New Events

International

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link MEP criticizes European Parliament report on Russia Wed Sep 22, 2021 16:49 | amarynth
Clare Daly, a member of the European Parliament, criticized the European Parliament’s report on Russia that calls for a tougher policy against Moscow.

offsite link Eurasia takes shape: How the SCO just flipped the world order Wed Sep 22, 2021 16:42 | amarynth
By Pepe Escobar posted with permission and cross-posted with The Cradle Part 1 of 2 on Eurasia With Iran’s arrival, the SCO member-states now number nine, and they’re focused on

offsite link Does EU need right-wing extremists from the outside? Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:58 | amarynth
By Batko Milacic for the Saker Blog Late this summer, Estonia, in the person of its president, Kersti Kaljulaid, became the first EU country to declare that Ukraine remains as

offsite link Bury My Heart at Bended Knee (An Experimental Epitaph for Canada) Tue Sep 21, 2021 17:34 | amarynth
?I shall not be there. I shall rise and pass. Bury my heart at Wounded Knee?  By Steven Vincent Benet by Marcel Woland for the Saker Blog Trudeau takes yet

offsite link A chain reaction of chaos. Nikolai Patrushev-about unions and values that are alien to Russia Tue Sep 21, 2021 15:46 | amarynth
https://z5h64q92x9.net/prox... The summits of organizations in which Russia plays a significant role, such as the SCO, CSTO, and BRICS, have recently come to an end. Traditionally, international security is an

The Saker >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Minister Catherine Martin: Not fit to serve

offsite link Establishment media and delusional analysis Anthony

offsite link Youth power – Don’t ask – Take Anthony

offsite link When the establishment betrays the people?s trust Anthony

offsite link The day Eoghan Harris went bad Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Facebook uses media to make or break politicians Wed Sep 22, 2021 13:53 | en

offsite link France sets up a unit to fight against foreign fake news Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:39 | en

offsite link Washington against EU Directive on digital markets Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:02 | en

offsite link Washington could clear the way for French Rafale jets in Finland Tue Sep 21, 2021 20:26 | en

offsite link Remarks by JoeBiden Before the 76th Session of the United Nations General Assemb... Tue Sep 21, 2021 17:08 | en

Voltaire Network >>

All the Evidence Points to World War

category international | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis author Saturday September 07, 2019 15:39author by Peter McLoughlin Report this post to the editors

The pattern of history points to another global, catastrophic conflict*. For a third time in a hundred years imperial government are about to plunge us into total war: this time nuclear war, for the old reason – power.

Power, manifested as interest, has been present in every conflict of the past – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics - everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above concepts, that is the cause of war.

The lust for power eventually brings every empire to the war it seeks to avoid: total defeat. But leaders and their advisors delude themselves into thinking that fateful war can be avoided, limited in scale or even won.

This has particular relevance today, with much talk of ‘a new Cold War’, and the dangerous mind set it will have the same outcome as the first one. Other terms from that era are being bandied about, such as ‘deterrence’ and ‘nuclear arms race’. Deterrence can only work if it can prevent the scenarios where Mutual Assured Destruction might have to be resorted to. It is becoming increasingly difficult to prevent such situations – Syria, Iran, South China Sea, Ukraine, the Baltic, Moldova to name a few potential flash points, any of which could trigger events leading to world war. We will soon face the scenario where (unlike the Cuban missile crisis or Euro missile crisis) one protagonist will not be able to step back from the brink, stumbling into a crisis they cannot de-escalate. All that is left is Deterrence’s fall-back position – annihilation. The nuclear powers will delude themselves that the outcome of this crisis will be like in 1991: ending without destruction. There’s a difference, the Cold War was the peace, a post-world war environment; we are now in a pre-world war environment.

Nuclear war will happen because governments convince themselves it won’t: it will be prevented because peace-makers convince themselves it will. That is the paradox. Only by accepting its inevitability is there any chance of stopping it; at that, the chances are negligible if they exist at all. Personally, I don’t think they do, but accept others have a more positive outlook. I admire them. But a problem denied can never be solved (however big or small it is). To save the planet, reverse climate change, make a better and just life for all will not be achieved if we walk blindly into a third world war.

*I can’t make statements without providing evidence. My arguments are explored in greater detail on my website, an essay Patterns and Power and a FREE book, Never Forget the Ghosts of History. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/


Related Link: https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
author by Mike Novackpublication date Sat Oct 05, 2019 22:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

We might have war, and war that went nuclear. For example, war could break out between India and Pakistan and both of them have nukes. But horrible as that would be, not a world war. A world war is a war between alliances, many countries on each side. Discussing the Cuba Missile Crisis simply points out how different the geopolitical situation then vs now when there isn't even a cold war.

BTW, it will probably take longer before historians consider this, but in my opinion, the "Cold War" WAS determined by nuclear, just not nuclear war. Consider the situation were the outcomes at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island reversed. Instead of the Soviet Union losing the northern Ukraine, the US had lost eastern PA, NJ, southeastern NY, some of MD, Delaware, etc.

author by Bolton's moustachepublication date Sat Sep 14, 2019 01:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The missiles in Cuba were just a response to US missiles being stationed in Turkey
rather than a unilateral provocation by the USSR.

The US (i.e. Kennedy) quietly agreed to remove them in return for Kruschev standing down in Cuba.

All Kennedy did is try to fix something the US government were responsible for breaking in the first place.

And Kennedy was on so many drugs and painkillers at the time of the negotiations
that we are all really lucky to be alive frankly!!

Kruschev gets far too little credit for his part in the de escalation in my opinion.

author by Tpublication date Sat Sep 07, 2019 21:43author address author phone Report this post to the editors

What many people do not realize is that during the Cuban missile crisis when the US had imposed a naval blockade on Cuba is that when the stand off was at it's most intense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff consisting of the head of the Navy, head of the Army, head of the Air Force, head of the CIA and others insisted that Kennedy launch a pre-emptive strike on Cuba. And when he did not and instead negotiated his way out of the crisis they were as mad as hell with him. They wanted a nuclear war and they were unanimous about it.

It was well known then that the military felt they should have a nuclear war with the USSR and wipe them out.

What the Joint Chiefs of Staff were unaware of is that field commanders in Cuba who were in charge of nuclear artillery weapons had already been granted clearance to use the weapons if attacked. These had a range of 15 miles or so and would have easily wiped out some of the deployed aircraft carriers in the area.

There is without doubt that had they attacked there would have been a full scale nuclear war, because practically every available plane (i.e B-52s) capable of carrying nuclear weapons were already in the air and armed -on both sides.

So what people do not realize the fate of humanity on that fateful down was narrowed down to just one person and it was Kennedy. Had he NOT gone against the advice of the Joint Chief of Staffs, we can safely say that vast majority of people reading this would be alive. Only for the humanity and intelligence of Kennedy, hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons would have gone off and it would have been followed by a nuclear winter which probably would have ended human life as we know it on Earth.

Today we still have the same mentality.

BTW, within a year Kennedy was dead and it is very likely he was killed by the CIA/Military for his betrayal and cowardice as they would see it, during the crisis.

 
© 2001-2021 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy