{"id":260607,"date":"2022-11-01T08:01:41","date_gmt":"2022-11-01T08:01:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=260607"},"modified":"2022-11-03T08:41:21","modified_gmt":"2022-11-03T08:41:21","slug":"brandons-usable-nukes-are-the-fast-track-to-jopocalypse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=260607","title":{"rendered":"Brandon’s “Usable Nukes” Are the Fast-Track to Jopocalypse"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mike Whitney \u2013 The Unz Review Oct 31, 2022<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\u201cThe Biden administration\u2019s Nuclear Posture Review is, at heart, a terrifying document. It not only keeps the world on a path of increasing nuclear risk, in many ways it increases that risk. Citing rising threats from Russia and China, it argues that the only viable U.S. response is to rebuild the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, maintain an array of dangerous Cold War-era nuclear policies, and threaten the first use of nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.\u201d Stephen Young<\/a>, Union of Concerned Scientists<\/p>\n

Maybe you\u2019re one of the millions of people who think the US would never use its nuclear weapons unless the threat of a nuclear attack was imminent.<\/p>\n

Well, you\u2019d be wrong, because according to the recently-released Nuclear Posture Review, the bar for using nukes has been significantly lowered. The new standard reads like this: (nukes can be used) \u201cin extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cDefend the vital interests of the United States or its allies\u201d??<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a pretty broad net, isn\u2019t it? That could include anything from a serious threat to national security to an ordinary economic competitor. And that loosy-goosy definition appears to be just what the authors were looking for. The hardliners wanted to fundamentally change US nuclear doctrine so the conditions under which nukes could be used was greatly expanded. The obvious objective of this dramatic policy-shift is to eliminate any obstacle to the free and unfettered use of nuclear weapons. Which is precisely what the neocons have always wanted; a green light to Armageddon. Now they got what they wanted. Here are a few of the changes in policy that suggest that a full-blown nuclear war is no longer a remote possibility, but an increasingly likely prospect.<\/p>\n

1\u2013 First-Strike Use: Biden refuses to rule out first-strike use of US nuclear weapons<\/strong> \u2026in reversal of his campaign promise. This is from The Daily Mail:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 on the campaign trail, Biden had vowed to switch to a \u2018sole purpose\u2019 doctrine, which maintains that the US would only use nuclear weapons to respond to another nation\u2019s nuclear attack\u2026.<\/p>\n

President Joe Biden<\/a> is abandoning a campaign vow<\/strong> to alter longstanding US nuclear doctrine, and will instead embrace existing policy that reserves America\u2019s right to use nukes in a first-strike scenario<\/strong>, according to multiple reports.\u201d (Daily Mail<\/a>)<\/p>\n

2\u2013 Nuclear Escalation: The Biden team has accelerated the deployment of modernized U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons to NATO bases in Europe. <\/strong>(The B61-12 carries a lower yield nuclear warhead than earlier versions but is more accurate and can penetrate below ground.) This is from Reuters:<\/p>\n

Russia said on Saturday that the accelerated deployment of modernised U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Europe would lower the \u201cnuclear threshold\u201d <\/strong>and that Russia would take the move into account in its military planning.<\/p>\n

Amid the Ukraine crisis, Politico reported<\/a> on Oct. 26 that the United States told a closed NATO meeting this month that it would accelerate the deployment of a modernised version of the B61, the B61-12, with the new weapons arriving at European bases in December, several months earlier than planned.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe cannot ignore the plans to modernize nuclear weapons,<\/strong> those free-fall bombs that are in Europe,\u201d Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told state RIA news agency.<\/strong> (Reuters<\/a>)<\/p>\n

3\u2013 \u2018Tactical\u2019 means \u2018Usable\u2019: Biden\u2019s new regime of low-yield nukes <\/strong>(which can still blow up a city the size of New York.) are called \u201ctactical\u201d weapons because they are designed for use on the battlefield, which is to say, Biden no longer limits the use of nukes for national defense but also supports their use in conventional wars<\/strong>. (like Ukraine?) This is from Aljazeera:<\/p>\n

\u201cTactical nuclear warheads were created to give military commanders more flexibility on the battlefield. <\/strong>In the mid-1950s, as more powerful thermonuclear bombs were being built and tested, military planners thought smaller weapons with a shorter range would be more useful in \u2018tactical\u2019 situations,\u201d according to Al Jazeera\u2019s defence analyst<\/a> Alex Gatopoulos. (Aljazeera) <\/a><\/p>\n

4\u2013 Fasttrack to Nuclear War: Biden\u2019s New Euro-Nukes have lowered the threshold for nuclear war. This is from MSN:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Russia said on Saturday that the accelerated deployment of modernized US B61 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Europe would lower the \u201cnuclear threshold\u201d and that Russia would take the move into account in its military planning\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cThe United States is modernizing them, increasing their accuracy and reducing the power of the nuclear charge, that is, they turn these weapons into \u2018battlefield weapons\u2019, thereby reducing the nuclear threshold,\u201d Grushko said\u2026.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2026<\/p>\n

Russia\u2019s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, said on Saturday on Telegram that the new B61 bombs had a \u201cstrategic significance\u201d as Russia\u2019s tactical nuclear weapons were in storage, yet these U.S. bombs would be just a short flight from Russia\u2019s borders.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWe cannot ignore the plans to modernize nuclear weapons, those free-fall bombs that are in Europe,\u201d Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told state RIA news agency. (MSM<\/a>)<\/p>\n

5\u2013 Increasing the Reasons for using Nukes: <\/strong>The Nuclear Posture Review abandons Biden\u2019s promise to ensure that US nuclear weapons would be used for the \u201csole purpose\u201d of deterring or responding to a nuclear attack. <\/strong>Instead, the NPR states that the US will consider the use of nuclear weapons \u201cin extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sole purpose could significantly reduce the risk of unintended escalation <\/strong>and increase the credibility of more flexible and realistic nonnuclear response options in a range of importance contingencies.\u201d (Federation of American Scientists<\/a>)<\/p>\n

6\u2013 More Escalation: The US now reserves the right to use its nukes against non-nuclear weapon countries. <\/strong>This is from an article at Bloomberg News:<\/p>\n

The Pentagon\u2019s new National Defense Strategy rejected limits on using nuclear weapons long championed by arms control advocates and in the past by President Joe Biden.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Citing burgeoning threats from China and Russia, the Defense Department said in the document released Thursday that \u201cby the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries.\u201d In response, the US will \u201cmaintain a very high bar for nuclear employment\u201d without ruling out using the weapons in retaliation to a non-nuclear strategic threat to the homeland, US forces abroad or allies.\u201d <\/strong>(\u201cPentagon\u2019s Strategy Won\u2019t Rule Out Nuclear Use Against Non-Nuclear Threats\u201d<\/a>, Bloomberg)<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s more from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>In the Defense Department briefing, this point is elaborated. The NPR,<\/strong> a department official stated, \u201cestablishes a strategy that relies on nuclear weapons to deter all forms of strategic attack<\/strong>. This includes nuclear employment of any scale, and it includes high-consequence attacks of a strategic nature that use non-nuclear means.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The publication of the document was rapidly condemned by arms control experts. \u201cThe Biden administration\u2019s unclassified Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is, at heart, a terrifying document,\u201d <\/strong>wrote the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).<\/p>\n

\u201cIt not only keeps the world on a path of increasing nuclear risk, in many ways it increases that risk,\u201d<\/strong> the UCS argued, by claiming that \u201cthe only viable U.S. response is to rebuild the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, maintain an array of dangerous Cold War-era nuclear policies, and threaten the first use of nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.\u201d\u2026<\/p>\n

This marks a significant development from Trump\u2019s 2018 National Defense Strategy, which largely referred to the use of military force to secure economic interests in the negative\u2014asserting that it was China that was doing so. While this was the clear implication of the 2018 document, the definition of \u201cnational interests\u201d advanced by the Pentagon\u2019s 2022 document to include \u201ceconomic prosperity\u201d constitutes an even more open step toward advocating the doctrine that war is an acceptable means to secure economic aims.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A section of the 2022 National Defense Strategy:<\/strong><\/p>\n

These documents, which were not seriously discussed in the US media, make clear the fundamental falsehood that the massive US military buildup this year is a response to \u201cRussian aggression.\u201d<\/strong> In reality, in the thinking of the White House and Pentagon war planners, the massive increases in military spending and plans for war with China are created by \u201cdramatic changes in geopolitics, technology, economics, and our environment.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

These documents make clear that the United States sees the economic rise of China as an existential threat, to be responded to with the threat of military force. The United States sees the subjugation of Russia as a critical stepping stone toward the conflict with China.\u201d (\u201cPentagon national strategy document targets China\u201d,<\/a> Andre Damon, World Socialist Web Site)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The White House, the Pentagon and the entire US foreign policy establishment now march in lockstep behind the most fanatically-lethal defense policy in the nation\u2019s 246-year history. The National Defense Strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review and the National Security Strategy all embrace the same reckless warmongering policy that will inevitably lead to mass annihilation and civilizational collapse. The doves and critical thinkers have all been removed from the foreign policy apparatus while the madmen and warhawks drag the world inexorably towards catastrophe. God help us.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Washington and the entire US foreign policy establishment now march in lockstep behind the most lethal defense policy in America\u2019s 246-year history. The doves and critical thinkers have all been removed from the foreign policy apparatus while the madmen and warhawks drag the world inexorably towards catastrophe<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":260612,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[41,91],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260607","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-Inside_the_White_House_and_Washingtons_Beltway","category-russia"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260607","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=260607"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260607\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":260613,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260607\/revisions\/260613"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/260612"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=260607"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=260607"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=260607"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}