Follow by Email

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Armageddon Hypothetical

Mulling it Over,

"Brink of nuclear war" is a phrase that has lost it's effect on Americans, isn't it? It is still important to Koreans, Russians and Chinese. There is a lot of worry on the part of the three nations which directly border North Korea, real, rational worry about American hubris. The American analysis seems to be that all of the bad things will happen over there, and that the North Koreans probably don't have an effective way to go nuclear on anybody but South Koreans. The stakes are very high, but since the consequences are to be born by Koreans, Russians and Chinese, American policy treats them with cavalier disregard.

The US is actually sending three aircraft carrier task forces to the Sea of Japan, the Carl Vinson, we know about, but also the Nimitz and the Ronald Reagan are also headed there by late April. This is absolutely massive nuclear firepower, conventional firepower, electronic warfare capability, guided missile cruisers, everything. This "armada" is out of reach of North Korean defenses, can destroy the country upon one command, and only Koreans, Chinese and Russians will suffer (though Japanese are nervous).

Now consider this:
"In a situation like this, the strategy of Moscow and its allies is to produce weapons systems capable of inflicting considerable damage to the United States at low cost, given that Moscow cannot simply print more money and pour debt on the rest of the world in order to finance its wars. A great example of this can be seen with the anti-ship missiles Moscow possesses, which are capable of destroying American aircraft carriers, considered the backbone of the US war strategy. A missile that costs hundreds of thousand of euros can cause damage to an aircraft carrier worth tens of billions of dollars, inflicting a mortal blow to the credibility of American military posture."

I have no link for this next thought, which is that American actions are hubris in the classical sense, as this country creates false flag attacks with chemical weapons on civilians, which are sloppy and obviously staged, and brazenly declares them to be the fault of Syria, which has no chemical weapons, and launches a reprisal attack on Syria to make a demonstration to the world that truth matters not at all against this great power. 
This country is playing lying-hardball with China, Russia and Iran, three ancient and sophisticated civilizations.
This act of the play can be concluded with the great empire completely losing face after attacking North Korea. 
Russia, China and Iran can take a step back and just let North Korea fire some massed batteries of conventional missiles against the American Armada, to be shot down summarily, then appear to do the same thing in another round, but fire multiple hypersonic anti-ship missiles right afterward, to arrive at the same time, while the defenses of the "armada" are already fully engaged. 
North Korea would have defended itself only against the massive "armada", not risking civilians in South Korea.
Any escalation against civilians would be done by the US. Paradigm shift would occur.

Eleni sends this article about the American empire funding all the wars of conquest by use of money loaned by the rest of the world. US military spends about as much as the US collects in ALL personal income taxes each year. (This is possible because of global reserve currency status of the $US, and the fact that the whole world is completely cowed by the US military. What if those conditions suddenly change?)

Pravda says that Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb dropped on Afghanistan was dropped an a very, very well known target.
Meanwhile former CIA agent Edward Snowden revealed what the Americans bombed in Afghanistan in reality. According to him, they struck tunnels building of which was funded by the US. The New York Times has also written that construction of the base for Mujahideen had been funded by the CIA. 

Gordon Duff: "In 1968, Democratic Senator Robert Kennedy, an anti-war candidate, was the front-runner in the presidential race. The party had revolted against President Johnson, forcing him to drop out of contention, and America got behind an anti-war candidate who surged ahead in the polls. He was quickly murdered... One member of congress, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, stands alone against those crying for war with Syria, Russia and Iran. Only Gabbard, has openly criticized President Trump for attacking Syria without evidence."

Life on the Line

No comments:

Post a Comment