Do We Really Want A War With Russia?

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
,
41

First, agreed we don't want to go there.  I'm just responding to the concept that "Russians are preparing for a nuclear war" - suggesting that if they prepared enough, that would allow them to ultimately "prevail."
Even if we assume away the environmental impact, the only way to prevail is to destroy your opponent's nuclear force before they can launch.  Today, that boils down to destroying the US submarine force that is deployed at sea.  If you can find and destroy all those missile boats before they launch, you can prevail.  If you can't, then your nation will be destroyed.  Its a very simple story.

Attacks on US soil, while very disagreeable for us, won't enable an opponent to "win".  The Topol-M does not target the sub force, so as a "first strike weapon", its more or less useless.  As you point out, it is great for targeting cities, but that won't allow anyone to "prevail" since it leaves the US sub force intact.

Topol-M is probably more survivable than the SS-18 (or the follow-on Sarmat) since it is mobile, while the heavy SS-18/Sarmat missiles sit in a fixed position in a silo, and would easy to target.

I'm sure Dogs knows vastly more than me, but I also suspect he's unable to comment.

So to summarize:

Will civil defense allow Russia to prevail?  No.

Will targeting US cities (with Topol-M, or SS-18, or Sarmat) allow Russia to prevail?  No.

Will striking first by surprise using submarines at the US continent allow Russia to prevail?  No.

If it doesn't target the sub fleet, it more or less doesn't matter - at least when it comes to a first strike anyway.  So "preparing to fight a nuclear war" = won't change the outcome in the slightest.  Both sides would be finished as civilizations, period.  All these "preparations" are thus meaningless.

A widespread deployment of a viable ABM system for ICBMs - and that means hundreds of launchers, that are proven in testing to have a high success rate at interception - that might change the math.  But no such system exists, on either side - at least no system that we know about anyway - and certainly not the S-500, which remains vaporware.

Here's an article that describes the progress of the US ABM program:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-limits-us-missile-defense-12503

Israel has several anti-missile defense systems - Iron Dome for the little stuff, and the Arrow series for long range missiles.  Arrow 3 is an exo-atmospheric interceptor for ICBMs - a recent test had it successfully intercept an incoming warhead, picking the actual warhead out from a group of decoys, which is a hard task.  But even that system has yet to be deployed.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/12/10/us-israel-arrow-3-intercepts-target-space/77087084/

 

42

Interestingly enough, the international news and commentary here in Mongolia has not had much focus on the breakdown in relations between US and Russia.  The stories are mentioned, but pretty much given the same treatment as say the latest comment from Phillipine's Duterte or the latest global finance news from Europe.  None of the sensationalism or fear/anger you see in US mainstream media, Russian media, and most alternative media (interestingly enough we get most major TV news from all around the world here).  It is kind of refreshing to get some distance from the emotion-driven hype.
Does this mean there's nothing to worry about?  Sadly, no… I think the risks as presented are very real.  But while I'm wary of reading too much into it, I think this observation is telling me to see the potential for a shooting war between the US and Russia as just one of many potential outcomes… NOT a certainty.  It is the height of stupidity and arrogance that our leadership (and to an extent Russia's leadership as well) have even made it a possibility in the first place, but we can't resign ourselves to believe that war with Russia is inevitable.  This is a game of chicken where the goal is to get the other side to back down while keeping the military industrial complex flush with cash and new projects… an actual shooting war is a risk, but in all likelyhood NOT the intended outcome.  So yes prepare for the worst… but have a little optimism at the same time.  The sociopaths pushing us closer to war (both the politicians and the ones who influence/advise them behind the scenes) are not invulnerable and do not have total control.  They have influence… sometimes very strong influence… but that is ephemeral, especially in the face of the massive changes ahead of us.  Already we can see their circle of influence diminishing globally. 

Anyway, while this post kind of went a different direction than I intended, I guess what I just want to say is that we need to take a step back every so often.  Nothing's written in stone, and we've still got a chance to change the course.

43

for me anyway. One can think of various reasons why it won't.

44

exlxq1949,
If you go into :thesaker.is, and scroll down to "Commenter's Corner" you will find the article on MH17

Tim

45
http://thesaker.is/mh17-report-taken-apart-by-saker-reader/

On July 17th, 2014, in the midst of this violent offensive against the cities and provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk the air traffic controllers in Kiev re-directed Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 200 kilometres north from its usual route over the Sea of Azov and ordered it to overfly the centre of the war zone in eastern Ukraine. No reasonable explanation for this change of route has been provided by Ukraine. The Kiev Air Traffic Control tapes were seized by the Ukrainian SBU less than an hour after the shootdown and have never been seen since. Where are they? The JIT didn’t ask that question.

It is hard to get just a little snippet of this post to capture the extensive coverup of events. This paragraph is somewhat typical where a statement is fleshed out and then the observation is made that JIT didn't ask that question. It is well worth the read!

Grover

H/T to ian.k for the link

46

[quote]So to summarize:

Will civil defense allow Russia to prevail?  No.

Will targeting US cities (with Topol-M, or SS-18, or Sarmat) allow Russia to prevail?  No.

Will striking first by surprise using submarines at the US continent allow Russia to prevail?  No.
[/quote]
One of the key takeaways from this site has been that people are typically not rational, they are rationalizing. Information is gathered, compared with a belief system, and then “facts” are confirmed and “untruths” discarded.
Is anyone comfortable with the mindset / belief systems of those “calling the shots”? Not just the visible leadership, but the international banking interests pulling their strings?
And what happens when the lightweight judo study finally decides that the bully is never gonna stop pushing him, no matter what? Because the bully ain’t right in the head? What if the one being bullied is a bit off kilter?
Faced with a no win scenario, at what point does the thought “He’s gonna beat me really bad, might even kill me. But if I don’t punch the fucker in the face hard, he’s never gonna stop. He’ll never back down. Because he can’t control himself. And if he does kill me, he’s gonna fucking die too. So fuck him.” become rational?
Rational arguments are great. But expecting rationality when egos and emotions run high in psychopaths is a recipe for dissapointment.

47

Ram_D, one of the basic docs behind The Matrix was a philosophical treatise Similacra_and_simulation.
The basic idea is that similacra–things like money, which is a similacrum for coinage, which is itself a similacrum for barter, which is also a similacrum for work-- allow more efficient use of wealth to generate wealth. The problem with similacra is twofold: first, people take shortcuts (simulate the similacra), and second, the similacra reward the simulators most of all, empowering them.
Now, you speak of warring against the chimp tribe, but the chimp tribe is far more powerful than the baby chimps they eat.
Point being, unless you can map a way from there to here and back again, there is no map.
And the chimp tribe takes deep offense at anyone abondoning the siystem of similacra which feeds them so well on baby chimp flesh.
So you are sitting there frustrated: “nobody’s moving!!!” But you don’t have a good plan in place to move.
So what do you propose: the babies overwhelm the eaters?
Sometimes, there really is nothing that people can do.
Sometimes, doing something is worse than doing nothing.

48

Confirming my fears, HRC in the debate just demonized Russia not once, but twice.  
First, she blamed the image of the bombed child that swept the world on Russian bombers, when she knows better than anybody that the US (along with other western participants) started the conflict in the first place.  And, as far as I know, it's entirely unclear on who dropped the bomb or lobbed the shell that injured that child.   I think that's, um, well, deplorable.

Second, she ran with the utterly unproven assertions that Russia is somehow meddling with her election run by hacking and releasing emails to wikileaks.

Taken together, these are wildly dangerous assertions to my ears.  

 

49

CNN dropped the bomb and just compared Aleppo to the holocaust.  Such obvious propaganda.  OMG.
Then HRC demonizes Russia for Syria, supports the idea of war crimes trial against Russia and then blames Russia for trying to derail her presidential run.

Wake up folks.

This is now way beyond election posturing for the sake of winning points by beating up Russia.  The hand of the neocons has just been tipped.  This is about fighting Russia.

This is now very serious, and wildly dangerous.

 

50

This is about hegemony.
This is getting ugly.

51

Russian Options Against a US Attack on Syria (The Unz Review)
The war against Syria: both sides go to “plan B” (The Saker)

https://youtu.be/EQ0cTxABUY8

52

Thank you so very much for your analysis, Chris.
 

I haven't read such a profound and existential analysis of you in a long time, though (I must admit) I've not read many of your analysis lately (instead, I was reading and listening a lot to Paul Craig Roberts and the like).

It seems to me that, with this analysis, you've surpassed yourself. Congratulations! It seems to me, you've turned a corner and started to realize that the contents of "the next 20 years being entirely different than the past 20 years", might have more to do with the fallout of geopolitical conflicts than the sterile consequences of your EEE-analysis (which remains at the root of all anyway). True to what John Maynard Keynes supposedly once said ("When events change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"), I regard it entirely fair that (if) you've turned a corner. I had to turn many corners since I became aware of your three E's, over 5 years ago.

I've come to believe that the decline of industrial civilization will be accompanied, somehow, by some sort of conflagration (authentic or orchestrated) that will get (authentically or orchestratedly) out of control. Although several alternative conflagrations might be identified, your analysis of the growing (and orchestrated!) conflict of the USA with Russia represents one of the most probable and acute of all. After all, how could the US-empire witness itself go bust (economically, monetarily or geopolitically), without preparing for a scapegoat (Russia) to blame?

 

So again, thank you so very much, Chris!

 

Hans Zandvliet,

La Paz, Bolivia

53

Hillary won.
This young lady brings great joy to this old man's heart. We may have a future after all.

 

https://youtu.be/qYJ-yfnj-OE

54

Ok, so the discussion has morphed substantially here.
First, your point was that Russia is able to successfully execute a disarming first strike against the US because they had a whole bunch of really amazing hardware.  It turns out, that hardware either didn't exist, or simply wasn't able to achieve the goals claimed by the author.

Now, your point is, ok - it won't be a successful first strike - now you are suggesting that the NCA of Russia is so angry they don't mind committing (nuclear) national suicide because they are that pissed off.

I don't agree.

I believe that Putin is very canny, and he won't fight on ground where he believes he could lose.  In a nuclear exchange he'll lose.  (And indeed, we'll all lose).  So he won't go there.  He'll choose another option.  He's got the moral high ground in Syria - he's supporting the regime, against ISIS (whom everybody supposedly is against), he neutralized Turkey, and now with the decks clear, he's decided to make his stand there.

If he were some hothead nutjob willing to commit national suicide, he'd have done something dramatic after that Russian jet was shot down by Turkey.  He did nothing.  And yet - it all turned up roses for him.  He somehow managed to turn lemons into lemonade.  How does that align with your notion he's some crazy hothead ready to commit national suicide?  Answer is simple: it doesn't align at all.

I believe you've just misread both the situation and Putin himself.  He's much smarter than that.  The nuclear thing is just misdirection.  You fell for it.

My opinion of course.

55

This is off-topic from the Russia situation but the Houthi ‘rebels’ decided to try their hand at hitting a US destroyer.
They failed, and possibly didn’t know who or what they were firing at because it was apparently out of range, but this just goes to show how dangerous events have become in the region.

Two missiles fired from the Yemeni shore targeted a US Navy guided missile destroyer, a Pentagon spokesman has said. The rockets, which failed to hit the ship, allegedly came from territory controlled by Houthi rebels.

“USS Mason detected two inbound missiles over a 60-minute period while in the Red Sea off the coast of Yemen. Both missiles impacted the water before reaching the ship,” Reuters quoted Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis as saying.

Duff told Reuters that there were “no injuries to our sailors and no damage to the ship.” He reportedly said the failed attack originated in an area controlled by Houthi rebels, who are being targeted in airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition. The Saudis have been supporting the government of President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, who was ousted in a Houthi rebellion in November 2014.

(Source) 

After the alleged sinking of the HSV-2 UAE ship a week back, I’d bet everybody is staying well off the coast of Yemen now.

At any rate, it doesn’t take much in such heightened circumstances to create an incident that boils over.

 

56
Dear John,

Because the War in Space race is heating up, I felt you should be aware of several factors as you and I schedule our Skype talk.

Remember, our nonviolent ETI from the contiguous universe are helping us bring zero point energy to Earth.

They will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space.

Wikileaks.  Edgar Mitchell. 
57

These articles, in particular Part II which references Wilileaks documents, provide some potential insight into Hillary's motivation for pushing military action (more specifically, pursuing regime change) in both Libya and Syria.  Where I don't feel completely satisfied with the explanation here is that it makes regime change in Syria, for motives discussed in Part II, the primary military goal, not a war with Russia.  Maybe her (the neocons') goals have changed/evolved since these documents were written (in 2012)?  Maybe Hillary's/the neocons' current aggressive stance towards Russia is related to what other people here have observed in their comments, that the neocons are angry at Russia for "not behaving as expected", and their deluded desire to therefore "teach them a lesson" (quoting paraphrased ideas; not direct quotes).  God help us all
"Hillary's Wars (Pt. 1): Clinton Reset Button With Russia Goes Nuclear" @ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-09/hillary%E2%80%99s-wars-pt-1-clinton-reset-button-russia-goes-nuclear

"Hillary's Wars (Pt. 2): Wikileaks Proves Syria about Iran and Isreal" @ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-09/hillary%E2%80%99s-wars-pt-2-wikileaks-proves-syria-about-iran-israel

"The next document obtained by Wikileaks in its acquisition of Clinton’s emails is not advice to Hillary but subsequent advice from Hillary’s state department to the White House:

Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program…. Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are….. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security … through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests…. Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran….” Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran’s strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria…. Only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind….  (Wikileaks)

(Note if you look it up that the Wikileaks document shows dates that refer to when the document was unclassified, not when written. The date of the State Department’s creation of this document can be determined by its content: “the talks between the world’s major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May.” The switch from past tense to future tense dates the document sometime between April, 2012, which is when the talks began in Istanbul, and May, 2012, when they continued in Baghdad.)

That same document provides evidence the connection between Hillary’s War in Libya and the next war in Syria clearly became a part the Department of State’s strategy under Hillary: (Note how it states that Libya was an easier case, following the wording in the advice Hillary had been given by Blumenthal about overthrowing Qaddafi as a way to make regime change in Syria more accomplishable.)

 The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya. Libya was an easier case…. Other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi’s regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East…. using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time…. The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation.Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain.

According to this massively revealing document pillaged from Hillary Clinton’s email archives, Obama needed to bring down Assad’s regime in order to calm Israel into accepting the eventual nuclear agreement he was working out with Iran. So, US involvement in the Syrian Civil War is even less about Assad than it is about Iran and Israel — at least in the State Department’s strategizing.

Connect the dots: First, Hillary counseled the president to establish regime change in Libya, the easiest target for such change. Then, with that success weighing on Assad’s fears, the State Department advised seeking regime change in Syria, emphasizing to the president that overthrowing the Assad regime would be essential to his establishment of a nuclear agreement with Iran. The theory was that Assad’s newfound fears from the regime change in Libya coupled with US empowered opposition in his own country, would get him to step down. Underlying the whole plan for regime change in Syria is the motive of weakening Iran, calming Israel and transforming the entire Middle East."

58

Hi Chris,
Thank you for bringing in the psychology of those in charge.  I think this is a very important area of preparation as we navigate all this uncertainty.  You offer the lens of assessing the maturity and motivation of our leadership at a deeper level.  I believe that when we can do that in our own lives, we create opportunities for more effective and helpful responses than reacting to others' behavior.  An excellent and very readable resource on childhood trauma and the survival strategies we develop is Dr. Laurence Heller's Healing Developmental Trauma.  You describe the Trust structure so clearly: the person who trusts no one and always attacks first.  I believe we can all benefit by examining our own tendencies when we are under stress.

–Suzie

1 Like
59

But not in this forum, if you interested to join our group just let me know.

60

And it is based on what I see, in addition to what you claim to see. I’m already trying to go forward with my plan, and it’s likely to be at odds with (as in, not compatible with, but not necessarily ever in conflict with) your plan.
So I must decline. But that can be good. One plan of attack, while more likely to succeed, is also more devastating in failure. Many many plans, while each less likely to succeed, is never devastating in failure, and in the long run it is more likely that SOMETHING may succeed.
But I don’t deny what you see.