
You can reach us at [email protected] Letters may be published. Want to see other people talking about Fusion Laced Illusions? Check out our letters to the editor.