Nuclear War against both China and Russia is contemplated
“At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped”.
Russia is tagged as “Plausible” but “Not Expected”. That was back in 2002.
Today at the height of the Ukraine war, a Preemptive Nuclear attack against Russia is on the drawing of the Pentagon.
Blow Up The Planet to “Defend Democracy”. Liz Truss: “I’m Ready to Do That”
Nuclear War is part of British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss’ campaign for the Conservative Party leadership. She spoke at a Conservative party event in Birmingham, The host of the event John Pienaar asked her if she would give the order “to unleash nuclear weapons” from Trident.
He added: “It would mean global annihilation… “How does that thought make you feel?”
“I think it’s an important duty of the prime minister and I’m ready to do it. I’m ready to do that.”
“Big Money” and “Big Ignorance”
Political opportunism in support of the Nuclear Weapons Aerospace Complex: There is “Big Money” and “Big Ignorance” behind Truss’ bold statement. Her Conservative Party audience applauded in chorus.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary Liz Truss hasn’t the foggiest idea regarding the nature of nuclear weapons and their devastating impacts.
Moreover, she does not know the geography of the Russian Federation, claiming that Rostov on the Don as well as Voronezh belong to Ukraine; it’s like saying that Manchester belongs to Scotland:
“… during their closed-door meeting on Thursday [February 11, 2022] Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov had asked Truss if she recognised Russian sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh – two regions in the south of the country where Russia has been building up its forces.”
… Truss replied that Britain would never recognise them as Russian, and had to be corrected by her ambassador.” (Reuters report)
Truss, … told the BBC’s Sunday Morning show that “we are supplying and offering extra support into our Baltic allies across the Black Sea”.
Liz Truss (an Oxford graduate) was given a lesson in basic geography by Maria Zakharova, Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson, “for failing to know the difference between the Baltic and Black seas, which are more than 700 miles apart.”
Zakharova noted that the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania lie off the Baltic Sea, not the Black Sea, which is hundreds of miles to the south.
“The Baltic countries are called so because they are located precisely off the coast of this [Baltic] sea. Not the Black [Sea],” the Russian official wrote on Facebook.
“If anyone needs to be saved from anything, then it is the world from the stupidity and ignorance of Anglo-Saxon politicians.”
“Humanitarian Nuclear Bombs”
Liz Truss is not the only ignorant Western politician in high office which favours the use of nuclear weapons. In recent years, “Many high-ranking military and civilian officials, politicians and experts are openly talking about the possibility of using nuclear weapons in a first strike attack against any nation under many pretexts with low-yield or high-yield nuclear charges” ( No Guerra No NATO).
A commitment to blowing up the planet preemptively with “humanitarian nukes”, which are “safe for civilians” has become part of a political narrative. We recall Hillary Clinton’s statement during the 2016 election campaign:
“the nuclear option should not at all be taken off the table. That has been my position consistently.” (ABC News, December 15, 2015)
“A Nuclear War is Winnable”? Humanitarian Bombs
We recall Reagan’s earlier historic statement: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used.”
Nonetheless, there are powerful voices and lobby groups within the US establishment and the Biden administration that are convinced that “a nuclear war is winnable”. Liz Truss is part of this dangerous consensus.
The focus of US military doctrine since the George W. Bush administration has been on the development of so-called “more usable nuclear weapons”.
George W. Bush’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, which was adopted by the US Senate in late 2002. envisaged the development of “a generation of more useable nuclear weapons.” namely tactical nuclear weapons (B61-11 mini-nukes) with an explosive capacity between one third and 6 times times a Hiroshima bomb.
The term “more usable” emanates from the debate surrounding the 2001 NPR, which justified the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater on the grounds that tactical nuclear weapons, namely bunker buster bombs with a nuclear warhead are, according to scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon “harmless to the surrounding population because the explosion is underground.”
The cost of America’s “peace-making” nuclear weapons program is of the order of 1.3 trillion dollars, extending to $2 trillion in 2030.
And there is Big Money behind Jo Biden’s $1.3 trillion nuclear weapons program:
“But, what I don’t understand is this mad lunacy of killing and death, except it gives the corporations who make these weapons huge amounts of money. And it was Obama who agreed to spend 1.7 trillion dollars in the next 30 years replacing every single nuclear weapon, missile, ship, plane. And rebuild them all new ones, for what reason? No reason! It’s sheer nuclear madness. It’s nuclear lunacy!” (Helen Caldicott)
Of relevance to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, is the Biden Administration committed to the use of nuclear weapons as an instrument of peace?
Peace-making nuclear weapons have become a talking point among ignorant and corrupt politicians, who have been led believe that preemptive nuclear war is a humanitarian undertaking which protects democracy.
Flash Back. Another Liar and Ignoramus. It Started with Harry Truman
“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark…. This weapon is to be used against Japan … [We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. … The target will be a purely military one… It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.”
(President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945)
Remember Hiroshima: “A Military Base” according to Harry Truman
“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..” (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).
[Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman’s radio speech to the Nation]
The Unthinkable: Mistakes are a Driving Force behind World History
“Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.
An accidental nuclear war attributable to ignorant, stupid and corrupt politicians cannot be excluded.
“The threat of an all-out nuclear war that can erupt very easily either due to deliberate actions of any nuclear weapons state or because of unintentional, human, technical or other mistake.
Do not vote for Ignoramus Liz who could lead Britain and the World into the unthinkable, a nuclear war which threatens the future of humanity.
by Michel Chossudovsky
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post