Sputnik International: 'Cold War 2.0 has reached unprecedented hysterical levels'

A US intel source with close connections to the Masters of the Universe but at the same time opposed to Cold War 2.0 as “counter-productive”, adds the necessary nuance: “The United States has lost the arms race, indulging in trillions of dollars of worthless and endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now is no longer a global power as it cannot defend itself with its obsolete missiles, THAAD, Patriot and Aegis Land Based Ballistic Defense System, against Russian ICBMs, even as the Russians have sealed their airspace. The Russians may be as much as four generations ahead of the US.”

Moreover, in the deep recesses of shadow war planning, the Pentagon knows, and the Russian Defense Ministry also knows, that in the event some

Dr. Strangelove launched a nuclear preemptive strike against Russia, the Russian population would be protected by their defensive missile systems – as well as nuclear bomb shelters in major cities. Warnings on Russian television have not been idle; the population would know where to go in the – terrifying — event of nuclear war breaking out.
SOURCE

Just when I think I've read the most shocking article suitable for the WW3 forum, I read something more shocking. I realize the source is Sputnik International, and that will immediately discredit this article to many here. I don't think that even matters in this case for the following reason...

If the article linked above represents Russia's view of the situation (whether it's accurate or not), Russia believes its in the strongest position its ever been in militarily, and they probably believe they're in the strongest position militarily of any country.

When you take all this together with their recently announced "cooperation" with Iran concerning the Middle East:

Russian-Iranian Cooperation to Bring Peace, Stability to Middle East – Iran's FM

All of this puts the "cooler heads will prevail" theory in a new light in my opinion. In other words, what we may think of as a "cooler head" may not be what those in power would think of as a "cooler head."

Paul Craig Roberts has an update on the situation. "[The U.S.] is facing a military power [Russia] that's superior to ours." - Paul Craig Roberts


www.youtube.com...

MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is still in play. The Russians want a war with us, as much as we want a war with them.

The big question is this...

Would HRC or Barack Obama throw 300+ million of the rest of us under the bus to evade prosecution?

Think on that...

a reply to: madmac5150

I tried to engage this forum in a discussion about that:

Time Magazine: This Is What World War III Will Look Like

There were some great answers in that thread. Basically I think it just comes down to the article linked below. I believe we have no idea if MAD is still in play or how many people would be in danger because too much technology (and accompanying strategy) is secret. If we can't even imagine the technology involved, there is no way we can imagine how it would be employed.

An array of science-fiction-like technologies would likely make their debut in such a war, from AI battle management systems to autonomous robotics. But unlike the ISIS’s of the world, great powers can also go after high-tech’s new vulnerabilities, such as by hacking systems and knocking down GPS. The recent steps taken by the U.S. Naval Academy illustrate where things might be headed. It added a cybersecurity major to develop a new corps of digital warriors, and also requires all midshipmen learn celestial navigation, for when the high tech inevitably runs into the age old fog and friction of war.

While many leaders on both sides think any clash might be geographically contained to the straights of Taiwan or the edge of the Baltic, these technological and tactical shifts mean such a conflict is more likely to reach into each side’s homelands in new ways. Just as the Internet reshaped our notions of borders, so too would a war waged partly online.
SOURCE

The video below is kind of an exaggeration, but it may not be that far off.


www.youtube.com...

MAD hasn't been in play since the 1960s. It is largely a political fiction. Militaries are in the game of winning wars and you don't do that by "MAD".

By the 70s and 80s the most likely form of "nuclear war" was a largely conventional one with limited nuclear exchanges on the tactical/operational level. The declassified war plans from the USSR and NATO tell us that much at least.

Not to poke holes in your source, but Sputnik is the Russian answer to the Daily Mail. The video is far more interesting. In general I like your posts, keep up the good work.

originally posted by: Profusion
a reply to: madmac5150

I tried to engage this forum in a discussion about that:

Time Magazine: This Is What World War III Will Look Like

There were some great answers in that thread. Basically I think it just comes down to the article linked below. I believe we have no idea if MAD is still in play or how many people would be in danger because too much technology (and accompanying strategy) is secret. If we can't even imagine the technology involved, there is no way we can imagine how it would be employed.

An array of science-fiction-like technologies would likely make their debut in such a war, from AI battle management systems to autonomous robotics. But unlike the ISIS’s of the world, great powers can also go after high-tech’s new vulnerabilities, such as by hacking systems and knocking down GPS. The recent steps taken by the U.S. Naval Academy illustrate where things might be headed. It added a cybersecurity major to develop a new corps of digital warriors, and also requires all midshipmen learn celestial navigation, for when the high tech inevitably runs into the age old fog and friction of war.

While many leaders on both sides think any clash might be geographically contained to the straights of Taiwan or the edge of the Baltic, these technological and tactical shifts mean such a conflict is more likely to reach into each side’s homelands in new ways. Just as the Internet reshaped our notions of borders, so too would a war waged partly online.
SOURCE

1. There is no intelligent conversation on ATS

2. I have no "Top Secret" alien crap to report....

3 ...as a retired USAF SNCO I can tell you this...

3a ...there is NO winner in a global thermonuclear war...

3b ...only survivors. That is what I KNOW to be FACT.

originally posted by: madmac5150
MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is still in play. The Russians want a war with us, as much as we want a war with them.

The big question is this...

Would HRC or Barack Obama throw 300+ million of the rest of us under the bus to evade prosecution?

Think on that...

Why do you think that?

Last i checked the only people in the us and russia that want an all out war are a handful of corrupted politicians and businessmen that stand to line their pockets.

originally posted by: Tjoran

originally posted by: madmac5150
MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is still in play. The Russians want a war with us, as much as we want a war with them.

The big question is this...

Would HRC or Barack Obama throw 300+ million of the rest of us under the bus to evade prosecution?

Think on that...

Why do you think that?

Last i checked the only people in the us and russia that want an all out war are a handful of corrupted politicians and businessmen that stand to line their pockets.

I think that for a simple reason....

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both sociopaths.

They would both willingly destroy the American people, and flee to a non-extradition country.


Edit to add:

As a father, I would not let my daughters anywhere near Donald Trump. Likewise, I would have banned them from meeting with Jack Kennedy... back in the day. (I have 3 beautiful daughters... and I am a father with a 12 ga.)

I would trust Trump much farther than I would EVER trust HRC.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Not to poke holes in your source, but Sputnik is the Russian answer to the Daily Mail. The video is far more interesting. In general I like your posts, keep up the good work.

The article linked to at the top of the original post in this thread was supposedly written by Pepe Escobar.

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from the US to East Asia. He is the former roving correspondent for Asia Times Online. Born in Brazil, he's been a foreign correspondent since 1985, and has lived in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Washington, Bangkok and Hong Kong.
SOURCE

At the bottom of that article it reads:

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.
SOURCE

I don't know if that changes anything, but it makes it more interesting to me.

originally posted by: madmac5150
1. There is no intelligent conversation on ATS

2. I have no "Top Secret" alien crap to report....

3 ...as a retired USAF SNCO I can tell you this...

3a ...there is NO winner in a global thermonuclear war...

3b ...only survivors. That is what I KNOW to be FACT.

At the end of the day, probably no one can predict how a hot WW3 would turn out. It's incredible to me to contemplate unknown unknowns that could be unimaginable on all sides.


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: madmac5150

There are 100 nuclear reactors in 30 states in the United States. The ecology of Earth as we know it won't last long with that many Fukushimas. I think the DUMBS will be full by then. I hear some of them are nice though.

a reply to: Profusion

The sad fact is that most really do not know just how destructive just one nuclear device can be...

Take one Hiroshima yield nuke, and drop it on NYC... but... that is a small nuke, by modern standards. 1/2 million dead.

Scale that weapon up by a factor of ten... or 100. That is the fierce reality of modern technology.

Still want to vote for Hillary?

Hope it just sticks to being an E(internet) Cold War 2.0* as opposed to otherwise, though, too much to ask for considering this "selection", not election. *Funny enough this site alone has reflected that over the past few years now, funny how some of the most pro establishment and anti Russia/Pro War with them types are against Hillary now. Are they conflicted?

EVERYONE calm down,just calm down .
WE ALL know, DESKS block atomic blasts and RADIATION from school...

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Hope it just sticks to being an E(internet) Cold War 2.0* as opposed to otherwise, though, too much to ask for considering this "selection", not election. *Funny enough this site alone has reflected that over the past few years now, funny how some of the most pro establishment and anti Russia/Pro War with them types are against Hillary now. Are they conflicted?

Deluded

Add military:
I just stumbled on this list. Out of 10 items, 9 is about USA and 8 of that is from 1990 - now. Trident should be excluded so 7 examples of failed attempts to modernize USA military gear. Zumwalt and F35 with famous BSoDs are not part of the list.

Russia is rebuilding its army with highly mobile, modular and pretty advanced weapons. S300 and S400 systems are at least comparable or superior to anything West have ready to use. Long lasting superiority in cruise missile technology is also think of past. Ballistic missile technology ... USA are buying rocket engines from Russia.

add war:
May be something along this lines:
1. Russia will successfully restore Assad's power in substantial parts of Syria.
2. Saudi Arabia will in revenge support insurgencies in Caucasus and elsewhere - exporting there surviving jihadists from Syria/Levanta region - they did it before, do you remember second Chechen war?.
3. Russia will attack directly SA - probably limited operation of SpetzNaz which will simple arrest half of Saudi court while inviting King and few top relatives for unlimited visit in Kremlin.
4. What happens next ... I do not know.

I think USA do not need to do anything. SA will escalate situation on its own. Why? I don't know. It is purely irrational regime. For example look where Riyadh sits and imagine water bills.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
Add military:
I just stumbled on this list. Out of 10 items, 9 is about USA and 8 of that is from 1990 - now. Trident should be excluded so 7 examples of failed attempts to modernize USA military gear. Zumwalt and F35 with famous BSoDs are not part of the list.

Russia is rebuilding its army with highly mobile, modular and pretty advanced weapons. S300 and S400 systems are at least comparable or superior to anything West have ready to use. Long lasting superiority in cruise missile technology is also think of past. Ballistic missile technology ... USA are buying rocket engines from Russia.

The U.S. West coast is soft... strict gun laws. Seattle/Portland/San Fran/LA/San Diego are all targets. The Rocky Mountains are the "Western Shield". Tough terrain, snipers behind every tree. (I will be one of those...)
This is how it plays out...as a military man... (20+ years)

Russia will hit Alaska/Wash. Ore. coasts first. Most likely would hit Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles with tactical nukes.

China will nuke Hickam/Pearl Joint Base, Kadena AB, Osan AB, Kunsan AB and Elmendorf AFB... no Pacific forces left.

Russia will simultaneously hit European cities and major US metropolitan areas in key areas.

New York, Chicago, D.C., Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Miami, Jacksonville, Houston, and even Toledo, Ohio. No more "Mudhens"... erased in a few seconds....

...the combined American and NATO response would be in the thousands of warheads.

...this is the part where N. America, Europe, and N. Asia will all just "cease to be"

Edit to add... think of billions of dead. At first... then, it gets bad.

a reply to: madmac5150

Agree.

Still IMHO slow escalation of conventional war via proxies is more probable - and for such scenario Russia starts to be well prepared. USA will try to avoid direct confrontation with Russia at all costs while supporting various forms of opposition in volatile regions (nothing new).
After few "civil wars" in ...stans things will settle somewhere around 1980' status quo.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: madmac5150

Agree.

Still IMHO slow escalation of conventional war via proxies is more probable - and for such scenario Russia starts to be well prepared. USA will try to avoid direct confrontation with Russia at all costs while supporting various forms of opposition in volatile regions (nothing new).
After few "civil wars" in ...stans things will settle somewhere around 1980' status quo.

The Founding Fathers specifically warned us not to engage in foreign affairs... and here we are. Screwing around in foreign affairs. They were far more brilliant 200+ years ago, than we are now.

a reply to: Profusion

YEP we ONLY paid for their uprising like useful idiots..www.idsa.in...

a reply to: Profusion

All I can say is LMFAO. The russians are more like 5 genergations behind the US. Why would the cry baby about our anti missile around their border if they are so far advanced. Their 5th gen aircraft is rusty if you've seen the videos. And pictures.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Profusion

YEP we ONLY paid for their uprising like useful idiots..www.idsa.in...

How many TRILLIONS of Dollars?

I wonder if Hillary is pissed, knowing the dollars left on the table were so close to being hers...