Illustrative Image
The U.S. Government no longer designs nuclear weapons to prevent WW III, but instead to win WW III.
Written by Eric Zuesse
Whereas both the Soviet Union and the United States used to design their strategy and weapons so as to prevent a Third World War so that neither side would win but both sides (and much of the world) would be destroyed as thousands of nuclear warheads would suddenly be exploding during a nuclear war which would be completed within around an hour or so, the U.S. Government has gradually shifted away from such a “M.A.D.” or “mutually assured destruction” meta-strategy, and been replacing it with the “Nuclear Primacy” U.S. meta-strategy, in which Russia will be totally destroyed but the U.S. will emerge afterward as being sufficiently strong so as to hold unchallengeable sway over the entire planet (which hegemony has been the actual goal of the U.S. Government ever since 25 July 1945).
On 3 May 2017, I headlined “America’s Top Scientists Confirm: U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia”, and linked to a report that had recently been issued by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, about “revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability is astonishing — boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three — and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.” I pointed out there that this new technology, called the “super-fuse”, was exactly in accord with the replacement of M.A.D. by Nuclear Primacy. After all, though the proponents of “Nuclear Primacy” didn’t say that this phrase related ONLY to America’s “Primacy” in a U.S.-v.-Russia nuclear war, the context always was clear that this was the intention, and that the phrase meant the exact opposite of (and strongly opposed) any conceivable nuclear “primacy” for Russia. So, “Nuclear Primacy” — a phrase that was introduced in 2006 in the most prestigious scholarly journals, and subsequently adhered-to by all U.S. foreign policies though never explicitly stated (and never publicly advocated) by the U.S. Government — is, in actuality, the new U.S. meta-strategy, the one that now exists.
Other new U.S. military technologies also were discussed in that Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article: for example: “Because of improvements in the killing power of US submarine-launched ballistic missiles, those submarines now patrol with more than three times the number of warheads needed to destroy the entire fleet of Russian land-based missiles in their silos.” Of course, if this is true, then Russians were in a terrifying situation, at least as recently as 2017.
Russia’s response to this challenge had actually started even earlier, by no later than U.S. President Barack Obama’s having grabbed control over the Government of Ukraine in February 2014. (And in this video is shown that video’s full smoking gun of his coup, and here is the transcript and explanation of that crucial smoking gun.) Ukraine is the country that has the nearest foreign border to The Kremlin in Moscow — only 353 miles from Moscow, a mere five minutes of missile-flight-time, away, from the Ukrainian city of Sumy. Ukraine’s having the border with the closest proximity to Russia’s central command (The Kremlin) is the main reason why Obama grabbed it (in accord with his Nuclear-Primacy policies).
Compare that 353 miles to the 1,131 miles from Washington DC that Cuba is and that terrified JFK so much during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis as to have made him willing to launch nuclear war against the Soviet Union if Khrushchev wouldn’t remove the missile sites that the Soviet Union was attempting to build in Cuba. Cuba is over three times farther away from DC than Ukraine is from The Kremlin, and the missiles at that time were far slower than they are today, but when America’s NATO finally rejected, on 7 January 2022, Russia’s demand that Ukraine NEVER be allowed to join NATO, what alternative did Russia have left, other than to reverse Obama’s coup of Ukraine and to do it as soon as possible?
In preparation for Russia’s “Special Military Operation,” Russia has been introducing new weapons systems that are specifically designed to prevent “Nuclear Primacy.” Among the main ones is the Sarmat ICBM, which is vastly the world’s most terrifying weapon, because it will be virtually impossible to detect and track, carrying dozens of precision-targeted huge nuclear bombs, unstoppable by any existing technology, and having a range of 18,000 kilometers or over 11,000 miles, which would cover the entire U.S. empire. Just a few Sarmats could destroy the entire U.S. empire, all of the U.S. and its vassal-nations (self-described as being ‘democracies’ and ‘independent nations’ — neither of which is true).
A Princeton University group of scholars has produced their estimate of how a WW III would proceed, which they label as “Plan A”, and their video-summary of it was posted to youtube on 6 September 2019. As-of now, it has had nearly 4 million views, and five thousand viewer-comments. It assumes that the war would proceed in gradual steps of mutual escalation and ignores that the U.S. regime no longer is following the M.A.D. meta-strategy — that the U.S. regime has replaced M.A.D. by their Nuclear Primacy meta-strategy. Consequently, the Princeton estimates appear to be highly unrealistic, and not, at all, to be describing the type of unprecedentedly brief war that a WW III in our era would entail. A WW III in our time would be predicated upon being initiated in a blitz-nuclear attack by the United States, such as a war that is driven by the Nuclear Primacy meta-strategy would be done: Nuclear Primacy means a war to decapitate Russia’s central command in its first strike and within a mere 10 minutes or (if from Ukraine) even less from that blitz-launch. How would a decapitated Russia be able to retaliate, at all? Only by means of a “dead hand” system, which would automatically launch whatever would survive of its retaliatory capacities after that first, decapitating, nuclear-blitz, attack. The Sarmat would be a part of that, unless the U.S. regime starts WW III before the Sarmats become emplaced. In the meantime, Russia’s main concern will be to maintain a current dead-hand capability so as to make certain that at least the U.S. and its main vassal-nations will be eliminated in the event that the Nuclear Primacy meta-strategy becomes launched before Russia’s dead-hand system becomes completely implemented.
The way that a WW III would most likely start has been shaped by the U.S. regime’s objective of not being blamed for the war despite being the first side to nuclearize it; and this objective requires that Russia must have initiated the conventional phase of the war that will have led up to that nuclear phase. For example: if Russia fails to achieve its objective of capturing and holding enough of Ukraine so as to increase that 353 miles to, say, 1,000 miles (or whatever would be their required minimum), then the U.S. might send forces to Ukraine in order to prevent Russia from achieving that objective; and, if Russia then engages U.S. forces in direct combat, the U.S. might use that as their excuse to invade Russia, and, at some stage in that invasion, very suddenly, to blitz-nuclear attack The Kremlin, on the excuse (of course) that “the Russian regime doesn’t respond to anything but military force.” Then, the survivors of WW III will be able to be propagandized sufficiently to cast the blame for WW III onto Russia, and this will help to ease the U.S. regime’s successful take-over of the entire world (or what remains of it).
Already, it is a great propaganda-success on the part of America’s regime, that though they started the war in Ukraine by grabbing Ukraine in February 2014, Russia has gotten the blame for this war, when responding to that coup (which had started this war) eight years later, on 24 February 2022, with their “Special Military Operation.” In fact, most people now might think that Ukrainians always hated Russia’s Government and loved America’s Government, but even Western-sponsored polls of Ukrainians showed consistently that prior to Obama’s coup there, the vast majority of Ukrainians saw Russia as their friend; and America, NATO, and the EU, as their enemy; but that this reversed almost immediately, after the U.S. Government took over Ukraine, in 2014. In the propaganda-war, it’s almost as-if Russia hasn’t even entered the contest, at all.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
propaganda yes, real war not
the Russian dead hand currently encompasses Avangard gliders and Poseidon underwater drones, both of which can survive a first strike and retaliate massively
only a deranged and drug addicted neocon could think of winning a nuclear war against Russia
as for who started what first, the ones using the nukes first will be blamed and, after all, with all the misery that would follow such a war, I don’t think people would justify even the “defending party”
I for one would curse everyone, from Einstein, Fermi and Oppenheimer to Biden and Nuland
Russian weapon systems don’t function properly as we have seen on the battlefield. Dead hand is no different.
I’m not sure that this is enough potential damage. Somewhere, I read that the US is prepared to accept around 30 million dead US citizens to win a nuclear war. That means that whatever the dead hand can do, needs to be really, really massive to act as a deterrence. My take is that the low number of subs is the archilles heel of Russia’s second strike capability, because they can be taken out too easily. Of course, I hope I’m wrong. :(
Ukrainians are EVIL FOOLS or too terrified by Ukronazis too change over night from Russian friends to NATO and UE enthuziasts. There is nothing to live for in US style “democracy” infested lands unless you are a billionaire.
Time for Moscow to clarify that any aggressive posturing from the US would see Brussels as being part of the 1st strike retaliation that could be death with before any missiles needed to land in the US. No use it just being the US that comes to Brussels rescue.
I find it really annoying that even in articles like this, the US propaganda version of the ‘Cuban missile crisis’ is mindlessly trotted out. In what should really have been called the ‘Turkish missile crisis’ The USSR’s nuke deployment in Cuba was a tit for tat response to the US placing nukes on the Turkish border with Russia and the crisis was settled with a mutual withdrawal.
Even Wikipedia can get this one right, so how come Eric Zuesse is still sucking up to one of the most iconic fake narratives of our times?
And Turkish nukes were also useless since USA had Minuteman and Titan balistic misile capable of reaching anywhere in USSR, there was no defense against rockets back then on either side, only dreams of, so more nukes around USSR were quite a nonsense. They killed Kennedy for not being willing to push forward in the Cold War, then they orchestrated the Vietnam tragedy etc… The same group of neocons.
I knew of those U.S missiles in Turkey. Mention of it was unnecessary for my argument.
Fair point, it would have widened the essay unnecessarily. I just think that sooner or later those fake narratives have to be challenged. The West is drifting into a total fantasy world, re-establishing our contact with reality is a priority and that means challenging the narratives.
I agree with you. Cuban missile crises was actually American missiles in Turkey.
May God destroy the US Deep State and the US Gov.
Many of the supposed reader-comments that I am seeing here don’t relate to this article and had previously posted at a different article on Southfront.
And some of them are shown under my name but had not been posted by me.
Obviously
The ‘Stolen Name’ problem has been in evidence with Discuss and the current chat room contractors since 2015 war in Syria, at least.
Slava Russiya
Thanks for explaining that.
The author does not understand well what the “perimeter” system is. Or, as the Americans call it, the dead hand. The system has a Mother Bomb that monitors all flights, even earthquakes, so as not to be mistaken. Any launch on the planet, the system fixes already knows where it flies and from where. The mother bomb will rise to a height of 1 km and give a signal to all atomic bombs: – “we work brothers” all bombs have their own address. 9000 atomic bombs will fly to addresses. And the Sarmatians too. Each new bomb Has a chip and is attached to the Perimeter, and enters duty to protect the Motherland.
Our systems will shoot down most of the American bombs, but ours are unlikely!
A nuclear war event is the logical conclusion of a world war in the current nuclear era (likely to be a product of reaction to escalations rather than calculation). A US-NATO coordinated war against Russia (as is unfolding) and soon China (the US replicating the Ukraine format in Taiwan [integration into allied military-missile architecture]) are world war scenarios. In the event of direct kinetic stages of conflict (US-NATO-allied bloc escalations moving towards this stage of conflict), minimum times from detection to response will increase the potential for such an event.
Note: While the prevention of a nuclear war event remains a priority, is should also be a matter of priority for the military commands of Russia and China to quietly develop joint operational planning (including of their combined strategic forces) for more profound stages of conflict that will almost certainly be imposed on both (being the logical outcome of US-NATO-allied bloc escalations).
It is worth noting Australia is integrated into US-NATO operations (including in Ukraine). It is also accelerating preparations to augment an allied war against China. In addition to seeking to increase the presence of US forces (including US nuclear bombers and naval forces), reports verify Australia is negotiating to host US and UK nuclear attack class submarines while its seeks to procure domestic nuclear-capable (not just ‘nuclear-powered’ as falsely claimed) submarines. Reports show Australia seeks to participate in an undisclosed nuclear weapons sharing program (an expansion of the European model) that would be based on attaining additional ship (Mk-41 VLS/Mk-14 canisters) and submarine based (nuclear-capable) Tomahawk systems. It would be prudent for Russia and China to quietly adjust their operational planning accordingly.
Niggers in US Navy are incapable of sailing U-boats without running them into the mountains. How do you imagine them building new ones? This is from the horse’s mouth 4 months ago:
https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/3040799/us-navy-releases-command-investigation-into-the-uss-connecticut-grounding/
The potential for Australia to be used as a platform for allied offensive operations (including nuclear warfare scenarios) does not depend on Australia purchasing its own (nuclear strike capable) submarines. Australia is seeking to increase the presence of US forces including US nuclear bombers, naval forces and US/UK nuclear attack class submarines. Key offensive potential (including in nuclear warfare scenarios) is based on allied military forces hosted by/operating from Australia.
Note: Many do not understand what is gradually unfolding. The globally expanding US-NATO-allied bloc wars have progressed to intensifying forms of warfare against Russia and China. When direct kinetic stages of conflict occur (being the logical outcome of US-NATO-allied bloc escalations in Ukraine and similarly Taiwan), there will be common recognition.
Arrogance leads to downfall. Niggers or not, it’s better to be properly prepared.
I really wish that people would stop referring to these people as Nazis. The Western half of Ukraine – Galicia – has been a pain in the ass for whoever was in control of the area, for more than 200 years. They get along with no one, whether Russians, Poles, Germans, Czechs, or Hungarians. That these nut jobs joined the volunteer Waffen SS during WWII – to become legal combatants as required by the Treaty of Westphalia – has to be seen in the same context as the other 500,000+ volunteers from across Europe and North Africa, who joined to stop the Soviet invasion of Europe. There were dozens of “national” units, all having their own badging, some represented countries like Belgium and the Netherlands had two units. There were no exams or blood tests to determine whether these people were “Nazis”. For Stefan Bandera and his ilk, the Waffen SS was a vehicle to an independent Ukraine. When Germany refused to recognize Bandera’s demand, he broke ranks with them. Collaboration does not require alignment of political philosophy or co-operation beyond a specific mutually beneficial objective. “Nazi” symbols have been used by many criminal organizations, including the Hell’s Angels.
If these people are truly “Nazis” why would they support a coup d’etat run by Jewish Neo-Con Victoria Nuland, support Jewish oligarchs, Jewish installed “Yats” and Klitsch, the IMF, the EU, a Jewish President(s), the sell off of their farmland to corporations, and Israel?
– “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe” [A. Einstein]. The form of conclusion of a world war in a nuclear era is self-evident (likely to be a product of reaction rather than calculation). A US-NATO-allied bloc coordinated war against Russia (as is unfolding) and soon China (the US replicating the Ukraine format in Taiwan [integration into allied military-missile architecture]) are world war scenarios.
While the prevention of a nuclear war event remains a priority, is should also be a matter of priority for the military commands of Russia and China to quietly develop joint operational planning (involving the potential of their strategic forces) for more profound stages of conflict that will logically result from ongoing US-NATO-allied bloc escalations.
A nuclear war event is a logical product of current unfolding developments (a gradually developing world war, this time occurring in a nuclear era). Such is the collective stupidity in the Western bloc (that largely operates in an echo chamber), escalation seeking Russian capitulation will continue. But instead of capitulation, the US-NATO-allied bloc will soon understand and indeed experience the concept the greatest threats to many are the consequences of their own actions.
It is worth noting a worst case scenario (a product of US-NATO-allied bloc escalations) does not translate to human extinction. It would however eclipse all previous wars. Many involved nations would be largely destroyed with many fatalities to subsequently occur due to fallout, famine, disease, violence, etc. Environmental condition would normalise shortly after such an event.
The problem is, dead hand or not, due to the US’s great targeting capability, I’m afraid that NO land based missile will survive a first strike of the US, and therefore, absolutely nothing will fly.