Selected Articles: “Mutually Assured Destruction”(MAD): The Nuclear Debate America Should be Having
By Adeyinka Makinde, October 11 2016
M.A.D. The concept of ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ which posited the prospect of a global catastrophe in the event of a nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union was one which permeated the popular consciousness of the people of both nations as indeed it did the rest of the world during the era of the Cold War. The realisation of Armageddon beckoning, replete with apocalyptic imagery of modern cities being turned into vast swathes of wasteland and of mass human annihilation, informed the policies of the respective superpowers.
By Colin Todhunter, October 10 2016
The game plan is to destroy Russia as a functioning state or to permanently weaken it so it submits to US hegemony. Washington believes it can actually win a nuclear conflict with Russia. It no longer regards nuclear weapons as a last resort but part of a conventional theatre of war and is willing to use them for pre-emptive strikes. The situation in Syria is most worrying of all. Another theatre of conflict instigated by the US that now sees it and Russia facing each other directly, with Moscow warning the US about the consequences of its aggression: possible nuclear war.
By Israel Shamir, October 10 2016
If the greatest poker game of all times will end by nuclear grand slam, and the survivors will review the causes of WWIII, they will die laughing. The Third World War had been fought to save al Qaeda. Yes, my dear readers! Uncle Sam invaded Afghanistan in order to punish al Qaeda, and now he started the World War to save al Qaeda. Positively a great ambivalent passionate love/hate relationship between the American gentleman and the Arab girl, from 9/11 to Aleppo.
By Eric Zuesse, October 12 2016
This news-report will be short but important: One major-Party U.S. Presidential candidate is so gross that his answer when the radio host Howard Stern said the individual’s daughter is “a piece of a**” was that she has “always been very voluptuous”; his competitor is so warmongering that she says “I am advocating the no-fly zone”, which means that she wants the U.S. to warn Syria and Russia that if they don’t stop flying their warplanes over Syria, the U.S. will shoot down those warplanes. (That’s what a “no-fly zone” means.) Which of these two candidates presents the bigger likelihood of starting World War III as the U.S. President — of starting a war against Russia?
By Graham Vanbergen, October 12 2016
Whilst sitting in a street cafe enjoying a Cappuccino watching busy people doing busy things it is hard to imagine that another war on the scale of 1939-45 could ever happen again, especially in Europe, after all, we’re all part of the European Union, a bloc of 28 nations set up in first place to end any future conflict on the continent. America has not experienced international conflict on its soil for over 200 years. But this over confidence in western security is misplaced as the events leading up to the next major conflict won’t be like the last.