#mad mutually assured destruction nukes

[garudabluffs]

those who can afford nuclear weapons CANNOT afford to turn Swords into ploughshares is a concept in which military weapons or technologies are converted for peaceful civilian applications.

A nuclear holocaust, also known as a nuclear apocalypse, nuclear annihilation, nuclear armageddon, or atomic holocaust, is a theoretical scenario where the mass detonation of nuclear weapons causes globally widespread destruction and radioactive fallout.

"The English word "holocaust", derived from the Greek term "holokaustos" meaning "completely burnt", refers to great destruction and loss of life, especially by fire.[7][8]

One early use of the word "holocaust" to describe an imagined nuclear destruction appears in Reginald Glossop's 1926 novel The Orphan of Space: "Moscow ... beneath them ... a crash like a crack of Doom! The echoes of this Holocaust rumbled and rolled ... a distinct smell of sulphur ... atomic destruction."[9] In the novel, an atomic weapon is planted in the office of the Soviet dictator, who, with German help and Chinese mercenaries, is preparing the takeover of Western Europe." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust

New START Treaty

Nuclear weapons: Disarmament is a thing of the past June 13, 2022

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute warns of a new worldwide nuclear arms race, with China rushing ahead. Activists in the anti-nuclear movement are becoming lonely figures.

"The "New Start" agreement — the "Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty" — expires in 2026. Of what was once a comprehensive system of arms control treaties, "New Start" is the only remaining element. It limits the number of strategic nuclear weapons such as long-range missiles. "Given Russia's Ukraine war and the evolution of the Republican Party in the US, a successor agreement is unlikely," Kristensen believes."

READ MORE https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-weapons-disarmament-is-a-thing-of-the-past/a-62092327

arms control dialogue VICIOUS CYCLE recycled DISARMAMENT?

"I will if you will."

<after you>

"you first"

< I dare you>

"I double-dare you"

<double-darers go first>

After a dare has been made the darer can then raise the stakes by double daring the daree, meaning that if the dare is carried out by the darer then the daree will also perform the task.

I DARE you to reduce your stockpile of nuclear weapons despite there being any number of bad actors who to their advantage...

"Mutual assured destruction, often abbreviated as MAD, it is part of the military strategy of deterrence."

"For instance, a 2012 study by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists found that just 100 nuclear detonations of the size that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki would usher in a planetary nuclear winter, which would drop temperatures lower than they were in the Little Ice Age, Live Science previously reported.)"

"But the threat of nuclear annihilation remains real. The Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit founded in 1945 by scientists and engineers who had worked on the Manhattan Project to develop the first nuclear bomb, reports that as of early 2022, about 12,700 nuclear warheads are possessed today by nine countries: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Most of them are held by the United States and Russia, which have about 4,000 warheads each. And according to a 2018 scientific study in the journal Safety, that's enough to wipe out almost all of us."

READ MORE https://www.livescience.com/mutual-assured-destruction

[kokichispanta]

Every DSMP duo (Tell me if I missed some and I'll add them)

Bedrock Bros - Technoblade & TommyInnit

Bee Duo - Ranboo & Tubbo

Allium Duo - Ranboo & TommyInnit

TNT Duo - Quackity & Wilbur Soot

Clingy Duo - Tubbo & TommyInnit

Crime Boys - Wilbur Soot & TommyInnit

Disc Duo - TommyInnit & Dream

Devil Duo - TommyInnit & Drista

Endersmile - Ranboo & Dream

Emerald Duo - Technoblade & Philza

Rocket Duo - Nihachu(Niki) & Jack Manifold

Cookie Duo - Ranboo & Slimecicle

Sweater Duo - Jschlatt & Wilbur Soot

Taller Duo - Ranboo & Wilbur Soot

Sand Duo - Philza & Wilbur Soot

Memory Duo - Karl Jacobs & Ranboo

Deity Duo - Dream XD & Foolish

Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD) Duo - Dream & Wilbur Soot

Angel Duo - TommyInnit & Philza

BBQ - BadBoyHalo & Quackity

Lovers Duo - Mamacita(Girl Dream) & Mexican Dream

Pumpkin Duo - Quackity & Jschlatt

Quirky Duo - Wilbur Soot & Tubbo

Firefly Duo - Tubbo & Dream

Hotel Duo - Awesamdude(Sam) & TommyInnit

Nuke Duo - Jack Manifold & Tubbo

Staged Duo - Punz & Dream

Golden Boys Duo - TommyInnit & Purpled

Squeaky Duo - TommyInnit & GeorgeNotFound

Uncles Duo - Jschlatt & Philza

Meow Duo - Wilbur Soot & GeorgeNotFound

Happy Duo - Skeppy & BadBoyHalo

Dap Duo - Quackity & Slimecicle

Vault Duo - Awesamdude(Sam) & Dream

Sunrise Duo - Technoblade & Nihachu(Niki)

Treasure Duo - Sapnap & Ranboo

Boat Duo - Foolish & Ranboo

Pyro Duo - Sapnap & TommyInnit

Prey Duo - Technoblade & Quackity

Eternal Duo - Foolish & Eret

Ping Pong Duo - Punz & Ponk

Calamity Duo - Quackity & TommyInnit

Therapy Duo - TommyInnit & Puffy

Cuck Duo - ConnorEatsPants & Jschlatt

Honk Duo - Karl & Quackity

Supreme Duo - GeorgeNotFound & Ponk

Assassin Duo - Quackity & Purpled

Bitter Duo - Jack Manifold & TommyInnit

Peer Pressure Duo - Technoblade & Ranboo

Twin Duo - Technoblade & Wilbur

Scam Duo - TommyInnit & Jschaltt

Orphan Duo - Skeppy & Technoblade

Cabinet Duo - Quackity & Tubbo

Button Duo - Eret & Wilbur Soot

Rivals Duo - Technoblade & Dream

Fireworks Duo - Tubbo & Technoblade

Grime Duo - Slimecicle & TommyInnit

Apple Duo - Slimecicle & Jschlatt

Rain Duo - Wilbur Soot & Nihachu(Niki)

FireFox Duo - Seapeekay(CPK) & Sapnap

Mercenary Duo - Punz & Purpled

Fun Duo - Eryn & TommyInnit

Glow Duo - Ranboo & Aimsey

Piss Duo - Seapeekay(CPK) & Dream

Neighbors Duo - Purpled & TommyInnit

Short Duo - Quackity & GeorgeNotFound

Spring Duo - Aimsey & Tubbo

Jaffa Cake Duo - GeorgeNotFound & Tubbo

Comfy Duo - Tubbo & Sapnap

Loud Duo - Dream & Quackity

Rose Duo - Dream & Hannah

Octopus Duo - Nihachu(Niki) & TommyInnit

Earth Duo - Dream & GeorgeNotFound

Pickle Duo - TommyInnit & Foolish

Icy Duo - Fundy & Ranboo

Horns Duo - Tubbo & Jschlatt

Citrus Duo - Fundy & Dream

Homie Duo - Karl & Sapnap

Coconut Duo - Nihachu(Niki) & Fundy

Chair Duo - Nihachu(Niki) & Ranboo

Ducky Duo - Skeppy & Quackity

Giggle Duo - Aimsey & TommyInnit

Hell Duo - Jack Manifold & Sapnap

Hibernation Duo - GeorgeNotFound & Technoblade

Pet Duo - Technoblade & Sapnap

Land Duo - Foolish & BadBoyHalo

Loan Shark Duo - Foolish & Quackity

Orange Duo - Sapnap & TinaKitten

Sunshine Duo - GeorgeNotFound & TinaKitten

White Eyes Duo - Eret & BadBoyHalo

Heart Duo - TommyInnit & Eret

Sugar Duo - Dream & TinaKitten

Prank Duo - Eret & Fundy

Star Duo - Foolish & TinaKitten

Parents Duo - Kristin(Mumza) & Philza

Scar Duo - Awesamdude(Sam) & Quackity

Bug Duo - Ranboo & Punz

Birthday Duo - Beautie(Beau) & Tubbo

Pun Duo - Beautie(Beau) & Ranboo

Musically Duo - Tommyinnit & Beautie(Beau)

Boat Duo - Ranboo & Foolish

Nether Duo - Badboyhalo & Jack Manifold

[darkmaga-retard]

Michel Chossudovsky

By William M Arkin and Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Introductory Note 

This incisive article by William Arkin summarizes the key elements of America’s nuclear doctrine, formulated both before and in the immediate wake of September 11, 2001. 

The article was originally published by the Los Angeles Times on March 10, 2002, a few months prior to the official release of the infamous 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) of the Cold War era has been indefinitely scrapped.

The NPR 2001 confirms America’s foreign policy stance:

the pre-emptive use of nukes as a means of “self-defense” against both nuclear and non-nuclear states.   Nuclear weapons are also slated to be used in the conventional war theater. 

Post Cold War Nuclear Doctrine. NPR 2001 (Drafted 23 Years Ago) Sets the Stage

Let us be under no illusions. 

Today, nuclear war is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.

The 2001 NPR (full document) released (officially) in July 2002 is of utmost significance. It determines America’s nuclear doctrine. It has a direct bearing on our understanding of the war in Ukraine, and the danger of a World War III scenario. For details, see  also NPR 2001 (excerpts by FAS).    

The geopolitics of America’s nuclear doctrine (NPR 2001) are outlined: Russia and the “Axis of Evil”, China and the status of Taiwan, Israel, Iran and the Middle East, North Korea.

The modalities consist in integrating a new category of nuclear weapons (allegedly safe for the surrounding civilian population) into the conventional war arsenal.

[william-r-melich]

A Two-Word Solution - 04/15/2024

I hate all this war stuff. I wasn't looking forward to writing this article, but it is something I must do. We find ourselves as a country in a precarious situation of teetering on the edge of being pulled into a major, global conflict. I gathered some information from Joshua Philipp's podcast on Epoch Times, Crossroads. He read the following from an article in the "Express" in UK, published at 10:12 (their local time) on Sunday, April 14, 2024, updated the same day at 12:06.

"The possibility of Iran ramping up its enrichment activities to acquire a nuclear weapon has sent shockwaves through the region and in the West."

"Iran has already vowed to launch a 'stronger' offensive against Israel's response to Saturday's attack."

"A new government-funded billboard in Palestine Square in Tehran was unveiled last night after Iran launched hundreds of drones, missiles, and rockets at Israel with Hebrew text."

"Senior Iranian figures have urged Supreme Leader Khamenei to reconsider the country's stance on nuclear weapons, with calls to cancel the existing fatwa against their assembly."

"The shift in rhetoric has led to speculation in the West about Iran's intentions and the Supreme Leader's willingness to entertain the idea of pursuing nuclear armament."

"Mahmoud-Reza Aghamir, a prominent nuclear physics professor with ties to the Iranian regime, further fueled suspicions by suggesting that 'it would be a lot easier to build a bomb than to keep holding so much enriched uranium at high levels.'"

"Iran's possession of 150 Kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent" (which is the threshold for Israel to send counter attacks against Iran.) "has raised alarms about the potential for weaponization."

"Israel is closely monitoring these developments, aware that any move towards nuclear capabilities by Iran could prompt a significant military response from the United States."

"The fear is that Iran could discretely advance its nuclear program, leaving intelligence agencies as the only means of detecting such activities."

Sounds pretty iffy to me, a lot of what they could do. Yet, I suppose Israel needs to error on the side of pre-empting any possible nuclear attack. After Iran sent over 200 missiles and drones toward Israel, Israel, the U.S., and other allies knocked down 99% of them, leaving very little damage and seriously injuring a 10 year-old girl. My heart and thoughts go out to her and her family, I hope she'll be okay.

On his podcast this morning, Joshua Philipp had stated that the United States policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is no longer in place. So, if a country uses a nuclear bomb on us or one of our major allies, then we would nuke them. When Russia threatened had threatened to possibly nuke Ukraine, the U.S. only threatened Russia with "economic and diplomatic harm." That's too weak of a response, in my opinion. So, if they use a nuke, we'll use a money-clip. Hell, we might as well use a paperclip.

I caught an informative article on Josh's show this morning which came from Time magazine back in November 2022, the headline reads:

"World Leaders Condemn Putin's War, Nuclear Threats Amid Pressure Campaign Against Russia"

"The U.S. and other world leaders issued a joint declaration Wednesday condemning Russia's War in Ukraine and denouncing threats of using nuclear weapons, an intimidation tactic that's become commonplace for Russian President Vladimir Putin since launching his invasion nine months ago."

"'The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible', read the statement, composed by the world's 20 largest economies. 'The peaceful resolution of conflicts, efforts to address crises, as well as diplomacy and dialogue, are vital. Today's era must not be of war.'"

"The 17-page document marks a victory for the Biden Administration and global allies, which sought to end this year's summit in Bali, Indonesia with a statement censuring Russia for its unprovoked military campaign in Ukraine. In recent weeks, the Biden team has launched a discreet, multi-pronged effort to pressure Moscow to dial back the increasingly reckless bluster that has sparked fears the world was nearing the brink of nuclear war."

"Through a series of one-on one discussions and back channels between top U.S. and Russian officials, combined with diplomatic maneuvering with other nations' leaders, the Administration has worked to get Putin and his government to stop threatening the use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine, where Moscow has faced mounting losses, this fall."

"In a rare disclosure on Monday, the White House revealed CIA Director William Burns met with his Russian counterpart Sergey Naryshkin in Ankara, Turkey's capital, to discuss potential costs to the Kremlin if it decides to use a nuclear weapon in the Ukraine conflict. 'He is not conducting negotiations of any kind,' a White House spokeswoman said. 'He is conveying a message on the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, and the risks of escalation to strategic stability.'"

"The same day, President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping issued a joint-statement that said nuclear weapons should never be used, particularly in Ukraine. The rebuke was notworthy considering Beijing has tacitly approved of Putin's actions and shown reticence to join the international community's widespread condemnation of invasion."

"Read more: U.S. Unveils Strategy Threats from China and Russia."

"The message the U.S. seeks to send is clear: if Moscow goes nuclear in Ukraine, it will only experience further economic and diplomatic isolation on the world stage. There are indications that the strategy, which has gathered momentum behind the scenes since late September after Putin illegally annexed four occupied regions of Ukraine then suggested he'd defend the territory with nuclear arms, may be working. Putin back tracked late last month by stating Russia would gain nothing through launching a nuclear strike. 'We see no need for that,' he said October 27 at a conference of international foreign policy experts. 'There is no point in that, neither political nor military.'"

"Concerned observers are cautiously optimistic that the U.S. approach will continue to draw Putin away from the nuclear threshold, but they worry about the ongoing instability of relation between the world's foremost nuclear powers. 'The Biden team has been effective in cautioning Putin not to cross the nuclear line, warning of the consequences, and quietly encouraging others with influence like China to provide similar messages to Putin. They've done this very adeptly while avoiding provocations,' says Lynn Rusten, vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative and former senior official on arms control." In my opinion, I think this writer is being too kind to Briben (Biden). I really don't think he's effective in deterring Putin's aggression.

This next article just came out in the Epoch Times: "Israel Announces It Will Respond to Iran Missile Attack as Airlines Cancel Flights to Region." It begins with this: "Israel's miliary chief said on April 15 that Israel will respond to Iran's missile and drone attack, but it's not clear how or when."

"Herzi Halevi, head of the Israel Defense Forces, told reporters that Iran's strikes "will be met with a response" without elaborating. He spoke during a visit to the Nevatim air base, which Israel sayts suffered light damage in the Iranian attack.

“Iran wanted to harm the strategic capabilities of the State of Israel—that is something that had not happened before. We were prepared for the ‘Iron Shield’ operation—preparation that brought Iran to also meet air superiority,” he said. “Last Monday, we saw what was being organized, and we think that the State of Israel is very strong and knows how to deal with it alone, but with a threat so numerous and so far away, we are always happy to have [the United States] with us. Looking ahead, we are considering our steps, and this launch of so many missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs into the territory of the State of Israel will be met with a response.”

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been huddling with top officials to discuss a possible response to Iran’s attack involving hundreds of drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles."

"Iran’s attack on April 13 was the first time Tehran directly targeted Israel since the current regime took over in 1979. However, the country has been engaged in proxy attacks against both Israel and the United States originating from a number of Middle Eastern countries."

"On April 15, a number of airline companies canceled or delayed flights again after the Iranian missile and drone attack. United Airlines and Air Canada, notably, canceled some flights into Tel Aviv as well as flights into Jordan."

"Iranian officials said the attack was carried out in response to an Israeli airstrike on April 1 on a Syrian compound that left two Iranian generals and other officials dead."

"'Our response will be much larger than tonight’s military action if Israel retaliates against Iran,' armed forces chief of staff Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri told state-run media in articles published on April 14. He claimed that Iran warned the United States through Switzerland that any support of an Israeli counterattack against Iran would lead to American assets being targeted."

"After the drones and missiles were launched, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard issued a direct warning to the United States through state-run IRNA that the 'U.S. government is warned any support or participation in harming Iran’s interests will be followed by decisive and regretting response by Iran’s armed forces.'"

U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said this on April 15 on whether the U.S. will be briefed on any response plans of Israel: "We will let the Israelis speak to that. "We are not involved in their decision-making process about a potential response."

"The Iranian attack on April 13 was the first time that Iran has launched a direct military assault on Israel, despite decades of enmity dating back to the country’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. The attack happened less than two weeks after a suspected Israeli strike in Syria that killed two Iranian generals in an Iranian consular building."

"Israel’s military stated that its Arrow system, which shoots down ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere, handled most interceptions and noted that 'strategic partners' were involved."

"U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement that U.S. military forces 'intercepted dozens of missiles and UAVs en route to Israel, launched from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen,' referring to a term used for unmanned aerial vehicles."

"'At my direction, to support the defense of Israel, the U.S. military moved aircraft and ballistic missile defense destroyers to the region over the course of the past week,' President Joe Biden said in a separate statement over the past weekend. “Thanks to these deployments and the extraordinary skill of our service members, we helped Israel take down nearly all of the incoming drones and missiles."

"Israel and Iran have been on a collision course throughout Israel’s six-month war against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip after members of the group carried out a cross-border attack that left more than 1,200 civilians dead. More than 250 people were kidnapped during the Oct. 7, 2023, incident, according to officials. Israel’s government is still negotiating with Hamas for the release of the remaining hostages."

"The Associated Press contributed to this report."

With the weakness of the current appeaser-in-thief, Shmoe Briben (Joe Biden), this is absolutely the worst time for an imminent threat of a world war, let alone a nuclear one. I see this compromised-corrupt-oatmeal-for-brains-commie-ander-in-disbelief as not doing any affective deterrence, lying all the time and saying all the wrong things as he makes everything about himself on what a great job he's doing; all the while he's really been doing everything possible to cause this horrible situation which never would have happened under Donald Trump. Yes, most definitely he caused this dumb war by funding a major adversary of ours with billions of dollars which went directly to the terrorists who barbarically raped, tortured, and murdered so many innocent Israeli citizens; men, women, and children: brutally cutting out eyes, chopping off limbs, burning and beheading babies. Briben has a lot of blood on his hands which makes me both sickened and angry to the core. This kid-sniffing, corrupt bag of a rotting maggot, sub-human creature in the White House; wantonly funding such demon-savage, terrorist thugs is a heinous act driven by stupidity on steroids on a level of evil that falls perpetually deep into the infinite pits of darkness...

Yet, my hope is that I'm wrong in assuming that he'll not do enough of the right thing, and too much of the wrong thing to prevent a major global conflict. Realistically, I don't think it will come to that because Iran has to know that in spite of all the wokeness in our military at the top ranks, we would wipe them off the map in a direct war with them. I believe that China is waiting in the wings for us to get involved with at least a couple more wars while being hit with multiple, domestic terror attacks so that we'll be distracted and spread out thinly enough to give them a better chance at defeating us. We must make it to the election this November and get Trump re-elected. We must defeat Shmoe Briben, as Trump says, "get out of here, you're fired!" If we don't, we'll be seriously futticked! What a mess! Aside from the obvious, needed act of cutting off all the funding to Iran and their terrorist proxies, I have a simple, 2-word solution; stop fighting!

[nicklloydnow]

“It is no longer a policy of escalating to de-escalate. Rather, as the West becomes inured to Russia’s failures on the conventional battlefield, a nuclear war keeps coming up as Russia’s veiled threat each time a new battlefield capability is provided to Ukraine. The threat is so persistent as to merit a new title for the old fable: “The Bear who Cried Wolf.”

Indeed, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev did it again last Sunday, declaring that the Kremlin would unleash a “global nuclear fire” if Ukraine were to prevail in its ongoing NATO-backed counteroffensive.

(…)

Would Putin do it? For context, he does have a track record of foreshadowing his future moves by packaging them in myths, historical justifications and religious symbolism. In risk-assessing the likelihood of Armageddon, we should not readily dismiss this course of action.

(…)

So, what is the purpose behind Putin’s tacit approval of Russian state-controlled media raising the specter of nuclear war?

In late May of this year, as one example, Vladimir Solovyov, Putin’s best-known propagandist, invoked Armageddon yet again on his Russia One nightly evening television show. According to Julia Davis, a Russian media expert and columnist for The Daily Beast, one of his guests characterized winning or losing the war in Ukraine in stark apocalyptic terms and as “a question of our destruction.”

The why is simple enough. Putin has two audiences. First, his propaganda machine needs to reassure Russians, increasingly bewildered by Moscow’s military setbacks in Ukraine. For them, nuclear weapons are like a teddy bear, a comforting reminder that they cannot ever lose.

Conversely Putin needs to convince the world that Mother Russia just might be crazy enough to trigger Armageddon. Hence the nearly endless parade of Mad Hatters on Russian state-controlled television and radio singing the virtues of Armageddon as a last resort, just as Medvedev did on Sunday. The fearmongering also has a grassroots component, in the form of Russian disinformation on social media.

What goes unsaid is that, if Russia wants to win, Putin cannot use his nuclear arsenal. That would be game over not only for the West, but for him as well.

(…)

Is Russia’s Armageddon gambit working? Arguably, yes it is. Putin has yet to toppled. The Biden Administration, since day one, has been gripped with escalation paralysis, not only due to Putin’s threats of nuclear Armageddon, but also for fear of who might succeed him were Ukraine to win outright.

In that regard, paradoxically, Putin’s inculcation of the West with a fear of a nuclear doomsday has partially insulated him from losing.

Some will argue that with nukes, Russia could end the war in an hour without regard to a U.S. or NATO response — the mutually assured destruction course of action. But ending the war in that manner means ending Russia as well, and Putin understands that.

Putin is indeed planning Armageddon, but not as we envisioned it. It is probably not a nuclear Armageddon, but an ideological one. His designs and hopes for victory in Ukraine are predicated upon the West caving to his doomsday threats, in the process destroying our own liberty just so we can survive in a totalitarian-controlled world.

If that happens, it be our own self-inflicted Armageddon.”

“But Polischuk told the Russian state news agency that the deployment of the weapons was "in response to the long-term destabilizing nuclear policy of NATO and Washington and the fundamental changes that have recently taken place in key areas of European security."

"This forced containment measure is designed to ensure the security of the Union State, which, as you know, has a common defense space," he said. The Union State is an economic and defense union between Minsk and Moscow.

He said that the "hypothetical withdrawal" of Russian tactical nuclear weapons from Belarus would "only be possible if the United States and NATO abandon their destructive course of purposefully undermining the security of Russia and Belarus."

"This implies the complete withdrawal of all U.S. nuclear weapons to US territory and the elimination of the corresponding infrastructure in Europe," added Polischuk, director of the foreign ministry's department of CIS (ex-Soviet) countries.

(…)

Putin has said that the transfer of nuclear weapons to Belarus would be completed by the end of summer. Lukashenko told reporters in June his top officials had been tasked with "determining the algorithm for applying" the weapons.

However, experts have cast doubt on Lukashenko being able to use the weapons because it would be highly unlikely that he or his military would have access to their permissive action links (PAL), which prevents their unauthorized detonation.

(…)

However, she said the transfer of missiles with a 300-mile range close to the Lithuanian and Polish borders is "cause for regional concern" and "intensifies the regional situation regarding nuclear weapons in Europe."”

[bearkunin]

Mad about MAD

I have a need to shout this into the void: One of the biggest myths in the common discourse of nuclear strategy is to do with MAD. The idea behind MAD is that if both you and your opponent were doomed to fail, to complete utter annihilation, then you would never use nuclear weapons.

One thing though: MAD as a doctrine or strategy does not exist, and has never existed mutually. The Soviets had plans for battlefield use of nuclear weapons. They thought if push came to shove in Europe, they would be able to use nuclear weapons and this would not be assured destruction on themselves. You're not slapping tactical nuclear ammunition into specially-designed artillery aimed at infantry in the Fulda Gap if you plan on Moscow being turned into cinders by strategic nuclear ICBMs.

The current Russian government practices war games with tactical nuclear weapons (which it has a variety of) all of which is a massive waste of time and money if you are following a doctrine of MAD. Russian nuclear strategy through the 1990s and 2000s involved the idea of escalate-to-deescalate, which is impossible to reconcile with MAD.

The United States itself has not believed in mutually assured destruction for over half a century. In the 1960s they shifted away from massive escalation to a posture of flexible use. Every development of smaller yield nuclear warheads, every dollar spent on ballistic missile defence, every public statement on nuclear weapons for the past sixty years, is all running counter to an idea of MAD. The US refusal to commit to a no-first-use policy isn't entirely against MAD, but does show they want to keep the door open for other purposes.

Pretty much all effort in nuclear strategy for many decades has been ways to conceive of ways to use nuclear weapons that would not assure mutual destruction. If China uses a tactical nuclear weapon to take out an aircraft carrier, America wants ways to respond that will not "assure" that the United States is wiped off the map. In fact, promising to end the whole world over a a tactical nuke in the South China Sea seems so incredible it would probably be taken literally as such: not credible. This in turn is what can increase the risk of nuclear weapon usage.

The United States wants defences, it wants flexible responses that will not escalate the situation beyond all hope. If you nuke one of our carriers, we can nuke one of yours. Escalation Dominance or Escalation Ladders are the buzzwords of today, not MAD.

It is the ability to respond flexibly, not to assure mutual destruction, that is at the heart of modern nuclear deterrence.

[loneberry]

Nuclear War (again)

“Nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.” —John F. Kennedy

On NPR Up First this morning there is an interview with nuclear expert Matthew Bunn from the Harvard Kennedy School, who puts the odds of Putin using nukes at 10 - 20 percent. This is not comforting at all. Even 2 percent is too high.

Some say: Putin won’t use nukes because doing so is irrational—NATO would put him in his place. Well, invading Ukraine was irrational. Implementing a broad conscription was irrational. Yet the most hawkish military commentators inside Russia are consistently getting their way, and they’re now clamoring for the use of nukes. If Putin is faced with battlefield defeat and/or the defeat of his regime, I’m not sure he would see the use of nukes as the most irrational option, especially since every move he makes is predicated on the belief that the west is weak and cowardly.

Let’s play this out. If Putin uses tactical nukes in Ukraine, what will the response be? The most hawkish members of NATO will likely respond militarily. If Poland or one of the Baltic states strikes Russian targets or gets embroiled in a war with Russia, then all of NATO (including the US) will be dragged in under Article 5 of NATO (the principle of collective defense). The distance on the escalation ladder between “tactical” nukes and ICBMs is short (this is why many reject the term “tactical nuclear weapons” outright and assert that the breaking of the nuclear taboo would be catastrophic). A direct confrontation between nuclear superpowers (Russia and the US) should be avoided at all costs.

Some say, well, NATO doesn’t have to respond with nukes. They could just strike Russian military targets, such as Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, using conventional missiles. Sure. But then NATO is at war with Russia and we are in WWIII, i.e. a direct confrontation between the nuclear superpowers of the US and Russia. We are where we were in the early days of the war when stupid but well-meaning people chanted and tweeted “NATO close the skies!”

Yet Biden resisted those insane cries, which were also coming from Zelenskyy and even some corners of his own administration. It turns out that the only upside of living in a gerontocracy is that Biden has lived through the age of mutually assured destruction. The present never rewards restraint—all incentives push toward the most hawkish posture. But history does reward restraint. Remember General Curtis LeMay hounding John F Kennedy to bomb Cuba’s missile sites and invade Cuba? Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, the psychopathic and grim calculus of Only a third of humanity would be wiped off the planet?

A question remains: What should the US do if Russia uses tactical nukes? First, implement more sanctions on Russia, including secondary sanctions on India and China if they continue to buy discounted Russian oil. (Though China and India might voluntarily ditch Russia if they used nukes.) Second, supply more arms to Ukraine, including missile defense systems and potentially more powerful arms. Such a move would still be escalatory but potentially the least escalatory of all the options. Ukraine has a highly effective military that has proven they can make good use of western-supplied arms. And of course, the goal at every juncture should be a negotiated settlement and end to this madness.

[prepareforcollapse]

We are about to enter a new nuclear age.

Just over 77 years ago we entered into a new age of nuclear warfare. With the dawn of the ICBM age, we success averted nuclear war only by the madness of mutually assured destruction.

Two times in history we were on the brink and the doctrine of MAD saved the world. First between October 16, 1962 and October 29, 1962. The second time in 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, also during a similar timeframe from October 6- October 25.

We are as close to nuclear annihilation now as we were those years ago, but the public is much less aware, and I think this time, we will likely see a nuclear exchange at some level.

Why?

1) The US president has no stomach for nuclear war. Although noble in principle, that attitude almost guarantees that Putin will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons in an effort to win a war in Ukraine. Nuclear deterrent is only a deterrent when all nuclear powers make clear that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with nuclear annihilation. Anything less is no deterrent at all.

2) The US no longer follows a launch on warning strategy. Faced with a full scale attack, the US president would have about 12 minutes to decide how to respond to a nuclear strike, before becoming a victim. Hypersonics (particularly submarine launched ones) and autonomous nuclear torpedos can essentially reduce the response time to zero. Should Putin desire to decapitate US or NATO leadership, he easily can, although I do not think this is likely.

3) Putin is in a corner. He has had not delivered in any of the military or political objectives that were stated at the start of the war in Ukraine. Russia grossly underestimated the West's willingness to support Ukraine with weapons and assistance, and has also grossly overestimated it's own military capabilities.

4) Politically Putin has all but committed to the hardliners in the Kremlin to use nuclear weapons. The sabatage of the Nord Stream pipeline the same week as annexations of parts of Ukraine as sovereign Russian territory are a sign of that commitment. Putin has clearly placed himself in a position where he must win at any cost, and must punish Europeans for their support of Ukraine. He has to make conflict with Russia so unthinkable that European interests will capitulate fully to his demands. He intends to do this by showing his willingness to unleash the nuclear demon, fully aware that he will face no meaningful consequence.

5) the US and NATO are unwilling, and likely unable to mount any response that is politically tenable under the most likely scenarios. Any non nuclear response will be read by the Russians as weakness. And Putin will double down on the nuclear deterrent of his own once he achieved his aims. It will be very hard for the democraticly elected governments of the world to advance any form of nuclear retaliation once the effects of whatever nuke Putin elects to use are seen on TV.

What do I think will happen? Absent a credible threat to Putin's continued existence from the US, I think the following miat likely.

Following Putin's anexation of the additional areas of Ukraine, Putin will demand the immediate and unconditional surrender of all Ukrainian forces. This will be coupled with specific threats to the Ukrainian government and the governments of the nations that support Russia. If Ukraine does not comply (and I have no reason to believe they will), a nuclear attack will be launched. This initial attack, most likely to occur in early to mid October, will target Kyiv, and may include EMP strikes against NATO countries, and possibly even the US, by Russia's mostodern weapons. Putin will want as much media coverage of these events as possible. He will threaten the world with a full force level nuclear exchange of his demands are not met. If the West does not retaliate immediately, the likelihood of nuclear retaliation will rapidly fall to zero as the world deals with the consequences of nuclear weapon use and realizes that Putin's threats are not empty. Any attempt at a decapitation strike, or retaliation will be met with further nuclear weapon usage. Russia will face economic isolation, but a miserable winter in Europe will insure that does not last too long.

I think this course of action is all but inevitable as long as the US and NATO do not commit to defending Ukraine on a nuke for nuke basis, the whole strategy appears to be based around the idea that nuclear exchange is unthinkable to the west and complete necessary under the Russian view.

I hope I am wrong, but I am far more concerned about nuclear war today than I have been at any other time in my life.

[solidwater05]

Unrelated anon, the Exigency keeps referencing nuclear war and at one point it kept repeating "MAD" in morse code, which stands for Mutually Assured Destruction which is a principle in nuclear war where if you nuke certain countries they and their allies will nuke you back and your allies nuke their allies and the world will probably end as a result, so I think it might like war. Not sure.

Yeah but it also said an entire paragraph consisting only of 'my skin is melting'. If it ever liked war, it definitely stopped liking it the second it got attacked

[opedguy]

Petraeus Preaches to Anti-Putin Choir

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Oct. 4, 2022.--Former Centcom Commmander and disgraced CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, 70, continues to opine about the Ukraine War, saying 70-year-old President Vladimir Putin has nowhere to go but down. Yet Petraeus, while CIA Director under former President Barack Obama, shared the CIA’s darkest secrets with the mistress-biographers Paul Broadwell in the biggest breach of CIA secrets and national security in the modern history.  Petraeus breaches with Broadwell so far exceed anything former President Donald Trump did at Mar-a-Lago, it’s not even close.  Yet with so many discredited officials, they get back in the news.  Petraeus has been saying that if Putin uses tactical nuclear weapons, the U.S. and NATO would wipe out his army and naval forces in Ukraine, something so preposterous it’s absurd.  Petraeus knows about Mutual Assured Destruction [MAD].

Petraeus’ new theory shows how far he ‘s out of the loop since getting fired in 2012 as CIA Director and stripped of his security clearance   Opining as a private citizes, Petraeus has great confidence in things he once knew about while a respected general, once groomed for a top slot in the Pentagon.  But suggesting that over Ukraine the U.S. would risk getting hit with an ICBM in New York and Washington is nonsense. Survival is more important than whether Ukraine’s 44-year-old President Volodymyr Zelensky gets back 25% of Ukraine’s sovereign territory lost to the Kremlin over the first seven months of the war.  Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Petraeus went over the deep end.  “Just to give you an hypothetical, we would respond by leading NATO, a collective effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea,” Petraeu said.

Petraeus shows he’s been out-of-the-loop for too long to be speculating on national TV about worse case scenarios.  Does Petraeus really think that Ukraine’s so important to U.S. national security that it’s worth fighting a nuclear war with the Kremlin?  If Putin used a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the U.S. and NATO would not start WW III, possibly all out nuclear war, over Ukraine.  Petraeus has lost any sense of proportion, talking about the U.S. and NATO wiping out Putin’s military.  What happens if China joins the fight against the U.S.?  Does Petraeus really think that Ukraine is worth starting a thermonuclear war?  What needs to happen is that before the Ukraine War spirals out-of-control, both warring factions need to go to the peace table and work out their problems.  Unlike billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Petraeus offers no practical solutions for peace.

No one is left in the U.S. press to ask intelligent questions of crackpots like Petraeus, who once had credibility, but sacrificed his career over a frivolous affair. If Petraeus wanted to be taken serious, why didn’t he take his job seriously as CIA Director?  Spilling all the beans to his mistress showed how seriously Petraeus took his job.  Now he’s opining about the U.S. and NATO wiping out the Russian military if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine.  Petraeus knows all about Mutual Assured Destruction, the nuclear doctrine that stands as the best deterrence to nuclear war.  Does Petraeus really thing the Ukraine War is worth starting a nuclear war with Russia?  Biden has never told the American public why the Ukraine war is so important to U.S. national security.  Saying that he’s holding the line against Putin’s forward march to take over all of Europe is absurd, outrageous, beyond the pale.

Petraeus told ABC News that if Putin uses a tactical nuke all bets would be off.  “Perhaps you can make that case,” Petraeus said, about whether using Putin using a tactical nuke would trigger Article 5 because of nuclear fallout.  “The other case is that this is so horrific that there has to be a response—it cannot go unanswered,” Petraeus said, referring to a U.S. and NATO response.  Petraeus is so far over his head talking about U.S. response knowing he had his security clearance stripped once the Broadwell affair forced him to resign as CIA Director.  While all the media debates the pros-and-cons of nuclear war over Ukraine, the press doesn’t see the absurdity of igniting the world for a small, inconsequential, bankrupt country like Ukraine..  Petraeus is ready to wipe out the Russian army and navy but has no answer for starting an all out nuclear exchange between Russia and the U.S.

Petraeus going on national TV does more to whip up panic than to propose constructive solutions to ending the Ukraine War.  Talking about Putin’s losses does nothing to find ways to end the conflict. “The battlefield reality he faces is, I think, irreversible,” Petraeus said.  “No amount of shambolic mobilization, which is the only way to describe it, no amount of annexation, no amount of even veiled nuclear threats can actually get him out of particular situation,” Petraeus said.  Petraeus gives no insights into how the Ukraine War ends, only wildly speculates if Putin does this or that.  Once the EU and NATO realize that Ukraine could suck the Continent into WW III or a nuclear war, more pressure will be put on Biden and Zelensky to go to the peace table.  Petraeus talks about wiping out the Russian military but it’s unrealistic given Putin’s nuclear arsenal and willingness to use it.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

[garudabluffs]

War in Ukraine and ICBMs: The Untold Story of How They Could Blow Up the World February 23, 2023

Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine a year ago, media coverage of the war hasn’t included even the slightest mention of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Yet the war has boosted the chances that ICBMs will set off a global holocaust. Four hundred of them — always on hair-trigger alert — are fully armed with nuclear warheads in underground silos scattered across Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming, while Russia deploys about 300 of its own. Former Defense Secretary William Perry has called ICBMs “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world,” warning that “they could even trigger an accidental nuclear war.”

"Because they’re uniquely vulnerable as land-based strategic weapons — with the military precept of “use them or lose them” — ICBMs are set to launch on warning. So, as Perry explained, “If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route to the United States, the president would have to consider launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them. Once they are launched, they cannot be recalled. The president would have less than 30 minutes to make that terrible decision.” What is at stake? In an interview after publication of his landmark 2017 book “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner,” Daniel Ellsberg explained that nuclear war “would loft into the stratosphere many millions of tons of soot and black smoke from the burning cities. It wouldn’t be rained out in the stratosphere. It would go around the globe very quickly and reduce sunlight by as much as 70 percent, causing temperatures like that of the Little Ice Age, killing harvests worldwide and starving to death nearly everyone on Earth. It probably wouldn’t cause extinction. We’re so adaptable. Maybe 1 percent of our current population of 7.4 billion could survive, but 98 or 99 percent would not.”But rather than openly discuss — and help to reduce — such dangers, U.S. mass media and officials downplay or deny them with silence. The best scientific research tells us that a nuclear war would result in “nuclear winter,” causing the deaths of about 99 percent of the planet’s human population."

"One corporate-media favorite, Timothy Snyder, churns out bellicose bravado under the guise of solidarity with the Ukrainian people, issuing declarations such as his recent claim that “the most important thing to say about nuclear war” is that “it’s not happening.” Which just goes to show that a prominent Ivy League historian can be as dangerously blinkered as anyone else."

To be clear: There is no valid excuse for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its horrific ongoing war on that country. At the same time, continually pouring in vast quantities of higher and higher tech weaponry qualifies as what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism.” During his Nobel Peace Prize speech, King declared: “I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction.”

"In the coming days, reaching a crescendo Friday on the first anniversary of the Ukraine invasion, media assessments of the war will intensify. Upcoming protestsand other actions in dozens of U.S. cities – many calling for genuine diplomacy to “stop the killing” and “avert nuclear war” — are unlikely to get much ink, pixels or airtime. But without real diplomacy, the future offers ongoing slaughter and escalating risks of nuclear annihilation."

READ MORE https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/02/23/war-in-ukraine-and-icbms-the-untold-story-of-how-they-could-blow-up-the-world/

[sspacegodd]

MAD discussions are popping up all over the mediasphere once again. How well would "Mutually Assured Destruction" deter ideologies with followers who blow themselves up?

[bobb]

M.A.D.

North Korea is now able to hit anywhere on the continental United States with an ICBM. Attach a nuclear warhead to that, and bye bye Washington DC, New York, LA, Austin, the American country as we know it, etc. Oh and also as a Canadian, they can hit us too. Wow I'm so excited that Doorknob Drumpf is the FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY THAT KIM DONG FUCK FACE HATES MOST OF ALL!

Ding Dong Bump is gonna get us all fucking nuked. Start collecting bottle caps kids.

[projectdreamcatcher]

Honestly I think one of the biggest misconceptions abt c!tubbo (/dsmp /rp) that’s the most grating 2 me is like. The whole “oh he created the nukes to protect his family” like .

Look me in the eyes and tell me that literal weapons of mass destruction are going to do any protection. I get that as a nice family man headcanon, I really do! It’s just like … that’s not at all the main reason tubbo created the nukes. It’s MAD against dream. They’re deterrents and at their most extreme they have nothing to do with protection and everything to do with Tubbo having one Last Fuck You to dream by wiping out his smp with everyone in it, including him. What part of that screams “protection”

It’s self defense in the same way a bee dies when it stings you, and it stings you and dies to protect its hive. The nukes aren’t about protecting any particular person much less his family, it’s meant to protect snowchester itself against dream. It’s a deterrent, not a defense. And not even a deterrent in the literal sense because why do the nukes work.

Does it have to do with the fact he deliberately put deadman’s switch that only he knows about on the nukes? I don’t know, but it’s Almost like the detonation switch and the existence of the nukes are the culmination of his own self destructive paranoia and violently suicidal tendencies that have been stewing this whole time. It’s been built up in doomsday and afterwards- his recklessness with his last life- hell, streamer even confirmed that if c tubbo ended up having to choose between ranboo or tommy he would “take himself out of the equation.” Make your own conclusions.

I dunno maybe the “Oh tubbo built these nukes to protect his family” just doesn’t jive with me cuz it reads as. Tubbo can’t even be violently suicidal without his pain being about other people. And that sucks, how the some of the most blatant evidence that tubbo Is Not Okay is ignored because it scraps the mutually assured destruction motive to make him self sacrificial for his family and Nothing else.

[quaranmine]

(all /rp) by the way, because I frequently reblog posts that are positive about snowchester and spend a fair amount of my time defending c!tubbo, I just wanna clarify:

I don't think the nukes are a good thing. That's why I like them.

look, I feel like nuclear weapons are inherently problematic, and I don't think that's a very radical take. Like I don't think I even have to explain my reasoning for saying that. Tubbo shouldn't have made them, regardless of whether he currently plans to use them or not, because their very existence is extremely troubling. Tubbo decommissioned the nukes after Dream was put in prison, but they were not destroyed because he recognized they could still be used as a deterrent. And even if they were destroyed, the mere knowledge of how to construct them again is now out there. He's also mentioned the concept of mutually assured destruction in response to threat which is deeply chilling.

But it makes perfect sense to me why the nukes exist. Tubbo’s had his home and nation destroyed multiple times, so the next logical step in his eyes when rebuilding is to defend what he has left fiercely. There's two big differences between L'manberg and Snowchester: L'manberg had a government but no defense. Snowchester has no government but it has the most powerful defense system on the sever. One of New L'manberg's first laws was against weapons of mass destruction, yet in Snowchester MAD exists in the form of the nukes. This honestly the type of response that makes sense following Doomsday, which was such an incredibly one-sided fight in Techno, Dream and Phil's favor that it was almost funny. He couldn't fight back before, but now he can. Tubbo also unfortunately has a history of other people walking over him and controlling him, so the nuclear weapons are also a form of control. You have to admit that the guy who's been called the "yes man" and the "follower" and the "pawn" deciding to create the most dangerous objects on the sever and use them as leverage against outside threats is a very bold move. I think it says a lot about Tubbo as a broken and traumatized person.

now before I finish this post, I'm just going to bring up the dream smp's favorite dramatic principle--chekhov's gun. Something is going to happen with the nukes at some point, because they're too powerful to lie decommissioned forever in Snowchester. And all I'm saying about that is this: there's an inescapable prison right now that's holding the very person Tubbo built the nukes as a deterrent for, not to mention the evil alien egg that's slowly possessing the entire server.

The nukes are a good plot device.

[fuzzy-heretic]

If anyone deserves the title of tyrant (after Dream, but he is more like a mad god than just a tyrant) is Tubbo.

Tommy is just fucking around and will die victim of his own hubris.

Tubbo on the other hand seems to enjoy power and control over others. That’s why he developed nukes (WTF?). Nuclear armament was not developed with intentions of defense. Nuclear weapons are always aggressive.

If Dream denies the independence of Snowchester then the first attack will always be on Tubbo. And then, with or without independence, what’s stopping him from taking the rest of the SMP? i mean, he has nukes. And remember the existence of the Eggpire. Two powerful states fighting each other for more power, is the definition of imperialism.

Nukes are MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction.