PEI Talk
http://www.peiinfo.com/forums/

How to Start a Nuclear War
http://www.peiinfo.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=34965
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Eddie [ January 31st, 2015, 9:01 am ]
Post subject:  How to Start a Nuclear War

And our Harper neo-cons will have us right in the middle of it!

How to Start a Nuclear War
by Eric Margolis
Jan 31 2015

The United States has just made an exceptionally dangerous, even reckless decision over Ukraine. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader who ended the Cold War, warns it may lead to a nuclear confrontation with Russia.

Rule number one of geopolitics: nuclear-armed powers must never, ever fight. Yet Washington just announced that by spring, it will deploy unspecified numbers of military "trainers" to Ukraine to help build Kiev’s ramshackle national guard. Also being sent are significant numbers of US special heavy, mine resistant armored vehicles that have been widely used in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US and Poland are currently covertly supplying Ukraine with some weapons.

The US soldiers will just be for training, and the number of GI’s will be modest, claim US military sources. Of course. Just like those small numbers of American "advisors" and "trainers" in Vietnam that eventually grew to 550,000. Just as there are now US special forces in over 100 countries. We call it "mission creep".

The war-craving neocons in Washington and their allies in Congress and the Pentagon have long wanted to pick a fight with Russia and put it in its place for daring to oppose US policies against Iran, Syria and Palestine. What neocons really care about is the Mideast.

Some neocon fantasies call for breaking up the Russian Federation into small, impotent parts. Many Russians believe this is indeed Washington’s grand strategy, mixing military pressure on one hand and social media subversion on the other, aided by Ukrainian oligarchs and rightists. A massive propaganda campaign is underway, vilifying Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin as "the new Hitler".

Back to eastern Ukraine. You don’t have to be a second Napoleon to see how a big war could erupt. Ukrainian National Guard forces, stiffened by American "volunteers" and "private contractors", and led by US special forces, get in a heavy fire fight with pro-Russian separatist forces. Washington, whose military forces are active in the Mideast, Central America, the Philippines, Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, South Korea, has been blasting Moscow for allegedly sending some 9,000 soldiers into neighboring Ukraine.

The Americans, who have never been without total air superiority since the 1950’s Korean War, call in US and NATO air support. Pro-Russian units, backed by Russian military forces just across the border, will reply with heavy rocket fire and salvos of anti-aircraft missiles. Both sides will take heavy casualties and rush in reinforcements. Does anyone think the Russians, who lost close to 40 million soldiers and civilians in World War II, won’t fight to defend their Motherland?

Heavy conventional fighting could quickly lead to commanders calling for tactical nuclear strikes delivered by aircraft and missiles. This was a constant fear in nearly all NATO v Warsaw Pact Cold War scenarios - and the very good reason that both sides avoided direct confrontation and confined themselves to using proxy forces. Tactical nuclear strikes can lead to strategic strikes, then intercontinental attacks. In a nuclear confrontation, as in naval battles, he who fires first has a huge advantage.

"We can’t allow Russia to keep Crimea", goes another favorite neocon mantra. Why not? Hardly any Americans could even find Crimea on a map. Crimea belonged to Russia for over 200 years. I’ve been all over the great Russian naval base at Sevastopol. It became part of Ukraine when Kiev declared independence in 1991, but the vital base was always occupied and guarded by Russia’s military. Ukrainians were a minority in the Crimea whose original Tatar inhabitants were mostly ethnically cleansed by Stalin. Most of those Russian troops who supposedly "invaded" Ukraine actually came from the giant Sevastopol base, which was under joint Russian and Ukrainian sovereignty.

Only fools and the ignorant can have believed that tough Vlad Putin would allow Ukraine’s new rightist regime to join NATO and hand one of Russia’s most vital bases and major exit south to the western alliance. Two of Crimea’s cities, Sevastopol and Kerch, were honored as "Hero Cities" of the Soviet Union for their gallant defense in World War II. Over 170,000 Soviet soldiers died in 1942 defending Sevastopol in a brutal, 170-day siege. Another 100,000 died retaking the peninsula in 1944. In total, well over 16 million Soviet soldiers died in the war, destroying in the process 70% of the German Wehrmacht and 80% of the Luftwaffe. By contrast, US losses in that war, including the Pacific, were 400,000.

One might as well ask Texas to give up the Alamo or Houston as to order Russia to get out of Crimea, a giant graveyard for the Red Army and the German 11th army.

In 2013, President Putin proposed a sensible negotiated settlement to the Ukraine dispute: autonomy for eastern Ukraine and its right to speak Russians as well as Ukrainian. If war or economic collapse is to be avoided, this is the solution. Eastern Ukraine was a key part of the Soviet economy. Its rusty heavy industry would be wiped out if Ukraine joined the EU - just as was East Germany’s obsolete industries when Germany reunified.

So now it appears that Washington’s economic warfare over Ukraine is going to turn military, even though the US has no strategic or economic interests in Ukraine. Getting involved in military operations there when the US is still bogged down in the Mideast and Afghanistan is daft. Even more so, when President Barack Obama’s "pivot toward Asia" is gathering momentum.

Didn’t two world wars at least teach the folly of waging wars on two fronts?

Eric Margolis is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World.

Author:  saherbal [ February 3rd, 2015, 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: How to Start a Nuclear War

But certain people make Shite loads of money off it why stop it? Ya reduce the population poison the land ,Divide the people and most of all Certain people make shite loads of money off war. Gen Smedley Butler
Quote:
Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

Author:  Eddie [ February 6th, 2015, 9:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: How to Start a Nuclear War

saherbal wrote:
But certain people make Shite loads of money off it why stop it? Ya reduce the population poison the land ,Divide the people and most of all Certain people make shite loads of money off war. Gen Smedley Butler
Quote:
Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.


That's right. Pay no attention to what our politicians and their mainstream media 'presstitutes' are telling us.

Here's a good summation of the situation. This guy is British but his criticisms apply to the US and Canadian media as well.


The BBC's Drums of War
The Meme of “Russian Aggression”
by OLIVER TICKELL



“Russian aggression” is the BBC’s meme of the day. I lost count of how many times the phrase popped up in the first 15 minutes of Radio 4’s World at One programme, devoted entirely to the ‘Russian problem – but the theme was drummed in relentlessly.

The idea is that Russia presents a huge a growing threat to world peace and stability. Russian bombers are threatening the ‘English’ Channel (albeit strictly from international airspace). Russia is an expansionist power attacking sovereign nations, Ukraine in particular. And watch it – we’re next!

Commentators wheeled into the studio were unanimous in their views. NATO must stand up to the threat. President Vladimir Putin is a dangerous monster who refuses to abide by the rules of the international order. NATO countries must increase their defence spending to counter the Russian menace.

Not a single moderating voice was included in the discussion. No one to ask Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO, if alliance aircraft ever fly close to Russia’s borders (they do). No one to point out that the real Ukrainian narrative in is not that of Russia’s ‘annexation’ of Crimea – but of NATO’s US-led annexation of Ukraine itself.

No one to argue that Russia’s assimilation of Crimea was effected with hardly a shot being fired, backed by overwhelming support in a referendum which reflected the popular will – and if you’re in any doubt, just compare it to Israel’s ongoing and endlessly justified annexation of Palestine.

The lies are in what the media don’t tell us

There was no one to discuss NATO’s plan to expand right up to Russia’s boundary with Ukraine, string its missile launchers along the frontier, and to seize the Sebastopol naval base, home to Russia’s Black Sea fleet, and hand it over to the US Navy. Aside: how would the US react if Russia tried that trick in Mexico and Guantanamo, Cuba?

While BBC news is prepared to speak of the million or so refugees from fighting in the Eastern provinces, there is no mention that those refugees have overwhelmingly fled to safety in Russia – a peculiar choice of destination if Russia is indeed the aggressor in the conflict.

Nor is there any mention that the massive humanitarian crisis in Eastern Ukraine that forced the refugees from their homes is overwhelmingly caused by the NATO / Kiev campaign of shelling and rocketing civilian areas of Donetsk and other cities. Or that local rebels’ fierce and ultimately victorious battle for the airport terminal was necessitated by its use as a base for Kiev’s heavy artillery to massacre the ordinary citizens of Donetsk.

Just as there was never any hint from the BBC that the Malaysian MH17 civilian aircraft downed over Eastern Ukraine could possibly have been shot down by any agency other than Russia’s. And now, as indications emerge that MH17 may in fact have been shot down by Ukrainian SU25s, the story has vanished from the news altogether.

And of course the BBC would never reveal, in other than the most guarded terms, that the real threat to world peace and stability is not Russia, which has more than enough resources – and problems to occupy itself with – within its own boundaries, but … NATO itself, and the wider Atlantic Alliance.

The other big threat the BBC endlessly warns of is that of Islamic extremism. But does it ever point out that, until recently, three independent secular regimes stood as firm bulwarks against Islamic extremism: Iraq, Libya and Syria? And if we go back a little further, why not add in Afghanistan, where the US created Al Qaida to overthrow a moderate Islamist regime?

And does the BBC ever point out that it is the deliberate destruction of these secular or moderate regimes by NATO and its allies that created the void that has been filled by Islamic State? And has lead to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in north and west Africa, including the murderous Boko Haram?

Or does it ever let slip that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were in fact citizens of Saudi Arabia, our great ally in the Middle East, and that this made NATO’s choice of Afghanistan as the country to go to war against a little … paradoxical?

It’s deju-vu all over again …

Anyway – the BBC’s dismal performance today on “Russian aggression” stirred up memories – memories of the run up to the Iraq war, when the BBC was similarly gung-ho in its depictions of Saddam Hussein as a real and present danger to us all, whose ambitions had to be countered by military force.

This gives me to cause to fear that we are being softened up for war. But this time, there’s a difference. Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction were, as many of us suspected, but we all now know, an invention of our mendacious politicians and intelligence services.

But Russia’s nuclear weapons are all too real, as is the danger they present. A full scale nuclear war would be an unthinkable disaster for all people and the entire planet. Yet NATO is deliberately baiting the Russian bear, and what we are now seeing, in Russia’s so called ‘aggression’, is that Russia is getting cross, and defensive. As they have very right to.

So what is NATO’s motivation? One simple reason is that NATO was set up as a cold war military alliance, and with the end of the cold war its raison d’etre evaporated. Simply put, we no longer need it, and its drain on our resources. So, the NATO logic goes, we had better start making some reasons fast. Which is exactly what they are doing.

Another reason is the US’s aspiration for a ‘unipolar world’ in which it enjoys ‘full spectrum dominance’. These ideas are those of the neocons who enjoyed supremacy under the presidency of George W Bush. But they have now become the core philosophy of the American Imperium – and Barack Obama adheres to them as firmly as ‘Dubya’ ever did.

First, don’t fall for it!

So what, as ordinary citizens, can we do to block this push to a war that could, literally, annihilate civilization and much of life on planet Earth?

First, don’t fall for the vicious anti-Russian propaganda that the BBC and other news outlets relentless spout at us. Second, talk about it – with friends, family and down the pub. Share this article, and these thoughts, on social media.

Third, make it an election issue. Push electoral candidates in your area on where they stand. Emphasize the importance of making peace with Russia, rather than goading it into a wholly unnecessary and stupid war. Tell them your number one election priority is not the NHS, not immigration – but peace!

And remember – it can work. In August 2013 NATO was all set to go to war on Syria on the grounds – entirely unsupported by evidence – that President Assad was waging chemical warfare against his enemies in the civil war unleashed by … NATO, its member states and allies.

Overwhelming political pressure on MPs, and Labour MPs in particular, caused Ed Miliband to back out of a tentative agreement to back Cameron’s military adventurism. On 30th August the Commons vote for war was lost. In turn this undermined the US’s drive to war.

And while the situation in Syria remains dreadful, it’s surely nothing like as bad as it would have been with the additional devastation of millions of tonnes of NATO bombs. Just look at the failed states we have created in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to see how bad things can get.

Yes, it’s hard for the essential sanity and peacefulness of ordinary people and families to prevail against the world’s most powerful military and propaganda regime. That’s why we need to be constantly bombarded with media lies: to overcome our right and proper horror of war, and manipulated into risking our lives, health, prosperity and wellbeing, all for a false cause of futility and destruction.

But it can be done. And for all our futures, for all generations to come and for Earth herself, sanity must prevail.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 4 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/