The picture becomes quite clear. It is obvious that the reckless provocation of Russia by the United States is not inconsistent with the expectation that the end result could be a nuclear exchange. The United States government has an apparent disregard for the lives of Americans, and a nuclear confrontation would be amenable to at least a class of US planners, who might think the cost in mortality and destruction of infrastructure is a palatable risk. These planners apparently have huge underground cities in which to retreat. It is said that Dick Cheney, who became incommunicado for a time after 9-11, was hanging out in one of these underground metropolises for months after that unexplained calamity. That is where he operated his command structure for the post-9-11 world. As a unique event, 9-11 seems incomprehensible, but in the context of a lead-up to a nuclear confrontation, it would be hardly a blip on the screen. Discussions among policymakers cite 9-11 as small potatoes compared to what is likely to happen in future years.
In short, everything is in place, at least on the national level, to address the aftermath of a nuclear exchange. This begs the question as to whether these preparations are just contingencies, or if they are being readied as part of a proactive plan. Although it is difficult to imagine what would be gained by nuclear war, it is hard to fathom exactly what the U.S. Leadership has in mind from day to day anyway. A nuclear encounter would be in line with those of the elite who believe the world's population needs to be reduced. It would also eliminate popular resistance to the government as a result of worsening economic conditions. It would allow America to readjust the balance of world power by destroying Russia, its foremost competitor on the world stage. These are merely speculations, but COG and the Hart-Rudman Commission and its conclusions and recommendations are not speculations, nor is the incredibly reckless, belligerent and provocative attitude the United States and its NATO allies have of a sudden taken toward Russia. One might even argue that the existence of nuclear arsenals themselves are evidence of an intent to use them, since the world has had ample time to rid itself of them since they came into existence in 1945.
Americans should think about adjusting their lives so they can greet the new post-nuclear-war reality. Each of us could, I am sure, come up with a list of ten actions that would enhance our survivability in the event of a nuclear attack.
What can Russia do? Russia should make it clear that those of America's allies that have a sense of exceptionalism in their national ideology would be among the first and primary casualties in a nuclear exchange. Such countries have an ideological bias in favor of the survival of their populations above all others, and if their existence were at risk, they would apply pressure to the US government to avoid a confrontation rather than be wiped out. Such countries are likely to have the ear of the U.S. Congress and the president. In contrast, Americans these days seem to carry zero weight with their government, since they are not well organized, and since any influence they may have had has been almost completely undermined by domestic intelligence efforts.
The survival of world civilization is in Russia's, and thus, Russian President Vladimir Putin's hands. Putin's ability to effect a winning strategy will influence the outcome for all of us. In the meantime, we should err on the side of caution and prepare for a nuclear attack. It's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).