Nuclear Powers: Officially the US; Russia; China; France; UK then add India, Pakistan, and NK

 

A quote worth saving billions of lives

Our last six presidents (but not Trump): Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan have all negotiated agreements with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

As we know, Trump hates the START treaty and wants to pull out of the INF (more on the INF withdrawal here and also here).

His past statements prove this point with his campaign speeches at various places and times on this subject. 

For example speaking to a crowd in Fort Dodge, Iowa on November 15, 2015, when they roared with laughter and applauded his plan to defeat ISIS when he said: “I would bomb the shit out of them. I’d just bomb those suckers. I’d blow up the oil pipes, I’d blow up the refineries, I’d blow up every single inch — there would be nothing left.” 

Later Trump said:

• “I wanna be unpredictable.” 

• “I love war.” 

• “I know more about ISIS than Generals do.”

• “I love war, in a certain way”

• “Nuclear is the power of devastation ... very  important to me.”

Trump is not smart on the nuclear weapons question – he has to avoid reckless statements that tend to upend decades of successful efforts to reduce bloated nuclear arsenals and renewal of dangerous U.S. and Russian nuclear competition – another arms race.

Related: Mr. Trump and others who support his stance seem to know the history or the facts except from political sound bites, for example: The larger the arsenal, the tougher it is to protect, the more expensive it is to maintain, and the more likely it is that there will be accidents.

The United States has a less-than-perfect track record of nuclear stewardship, for example: At least 1,200 nuclear weapons were involved in “significant accidents between 1950 and 1968.”

Now here we are today, minus Trump with this update from Business Insider with this headline:

“The UN said nuclear war is 'back within the realm of possibility.' Here are the places in the US most likely to be hit in a nuclear attack”

·  UN Secretary-General António Guterres said nuclear war is “back within the realm of possibility.”

·  Russia has previously said it could vaporize various locations in the U.S, with new missiles. 

·   A Russian nuclear attack would likely focus on high-value targets in ND and MT.

The UN secretary-general’s warning within the realm of possibility follows Russia's warning it was putting its nuclear forces on alert amid its war in Ukraine that threatens to draw NATO into direct combat with Russia.  

In 2017, Russian state media detailed how Moscow would annihilate U.S. cities and areas after a nuclear treaty (the INF under Trump) collapsed and put the Cold War rivals back in targeting mode — a shocking threat even by the Russian regime's own extreme standards. 

Hyping up a then-new hypersonic nuclear-capable missile, Russian state TV said these five would be prime target: The Pentagon; Camp David; Jim Creek Naval Radio Station in WA State; Fort Ritchie in MD; and McClellan Air Force Base in CA would be targets (reported on by Reuters).

Note: The latter two: Fort Ritchie closed in 1998 and McClellan AFB closed in 2001 which makes them strange choices as targets. 

Ergo: With most everything from Russia and its heavily censored media, it's best to take their claims with a grain of salt. 

Business Insider got an expert opinion on where Moscow would likely try to strike (refer to this map from the main story link above).

Since the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia have drawn up plans on how to best wage nuclear war. 

Large population centers with huge cultural impact seem obvious choices, but strategists believe they would focus on taking out nuclear forces destroying them before they could counter-attack.

According to Stephen Schwartz, the author of Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940, as the Cold War progressed and improvements in nuclear weapons and intelligence-collection technologies enabled greater precision in where those weapons were aimed, the emphasis in targeting shifted from cities to nuclear stockpiles and nuclear war-related infrastructure.

Full article continues here.

My 2 Cents: No matter what the articles cited say and probably much more later, I firmly believe that a first strike by a scared, boxed-in, and unpredictable Putin is very likely aimed at taking out Ukraine in total and then claim victory. How the world would react to that is naturally the $64,000 question isn’t it?

That is my major concern based on my former and long term military decision making and mind set – and that is: To be prepared for the worse and hope it never happens. 

Nuclear war is the worse possible outcome for all living things on Earth – bar none.

My fingers crossed that never happens now nor ever will happen … the logical solution is the elimination of all nuclear weapons of any kind. 

But, that seems out of the question with a few or bunch of crazy power-hungry people in charge nowadays, doesn’t it? So, stay tuned and hope for the best in these very tense times.

Thanks for stopping by.