According to Paul Craig Roberts' article, "Washington Is Destroying The World", OPEDNEWS, Oct.7, 2014, "Russia has developed supersonic ICBMs that can rapidly change trajectory & can not be shot down by any defense system." Will this development revive MAD, mutually assured destruction, the nuclear standoff in the cold war avoiding a nuclear conflagration or will Washington continue to pursue a 1st strike nuclear capability?

::::::::

Russian ICBM being tested, date unknown

This from Paul Craig Roberts latest article, "Washington Is Destroying The World", OPEDNEWS, October 7, 2014, "As a result of Washington breaking its word and putting ABM missile bases on Russia's border, Russia has developed supersonic ICBM's that can rapidly change trajectory and can not be shot down by any defense system" and "Russia has more deployed nuclear weapons than the US".

With regard to China, Roberts asserts, "Last year China released a pictorial description of how China's nuclear forces could destroy the US. China has now added to its nuclear arsenal a new variant of one of its mobile ICBM's."

Roberts does not reveal the source of these disclosures but if true-and there's no reason to question the veracity of his assertions-then the whole idea of "Full Spectrum Dominance", official Washington's plan to control the land, air, seas and space, have a nuclear first strike capability and prevent a Russian or Chinese retaliatory strike is pure wrongheaded thinking-though as Roberts asserts, "Of course, the US corporations making billions of dollars selling Washington a useless ABM system will deny this."

But denial of reality is a neo-con specialty with these ideologues ruminating about the current administration, the Congress or in think tanks around the beltway, all at the forefront pushing for regime change in the Middle East but also eventual regime change in Russia. Lest they fail to "accomplish" this little "feat", they seem to be envisioning initiating a nuclear first strike on Russia and China.

As I have alluded on these pages previously [i] , any nuclear first strike thinking is sheer lunacy. A retaliatory strike can not be prevented and beyond that ANY nuclear conflagration would end all life on the planet.

Thus short of destroying all current nuclear arsenals and banning the manufacture of new ones-a sane though highly unlikely proposition anytime in the near future-the only realistic position is return to MAD, "mutually assured destruction", the previously position held by both sides in the Cold War whereby each side knew any side which initiated a nuclear first strike would automatically bring a retaliatory strike by the other and bring its own annihilation. Thus a potential nuclear conflagration was effectively deterred.

Since the end of the cold war in 1991, mutually assured destruction has become an anathema to the neo-cons and with their madness gripping official Washington, the absurd belief of initiating a nuclear first strike and preventing a retaliatory strike with a totally 100% effective ABM system has reemerged, which Roberts debunks saying it can't be done.

It seems obvious both Russia and China is fully aware of US machinations yet has been judicious in not exacerbating the madness now gripping the US colossus.

This not weakness, but I believe a calculation whereby sanity could return to official Washington once it again recognizes a nuclear war is futile, unwinnable, insane and would bring its own annihilation.

There are no secrets among nations any longer. Assuming Roberts is correct and "Russia has developed supersonic ICBM's that can change trajectory and cannot be shot down by any missile defense system" the US also knows of that development.

Is it possible official Washington would continue on its present destructive course and go for broke initiating a nuclear war?

Authors Website: dglefc22733@aol.com

Authors Bio:
Retired. The author of "DECEIT AND EXCESS IN AMERICA, HOW THE MONEYED INTERESTS HAVE STOLEN AMERICA AND HOW WE CAN GET IT BACK", Authorhouse, 2009