by Rakesh Krishnan Simha
source: The Russia India report
In June 2014, the Pentagon conducted a “table top” exercise – a sort of war game between Russia and NATO. The scenario was Russian pressure on NATO member Estonia and Latvia. Would NATO be able to defend those countries?
“The results were dispiriting,” Julia Ioffe writes in Foreign Policy. Even if all US and NATO troops stationed in Europe were dispatched to the Baltics – including the 82nd Airborne, which is supposed to be ready to go on 24 hours’ notice – the US would lose.
“We just don’t have those forces in Europe,” explains a senior US general. “Then there’s the fact that the Russians have the world’s best surface-to-air missiles and are not afraid to use heavy artillery.”
The Russian ‘victory’ was not a one-off. The Americans conducted the exercise as many as 16 times, under various scenarios, all favourable to NATO, always with the same conclusion. The Russians were simply invincible.
In this backdrop, Turkey’s rash act of shooting down a Russian Air Force jet portends grave tidings for NATO. Because Turkey is a NATO member, if the Russian Air Force pounds the living daylight out of the Turks, at least in theory all the other members of the US-led military bloc are treaty-bound to come to its defence.
Although the chances that the Americans will risk New York for Istanbul are smaller than small – which leaves a very nervous Turkey on its own – one can never rule out the possibility of a NATO hothead wanting to attack Russia.
A nuclear exchange will undoubtedly have catastrophic consequences for both sides – and perhaps the entire planet – but there are certain factors that could skew the fighting field in Russia’s favour.
According to data exchanged on October 1, 2014 by Moscow and Washington, Russia has 1,643 deployed strategic warheads, compared with 1,642 for the US. Marginal difference in numbers but Russian land-based strategic forces have an explosive yield that is an order of magnitude greater than anything in the US armoury.
Moscow’s primary deterrent weapon is the mighty SS-18, a single one of which can destroy an area the size of New York – the state, not just the city. To get an idea of the destructive power of the SS-18, just look at the nuclear weapon the US used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The Hiroshima bomb was a primitive 15 kiloton warhead and yet it wiped out a city of 70,000 in a few seconds. The SS-18 – code named Satan by NATO – carries 10 warheads, each having a yield of 750 to 1000 kiloton). Some of these missiles carry a single 20,000 kiloton warhead – that’s 1333 times Hiroshima.
At the same time, 80 per cent of the American population resides on the eastern and western seaboards, so a few well-aimed nuclear missiles can end all human life in these densely populated coastal strips. Russia has a population only half of the US but it’s dispersed widely across the country’s massive landmass so that pockets of human inhabitation can survive both a first as well as a second strike.
Russia has another trump card up its sleeve – its supersonic bomber fleet of Tupolev Tu-160s. These Mach 2 plus aircraft can take off from well-defended airbases located deep in the heart of Russia, fly over the North Pole, launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from safe standoff distances over the Atlantic, and return home to watch the destruction on CNN.
That’s assuming CNN will be around. For, the Russian strategic bomber fleet can singlehandedly wipe out every major city in the US.
It is because the Americans know the capability of Russia’s nuclear forces that they have tried hard to eliminate the doomsday weapons like the SS-18 through arms limitation talks.
Before the use of strategic weapons, Russia could cripple forward NATO bases with tactical – or battlefield – nukes. Russian military doctrine emphasises the use of small-yield nuclear weapons as a war fighting tool early on in a conflict in order to stun and confuse NATO forces, impacting their ability to think and act coherently.
After tactical nuclear artillery decimates forward deployed NATO military troops, Russia could deliver small-yield warheads via intermediate range missiles that could devastate the next line of military bases, while limiting civilian casualties. At this point the US would be faced with the option of retaliating with strategic weapons and face a devastating response from Moscow. A good guess is the option won’t be used.
For, no American president would risk a single US city for a dozen European ones. John F. Kennedy didn’t risk it in 1962 for the same reason – the loss of even one city was too many.
State of US strategic forces
How reliable is the US Strategic Nuclear Command? If you are an American, you won’t feel so reassured after reading that Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both “reportedly lost the launch code cards that presidents are expected to have on them at all times – Clinton for months, according to a former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Carter allegedly sent his out with a suit to the cleaners”.
In any conflict – more so in a high stakes nuclear standoff – morale, training and discipline are key factors. Russian officers who have the job of deciding when and where to aim their nuclear missiles include PhD holders who are required to think on their feet. On the other hand, American personnel who have the same role are beset with alcoholism, depression and cheating.
Nothing can sugar coat the crisis plaguing the US strategic forces. In October 2013, Major General Michael Carey, responsible for the command of 450 nuclear missiles, was fired after drunken behaviour on a visit to Russia. Days earlier, another military officer, Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, with high-level responsibility for the country’s nuclear arsenal, was relieved of his duties after he was caught using counterfeit gambling chips at an Iowa casino.
Think that’s frightening? Check this out. A US Air Force general who supported the command mission to provide nuclear forces for the US Strategic Command was an alcoholic. General David C. Uhrich kept a vodka bottle in his desk and repeatedly drank on duty, so much so that another officer told investigators that “if he did not have his alcohol, the wheels would come off”.
The rot has trickled down to US missileers who have a culture of cheating on competency tests, endangering the readiness off American ICBMs. Again, in February 2014, the US Navy revealed it was looking into allegations that enlisted sailors cheated on tests involving the nuclear reactors that power its submarines and aircraft carriers.
The US strategic forces are also suffering from systemic neglect, with its ICBM bases in North Dakota and Montana reporting “leaking roofs”. The missileers, who work in blast-proof bunkers located 60 feet underground, are forced to defecate in buckets and urinate in jugs, and bring it all back up at the end of 24 hours. How ready these personnel will be when they have to react to a Russian missile strike is questionable.
On the other hand, Russian Strategic Forces are treated as the very elites in the military. The quality of Russian personnel can be deduced from the actions of Russian strategic forces officer Lt Colonel Stanislav Petrov. On September 26, 1983, a Russian early-warning satellite indicated five US nuclear missile launches. Tensions were high between Washington and Moscow after the downing of a South Korean airliner weeks earlier, and Petrov had only minutes to respond. With little additional information to go on, he deemed the readings a false alarm, reasoning that “when people start a war, they don’t start it with only five missiles”.
This is precisely why highly qualified personnel matter. When you’re placed squarely in the cross hairs of the enemy’s nuclear missiles and you’re holed up in a bunker 60 feet below the earth’s surface, then nervousness, insomnia and depression are part of your daily life. Unable to cope, less educated personnel will abuse alcohol and drugs and even exhibit criminal behaviour. On the other hand, educated and motivated officers will keep their cool even in the event of a thermonuclear showdown.
For, a nuclear war may not necessarily involve a quick exchange of ballistic missiles. According to War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink, by Peter Vincent Pry, Director of the US Nuclear Strategy Forum, the Russian Strategic Forces are trained to “launch pre-emptive or retaliatory nuclear strikes, survive a hammer blow from a massive enemy nuclear attack, launch follow-on nuclear strikes, and supervise military operations in a protracted nuclear war, expected to last weeks or months”.
In such a drawn out, harrowing scenario, Russia’s nuclear warfare specialists clearly have the edge.
Reflexive Control: Ultimate Weapon
Disinformation, camouflage and stratagem are some of the ways one can influence the outcome of a war. The Russians have taken these ancient arts to another level through the use of the theory of Reflexive Control (RC).
Developed by Russian military strategists in the 1960s, RC aims to convey information to an opponent that would influence them to voluntarily make a decision desired by the initiator of the action. It can be used against either human or computer-based decision-making processors. Russia employs it not only at the strategic and tactical levels in war but also in the geopolitical sphere.
Russian Army Major General M.D. Ionov was among the early proponents of RC, having pursued it since the 1970s. In an article in 1995, he noted that the objective of reflexive control is to force an enemy into making decisions that lead to his defeat by influencing or controlling his decision-making process.
Ionov considers this a form of high art founded of necessity on an intimate knowledge of human thinking and psychology, military history, the roots of the particular conflict, and the capabilities of competing combat assets.
Timothy L. Thomas writes in the Journal of Slavic Studies: “In a war in which reflexive control is being employed, the side with the highest degree of reflex (the side best able to imitate the other side’s thoughts or predict its behaviour) will have the best chances of winning. The degree of reflex depends on many factors, the most important of which are analytical capability, general erudition and experience, and the scope of knowledge about the enemy.”
If successfully achieved, reflexive control over the enemy makes it possible to influence their combat plans, their view of the situation, and how they fight. RC methods are varied and include camouflage (at all levels), disinformation, encouragement, blackmail by force, and the compromising of various officials and officers.
According to Robert C. Rasmussen of the Center for International Maritime Security, “It is exactly this type of application of Reflexive Control that a young Vladimir Putin would have learned in his early development at the 401st KGB School and in his career as a KGB/FSB officer.”
Because every battle is first fought in the head before a bullet is fired on the ground, Russia’s long experience with RC would be a key factor in its existential struggle with the US.
All you need to know about the real-life scenario of how a true WW III opening gambit would unfold, & the fact that it will be for real. By the time anyone even ‘hears’ about this event, everything will be shutdown:
find the Russian exclave Kaliningrad, located on the Baltic, between Poland & Lithuania.
Note it’s only about 500 NM to any/all of the big European money centers.
Isn’t that under 10 minutes flight time for any kind of missile?
I don’t know if the Poles/NATO/General Strangelove are really that insane that they would attempt a land invasion, or missile strike, on it at the outset, while opening attacks on at least 2 other fronts simultaneously against Russia.
On the other side, look at the increased security of border areas unavailable till now with drone technology—Russia’s outrageously long coastline & realize it would have taken a thousand coast guard navy cutter class ships to patrol all that before.
Something interesting is that during the cold war, it was the general view that soviet had much more conventional military resources, and could send wave after wave of men and equipment.
Today that is completely reversed. Russia has around 1000 MBTs, USA by itself has 8000, I don’t even know what all NATO members have put together. But NATO can keep sending wave after wave of their own men and still have more conventional military resources than Russia.
That would be if they could get them all to fight. The Europe of today isn’t the Europe of WW2.The nationalism,unity,conviction,and trust in the governments isn’t there today. Not to mention those nukes would kill off quite a few of the waves you mentioned. And if the missiles really did start flying. I’m not sure how easy they could mobilize those forces in the midst of a devastated landscape. Those missing values still do (mostly) exist in Russia. And a huge amount of their planning has been on mobilization in time of war. Only as a very small example look at Donbass. The NAF is made up primarily of trained men from the ex-Ukrainian reserves. Ukraine had the draft (as Russia still does),and so,many men are in reserves. Already at least semi-trained in the use of weapons and following military orders. In a multi-national NATO it wouldn’t be nearly as easy to activate those forces you mention.Meaning the manpower odds wouldn’t count nearly as much for NATO as it would if all the other things were equal.
I also got the impression that European countries, because they are part of NATO, now has the lazyman disease. Praticaly all of them think because they are part of NATO, they are invincible, and dont even bother to take their military duties all that seriously…
No chance this could happen, US and most EU soldiers do not fight wars where they have more than a remote chance to die as a result. Not even with drugs could they achieve this.
While it’s true that NATO has more mbts or jets, the ratio is not that catastrophic. The number of 1000 is a mistake : there are 550 T-90, 3000 T-80. I don’t even take into account the t-72 (thousands of them), and the highly modern armata with 2500 units expected in the coming years.
And no one should expect all the US mbts (and all other equipments such as mlrs, self propelled artillery) coming quietly to europe. First, it would take months. Second, Russia wouldn’t watch it and wait without doing nothing.
indeed wikipedia and global firepower show completely different numbers ranging from 15000 to 22000+ mbt alone (mostly in storage) and then there also exist anti tank weapons and other armored fighting vehicles and lots of missile and grenade vehicles that can destroy tanks wave after wave after wave after wave.
NATO can’t keep sending wave after wave of their won men, only psychos would be fighting for the power lords managing NATO. Desertion would be monumental.
I think this is why NATO (Britain, France and US) created the international proxy army in Syria called Daesh. I bet the plan was to give them the whole state of Syria for training and as headquarters in the war against Russia that was going to come. This is why Putin is repeating over and over again that Russia has to fight the terrorists in Syria. IS/Daesh is the proxy army of NATO. The regular armies of nation states seems not to matter that much.
“IS/Daesh is the proxy army of NATO.”
Thank you for remaining us of this fact. The core of the strategy of the US and its Anglosphere and EU vassals is to deliberately bring chaos to the MENA to create the factory to create immense numbers of lunatic jiahdis to be spread to Central Asia to undermine Russia and China.
Russia knows this, and China also knows and will eventually act more overtly.
The East has drawn a line in Syria telling the West ‘No More’ of its deceit and plunder of the rest of the world. The days of the East bending its knee to the West are over.
Very clear comment.
1000 tanks? Offensive words removed – ( Moderator-EK ) Russia has more than 15000 of those. So much for the NATO’s wave after wave theory. Bullshit
Russia has over 15,000 MBTs the vast majority of which are in storage and masses of artillery pieces and rocket launch systems. The European armies are shot. A lot of their equipment is old and also in storage due to lack of trained manpower and/or funding.
The Russians can call on 3m active and reservists. Other factors are Russia would be defending and that is a ‘force multiplier’ and also they would be fighting for mother Russia. What would NATO be fighting for – a bunch of bankers?
NATO can’t send ‘wave after wave’ and nor can it spend time amassing troops and equipment. The Russians would take them out with tactical nukes. NATO is a toothless tiger ans the threats are childish.
NATO armies are a joke. German state TV reported that a German army unit that will be part of NATO’s “spearhead” force had to use painted broomsticks as “armament” on infantry tanks during a NATO exercise in Norway. Instead of “spearhead” NATO should call its force “broomstick”.
Auto-translation from the army report:
“… That the pipe was simulated on the weapon system of the GTK BOXER with black of painted broomstick during exercise (…) in Norway, since no pipes for the weapon system was available.”
Video(with re-enacted scene):
Time is the key to that argument.
European forces are nowhere near as well equipped as the US and to mount an attack would take, as it did for the Gulf war expeditions, months to get together. Russia would not be sitting still during that time.
The war would have been fought and over before the west got its shit together – whether that was a nuclear, conventional or mixed war.
Very fascinating article. I think it’s in the main pretty accurate. I’m hoping the empire realizes those points. And shy’s away from the stupidity of having to test just how accurate they are. One thing I would consider (and hopefully Russians have),is that since in regards to Pakistan. I’ve read the US has plans that in the event of a terrorist oriented government on the verge of coming to power. They would attempt to seize control of the Pakistani nuclear weapons sites. Do they have the same type of plan on tap for seizing Russia’s. I would definitely be on the watch for something like that,behind the front sabotage. Also,the level of hubris and just plain stupidity in the US regime is monumental. So can we even count on their ability to recognize why attacking Russia would be a fatal gambit.And finally,knowing as we do the amount of influence and power the Israelis have with the US. Maybe a good idea would be for Israel to somehow “discover” that Russia would also target them with those SS-18’s in the event of a nuclear war. That might get the Israelis to use their power in the US to stop the insanity. Instead of being a cheerleader for war.
A good point!
I might speculate that Israel counts on Christian beliefs of Russian leaders (though I believe they are fake – Putin is not Orthodox, in my opinion, he is just opportunistic on this issue. Take note that Shoigu is a Buddhist).
I mean, can you imagine a true Orthodox Christian targeting Jerusalem with SS-18 ??? lol!)
Of course Putin is opportunistic, but I would not doubt his essential faith. He spoke to a few reporters on Christmas Eve 2012 after quietly attending the Eucharist in the same church outside of Leningrad, where his mother had him baptized in secret from his father, who was a hard-line, atheistic communist, but also a dedicated Russian nationalist after the experience of the siege of Leningrad. Putin was raised in the faith by his mother. His religious gestures appear instinctive and unforced. Putin buried his mother, and his father also, at that same rural church in which he was baptized.
Your personal covenant with Christ and the Lord are within you. No Land is that sacred when its life or death.
God truly could give a damn about a strip of dirt or what you eat… If he ixists it is the content of your character that gets judged.
>>>Do they have the same type of plan on tap for seizing Russia’s (nuclear weapons sites)?
The Soviets drilled on the assumption that, in some circumstances, the American cowboys would be parachuting into their territory to attempt a decapitation of Soviet missile forces through conventional means.
intriguing article w questions on readiness of each sides’ (russia and the us) nuclear arsenals. i would say the russians has always been patient and more calm in nuclear/war situations vs their opponents, the us. the us has always been belligerent and trigger happy due 2 their view as an exceptionalist country.
Yes! With all the “hype” about the Cuban Missile Crisis, its missed that the USSR wasn’t acting outside of international norms at all. It was the US that went insane over it. The US had installed nuclear missiles right on the borders of the USSR. And the Soviets didn’t “freakout” and threaten war because of it. But the thought of the Soviets doing the same to them was more than the US could allow. Luckily for the World the Soviets realized the insanity coming from Washington. And they and Kennedy were able to come to an agreement to remove both sets of missiles. To not let that crisis lead to war. I’m not sure the US leadership today is intelligent enough to avoid a war.
“….. Kaliningrad, located on the Baltic, between Poland & Lithuania.”
Yes,that would be a key to the beginning of the war. It would be imperative (I believe) to liberate the Baltic States right at the start to secure the safety of Kaliningrad. And to launch a defensive assault on any Polish/NATO forces trying to threaten the Kaliningrad region. Doing those two things “should” protect the Kaliningrad region. As well as secure the Baltic coastline from NATO using it to be able to attack Russia. Which brings up another area. The possibility (probability) of a future war is another vital reason to topple the Ukrainian junta regime. And secure the Novorossian areas as either an independent pro-Russian state,or a pro-Russian part of a neutral (or pro-Russian) Ukraine,or as a member of the RF itself. Allowing a hostile pro-NATO regime to hold large areas of territory that close to the heartland of Western Russia. And much of the North coast of the Black Sea is a definite threat to Russia in case of war (or at anytime). And should never,ever,be allowed to happen.
No secondary destruction is being mentioned. Just imagine dozens of nuclear power stations failing across Europe or in Russia due to complete power breakdown or EMP attack. After Chernobyl few were thinking about worse accident, then Fukushima came.. and all political puppets in the West are talking about Global Climate Change, total ignorance in force. I feel like there is somone in the hiding in the background who is pulling the strings, but it’s impossible to point a finger at him or them.. If this invisible manager of the planet Earth wants the WW3, it will come no matter what the consequences there are for the ‘regular’ civilization.
The power stations in the US would go offline and/or be attacked and cooling ponds would dry out resulting in radioactive fires. Americans think of a war always being somewhere else.
“In a war in which reflexive control is being employed, the side with the highest degree of reflex (the side best able to imitate the other side’s thoughts or predict its behaviour) will have the best chances of winning”
That should be no problem, the western MSM knows Putin’s every thought, especially his ‘aggressive Soviet Union expanionism’ and other assorted aspirations, doesn’t it?
A 20 megaton bomb is huge. Really, really huge. However, it can’t wipe out NY state so the breathless warnings need to be tempered with reality.
Make that ten warheads at a megaton each. The conclusion still stands though: a single SS-18 Satan arriving would be a very bad day for all of NY state.
Sorry, your conclusions about the likely consequences of a US-Russian nuclear war reveal that you are unaware (or do not accept) the peer-reviewed scientific studies that predict that the long-term environmental consequences of the detonation of US and/or Russian strategic nuclear arsenals will likely kill most people on the planet. Unfortunately most military and political analysts display a similar lack of knowledge on this matter.
I recently wrote about this for The Federation of American Scientists; see https://fas.org/pir-pubs/nuclear-war-nuclear-winter-and-human-extinction/ For more information, go to http://www.nucleardarkness.org
An all out war is not what Nato has in mind. They plan to use low intensity warfare to undermine Russia’s soft underbelly. Also, their plan is to carve up turkey to allow the creation of a Nato occupied Kurdistan and have syria controlled by Israel.
Obviously the nationalist Turkish generals must be silenced for this to occur and Assad removed.
The Turkish Chief of Staff, General Buyukanit, contacted the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, and protested the event and the exhibition of the redrawn map of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Furthermore the Pentagon has gone out of its way to assure Turkey that the map does not reflect official U.S. policy and objectives in the region.
-From Global research.ca
I am sure that you guys are aware that General Buyukanit has been arrested lately for planning a coup against Erdogan. I wonder if he was not trying to prevent this oligarch from betraying his own country to further the plans of Nato.
I agree that the intense hubris in Washington/NATO has led to the belief that, in the event that war with Russia ensues, “Russia will have to back down”. In other words, the fools in NATO may have convinced themselves that they can somehow defeat Russia (although I think there may be a lot of panic regarding the latest Russian electronic warfare innovations).
The problem is that for decades both the US and Russia have tasked their military forces to employ Counterforce strategy (see https://fas.org/pubs/_docs/occasionalpaper7.pdf ). Plus both the US and Russia maintain about 1000 launch-ready strategic nuclear weapons, which can be launched with only a few minutes warning (launch-ready weapons are needed to employ launch-on-warning, or launch-before-detonation). Do you think that in the event the US and Russia start detonating “tactical” nukes on the battlefield, they will refrain from launching a first-strike against each other? Both sides know that whomever strikes first will do so with an intact ICBMs and nuclear command and control structure.
Again, neither side has been willing to publicly acknowledge and discuss the scientific predictions that nuclear war is suicide even for the “winning” side. Lieber and Press wrote about “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy” in Foreign Affairs ( see https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2006-03-01/rise-us-nuclear-primacy ), which the neocons use to convince themselves that they can win a nuclear war with Russia. I wrote a rebuttal to the Primacy argument with my friend, the late Colonel Valery Yarynich (see “Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy” at http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-primacy-is-a-fallacy/4991 ), but none of our arguments were ever acknowledged by the power structure.
Which leads me back to my original assertion, that we all are in great danger by the general failure to grasp and accept the existential danger presented by existing nuclear arsenals. I personally think that Putin is enough of a statesman that he could address this issue in a speech. The last leader that had the guts and intelligence to do so was John Kennedy at the UN in 1961. Kennedy did not survive the deep state.
“Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”
Don’t fear it, we all have to die some day. Better to take down all human life with us than being enslaved.
What the?! “Better to take down all human life with us”–really, how could that possibly be better than anything? Were you planning to ask the “all human life” in question what they thought about that? This is insanity talking.
As to slavery versus death in general . . . You might be able to break out of slavery. Ask Toussaint Louverture. But dead is dead.
These weapons are there to ensure that the other side will be killed down to the last man, women and child if they dare to threaten our freedom or even worse existence.
Obviously this works, as the West didn’t dare to assault Russia anymore since WW2.
The West has these weapons for the exact same reasons and no one dared to attack them as well since then.
So if there is a great war coming in the future, then why don’t you in the West submit yourselves and be slaves to prevent nuclear war? You can take a look at how life in slavery could look like by the example that the maniacs of the Islamic State are setting.
No, I say your and our children are better of dead than being slaves, if you people in the West with your great democracy can’t prevent nuclear confrontation then you truly deserve it.
So you want to make the human race extinct over a political disagreement.
That’s insane. Is your name really “Ivan” or is it actually General Jack D. Ripper?
No. I’m talking strictly about an attack by the West that threatens our freedom and the existence of our state.
Us them, we in the west and them in the east. That’s the trick the psycho’s that hijacked our governments and are destroying our freedom always apply. Works well for them. But we the people must not be so stupid to fall for their traps. They want us to fight each other, but the people have only one enemy. Those that deceive, divide, polarize, escalate.
Learn from Putin, offer cooperation, together we are strong. If we don’t fight our real enemy but let him point some one and fight them, we will never beat them.
This can be considered mostly a primary effect, but there are secondary, tertiary, etc. effects, such as destruction of a few critical species not just from cold, but from radiation, and chemical pollution, as it gets into the atmosphere and oceans, and then shifts in bacteriological populations as creatures rot, migrations of species short of food, disturbances in pollination, and Satan knows what other chains of causation as the ripples spread. Just listen to what is said about the effect of neonicotinoids pesticides on bee populations or DDT and organophosphates on bird — far reaching effects not immediately obvious. What Endocrine disruptors would be released by nuclear detonations in industrial areas? We are talking about at least an utterly disrupted and new world ecology which many species would not survive, including, I think, humans.
Just like to say, i’m coming from country (about 2.000.000 souls) in middle of Europe. The strangest thing this days was a call up reservists to army and nobady knows why. Our country neibhour (about 4.000.000 souls) have call reservists to army in their second largest city american fully loaded Truman ship just arrived, american army planes, helicopters,etc- nobody knows why. Nobody telling us anything, we are both part of EU and NATO. Anyway..if this crazy turks starts the war and then ‘pull’ all NATO alliance into this. We dont want to fight our slavic brothers. Only our rule class talks in favour of NATO provocating our brothers. Peace and unity between Slavs NOT WAR!! But its obviosly that something prepares…sorry for bad ENG
No problem with your English and thanks for your thoughts.
I understand it as thus, WW3 has started and it is covert. It is a war against the masses by the elites and Paris and other such incidents are the prepping stages to set up in EU the protection of the Elites. Notice the response of both the French (largest supplier of EU Daesh cannon fodder) and Belgium (Military lock down for Brussels).
Sweden is at a tipping point where the natives are waking in anger at the policies of their Political classes and same in Denmark. Germany might split with what is happening there with local politicians in Bavaria and Saxony (many parts of former East Germany) very against the program of Merkel. She, herself of whom has gone to ground.
When the substance hits the fan, I do so hope people are wake enough to know the real enemy in their midst. Change is coming whether we like it or not, it has to given the rotten state of human affairs. We have to though be able to steer it and utilise it for the better. The better for humanity, for our planet, for the future of all living things. Global Neo Feudal Fascism is not an option and must be stopped or Hell will have arrived on Earth.
If they are afraid things are moving in the wrong direction they’ll pull off an other, bigger, 911.
Just to make sure the majority is marching in the right direction. They can deal with the minority refusing to walk in line.
Imagine some chemical or nuclear attack, 10.000s of thousands of dead, 24h media offensive, and off we go, screaming revenge, ready to drink the blood of the ones we’re told are responsible, while the ones telling it to us are the real perpetrators.
There will not be a winner.
« A nuclear exchange will undoubtedly have catastrophic consequences for both sides – and perhaps the entire planet … [and so on] »
I grew up in the eighties in West Germany. There was all this nuclear scare brought down upon us by charming Ronald Reagan and chancellors Schmidt and Kohl. NATO Doppelbeschluß, Pershing II, SS-20, Nuclear Winter, Vorwarnzeit, ICBM (Interkontinentalraketen), The Day After, Die letzten Kinder von Schewenborn (a book to teach kids the horrors of nuclear war).
I’ve spent three decades taking that crap seriously.
That’s over now. The other day, the day before yesterday indeed, I came upon the Good News … frohe Kunde … Evangelium:
Nukes don’t work – they’re just a hoax. — Anders Björkman
Uncle Sam doesn’t have nukes. What he wants us to believe are nukes doesn’t work. Ivan doesn’t have nukes either. Neither do Tommy or Jean-Jacques. Neither Ping Pong nor Hare Krishna nor Kamasutra. And, God bless, neither does Shlomo. Nobody has nukes because nukes don’t work.
There’s a deeper meaning when the blessed Ayatollah says that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic. And why does he smile when he says that? Because he is a wise man!
Folks, do yourselves a favour and go read Anders Björkman’s webpages to convince yourselves that Nukes are a Hoax.
You can see they are, for instance, by looking at the pix of Hiroshima where trees are still standing near where the fake bomb reportedly went boom. These trees are badly burnt, but they still have branches and some even twigs. So we’re told human bodies were vaporized … but trees keep their twigs?! It’s obviously just a pile of bunk, a psy-op, a scaremongering hoax.
At the end of the second page there’s also a testimony of a bright-minded, skeptical US military guy assessing damage done to Japanese cities back in 1945. Read closely what he says.
So what did happen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The usual anglosaxon democratic incendiary terror bombing on civilians, on women, children and the elderly, which has claimed about one million lives in Germany and probably even more in Japan. And then the anglosaxon democratic firebombing show went on to Korea and Vietnam.
The perceptive trick with the Hiroshima photos is that, like all Japanese cities back then, it was essentially a wooden city, so Uncle Sam didn’t have to use as many blockbusters as in Germany: Japanese cities would go up in flames with less busting effort and, unlike stony German cities, appear completely razed after the anglosaxon democratic firebombing terror raid.
After reading Anders’ excellent two webpages on how nukes are a hoax I suggest you go to Youtube watching some nuke videos and have a good laugh!
Nuclear War won’t happen because Nukes are a Huge Hulking Hoax!
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. Get real
As someone who had personaly witnessed a detonation i can say without any ambiguity that they work very well.
They are incredibly dangerous, and if it comes to that the last thing in the world the survivors will be worried about are the nonsensical ravings of a fringe website on tripod.
« As someone who had personaly witnessed a detonation i can say without any ambiguity that they work very well. »
And here I say whow! Out of the couple hundreds of people having read my comment about how nukes are a hoax on this fringe blog, there is one who has actually witnessed a nuclear boom-boom! This is so amazing! I mean, just what are the odds of that ?!
Now please, be precise and provide all the details about the detonation … time, place, names, purpose of your assignment, location from where you witnessed the detonation, number of witnesses, identity of your detachment, etc. Plus, is your detonation on Youtube so I may also become a witness?
While imagining nuclear weapons aren’t real may be very comforting, its no surprise that someone who may have witnessed a nuclear detonation saw your post. Although, anyone can be anyone on the internet, so it was a strange claim to make.
There are vets around from the open nuclear testing era (1945-63) still around. There were even camaramen from the original units assigned to record the blasts around. TheSaker is a go-to site for people who care about their country and need to operate with as much accurate information as possible.
That the two populations share overlap and converged here, is no surprise at all, although there can’t be that many left from the earliest days.
A subtext – and another reason why I treat camoron with utter, utter contempt, and the MSM with it – is that 100 years ago, a World War was raging which should have led to the end of (world) wars; the Western ‘leaders’ today are an absolute bloody SH!T DISGRACE to all those who fought and died then, and subsequently.
The US and the vassals have the wrong weapons systems for their strategic goal of destroying Russia.
Their goal is fight from a distance, not match armies on the ground.
That strategic positioning, distant, using cruise missiles, drones, B2 Stealth bombers and other stealth launch pads, such as submarines, requires a sleeping Russia.
Even Space-based weapons platforms assume no one is looking.
These are the reasons why the war games modeling of attacking or responding to a Russian threat winds up as the West losing.
Russia has the correct defensive weapons and a military doctrine of first use in every circumstance where the threat to its counter-strike or defenses appears to be overwhelmed.
The West does have overwhelming military might if used against lesser militaries.
Russia will be powers of 2-5x greater in a few short years. They have cycles of development and upgrading in progress for many weapons systems.
There is little comparable coming from the US, the fount of weapons for the West.
The greatest strategic threat to Russia is really its economy and infrastructure. It will take nearly another decade for Russia to become more self-sustaining, have larger capacity in all areas of manufacturing (shipbuilding, satellites, missiles, planes and defensive missile systems, EW systems and computer industry innovation).
The low oil and gas price for the foreseeable future is hurting Russian growth.
China and Russia have every secret and all classified material of all former and current US gov employees (Snowden, OPM, Joint Cheifs Staff hacks) and it wouldn’t take much to get the right people within the American government to stand down. So with the ultimate weapon, information, Russia, China, etc can keep a direct conflict from happening in the first place. That or they can simply attack with out any fear of counter attack or retaliation.
Otherwise, if that wasn’t Russia’s ultimate trump card, the US could cause plenty of problems and maybe even defeat Russia. Crimea was taken down because a few power line pylons (out of many indefensible miles of corridor) were blown up, and no one was caught. Russia had no meaningful response. No nukes, no bombers. Nothing. And everyone knows it now. It may have technically been in Ukraine but this can happen anywhere.
That’s the problem with the Russia vs NATO “war games.” It assumes that NATO will try to attack the Russian military or repel an attack. They won’t. They’ll likely attack Russian commercial infrastructure, particularly energy. The latest weapons the Americans are creating are designed for this (Stealth drones armed with directed HERF) combined with anonymous Crimea-type attacks would bring the desired effects with plenty of deniability.
So NATO is likely to try and make all of Russia like Crimea but for a longer outage duration, with plenty of layers of deniability and lack of evidence. Russia is not likely able to prevent this kind of attack. Nor would any other country.
Think of multiple simultaneous attacks on power, oil, gas, rail, communications, with “activist” blockades, followed up with HERF attacks on critical nodes, and the Russian economy would tank. The Russian military wouldn’t last very long under such conditions.
Of course, the Russians and Chinese could do this to the Americans, and would probably be much easier to accomplish (ultra corrupt security, government relies on commercial networks). The problem with these “war games” is that they never actually happen. Attacks on infrastructure, on the other hand, happen all the time, and the effects are evident.
Some party (could be internal) has already begun the assault, or the reconnaissance-in-force against US infrastructure:
¨fiber optic lines severed in Cal¨
And you think America isn’t even MORE vulnerable than Russia??? Do you know how pathetic the US national grid is???
I think that Russia has a lot of dirt on America’s corrupt politicians, why they (apparently) haven’t used this (yet?), could be one of timing…
I did actually mention that America is more vulnerable. All US infrastructure is in disrepair and will probably not get better. They can’t even defend themselves against metal thieves. Russia still isn’t much better. It needs to be understood that even full militarization of infrastructure is no guarantee of safety. The nazis probably had the best physical protection that I can remember, and even they had breaches and failures all the time. Russia doesn’t have militarized corridors, and, like America, its vastness makes it too expensive. They may be able to do temporary surveillance on certain critical stretches, but not for too long.
You and I will never know about when and what Russia uses against US decision makers. Russia may already have affected them. That’s the beauty of it. The Americans could already have been catastrophically undermined before any possible flare up. It would be more or less black mail trip wire that activates once certain parameters are met. I would argue, but cannot prove, that it has already been used and that the Chinese and Russians have already defeated the US military. Russia and China have merely allowed for the US to do “presence patrols” and “shows of force” and material movement…all an illusion of relevance when they aren’t.
Wars are not won by philosophies, technologies or by sheer weight of numbers.
they are won by the simple expedient of a single man’s willingness to die for what he is defending.
A Russian soldier defends his family, his land and his two thousand year old culture.
An American soldier defends the share prices of Boeing and Northrup Grumman
who do you want to bet on?
Not Boeing and Northrop Grumman; American soldiers would be dying for the mighty banks: eg JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.
Don’t worry, if western people have one day to choose between their ipad and fighting..the choice is already done.They will capitulate after 1 hour(maximum).Nobody is going to fight.Only the professional and it is not even sure they all will.
The West only is at war against weak or on existent armies or proxys.And they still manage not to win these small wars like against a bunch of Talibans or in Africa.
Man, I hope you are right, what you say does ring a bit of truth, have to say!
There is a rumor I’d like to get to the bottom of. I think if true it might have a huge bearing on this story. For several months now,on social media sites and alternate media sites (here today as well). I’ve seen reports of the US and other NATO powers shipping military equipment into Europe and around in Europe. As well as mobilizing (for whatever reason and length of time) their forces. Is that the sign that they are secretly getting everything they can in place for war. To avoid having to ship in equipment and mobilize troops. If so,do the Russians realize that. And are they preparing for it. Since,again if true,it could come whenever NATO completes their preparations.
Moving material is moving material and it happens all the time. Usually the US sends its fighting forces into position if they’re actually going to do something. The Americans are famous for sending material from one place to another only to have it stolen or sold off by the corrupt government they support.
But if you see a similar build up like during Iraq 1 and 2 and Afghanistan, then that would be something to look at.
It seems plausible to me that Russia could beat NATO in a short conventional war in Eastern Europe.
Most of the rest of both this article and many comments here strike me as what the Saker calls “Hurray-Patriots”–the wishful thinking that because you despise someone, they must not be dangerous. Unpleasant people, and unpleasant nations, can nonetheless be very dangerous and it is foolish to look at how you would like things to be instead of how things are. Good way to lose.
Take for instance the various selective stuff about how some American officers are alcoholics, whereas many Russian officers are well educated. And? General Grant was an alcoholic. Won battles though. Many American officers are no doubt well educated; some of them may be both well educated and alcoholic, I’ve never heard that the one eliminated the other. Meanwhile, the attempted implication that none of these well-educated Russian officers are alcoholics–yeah, sure, pull the other, it has bells on. Russia isn’t perfect either and alcoholism is hardly a non-weakness there. But really, does the author actually think that all these weaknesses mean you could call a nuclear war and the American weapons just wouldn’t launch? Bull.
Then there’s all the comments saying that the US and European forces are gutless, decadent, culturally inferior and so wouldn’t fight, blah de blah. Nonsense. When you’re a member of an armed force and you’ve been indoctrinated like crazy and you’re in this pressure cooker of peer pressure that is a military, if you’re ordered to advance and fight, you advance and fight. Months later if it’s been pointless and dangerous and horrible the whole time, maybe you start fragging some officers, but that’s way down the line. American and NATO military doctrines and training might be less effective than Russian equivalents, and that matters and all, but imagining that this will result in a cakewalk is foolish.
On the nuclear side, any notion that anyone could “win” a global thermonuclear war is dangerous rubbish, and anyone tempted to talk like that should give their head a shake, stop and think for three seconds, and then shut up instead. I am very much with Steven Starr about this. Nuclear war = almost everyone dies worldwide. Possibly everyone. Even people in godforsaken islands in the middle of the Pacific that weren’t a party to the conflict. Doesn’t matter much where you are, you’re probably dead. Luckily, random posts on discussion boards only have a very broad incremental impact, so any given post cannot be a great sin, but still, even adding just one brick to building cultural acceptance of starting a nuke war is a Bad Thing To Do. Don’t do it.
No, the morale issue for Western armies is a real one, as witnessed by the “liberation” of Kuweit and all the wars thereafter where force protection was paramount. Imagine a build up for a war with Russia, where troops would have to be brought forward knowing full well that they would have to face Russian tactical nukes once they cross the border or even before that. Western polities are not prepared for this kind of war.
Now, it might be different with the Poles, Lithuanians and Ukrainians. They are sufficiently numerous and Russophobic. Poland is also asking for nuclear warheads to be stationed on its territory. Could NATO try to let them do the fight, providing cover in the air and nuclear backup on the ground?
Sorry… But this article is just a bunch of weak generalizations aimed at the military that somehow pretends to be a full analysis of US-Russian capabilities.
Russia should defend its interest with whatever it takes, be it nuclear weapons, scalar weapons on so on and so forth. Last I checked every animals on planet Earth were endowed with some kind of protection and had a survival instinct.
This is possibly something of a furphy. President Putin stated, clearly and categorically only recently – sorry, can’t remember the link – that there would be NO “hot war”. That various AmeroWest propagandists were promoting this as a fear tactic for reasons of domestic politics and economies.
He was half laughing as he said it – absolutely no Hot War.
If Russia is so mighty and powerful how did US defeat them in the Afghan War and why didn’t Russia use all the abovementioned secret weapons ?
There’s a million dollar reward for whoever answers the question.
“There’s a million dollar reward for whoever answers the question.”
Some do not accept fiats whether they be currency or otherwise.
The framing and illusions of opponents are generally beneficial.
Since when did the US alone defeat Russia in the Afghan War? It was mainly because of the Mujahideen guerilla forces comprising of lots of sectarian muslims groups (think wahabi Taliban, the mainly shi’ite Northern Alliance and thousands of sunni Afghan Tribes) who were all being funded/trained by the US, Pakistan and other regional actors that ultimately led to the Russians throwing in the towel and leaving exhausted, battered and severely bruised.
By the time the next Afghan War occured primarily against the Taliban post Sept 2001, everybody in that part of the world knows the US never accomplished much of a victory. Far more US soldiers & personnel were killed during that war than the Western media ever let on….and Afghanistan still continues to live in the stone ages apart from the opulent palaces where a few US-supported, designer-wearing puppets reside who deludedly think they control Kabul.
So in conclusion, no country in the world has ever won in any convincing way when it comes to Afghanistan. Heck, they say even the birds fly with one wing over there cos they’re busy covering their b*tthole with their other wing. Says it all really.
Now, where’s my increasingly worthless million US dollars? I’d like it stuffed in a pair of black briefcases please.
Don’t worry, everyone, American rulers have their DUMBS (Deep Underground Military Bases) to hide out in until the radiation dissipates in a few decades/centuries.
Even better, the rest of the world will been massively depopulated thanks to nuclear winter and global famine, so the American elites can have the entire world to themselves, as they have always wanted!
NUCLEAR FAMINE: TWO BILLION PEOPLE AT RISK?
There is a no way that West can win conventional war against Russia. (Nuclear war is just a madness, everyone would lose, so I will live it there).
Back to conventional war – just take a good look at the Globus and contemplate a vastness of Russia for a moment. Take into account harsh climate. How many millions of motivated solders would invading force need to have even remote chance of subduing Russian military forces and controlling all that space? How many millions of casualties would invading Army suffer in the process? Where can they find masses of fit, young man who would enthusiastically charge into the vast, cold Russian stapes knowing very well that chances that they would ever come back home (in one peace) were rather slim? In EU? USA? Forget it.
Western Armies are made to fight against poor, defenseless countries that can’t shout back. Russia can…
The only way for West to destroy Russia is by cheating, as they did during 90-ties. It seemed that plan was developing quite nicely, for a while. Westerners were gleaming at the site of Russia self-destructing. Our politicians stated that it is unfair that Russia owns so much territory and mineral reaches, it would be better managed by the West. They sad that Russia was backward, third world country that couldn’t produce anything. But, as many times before in her long history, Russia came close to the edge of Abyss but then raised up and claimed her right full place. Ever since, our “elites” s are fuming at the mouths and running around as headless chickens trying to come up with some other nasty plan. But it’s all in vain, game is up, they are outsmarted at every move.
We, citizens of the West, need to stop them. All their megalomaniacal nonsense about World domination. Bring them to their senses and (maybe even to justice). For our own good.
What a load of table unadulterated bunkum!
Any nuclear war between NATO and Russia is automatically a SIMULTANEOUS
nuclear war between the United States and Russia. That ‘s the strategy worked
out in Kremlin and by Putin. And exactly the same by those in Pentagon.
This inevitably reduces the United States into radioactive dusts and its about 320
million Americans vapourised not to mention the 800 million Europeans.
That is exactly Obama’s Final Solution for the ‘Whites’ in the United States
Obama is a born Muslim and a black Kenyan American at that. He has his
own personal vile agenda which even the ‘White controlled Pentagon’ cannot
mutiny and arrest him for High Treason. Obama would just continue to push
Russia until the nuclear war starts. By which time his revenge for the Muslims and
the blacks in American would have been fulfilled.
And this manic has less than 12 months to realise his Final Solution for the ‘Whites’
and he is getting nearer and nearer to his personal goal …..!!!
Yes, Russia win. Then Russia lose.
Great article very objective
one FOAB from russia to nato, nato start thinking of a surrender,
Good and intelligent presentations