Posted on 10/03/2022 5:11:58 AM PDT by jacknhoo
For eight years, NATO has supported puppet rulers in Ukraine, funded attacks in the Donbass, repeatedly violated the Minsk agreements, supported the ban on speaking Russian in the Luhansk and Donetsk republics, and helped to destroy the democratic opposition and free media in Ukraine. The result was a one-party government, essentially owned and funded by the United States, and run by American operatives.
And no halftones and subtleties.
Yet, somehow, the United States managed to convince the population of its country and other Western countries that Russia is a “bad boy”, that it is out of control and must be stopped.
Despite all of the above, Russia remained steadfast and constantly sought to control the situation. However, she firmly said that it would be a “red line” if Ukraine became a nuclear power, becoming a direct threat to Moscow. This could not be allowed.
National Interest: Putin gave the Americans one last chanceRussia made it clear to the United States that de-escalation is possible only on its terms
Surely this was a sober warning to any sane country that the only thing that should not happen is Ukraine becoming a nuclear power. Eventually, once this Pandora’s box is opened, the last barrier to a possible nuclear war will be overcome.
For eight years, the West has egged Russia on again and again, but it has not taken the bait. Then, in February 2022, at the annual Munich Security Conference, the President of Ukraine announced his intention to make Ukraine a nuclear country.
Five days later, Russia entered Ukraine. The American propaganda arm immediately stepped into action, and for months, even as Ukraine consistently lost the war, at every turn the Western media resumed their claims that a war was unfolding; that Russia hesitates, and the heroes of Ukraine fight off the attacks of the Big Bear.
But all of the above is old news. Why, at this stage, should we return to this?
Well, the enduring significance of this is that NATO (or the US – they’re practically interchangeable at this point) have been reckless from the perspective of a nuclear conflict from the start.
Are they crazy? Or are they so stupid that they think they have some kind of “advantage” in a nuclear conflict? Or do they see it as a game of “single dominance” in which the only important issue is which side has more bragging rights?
We can only speculate as to the answer to this predicament. But putting that aside, we have to ask ourselves: a) what is the probability that the West will be so reckless that it actually pushes the button, and b) what will the result of this look like?
In the United States called on the White House to recognize the referendums in the DNR with one condition
What could partial mobilization mean for millions of Russians?
Zelensky said it would become impossible after the referendums
As for the first question, given that it is now becoming increasingly clear that the West is distorting the course of the war: Azov’s trained forces are used up, and replacements cannot be prepared quickly enough to take on experienced Russian troops. Washington will have to come up with another plan … and it must be something dramatic.
So far, the only card they haven’t played is the Nuclear Weapons card.
They began to claim that the Russians were either shelling the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant, which they held for some time, or causing these shelling and explosions. In fact, they are accused of blowing themselves up at the facility that they have long captured.
At the moment, not many listeners believe this explanation. So what’s left in their toolbox?
I have long felt that, ultimately, what the West could do would rely on the old favorite technique of attacking under a false flag. Create a narrative and video footage of a Russian attack on, say, Kyiv with a small nuclear warhead. Then announce that the warhead has been fired, killing hundreds of thousands. Then unleash a pre-arranged information blitz and invoke Article 5 justifying nuclear war.
It just might reverse the “tide of sympathy.” But it would also open a door that could not be closed again.
When the weak men are instead of the security forces, then there is a problem with the “clever men” “If you leave 50% of the employees in office, then the second half of them in the amount of 2.5 million people will demolish any army.” If a!
And as for the second question, “What would a nuclear war look like?” There are many studies out there, but the most revealing one I’m familiar with was from Princeton University.
The study begins with an accidental single launch in Eastern Europe and shows the size and number of nuclear warheads, as well as launch patterns.
It shows the trajectories and furthermore shows the diameters representing the degree of destruction of each missile.
Smaller nuclear weapons would cover all of Europe, leaving very little untouched there. This would then be replaced by larger transatlantic nuclear weapons, the most advanced Sarmat missiles. The Sarmat has the ability to elude missile defense systems. It travels at five times the speed of sound, weighs over 200 tons, and each has multiple separable warheads.
There is nothing like it in the West.
So what would be the result?
Well, every major US city would have multiple ICBMs targeted, each one big enough to destroy it. Most of the US would be littered with other ICBMs. The US would have been destroyed within hours. It is estimated that 90 million people would have been killed initially.
Those who were at the epicenter would evaporate. Those who were on the periphery of the explosion could have escaped if they got to the concrete shelter very quickly. They would then have to remain “sealed” in it for several weeks, if not longer, until most of the fallout had settled. It would become a gamble on the question of when it would be safe to leave the shelter.
Israel secretly sneaks through Poland to go to war with Russia. Moscow’s prompt response to this perfidy of Tel Aviv will very likely be shown to the Jewish state in Syria
The US northern border would be destroyed, taking with it Canadian border cities like Vancouver and Toronto. The southern border with Mexico would also disappear.
The next will be the movement of radioactive fallout.
As the video shows, there would be no hope for those who live in the immediate vicinity of the target, but as you can see, there are places outside the US that are not the target at all. Those places that do not have a strategic advantage will not be selected as targets. So, if you were in, say, Jamaica, you wouldn’t be affected, but just as importantly, the Caribbean weather system – the trade winds – would blow any rainfall away from you in the north, as would the Gulf Stream.
Better yet, the world is divided at the equator by two weather systems that don’t mix. Precipitation in the north is unlikely to spread south.
If you are in South America, there are very few likely targets. It is not known whether, say, Rio de Janeiro or Buenos Aires will become targets, but if not, then South America may be the best place in the Western Hemisphere.
In any case, things would be worse in Europe and the Middle East than in North America.
Finally, there is the issue of nuclear winter. No one can know if it will last for months or years and whether it will be local or global.
Nuclear war is not preordained, but the West is dangerously saber-rattling as if it is invincible and only others can be destroyed. This is completely false.
We cannot be sure that a nuclear war will be launched, but if it does, it will be quick. You will not have time to develop an escape plan . You should already be in a place that you consider as safe as possible.
* The Ukrainian battalion “Azov” was recognized as a terrorist organization by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 08/02/2022 . Activities in Russia are prohibited
Posted by Jeff Thomas Jeff Thomas is a British entrepreneur and freelance journalist.
Translation by Sergei Dukhanov.
Published with the permission of the publisher
So you caught Trump in a huge lie?
I’ve heard that they are going to use small tactical nukes on our universities.
I've said it on here before and I'll say it again: were it not for the fact the Russians have nukes, they'd be no better than any other third-world military at this point.
Given the state of their military, I have my doubts their nukes would ever make it out of their silos.
Food prices will rise even more here and in Europe. China will have a really pissed off population because of their dependency on food imports. Latin America will limp along as usual. But East Africa will starve.
More or less as usual, but more starvation among the world's poorest. India I don't know about.
As far as the US goes, the most pressing issue is the maliciously destructive actions of our wannabee authoritarian regime. But that doesn't mean we should allow our geopolitical security interests in Europe to blown away by a rampaging Bear.
Many poor countries will suffer given the loss of both Russian and Ukraiane grains even to the point of starvation. This will not happen in the US because we alredy throw out about 30 to 40% of the food we buy, or at least including what gets thrown out in grocery stores, transport and storage. There are few fields that are gleaned, etc.
We have plenty to do in the way of reducing waste and eating less, without anyone starving. There is much food not used because it is not commercially beautiful. When I was a child we had old pear trees surrounded by woods. I would pick up these hard pears with bad sponts, some rot, etc. and my mother would pare them, can them, and we would have delicious pear preserves the rest of the year. The same with the less than perfect apples from our one apple tree. Lots of applesauce to enjoy, all this during and after WW2. I can imagine schools and churches organizing gleaning parties with local farmers, and lots of other waste reduction activities that a few are already doing and can teach others.
No, I found you promoting a lie which I researched with one Google entry and found both the lie, and something we could praise President Trump for doing. Both links as articles on the same Google page. Its no wonder so many questionable stories are posted at FR if nobody even does a simple check for truth.
I doubt pro Putin/Russia Comrades will even be admitted to Purgatory once all the vile things done in Putin’s name have been revealed. I think it is probably straight to hell, fire, and damnation for all the Comrades and fellow travelers.
So you are saying that Trump was lying.
Trump’s quote was posted for the purpose of showing how he would send nuke subs to threaten Putin to get him to stop constantly talking about nuking us, that cannot be a lie.
If you say that Trump is lying about his role in new nuclear subs, well then that is good that you caught him lying about that.
You seem confused, you say you didn’t catch Trump in a lie, yet you are saying he lied and you caught it.
BUT IF WE DIDN’T HAVE IT WE COULDN’T TALK BUT I LISTENED TO HIM CONSTANTLY USING THE N WORD , THAT’S THE N WORD, AND HE’S CONSTANTLY USING IT. THE NUCLEAR WORD, AND WE NEVER TALK, WE SAY OH, HE’S A NUCLEAR POWER, BUT WE’RE A GREATER NUCLEAR POWER.
WE HAVE THE GREATEST SUBMARINES IN THE WORLD, MOST POWERFUL MACHINES EVER BUILT, MOST POWERFUL AND THEY GOT BUILT UNDER ME. MOST POWERFUL MACHINES EVER BUILT AND NOBODY KNOWS WHERE THEY ARE AND
YOU SHOULD SAY LOOK , IF YOU MENTION THAT WORD, ONE MORE TIME, WE’RE GOING TO SEND THEM OVER AND WE’LL BE COASTING BACK AND FORTH UP AND DOWN YOUR COAST. YOU CAN’T LET THIS TRAGEDY CONTINUE. YOU CAN’T LET THESE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DIE. IT’S GOING TO BE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AND MAYBE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE BY THE TIME IT ENDS.
I agree 100% with you.
I think you may be being a little harsh on Trump when you say he is telling an “absolute lie” you know how Trump talks, and when he said subs were built or being built under him, he may have been doing the usual Trump skipping of the details to keep things short and simple.
There were subs being built under him and he wanted more subs built.
Totally (or nearly so) false Putinist DOGGEREL.
My God, these Putler fans are actually trying to destroy the conservative movement.
And no one is doing much to stop them.
Well Comrade from your location you probably have no idea how long the Mexico/US border is. The length was one reason why President Trump had a hard time getting it fenced even though 1,000 miles already had been. It is certainly a reason he wanted Mexico to pay for it. Given all the nuclear fantasies projected for use of nukes at this post, there are hardly enough functioning Russian nukes to make the southern border disappear or the northern one either for that matter. I have crossed both borders in several places, and I can personally testify that distances are VERY LONG.
“When they finally start dragging you off to the camps you will still be whining about Russia.”
That was supposed to happen under obama.
Yep conspiracy theories are for those
Who cant use critical thinking to back their argument
The world isn’t binary.
bump for later
It appears I may have been wrong about what I said in the first line of my comment #80. I based my statement on what I read in the link on that first line. See below from that link:
“Donald Trump loves submarines. And America’s submarine industry has every reason to love Trump back. The hawkish, protectionist president has vowed to grow the US Navy, particularly its submarine force, to its biggest size in decades.
“But experts agree there’s no realistic way the Trump administration can add the extra subs in time for the former reality television star to plausibly take credit for the build-up. Submarines are just too expensive and complex to build fast.
“To produce extra subs, Electric Boat in Connecticut and Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia, the two shipyards that make all of America’s undersea combat vessels, will need to expand their facilities and add thousands of highly-skilled workers. Congress will need to approve much larger annual shipbuilding budgets, possibly for decades on end. Potentially several presidential administrations will need to sign off on those budgets.
“Slowly adding submarines is hard. Quickly adding them is “more than unrealistic,” in the words of one Congressional insider who works on naval issues but spoke on condition of anonymity. “It would be impossible.”
“It’s not clear Trump appreciates these hard truths. “Our Navy is now the smallest it’s been since, believe it or not, World War I,” Trump lamented while visiting the new aircraft carrier Gerald Ford at Newport News on March 2. “Don’t worry, it’s going to soon be the largest it’s been.”
“Trump was wrong. In fact, today the Navy possesses 275 frontline ships and its associated Military Sealift Command has its own 120 support ships, together roughly equaling the fleet the US possessed on the eve of World War II. And today’s ships are, on average, many times larger and obviously much more sophisticated than their equivalents were in 1940.
“To be the “largest it’s been,” the US Navy would have to grow to nearly 7,000 ships—its peak at the end of World War II. In arguing for a Navy, Trump mischaracterized the current fleet and created unrealistic expectations for the future fleet.”
I had based my initial statement on the information above, so I decided to see if I could find something more technical and statistical like this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
The Virginia class submarines, our largest nuclear attack subs, have been in the works since around the Millenium. Various presidents have fought to get Congress to fund these new subs, and finally by 2012 some had been built. The funding fight has been ongoing and the building slow. There is nothin in that article about President Trump moving legislation to increase this kind of sub construction. There is a detailed chart showing names of subs, class type, dates laid down and Commisioned. If I read this correctly several were under construction when he entered office, several were Commissioned while he was in office, some were started while he was in office and Commissioned after he left, and possibly one was started and Commissioned while he was in office. But all these were being built based on work of prior administrations of both parties with plans to complete the number approved by 2060.
I don’t get the impression anything he did as President changed anything with regards to sub building. I know people find his confidence and showmanship interesting and exciting, but I think important military matters need to be handled more carefully. If not we end up with the crazy propaganda situation that has confused and angered FReepers who really care about what is happening to Ukraine and Russia, and the whole world.
What he did regarding encouraging our military to diversify the size of nuclear payloads was important. Now if Putin decides on a small nuke, we can respond with a small nuke, rather than blowing up the whole world.
“The length was one reason why President Trump had a hard time getting it fenced even though 1,000 miles already had been.”
NeverTrumper, no surprise.
I see, you’re still a Democrat.
To be fair about DJT and the Navy - in all likelihood at that time, he was expecting to get a second term where much of that might have been accomplished.
That he turned out to be “wrong” is more a function of the Democrat control of Congress and Presidency. IMHO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.