Trends: The Impossibilities of Nuclear War
Sells a Lot of Newspapers, but not a Lot of 'Common Sense'
Three Immediate Versions of "Nuclear War" can be defined:
Limited Engagement - Regional Strikes with Low Yield
Including Nuclear-Material Tipped Armaments or Bullets, Dirty Bombs, and Long-Range Nuclear Powered missiles - Partial or Small Payload.
Military Targets and Limited Targeting of Civilians
Nuclear War - The Exchange of Nuclear Weapons
The primary Source of Damage is Nuclear Explosion resulting in Radioactive Fallout - Full Payload.
Civilian Populations as Primary Targets vs. Battlefield/Military
Hiroshima & Nagasaki - 1945
WWIII Nuclear Weapons - Armageddon for the World
Massive exchange of high payload weapons
High-Population Civilian Targets
Beyond the immediate range of Explosion and Radioactive Blast Radius, Nuclear Fallout will drift with the winds into neighboring regions, countries, and waterways, impacting the entire world population.
Regions of direct Impact and downwind of Fallout = Uninhabitable
If you take anything away from this article, the only thing you need to read and understand is:
Nuclear War is Bad for Business. Period.
It's bad for the bureaucracy, it's bad for the media, and it's bad for the military-industrial complex. It's bad for capitalism. It is bad for everyone.
No one wants Nuclear War, not even Hezbollah, who reportedly uses the mushroom cloud image as a symbol of their resistance.
Whereas many powerful people in our world do want a cold war - a call back to the days when children were instructed to hide under desks during bomb drills. They want fear to drive viewership.
Fundamentally, they want more money.
Fear is profitable. The deeper the fear, the deeper the pocket stretches, searching for the last bits of loose change.
The MSM's recent abysmal attempt at journalism, jumping onto the Poland Missile Strike that killed two civilians and immediately drawing unfounded assumptions of Russian involvement, was beyond annoying but not off-brand.
My first thought was: Bullshit. Poland?
My second thought was: There goes the news cycle this week.
As a free subscriber to
by Bari Weiss, former New York Times writer, it was with some dismay that my inbox had her recent guest article regarding a book written about this topic titled "2034: A Novel of the Next World War."A novel, indeed.
Not only is a global world war not coming in 2034 or 2030, or even 2028 - the probability of all-out war with callbacks to the Great War (1914-1918) or even World War II (1939-1945) is also highly improbable in the near future.
Admittedly, I haven't read the book. I rarely read fictional novels, especially ones written by former and retired Admirals who fantasize about fictional war games based on implied or publicly stated military doctrine.
Quote:
"In such a scenario, the Russian military, according to its doctrine, would employ a strategy of escalate to de-escalate. The idea is straightforward: dramatically escalate from conventional to nuclear weapons with the goal of shocking one's enemy into quickly suing for peace. It is a philosophy of warfare that differs fundamentally from our own, and that's designed for a nation, like Russia, with a nuclear capability that far exceeds that of its conventional forces."
US Shock and Awe: Hiroshima and Nagaski (1945), Operation Rolling Thunder (1965), Operation Desert Storm (1990), Assassination of Qasem Soleimani (2020), etc.
This is a hilarious biased take from a retired Admiral and cohort. US Military failures after twenty years in the middle east? What about Vietnam? Perhaps this gentleman didn't read the reports of the latest military blunder by our Armed Forces during the California Mojave Desert War Drills - leading to a British, Canadian, and Dutch Marine Corps absolute domination in both tactics and asset surrender of the US Marine counterpart. An excellent training exercise that, much like grade-school soccer, aims not to keep score. Except we all know the parents on the sidelines always keep score, regardless of how many participation trophies we extend to the players.
(I won’t bother attacking this Admiral’s record, but if you’re curious about the type of ‘Admiral’ he is, I dare you to read his website’s first paragraph and draw your own conclusions. Needless to say, with leadership like this, it’s no wonder the US Operational Readiness is underperforming.)
All the reports regarding Russian Forces being ill-equipped for this conflict are most likely true. The last major mobilization by Russian Troops dates back to Afghanistan in the 1970s during the Soviet era. But, unfortunately, dust always settles on the unused and the unpolished. Beyond this, its been mostly limited regional conflicts and military support to various occupations and governments over the decades since.
The very idea that a Nuclear Power such as Russia would utilize a Shock-and-Awe strategy on their doorstep, risking nuclear fallout upwind of their people and claimed territory, with trade routes and critical infrastructure just over the horizon - is laughable if not insulting to the strategies of war and the governance of nations. The impact of such an attack on the world's food supply cannot be overstated. Not to mention the trade partnerships of the surrounding nations, especially those military alliances of the CSTO, which like NATO, are under formal Treaties or Pact to assist in the event of military conflict. These modest nations are:
Armenia
Belarus
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Russia
Observing: Afghanistan and Serbia
Russian Trade Partners, via treaty or trade, cover most of the world, especially the region around Russia and Ukraine, including Belarus, Finland, China, the Middle East, and Italy - recent trade posturing by some of these nations excluded. None of which includes the heavy reliance by European Nations on Russian exports of energy, which has led to the Energy Crisis within those countries.
Suing for Peace? The Ukrainian Government has had a Peace Deal on the desk of the Comedian President since around March 2022. A deal that doesn't require an army of lawyers or dusting off desks at the World Court - the International Court of the United Nations.
The propaganda surrounding this entire, localized affair has been both difficult to swallow and nearly impossible to digest from both sides.
Russia and China are playing the long game, which is one of the, albeit few, benefits of having a long-term leadership structure. Of course, the needs of both countries are vastly different, but where they align - that's very powerful. Whereas in counter, Europe, the Americas, and even India are playing Election-Cycles and News-cycles. Cycles which are swept into humanity's consciousness and just as quickly swept away.
This isn't a play for Russia, as evidenced by the formation of the BRIC Nations; it's a long-term strategy that short-term elections have massive difficulty rectifying. Russia's positioning in Southern Ukraine is a long-term strategy, not the act of a madman. Ukraine is the breadbasket of the world, and most of its exports ship through the Black Sea (South Ukraine) through one of the three major shipping ports, south towards Istanbul, as seen here:
Controlling this region and waters, or more specifically, those major shipping ports, is the most powerful action that can be taken to either level Ukraine or ensure long-term stability for those who control them. Don't believe me? Ask a farmer what his bottom-line costs for transporting product to market are, and watch your eyes widen. Shipping that much heavy product (Grain) across highways and railways is prohibitively expensive; ask India as they push for fewer imports in the Lentil and Grain Commodity Groups.
None of this should be construed as 'Pro-Russia' nonsense. On the contrary, I am, and always have been, 'Pro-Humanity' first. And as a member of 'Pro-Humanity' and a student of history, I understand very clearly that borders are only temporary and nations are only made of stone until they are reduced to rubble. Ideas are the only thing that outlasts everything else - especially outlasting those who originated and spread them.
So, what would it take for Russia to expand this occupation/annexation into Nuclear War? As mentioned above, it would require a verifiable threat to the Homeland - a shift in the battlefield from Southern Ukraine to Russia's borders and within, or a direct assault on Moscow. Regardless of his high political popularity, President Putin does not have the Political Capital needed to launch or justify a pre-emptive Nuclear Strike without external justification. It would be far more likely such an order would result in the formation of a Military Coup than compliance under the threat of pending War Crimes under the Geneva Convention for all involved. The same implied if President Biden suddenly ordered the launching of American Nukes in retaliation for Kyiv. The prospect itself is absolutely ridiculous, but it sells many newspapers.
Kyiv is not Hiroshima
It is important to consider the previous use of these weapons in war, namely Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The first US “Shock and Awe.”
The background here is that Allies (including Russia) defeated the Nazis and therefore collectively turned their attention to the Asian-Pacific war with Japan, who given numerous chances to surrender, refused. Allied Forces drew battle plans, and determined over 50,000 US-led troops would die in the event of a direct military invasion. The Manhattan Project was successful; the Big Boy Nuke was ready for field application. The U.S. Military sought British and Canadian consort before launching the Nuclear Offensive and filed with Japan the 'Potsdam Declaration.' It was determined the loss of life would be far-less in utilizing a nuclear device to force surrender. Japan ignored the declaration, assuming it was just another in a series of previous threats.
Of important note, after the dropping of the Fat Boy and a few days later, Little Man Atomic Bombs on Japan, U.S. forces were already in preparation for another 3-9 Atomic Strikes against the country over the coming months. These attacks intended to force the surrender of Japan and stop the war. Though the sites for these attacks were determined based on important military facilities, the 'Shock-n-Awe' and its impact on Civilian populations intended to be just as psychological as it was destructive.
Before dropping these warheads, leaflets were dropped over various cities in Japan, warning citizens of coming air strikes against major cities. In addition, numerous previously successful bombing raids had been performed, and Japan was a declared enemy of the Allied Forces.
None of these elements are at play in Kyiv.
Bombing Kyiv doesn't hurt NATO. Russia could obliterate the entire country of Ukraine off the map, and NATO Nations wouldn't even notice, outside of any resources held in the territory or pipeline crossings passing through it currently. There is no 'Shock-n-Awe' in nuking Ukraine. Russia is fully capable of leveling the country, and nearly has, with non-nuclear armaments. It's a regional conflict that has rapidly escalated because the aggressor, for various reasons, is Russia. Ukraine has refused to join the CSTO or any other defense board devised by Russia for regional interests. Their constant begging to join NATO is, in and of itself, a direct threat to Russian interests and borders.
Let's be honest: If Belarus or Serbia had declared war against Ukraine with no discernable ties to Russian interests, 95% of the western world wouldn't even know it was happening or care. This entire global affair has nothing to do with Nuclear War, or feeding the poor, and everything to do with selling newspapers and ads, defending unscrupulous (and illegal) American-lead Scientific Programs in the country, and an assortment of other illegal activities which will come to light over the decades to come - assuming the records and evidence aren't pre-emptively destroyed in the process.
Furthermore, as per Protocol I, Article 35 of the Geneva Convention, the Use of Full-Payload Nuclear Armaments is Illegal and considered a War Crime.
As quoted:
1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.
2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
Therefore, if Russia intends or ever enacted to launch a Full-Payload Nuclear device inside Ukraine for any reason that wasn't otherwise in justified defense, their entire Government and Military Command can and will be held to account in International Courts. Any recent 'withdraw' of Russian support for these pacts is about as relevant as Nazis claiming they don't recognize the legitimacy of the Hague during their own War Crime Trials.
Russia knows this. The USA knows this. NATO knows this. Ukraine knows this.
And now, you know it too.
As always,
Farewell and Good Luck.
-Dark Philosopher
Trends Forecast
Forecast of the next Global Hot War isn't until interests are far more desperate.
Taiwan/Hong Kong & North Korean Conflicts are regional interests and may lead to regional conflict or armament exchanges, but unlikely to span globally in the near term.
As Reported Earlier - Next Expected Global Hot-War is Projected for 2045-2070
The Great Asian-Pacific Demographic Shift
Trade and Currency Wars, depreciating demographics, and internal political stability
Leading to the Exchange of Armaments, Limited Nuclear Exchange possible
Black Swan Possibilities
Russian Air to Land Nuclear Attack, originating from Russian Nuclear Silos, is highly unlikely unless Moscow/Military Installations are directly attacked.
The moment Russia's newest Hypersonic Missile launches, 10,000 computers will light up around the world calculating trajectory and origination.
This act itself opens the city of Moscow, the Crown Jewel of Russia, to immediate counter-strike by Allied, NATO, and Global Interests.
China and the new Gulf Region Trade Allies will be forced into Distancing, Curtailing, or Ending Trade/Diplomatic Relations.
This is the definition of suicide.
U.S. or NATO Direct Strike against Russian Territory
Ukraine Self-Detonates Dirty Bomb as Pre-text for NATO Involvement
Limited Impact - Few Hundred DOA, Thousand+ Radioactive
Excellent Journalistic Photo-op Opportunities for Selling the War
Shifting towards likelihood as Zelensky becomes Desperate for a Win
Comedian Playing Politician Playing Military Commander
Monitoring
Ukraine General Election - October 2023 or sooner or delayed
Zelensky in Campaign/Legacy Mode
Hong Kong - Abandoned by U.K. and U.S. Interests
Established Western Legal Landscape Collapsing
Taiwan
Australia's Chinese-leased Shipping Port - Port Darwin
North Korea - Positioning for Trade Access? Sanction Lifting?
Open Skies Treaty - 1992-2021, DOA since USA Withdraw Nov. 2020
Treaty allowing 34 Parties, Including Russia and the U.S., to fly over known military installations and take readings and pictures for the purposes of maintaining peace and reducing tensions
U.S. had No-Cause to Exit - Should Re-establish on Good Faith Immediately
November 15th, 2023 - New Audio
November 16th, 2023 - Fixed Layout, Format
Resources
See Further: Shock and awe - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-nuclear-missile-weapon-putin-hypersonic-speed-sound-a9262006.html
https://americandefensenews.com/2021/11/08/did-british-royal-marines-decisively-defeat-us-marines-in-major-wargame/
https://www.9news.com.au/world/news-world-why-a-russian-spy-plane-is-allowed-to-fly-over-secret-us-bases/e08cfac6-5a7b-45b7-9b2f-d0e98678be2d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Agreement
Geneva Convention Text:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=0DF4B935977689E8C12563CD0051DAE4