Quote:
Once again, Elon Musk nailed the zeitgeist, or at least a hefty portion of it, in a tweet. The image shows a soda dispenser. Two spigots are visible, blue on the left, red on the right. The index and middle fingers of someone’s right hand are pushing buttons to dispense blue and red fluid, respectively, into a single cup. A label on the left dispenser reads, “Laughing at WWIII memes”. On the right, the label reads, “Kinda being worried about WWIII”. Many politicians, mostly but not exclusively on the right, are warning about the prospect of “World War III”.
Russia is engaged in blatant nuclear saber-rattling.
Putin has deployed ships armed with tactical nuclear weapons for the first time in 30 years. He has also pulled Russia out of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), a decision that, according to Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s Secretary General, dismantles “the whole arms control architecture”.
People … wondered what America’s national interest in Ukraine might be and whether the United States—deeply, irresponsibly in debt—should really be funneling so much money to Ukraine, besieged but also a deeply corrupt country.
This past week, Joe Biden paid a surprise visit to Ukraine. At the same time that Joe Biden was serenading Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kiev, Donald Trump was visiting the people of East Palestine, Ohio, which was reeling from the effects of a terrible toxic catastrophe after a freight train derailed and caught fire. Some observers noted the irony that on President’s Day, the U.S. president was visiting and promising money to the Ukrainian president while Donald Trump went to a local disaster in the United States and offered aid and comfort to American victims. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) spoke for many when he observed that “you can either be the party of Ukraine & the globalists or you can be the party of East Palestine & the working people of America.”
Comment:
So Putin withdraws from START just like that. Could there be any stronger proof that all such “arms control” agreements were always flimsy, always easily dissolvable; the meetings little more than gestural performances?
If you are of “the party of East Palestine & the working people of America” - as we and all Trump supporters surely are – does it mean that you ignore the Russia-Ukraine war? Want the US to stop giving money and arms to Ukraine? If it did, wouldn’t that imply the resignation of the US from NATO? And would that not mean the dissolution of NATO? And Russian victory? What impediment would there then be to further Russian expansion, its seizing of other independent countries on its borders? Is it only a globalist view that such an outcome needs to be prevented?
Such arms control agreements as MAD may have been flimsy, but they were better than nothing, which is what we now have.
Now that Putin knows that the intent of the U.S. is a “fight to the death” - until we completely destroy Russia - it’s not out of the question that he will resort to using nukes in desperation. It may mean “mutually assured destruction”, but that may not deter him when backed into a corner.
As the author points out, would it be worth testing the judgement (that the U.S. has superior nuclear capabilities) in an actual nuclear exchange?
And, “the fact that there are people in positions of power and influence who would say yes to that question must give us pause.”
Even General Milley is now quoted as admitting that this war must eventually be resolved with negotiations. But apparently he’s willing to leave that decision up to Zelensky, who has already stated he will not negotiate with Putin.
Meanwhile, Xi sees the whole situation as a way to weaken the U.S. and set us up for defeat in his war against us. Both he (and Iran, his allies now) would like nothing better than “Death (by Nukes) to America!”
I really don’t put it past them. Human life is not valuable to them in the same way it is to us.
And judging from the globalist plan to cull the world population by way of poison vaccines and economic destruction, it’s no longer valuable to most of the rest of world leaders, either.
If they thought they could pull off defeating the West’s superpower, even at a great cost to their own people, they’d do it.
They could start with an EMP, destroying our power grid, then nuke us. We’d nuke them back, but we’d be crippled by the loss of power. It would certainly result in mutual destruction, but with Biden in charge, and China, Russia, and Iran all arrayed against us, who knows what the outcome might be…
If Russia or China started with an EMP, they would not have to follow up with anything else, except wait to occupy after the dust settled, most of us were dead or dying, our cities were burning and people were starving and tribes were killing each other.
If, however, we automatically nuked them in time for our missiles to get out of the EMP zone or simultaneously set loose our missiles when we suspected an EMP attack, we might ruin them.
Or they could just hack our grid and provide a similar outcome as an EMP on US soil.
Because of international disapproval. Because of China and Iran retaliation. Because it could start a world war. Because it is inhumane. And…the US would become a pariah.
So because we are nice, and because we fear international disapproval, and would hate it if no other country would have anything to do with us ever again, and because we’d be subject to retaliation (which we would not be able to unleash on them because we’d be too incapacitated if they struck first), we must await their attack on us and then fight a world war if enough of us still exist and can do it but more likely simply be wiped out …
Sorry to break it to you, Jeanne, but your scenarios are big imaginative fails.
No, that isn’t exactly what I mean. Any nation that strikes first will be in the same scenario, so it is to be avoided at all costs by sane governments.
So…there is the dilemma. Which is why we are so at risk with this weak-minded and weak-bodied president and government.
If you noticed, Congress and other leaders in the US have failed to address the weakness and vulnerability of our electric grid to either an EMP or a hacking.
Weak and foolish leaves us open to attack and striking first leaves us open to attack.
Tidbits:
Currently, the nations of Russia and China have the technology to launch an EMP attack, and we have speculated that Iran and North Korea may be developing EMP weapon technology. This is why we must remain vigilant in our efforts to mitigate the effects of an EMP attack.
The time that it would take to recover from a nuclear EMP attack has generally been estimated to be anywhere from two months to ten years.
Nuclear weapon EMPs are most effective when detonated high in the altitude above the intended target. Depending on the yield of the weapon and the height of the explosion, nuclear EMPs can destroy large portions of the U.S. power and communications infrastructure.
As recently as this Fall, those that have been sounding the alarm for many years were still very disappointed in Congresses response.
The bit about 2 months to 10 years for a global recovery should leave out the 2 months part. I have no idea how long a global blackout would last, because first there would be worldwide chaos in all industrialized nations and famine in nations that might depend upon them. Billions of deaths within the first year, millions within the first hours, 100s of thousands within the first second…and that is probably way, way to low on all scales.
Jeezus Chripes! Harden the grid, already! That would be a great “federal project bringing thousands of jobs”. Then, you know…secure the border, throw out the felonious illegals, arrest the bad guys, upgrade the navy, drill and frack, ditch the hackable EVs, bring back the warriors, and put the woke on an anesthesia drip.
