The United States will not establish its cherished "Global Hegemony" simply because it cannot. It lacks the political institutions, the economic foundations, the infrastructure, and the human resources, to do so. A bold claim, that I will argue in my next essay.
If we go to war with Russia, will it be like World War II? Will it "go nuclear?"
"World War III" would be nothing like its predecessors. Armies that prepare to fight the "next war" with the weapons and tactics of the previous, tend to lose. Strange to say, the Japanese did us a favor by sinking our WWI battleships at Pearl Harbor. We responded, not with a vast fleet of new battleships, but with numerous aircraft carriers -- the kind of ships that launched the Pearl Harbor attack.
Clearly the Russians, with their minuscule investment in conventional weapons and their projected reduction of their defense budget, are not preparing to fight a repeat of WWII. The next war would be a cyber war, and it would be brutal.
The 1940s infrastructure was connected with roads, rails, wires, vacuum tubes and radio ("RF") transmission. Today's commercial infrastructure is digitally connected with semiconductors and microprocessors, and it is much more vulnerable. For example, a high-altitude nuclear blast, while it might not cause extensive property or personal damage, would create an electro-magnetic pulse (EMT) that would "fry" (i.e. destroy) all microcircuits within a wide radius. And a well-designed computer virus or "worm" could infect and disable essential military and industrial computers. Indeed, the "Stuxnet" virus, did just that in 2010 when it sabotaged the Iranian nuclear industry.
The Russians know this, and they are showing considerable skill in cyber warfare. The US military's response is more $13 billion aircraft carriers (twelve and counting), super sonic aircraft and drones, each of these advances of WWII weapons and technology.
An all out cyber war would massively attack our communications system, in a shutdown of the internet and emails. Also, the disruption of business and financial communications and utility grids. Imagine returning home to no electric power, phone service or access to the internet. Add to that, no restocking of the local supermarket or gas stations. And no capability of the government to make prompt repairs. The result: Total economic collapse, and widespread starvation and disease. Doubtlessly, if this happens, we would attempt to do the same to Russia. A few autonomous micro systems would survive, most ominously the strategic nuclear attack forces. They would be the only remaining mode of retaliation from the cyber attack.
If both sides recognize these implications of cyber-warfare -- nothing less than a cyber version of Mutually Assured Destruction -- they might be restrained. But don't count on it. There is nothing "gradual" about a nuclear first strike: it would surely trigger a retaliation.. Cyber warfare is different -- it can escalate from trivial beginnings. In fact, the Russophobes are telling us, even without compelling evidence, that Russia has already launched such a "war" with its "meddling" in the 2016 election. A year ago on "Meet the Press," Vice Presidet Joe Biden indicated that the United States is fully prepared to embark upon that escalation when he said: "We're sending a message [to Putin]. We have the capacity to [retaliate] .. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that have the greatest impact." One must wonder if Biden had any idea of the dreadful import of that warning. Did he somehow believe that Russia would not then retaliate in kind? Where does it end?
Why is the media Russophobic? What are the Putin-demonizers trying to accomplish?
That the MSM is russophobic is beyond dispute. Just watch or read it. You might find Russia-friendly and peace-oriented media "at the fringes," in the dissenting internet and publications such as The Nation. But you have to look for it, and the audience is minuscule.
Why the MSM is russophobic is more difficult to understand. One question-begging answer is "group think." If you are a TV news "personality" and have kind words for Vladimir Putin and his government, and if you invite a real-live Russian on your program to defend Russian policy, you will soon be unemployed. Just ask Phil Donahue. If you are a politician and express similar views, you have forfeited your career and will likely lose your next election.
Do I exaggerate? Then please identify just one dissenting russophile in the MSM. (To repeat, by "the mainstream media" I mean the six corporations that control 90% of the US media). As noted earlier, there are numerous scholars, retired diplomats, historians and journalists who sharply dissent from the russophobic MSM "group think." Their views may be found at the websites of The Center for Citizen Initiatives, The American Committee for East-West Accord, American University in Moscow, Consortium News. But how many of these dissenters have appeared on Face the Nation, Meet the Press, MSNBC panels, and such?
So what are the media russophobes trying to accomplish? In two words: "job security." To accomplish this without embarrassment, they must persuade themselves to actually believe this propaganda.
We've seen this before: early in the Viet Nam war, in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Now to that begged question: why the group-think? First of all, "Russia-gate" is seen by the "never Trumpers" of both parties as a crowbar with which to pry the Moron-in-Chief from his office.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
