For Donald Trump The 25 Million Souls Of Seoul Are Expendable In A North Korea Conflict

"There's gonna be a major, major conflict! And I'm sorry about Seoul! Tough luck there! But their sacrifice'll make me look more presidential!"

As The Financial Times reported yesterday, the bellicose Trump bunch wants Jimmy Carter to stay out of any peace -making deals with North Korea. This despite the war rhetoric reaching new heights. In a Reuters interview yesterday, the egomaniacal baboon- in- chief grunted, then growled: "We're heading for a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely!'

And as I posted earlier, this hotheaded maggot doesn't possess the skill, background historical knowledge or intelligence to steer clear of a conflagration with a nuclear state that would unleash a pitiless assault not on the U.S. (which is too far away to strike) but on its South Korean ally. Specifically, the 25 million citizens of Seoul, the "most densely populated city on Earth" according to one general reporting to the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

Does Trump care one whit about any of those innocent civilians when Kim Jung-Un unleashes a barrage of tens of thousands of shells from 4,000 artillery pieces? Of course not! For him, they are in part or all at once expendable pawns on the grand "chessboard" on which he's playing the mighty "sheriff" of the world. Having been stoked to the brim with his Syria cruise missile strike, he now believes he can unleash a more devastating one on North Korea. But he's a damned fool and idiot because it is the millions of Seoul who will pay.

Yes, the U.S. would ultimately come out ahead but it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Meaning the costs would exceed the brief moment of victory, mainly for the South Koreans who'd have to body bag the dead (what body parts they could find) and rebuild their devastated city. And I'm assuming here no nuclear weapons would be used which might be pie in the freaking sky.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (the same group that operates the ‘doomsday clock’ and has now moved it two and a half minutes to midnight) estimates the North possesses twenty weapons in the 10 – 20 kiloton range or roughly the same magnitude of yield as the atomic bomb that reduced Hiroshima to ashes in 1945.

 Would they actually use it? 12 days ago in an interview with CBS’ Ben Stacy, the North Korean Defense minister when asked about any response if the U.S. made a pre-emptive strike didn’t bandy words: he said there would be a total nuclear retaliatory strike.  How serious should he be taken?

 First, they are estimated to be at the most primitive, early stages of A-bomb development. According to the most recent Physics Today (April issue) their existing weapons would deliver a yield of roughly 0.08 kt/ kilogram. That is yield per actual bomb mass.  This means they’d need to be able to launch or carry (via plane) at least 100 kg of bomb mass to get an 8 kiloton A -blast, or 200 kg to get a 16 kt yield.   This is feasible with their existing bombers and might also be with their most advanced (solid fuel) missile. However, none of these weapons could reach the U.S. presently – though they could wreak havoc on Seoul, South Korea – with the potential to obliterate over 20 million people as well as all U.S. troops stationed in S. Korea.

Clearly, this is a cost and risk no sane leader would visit on a vulnerable ally. And yet Trump, who fancies himself Dictator of the world, has no qualms about doing so - from his rhetoric- nor any sympathy for the South Koreans who will be caught in the line of fire as a possible mini nuclear holocaust plays out.

 Second, that they would make such a retaliatory strike is beyond question. As numerous commentators have pointed out – e.g. Sue Mi Terry - former CIA North Korean analyst, they’d regard it as a matter of survival. Much like Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962 who told former Kennedy Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in 1992 (during a 30 yr. reunion) he’d have launched 93 nuclear-armed IRBMs had the U.S. invaded. (JFK was being pushed at the time to bomb and invade Cuba by his Joint Chiefs of Staff).

 When asked in an MSNBC interview 2 weeks ago if Trump would actually attack North Korea, Sue Terry responded:

 “I can’t see him following through on this and that is the problem with the brinksmanship policy. Because you’re putting yourself in a bind. You will either have to back down and lose credibility or you are stuck on a ledge with a military option which is very, very risky.

 North Korea is not Syria. It’s not Afghanistan. It’s going to have very devastating consequences.  North Korea will retaliate to any kind of military option. They will retaliate against South Korea given seventy percent of its ground forces are deployed within 100 kilometers (60 miles) of the DMZ.  And there’s twenty thousand U.S. military in South Korea and twenty million people in Seoul”

 But if his words yesterday are taken seriously, and there's no reason to believe this insane maggot is bluffing - given his ego-- then the South can expect ferocious blowback and devastation. Trump then is not  a rational actor like JFK was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He’s an imperious,  impetuous braggart and clueless numbskull narcissist not even aware of recent history. He operates according to an unstable  “high conflict” personality which one psychologist (Bill Eddy) has said makes him a “more dangerous politician  than Adolf Hitler”.  In other words, unlike with JFK, we can only assume Trump will make exactly the opposite decision in a nuclear game of high stakes poker.

The sad and sorry Truth is that Donald Trump cares no more about the lives of those millions living in Seoul, than he did about the gassed kids in Syria prompting his cruise missile attack. Those kids were  merely transient blips on his cable TV screen arousing a transient emotion then a brief brain "rupture"  which saw that if he made a bold response he might profit. And profit he did! The media backed off its close scrutiny and criticism and suddenly saw this POS as "presidential" .

Expect him to play "double or nothing" with the Korean standoff, but we know already who the real losers of this charlatan's  game will be.
----------------------------------------------
To understand the full background, read this handy collection of some of the world's leading experts published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Feel free to forward links to others:

North Korea in the news again: a time to reflect, edited by Dan Drollette

Will South Korea go nuclear? Robert Einhorn, Duyeon Kim

North Korea's nuclear weapons: What now? Roundtable with Shen Dingli, Chung-in Moon, Andrei Lankov

Hecker assesses North Korean hydrogen bomb claims, Siegfried Hecker

The North Korea that can say no, Bruce Cumings

Getting North Korea wrong, Bruce Cumings

Have Americans Lost Their Consciousness Of Nuclear Armageddon?

'Duck and cover' scene above similar to what I had to endure with classmates in 1952.

Trump issuing reckless threats of action against North Korea which have about as much use as teeth on a hen.

Asked by an interviewer from WTMJ - Wisconsin yesterday whether Americans should be concerned about thermonuclear war - with the rising tensions with North Korea- Trump responded:

"Look, you always have to be concerned. You don't know exactly who you're dealing with."

In fact, anyone with an IQ over room temperature  (especially a leader),  would  know  the consequences if WHO he is dealing with is the head of a nuclear-armed state. Thus,  making one wrong move would surely lead to the total obliteration of civilization and its reduction to radioactive ash.  Trump's absurd response shows he has no business with the nuclear codes given his answer conflated the way he's currently dealing with North Korea (arrogant brinksmanship), and the way a tense situation with a nuclear -armed state can quickly get out of control with one wrong move.  Alas, to our great detriment, Trump is no JFK - who had to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But Trump's off the cuff,  dumbo answer elicits a question that has surfaced with some left pundits (e.g. Lawrence O'Donnell): Do most Americans have any consciousness of what it means to be exterminated in a nuclear war? Do they have a sensible reaction of trepidation when tensions rise between nuclear-armed nations? Given that 90% of Americans alive today never lived in a nuclear standoff era the answer is most Americans don't and hence are likely to reflect Trump's blasé  attitude.

Back in 1952 such nuclear war consciousness was an abiding feature of our lives as first graders at St. Leo's Parochial School in Milwaukee. Then, almost every afternoon we had to be ready for a 'duck and cover' exercise.  Nobody told the nuns - or anyone else evidently - that ducking under a desk and trying to cover with one's hands would be next to useless if an actual A-bomb dropped on your city. As for an H-bomb, you'd be incinerated within microseconds of any air blast. But never mind, these exercises created a kind of "nuclear consciousness" that you didn't want your country recklessly starting a war it wouldn't be able to win.

Flash forward to October, 1962 and the Cuban Missile Crisis when that nuclear extermination consciousness was embedded in the brains of millions for real.  At that time I was a junior at Monsignor Edward Pace High School in North Miami when the Principal, Brother Leo, arrived in our classroom at about noon, notifying us of suspension of classes:

“Boys, we are dismissing school right now. Please go home and make whatever preparations you need to with your families. Let us hope and pray we have a world to come back to when this is all over.”

On arriving home, my parents got their  five offspring together and had us praying the rosary in front of a grotto to the Virgin Mary in the living room. It was serious stuff, and though I later grew into atheism, I understood that at that time this was the only response possible. Shelters were no use, not for long anyway, and besides in Florida - barely above sea level - they were a lost cause.

We all knew the reality of the nuclear threat as well, because we'd been following it on one of three major stations: ABC, CBS or NBC. There was not a plethora of alternative cable news stations back then, nor the capacity to create fake news like now. So when tens of millions of our fellow citizens tuned into one of the stations they all left with the same consciousness of the threat posed by Russian ships heading for Cuba with a U.S. blockade in their way.  No subset of citizen consciousness diverged from the whole as is the case with our balkanized media now.

None of this is hype or bull, but LIVED history, as opposed to merely read or contrived history. Living in Miami as the 13 days of the crisis unfolded my brothers and I saw the Nike missile carriers being drawn through the streets of Miami. Even the strip joints and peep flicks on NW 79th St had been shuttered.

Subsequent release of the tapes made during that time confirmed the gravity.  For those that want all the details of what went down day by day, get hold of: ‘The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis’, by Ernest R. May and Philip K. Zelikow (1997, President and Fellows of Harvard College). Therein, on p. 347, for ’10:00 A.M. Oct. 24” the diligent reader will read:

“At the same time the quarantine became effective, the Strategic Air Command moved from the general Defense Condition 3 to Defense Condition 2, the level just below general war. In addition to ICBMs and submarine-based ballistic missiles, every available bomber – more than 1,400 aircraft- went on alert. Scores of bombers, each loaded with several nuclear weapons and carrying folders for pre-assigned targets in the Soviet Union, were kept continuously in the air around the clock with shifts- refueled by aerial tankers, taking turns hovering over Northern Canada and the Mediterranean Sea. The Soviet government was presumed to be aware of these developments.”

How close did we come to perdition? Very! But the degree of proximity to nuclear holocaust was mostly learned only decades later with FOIA released files. For example, we learned Kennedy was under enormous pressure from the Joint Chiefs and especially Air Force Gen, Curtis Lemay to launch a bomber strike against Castro and an invasion.

On p. 183 of the 'Kennedy Tapes' book, one sees Lemay saying that "we have got to do more than take out the missiles" and he demands a massive air strike as well. By Oct. 1992, when Robert McNamara was interviewed on 'Today' he observed that only ex post facto did the Kennedy situation room and Pentagon learn that all 93 odd IRBMs in Cuba were already armed with single megaton warheads, and had JFK followed Lemay's directives all hell would have broken loose.

McNamara learned of this while on a conference visit to Havana in 1992, commemorating the 30th anniversary of the crisis. McNamara had asked Fidel what he would have done had the U.S. invaded Cuba. Castro didn't hesitate, informing him that over 100 armed (with single megaton warhead) missiles would have been sent flying.

Flabbergasted, McNamara pressed him: "You really would have destroyed your country?" and Fidel replied, "Yes, and you would have too in a similar situation!"

Here's how that would have played out: At the first hint of U.S. attack planes picked up on Cuban radar most or all of the 93 IRBMs would have been launched. The targets would mainly have been U.S. east coast cities: Miami, Baltimore, Washington, DC, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, but a number of the missiles would have struck interior cities including Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Chicago and possibly Milwaukee.

Even as those missiles were in flight, the Kennedy White House would have been forced to go to Defcon 1, or full war condition, even as the Soviets - also now acknowledging what was happening (realizing Cuba's missile launch would make them a target), launched their own missiles. In the space of about 30 minutes, as McNamara pointed out, some 500-odd missiles would have been in the air headed for targets in the USA and USSR. 

Since most warheads at that time were in the 5-10 megaton range, the full nuclear exchange - lasting maybe an hour would have resulted in possibly 300 million dead and massive clouds of radiation polluting the rest of the planet via the trades and other winds. Within a year, plausibly most humans would be dead or dying - if not of radiation sickness then from lack of food crops due to nuclear winter - with billions of tons of dust in the atmosphere blotting out sunlight.

Those of us who lived those days retain the consciousness of how a nuclear holocaust can and might occur on a hair trigger decision, or lack of one. Fortunately for us all, we had JFK at the helm then and his abundant intelligence, excelling comprehension of facts and history enabled him to surmount the pressures of his generals. However, many of us are uncertain the hollow shadow of a man at the helm now also has those properties. By all recent evidence he doesn't, he lacks the fundaments of sound judgement and is the very type of incandescent idiot who might well trigger the incident that gets us into a thermonuclear war.

The fact this nitwit didn't even know where his naval attack "armada"  (the Carl Vinson carrier strike  group)  was when he blurted it was "on its way" to the Korean peninsula  shows he is a clueless buffoon with no accountability or leadership mettle. Worse, his illustrious staff (including NSC honcho H.R. McMaster and defense secretary James Mattis), supposedly the "adults in the room",  echoed the same nonsense. So either they were outright lying when they claimed the Carl Vinson carrier group was "approaching the Korean peninsula" - when it was three thousand miles south near Australia  - or they didn't know. Either one is cause for alarm, almost as much as the brinksmanship with North Korea.

These are the goobers now in charge of managing a real, ongoing nuclear crisis with North Korea, who don't even know where their carrier strike group is.  Conversely, JFK - unlike this Trump clown car- always insisted during the 13-day Cuban Missile Crisis that he know where every ship and plane was as well as troop movements. Under no circumstance did he want to send an accidental message to the Russians causing them to believe the U.S. was planning a first strike.

Ask me why I am as worried now as I was during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and I will ask that you re-read this post again, and then get hold of the Kennedy Tapes book. As long as Trump is fouling the White House no one should "breathe easier", or sleep the sleep of the just.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/mike-whitney/72261/the-u-s-pushed-north-korea-to-build-nukes-yes-or-no

Excerpt:

"we have to understand that situation has changed in a fundamental way. North Korea now has nuclear weapons, which means that North Korea is a nuclear weapons state. US policy-makers need to repeat that to themselves and let it sink in. It changes the calculus entirely. When one realizes that the North now has the power to reduce Osaka, Tokyo or Seoul to smoldering rubble with one flip of the switch, that has to be taken seriously. In practical terms, it means the so called “military option” is off the table, "

Hillary E-Mail Reveals Her Neocon Ambitions to Launch Syrian War

Hillary the hawk sounds off with dozens of flags behind her.


Two things I detest about American politics in the new warmonger era are: 1) The need to brandish dozens of flags to try to project a super patriot image at every major speech venue, and 2) the use of identity politics to brainwash followers into  blind support. (In the latter case using race or gender as the primary basis to drive support. In Hillary's case the sounding board is "the first woman president".)

With reference to (1), in a speech last month at a San Diego Naval base Hillary went all out super patriot with flag brandishing to show she would out-Trump Trump in terms of national security. This already sent my warmonger alarms going, before she even commenced her bellicose speech on what we need to do in order to further police the planet. And, in the next instant, I thought how much her speech differed from JFK's Pax Americana address at American University on June 10, 1963. In that address Kennedy had since dropped the cold warrior pose that got him into office, and warned that America cannot be the cop of the world resorting always to American weapons of war and imposing a "Pax Americana". See e.g. the most notable parts of his speech here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RclaV_3_eOA

Kennedy's wakeup call likely came during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962 when the world came within a hair's breadth of World War III - and had a lesser mortal been in charge - we likely wouldn't be having this conversation now. But Kennedy had the steel cojones to face down Gen.  Curtis Lemay and the Joint Chiefs who were humping and pumping for a bombing and invasion of Cuba. A move we only learned later (from former Secretary Robert McNamara, in his documentary 'The Fog of War') would have triggered the launch of more than 90 Soviet IRBMs already in Cuba and with single megaton warheads.

Leaders like Kennedy, of course, only come around about once every several generations and likely never will again, after his assassination in November, 1963. The Zapruder film is now likely replayed for every incoming President to remind him (or her, say in the case of HRC) of what happens to those who believe they're bigger than the shadow government (also called "the deep state" - see link .at end.)

However, it is safe to believe that Hillary doesn't have to worry too much about offending that deep state. This is given it is all about national security, especially as the deep state was the likeliest source of Kennedy's demise after he signed NSAM-263 to pull out of Vietnam by 1965.

As evidence of Hillary being all in for more military engagement we have  the Clinton email  recently released from April, 2012. This clearly reflected the thinking of the then-Secretary of State and her inner circle about one year into the Syrian civil war.  It likely still does, which probably makes the national security establishment much more comfy with her than Donald Trump. (As former NSA Director Michael Hayden opined on a CBS Morning spot a week ago).  It is safe to say, on reading this email,  that it constitutes a putative blueprint for what "Madame Secretary" would seek to do as commander-in-chief. Especially in view of her saber -rattling AIPAC speech, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/03/as-predicted-hillary-panders-to-aipac.html

Note in particular, Clinton's  words:

"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad."

Seriously? And you think the Russians will just sit by, smile and allow you to do that? (As you think they'd allow you to implement 'no fly' zones)  You have to be kidding. Again, this is what Bernie referred to in the debates as lack of judgment.

But she goes on, writing (resonant with her AIPAC speech):

"Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium."

Again, seriously? Yes, and totally controverting the opinions of many nuclear experts.  As Joe Cirincione , nuclear compliance specialist and President of 'Ploughshares Fund',  put it a year ago in an MSNBC segment:

"This is a way to stop Iran from getting the bomb. without going to war. It has its risks, but those pale compared to the alternatives."

Indeed. He then elaborated on the parameters, to which most critics are oblivious when they yelp that Iranians are too "wily" and have "every incentive to cheat". (Implying the IAEA isn't up to the job of inspection).

"This is not based on trust, this is not based on good intentions. It's not based on the technologies we've used in Iraq, for example. This is 21st century technology, state of the art, fiber optics seals, cameras, sensors, audits, inventories allowing 24/7 inspections in all the declared facilities and the right to inspect suspect facilities including the military sites so much in dispute. One might possibly evade one layer of these inspections but the chances of evading all are quite remote . We can track every aspect of Iran's  production and with those inspections there's no expiration date."

The top nuclear physicists also agree this is the case, but one wonders if Hillary even reads what they've said. Perhaps not as I can't imagine her a fan of Physics Today.

Then, to further undermine our confidence we read:

"Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly. …

“Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted."

 

Israel losing its "nuclear monopoly"? Are you kidding me? Israel,  according to the best NSA-CIA estimates,  has over 250 nuclear warheads. This includes enough megatonnage to reduce the entire Middle East to radioactive ash. No one else in the region- other than Pakistan (at 140) - has any. This monopoly, one could argue, is in fact a huge contributor to destabilizing the region because other nations - like Syria and Iran - surely realize they can be incinerated with virtually no warning at all. All it would take is one U.S. President hyped up and ready to unleash "warranted military action" - say by invoking an excuse like "Israel's security".

JFK, in 1963, fretted about Israel developing a nuclear capability which is why he wanted to dispense inspectors to its Dimona nuclear plant- which then P.M. David Ben-Gurion had insisted was just for "peaceful" purposes.  But it turned out (via back channel intel) Dimona had been processing high grade nuclear materials.

The extant public records released as part of the JFK Records Act and other FOIA requests show clearly that Kennedy was unswerving in his hostility to a nuclear -armed Israel. Having only months earlier seen how precipitously close the world came to nuclear war initiated by Cuban IRBMs - he likely was averse to remotely repeating the experiment with Israel as the U.S. proxy (as opposed to Cuba being the Soviet proxy).

And while many of the background Dimona files are buried as deeply as the CIA's Joannides' files, we do know from the documents track that one American company - The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation of Pittsburgh, was instrumental in procuring enriched uranium for the Israelis' atomic weapons project.

By the time American inspectors finally arrived at Dimona, Ben-Gurion had pulled a move variously described as nuclear 'three card monte' and atomic 'hide and seek'. In effect, all the inspectors found was a plant dedicated to cheap nuclear power as opposed to atom bombs, as 'Daddy David' originally proclaimed to the young American President. But.....since we know Israel compiled over 200 atomic bombs (ranging from 10 kt to 1 mt) in the intervening years, we know this was a ruse.

The danger of a Syrian war led by Hillary and the neocons should not be lost on anyone. While Trump would definitely be an absolute disaster, a nuclear holocaust initiated by aggressive U.S. actions against Syria and Russia would be even worse.

Hillary's April, 2012 email and her San Diego hawk speech prefigures further American violence on the global stage - now in Syria- which we don't need and can't afford. On this Independence Day, a better move is to consider the words of an Army Iraq War vet  (Roy Scranton) writing in the Sunday NY Times (Review, p. 7):

"Perhaps this Fourth of July...instead of celebrating American violence, we might celebrate our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the ideals those documents invoke of an educated citizenry deciding its fate not through war but through civil disagreement. Instead of honoring our troops, whose chief virtues are obedience and aggressiveness, we could honor our great dissenters and conscientious objectors. And instead of blowing things up, maybe we could try building something."


See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/67928/the-democratic-war-platform


And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/67956/13-ways-of-looking-at-the-deep-state


And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/67946/hillary-cheated

Stanislav Petrov: The 2nd Man To Save The World

Most Americans who've had a proper introduction to recent American History are aware of how JFK pretty well saved the world (much of it) back in October, 1962 at the peak  of the Cuban Missile Crisis. As we know, Kennedy rejected the Joint Chiefs pressure to bomb and invade Cuba in favor of a naval blockade. Just as well, since as his former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara observed (in his documentary 'The Fog of War') Castro would have launched over 100 armed ballistic missiles had that happened.

McNamara learned of this while on a conference visit to Havana in 1992, commemorating the 30th anniversary of the crisis. McNamara had asked Fidel what he would have done had the U.S. invaded Cuba. Castro didn't hesitate, informing him that over 100 armed (with single megaton warhead) missiles would have been sent flying.

Flabbergasted, McNamara pressed him: "You really would have destroyed your country?" and Fidel replied, "Yes, and you would have too in a similar situation!"

Echoing the 'better dead than Red' meme entrenched in Americans at the time.

How close we came to nuclear war at the time was well documented in the excellent book of the tape transcripts: T'he Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis’, by Ernest R. May and Philip K. Zelikow (1997, President and Fellows of Harvard College).

Therein , on p. 347, for ’10:00 A.M. Oct. 24” one finds:

“At the time the quarantine became effective, the Strategic Air Command moved from the general Defense Condition 3 to Defense Condition 2, the level just below general war. In addition to ICBMs and submarine-based ballistic missiles, every available bomber – more than 1,400 aircraft- went on alert. Scores of bombers, each loaded with several nuclear weapons and carrying folders for pre-assigned targets in the Soviet Union, were kept continuously in the air around the clock with shifts- refueled by aerial tankers, taking turns hovering over Northern Canada and the Mediterranean Sea. The Soviet government was presumed to be aware of these developments.”

On p. 183 one beholds Gen. Curtis  LeMay saying that "We have got to do more than take out the missiles" and he demands a massive air strike as well.  Here's how that would have played out: At the first hint of U.S. attack planes picked up on Cuban radar most or all of the 100-odd Soviet IRBMs would have been launched. The targets would mainly have been U.S. east coast cities: Miami, Baltimore, Washington, DC, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, but a number of the missiles would have struck interior cities including Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Chicago and possibly Milwaukee.

Even as those missiles were in flight, the Kennedy White House would have been forced to go to Defcon 1, or full war condition, even as the Soviets - also now acknowledging what was happening (realizing Cuba's missile launch would make them a target), launched their own missiles. In the space of about 30 minutes, as McNamara pointed out, some 7,500 missiles would have been in the air headed for targets in the USA and USSR.  Since most warheads at that time were in the 1-10 megaton range, the full nuclear exchange - lasting maybe an hour would have resulted in possibly 300 million dead and massive clouds of radiation polluting the rest of the planet via the trades and other winds.

The world escaped at least partial obliteration, thanks to Kennedy's use of reason over reaction.

Flash forward now to September 26, 1983.   A Soviet satellite detects five U.S. ICBMS heading toward the USSR.  This detection immediately causes alarms to sound at the Soviet Central Command in Oko with backlit screens flashing LAUNCH!    Standard operating procedure at the time dictated that the command be followed with a full scale missile launch - including all 3,000 or so Soviet ICBMs - all armed with multi-megaton warheads.

But something didn't seem right to Stanislav Petrov, lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces.  Why only five ICBMs? Surely if the Americans had really planned a pre-emptive nuclear attack they'd have thrown their whole arsenal at the USSR.  

Using his reason, like Kennedy did 20 years earlier, Petrov declared the system's indication a false alarm. Subsequent investigation showed that he was right: no missiles were approaching and the computer detection system was malfunctioning.  According to the Wikipedia account:

"It was subsequently determined that the false alarm had been created by a rare alignment of sunlight on high-altitude clouds and the satellites' Molniya orbits, an error later corrected by cross-referencing a geostationary satellite."

Alignment of a satellite with sunlight on high altitude clouds nearly led to a full retaliatory response from the Russians and likely nuclear war? Yes, indeed, and the near breakdown showed a nascent weakness in the Soviet early warning system and also raised concern about the U.S. system too - also based on hair trigger alarms.

While there remains debate on the role Petrov actually played in the events that day, just as there remains debate on Kennedy's role, all generally agree that his voice of doubt- and reasoning -  was enough to leverage restraint.  Analogous to how Kennedy's doubt that an invasion was the answer in 1962 leveraged a restraint on precipitous action that might have led to a major nuclear exchange.

We have had then two men saving the world at different times. The question is: Will a third person come to the rescue with the next geopolitical or  technical snafu? Or will our luck have run out?

Could Republicans Be Responsible for a Nuclear War?

The question posed in the header may shock many people, especially as the take in most of the corporo-media has been to treat the letter by 47 Senate Repukes to Iran as something of a political prank, a joke. But it's no joke, and blistering takedowns of these imps (led by one cotton-wool brained Sen. from Ark. named Tom Cotton) by the NY Times and Financial Times don't mince words on how subversive and dangerous an act it was.

Cotton is supposed to be a former vet, but by his reckless and stupid instigation, trying to disrupt careful negotiations with the Iranians, this idiot could be responsible for starting a nuclear exchange down the road which could quickly escalate.

Don't believe it? Then you don't know history, even recent history. You have zero clue of how escalation and a few blunders can set a path to the unthinkable. And this may well explain why a bozo like Cotton could act so precipitously and unthinkingly. Because former military or not he doesn't know jack about history.

Most of us at the time of the Cuban Missile crisis in October, 1962, didn't know it was a real crisis at the outset. While JFK had appeared on national television and presented images of Russian missiles under wraps, the general  media consensus and take from the military and Joint Chiefs is that these were 'dummies' - not armed.  (The meme had taken hold  that the Russian technicians didn't get a chance to mount the warheads).

Only 30 years later, did Robert McNamara learn (while attending a conference on the crisis in Havana) that more than 100 of the missiles were really armed with single megaton warheads and ready to launch.  He reported all this in the excellent documentary, 'The Fog of War'.  (Which every serious citizen needs to watch!)

What originally was intended to be a naval blockade of Russian ships could have quickly degenerated if the insane fool, Gen. Curtis Lemay, had his way and JFK had launched an invasion of Cuba. As McNamara learned much later, Castro was ready to order all missiles launched if that had occurred.  In the documentary, McNamara reports he asked Castro if he'd really have destroyed his country and started a nuclear war merely because of a U.S. invasion. Without hesitation, he affirmed, "Yes, I would!"

Those of us living then only learned later, with the release of the war room tapes (published in ‘The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis’, by Ernest R. May and Philip K. Zelikow , 1997, President and Fellows of Harvard College), how close we came to seeing the world blown to bits. And it would only have taken Kennedy obeying the demands of one loony tune crank general.  (One that LBJ idolized, btw, and developed backchannels with behind JFK's back.). As reported in the book:

"the Strategic Air Command moved from the general Defense Condition 3 to Defense Condition 2, the level just below general war. In addition to ICBMs and submarine-based ballistic missiles, every available bomber – more than 1,400 aircraft- went on alert. Scores of bombers, each loaded with several nuclear weapons and carrying folders for pre-assigned targets in the Soviet Union, were kept continuously in the air around the clock with shifts- refueled by aerial tankers."

While Repuke Sen. Tom Cotton is no Gen. Curtis Lemay, his rash actions in formulating and dispatching this subversive  letter to Iran could incept such collateral damage down the road that it potentially leads to as serious an outcome as we nearly had in Oct., 1962.  Think only of the consequences if the letter actually derails the peace process and ultimately leads to war with Iran, which both the 'pukes and Israel's Netanyahu desperately want.

And why should bomber strikes on Iran lead to nuclear war?  As a conceptual template, look no further than the excellent 1983 Brit film, 'Threads'.   What commences as localized military power plays in Europe - much as we're seeing now in Ukraine with NATO and Russia - quickly metastasizes to NATO-Russian confrontation in Iran (think oil!).

Once NATO and Russian forces appear in the same theater, events quickly deteriorate. From the initial strikes on a nuclear reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the deliberate exchange of two tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan).  You know that each misstep almost foretells the next and you sense the inevitable, even before the air raid sirens scream in Sheffield - immediately followed by an air burst - which delivers an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) that knocks out all electricity.

Within hours we then see the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) . By then there is  nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. Those not  incinerated in the initial multi-megaton blasts, face the agony of radiation poisoning and the horrific death that portends. By the end, only a few survive, and struggle to grow meager crops even ten years after the nuclear winter.

In the final scene we behold  a young woman of maybe 18, strapped to a filthy gurney and giving birth.  She writhes in pain, screams to 100 -plus decibel levels (no pain killers) and ultimately the  midwife presents her with an infant with a frog-like face, scales and small scaled horns. As she hysterically screams in horror at her mutant, grunting offspring, the film pans to black and the credits roll.

This is perhaps the film Tom Cotton and his cotton-pickin' moron Reepo colleagues ought to have watched before pulling their recent theatrics!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/61401/the-washington-post-will-kill-us-all


And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/61390/a-reasoned-response-to-a-washington-post-call-for-war-with-iran


Also:



http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/medea-benjamin/61367/tom-cotton-is-the-worst-bully-in-the-senate-here-are-10-reasons-why

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/61363/why-47-republican-senators-should-not-be-viewed-as-traitors

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-wellen/61359/republican-senators-letter-to-iran-has-some-invoking-the-t-word

Liberals Can Also Be Misinformed And Ignorant In Parsing Our History

-
On reading an article ('Can We Ever Recover from the Murder of John Kennedy?') by Harvey Wasserman, on the liberal blog smirkingchimp.com two nights ago, I was impressed by the insight displayed and why we as a people still haven't come to terms with his killing. However, many of the comments were another thing - demonstrating every manner of ignorance and idiocy one could imagine. It confirmed my belief that liberals are as woefully ill-informed about our 35th President and his record as right wingers. And while not quite in the "Larry Schweikart" "mold they aren't far behind from what I read.

Some examples:

1) One bonehead who goes by the monicker 'RE James50' claimed Kennedy had issued "Reaganesque supply side tax cuts"when President  This ignorant bollocks came straight from the playbook of Charles Krauthammer, resident WaPo neocon, who used it in 2001 when the initial Bush tax cuts were being promoted. It ought not be necessary to say this, but any liberal who incorporates false arguments and claims from the likes of Krauthammer is as misinformed as he is. (Krauthammer attempted to convey a veneer of truth by citing  a JFK speech before the New York Economic Club in December, 1962.  JFK's speech endorsed a general tax cut, and let's bear in mind at the time that the top rate was 91%. JFK proposed lowering it to 65% for the wealthiest, still nearly two times what the current top rate is for them (after the Bush tax cuts).

When a well-informed commentator tried to correct James he simply doubled down on this bullshit - even after the sane contributor presented evidence of Kennedy's proposals from Donald Gibson's excellent monograph: 'Battling Wall Street- The Kennedy Presidency'. To remind readers of what that evidence was,  JFK's tax cut proposals included:

- The elimination of all tax breaks set up in the form of foreign investment operations or companies

- The repeal of all tax advantages by corporations operating in low tax countries, such as Switzerland

- The repeal of the 100% charitable contribution write-off by the wealthy

- Withholding tax on the investments, dividends and capital of the wealthy to ensure revenues could not be lost by too many shelters or at the 'end point'.

- Tax on investment dividends so that all those earning in excess of $180 k would pay a much higher rate.

-Devices that would prevent 'high bracket taxpayers' from concealing income from 'personal holding companies'.

- An anti-speculation provision that would ensure property or investments were kept at least one year - else no benefit from existing capital gains rates would apply

-The elimination of special 'gift' transfers as well as repeal of the $50 dividend exclusion and the 4% dividend credit.

(Source: 'Battling Wall Street - The Kennedy Presidency', by Donald Gibson, Sheridan Square Press, 1994, pp. 22-23)

In addition - again omitted by the conservos - JFK targeted large oil and gas producers who had been manipulating a (1954) law to avoid taxes and gain an advantage over smaller producers.

The character ('RE James') on smirkingchimp averred it didn't matter because Kennedy "didn't get his proposals passed". But this is unmediated rubbish that fails to grasp that what ended up on the table was a compromise that was the best Kennedy could do with a Repub congress,  Granted then that most of his provisions didn't survive the compromises forced by congressional committees (which held JFK's Medicare, and Civil rights legislation up for ransom)  but it represented the best he could do under the circumstances- and in no sense were the cuts "supply side" - first because supply side hadn't even been invented yet! (By Arthur Laffer). and second because supply side is always tilted much more to the richest.

A bit of background:

In 1974, Arthur Laffer,  then an economist at the University of Chicago,  traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with Donald Rumsfeld, Gerald Ford's then chief of staff (though Rumsfeld subsequently fobbed him off on Dick Cheney).   Laffer had a new theory on why tax rates were inefficient and high, or one might say "inefficiently high. Laffer then proceeded to sketch his infamous diagram on a napkin on why the rich could be said to be "over taxed".



Laffer's crude napkin diagram is shown here for reference. As drawn, it was totally convincing! Especially for a guy like Cheney with minimal math skills. Note the line defining the highest marginal tax rate of 70% for Gerald Ford's presidency. What Laffer's curve sought to show is that by cutting that rate down, say to 50%, one could increase the revenues by nearly 35%! Of course, the 50% turned out to be wholly arbitrary and in fact after Reagan became President in 1980 the rates were cut down to 50 by 1981, then to 28% (by 1988). After all, if one could increase revenues by cutting taxes 20%, imagine what one could do by cutting them more than 40%!

Thus did Laffer's curve become the basis of Reagan's tax cuts and the whole tax cut meme ever since, despite the fact that in reality no community or even human body has mamanged to GROW by virtue of starving! But try to tell the bulk of Americans, who continue to buy into this codswallop at a mind-boggling rate! (Or that Kennedy actually prescribed them too!)

But the difference between taking a top 91% rate down to 65% and keeping already ridiculously low rates of 36.5% is the difference between night and day. And imposing tax cuts of the magnitude of Reagan's in an already debt exploding environment ($1.5 trillion already splurged on defense by mid -1985) is fiscal insanity. By comparison, idiots like James were totally unaware Kennedy still had a healthy surplus (as opposed to deficit environment) to work in, so could afford his tax cuts without doing untold damage.

Were Kennedy's tax policies really as maimed as RE James suggests? Go look at the record in the press at the time then decide!   For example,  Fortune accused him of an attempt to "manipulate the tax level against the business cycle". ('Activism in the White House', June, 1961, p. 117).  Why the hell would such an organ of finance capital bellyache like this if Kennedy's tax law was a hollow fake?

Two years later, Fortune implored Congress to stop JFK from "using tax policy as instruments to manage the economy". ('The Dream Businessmen Are Losing', Sept. 1963, p. 91).  Again, why the whining if Kennedy's tax cuts were so wussy and "supply sided"? All James had to do was look at the media record, but like too many liberals he was more invested in buying into Kennedy's weakness than his strengths and accomplishments. (Something I partially blame on Kennedy "historians" like Robert Dallek who have no remote clue what the man actually did, and also critics like Noam Chomsky and Seymour Hersh - with his several books, articles on JFK's dalliances)

Along the same lines, the "central organ of finance capital" - The Wall Street Journal, launched various articles and diatribes accusing JFK of being a "statist" and other things. Some of those articles include:

- 8/6/62 'No Cause for Celebration'; p. 6;

- 3/26/63 'Too Much Money, Too Little Thought', p. 18;

- 8/15/63 'When Friends Become Foes', p. 8

Meanwhile, Henry Hazlitt, contributing editor at Newsweek (The Washington Post's sister publication) was airing many of the same complaints against JFK. These polemics, appearing regularly in Hazlitt's 'Business Tides', included taking JFK to task for his tax policies - including the proposed tax on U.S. business earnings abroad while he also chastised Kennedy for "welfare spending".

Never mind! The cynical manipulators out to brainwash citizens are betting that most are ignorant of recent American history and they will surely exploit that deficiency to play their little game. As long as useful idiots and tools such as RE James exist, they will keep on doing it.

Sadly, in scanning the comments, James' foolishness didn't stop there, he actually also took the sane and rational commentator to task for "quoting Curtis LeMay" as evidence that Kennedy  saved the world by refusing to bomb and invade Cuba. In fact, the commentator had referenced the actual transcripts of the tapes at the time in the book, The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis’, by Ernest R. May and Philip K. Zelikow (1997, President and Fellows of Harvard College).

The transcripts included the specific reference (p. 347) that "Strategic Air Command moved from the general Defense Condition 3 to Defense Condition 2, the level just below general war. In addition to ICBMs and submarine-based ballistic missiles, every available bomber – more than 1,400 aircraft- went on alert. Scores of bombers, each loaded with several nuclear weapons and carrying folders for pre-assigned targets in the Soviet Union."

But the moron insisted "Khrushchev deserved as much or more credit as Kennedy". He did, in the aftermath, in finally resolving the crisis - hence proposing  the removal of U.S. Jupiter missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets removing theirs from Cuba. But, Khrushchev was not in the Crisis room with JFK facing down the rabid Joint Chief hawks like Lyman Lemnitizer and Curtis LeMay. Thus, it was on Kennedy - man on the freaking spot- who denied them the bombing campaign they wanted followed by invasion. If Kennedy doesn't stand his ground in the Crisis Room, nothing Khrushchev does later matters.

Indeed, as Robert McNamara makes clear in his 'Fog of War' documentary ('Lessons 1, 2) , had Kennedy succumbed to the Joint Chiefs'  demands nearly 160 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (and 93 tactical nukes)  would have been unleashed on the eastern U.S. This McNamara learned when he met with Castro in 1992 for the 30th anniversary of the event. McNamara asked Castro if he;d really have seen his country destroyed in the potential altercation and he responded firmly, "Yes, and you'd have dome the same if faced with massive bombing and invasion of your country -with likely takeover".

McNamara could hardly believe what he heard, but he likely forgot - 30 years after the fact - that the motto circulating in the US of A was "Better dead than Red"

Another doofus weighing in on the comments thread claimed that Kennedy had only managed to get "one minor piece of legislation passed in all his time in office". Which is yet more ignorant drivel and I have noted JFK's major accomplishments in other posts, including:

1) JFK established and promoted the "Alliance for Progress' to enable low-interest loans for Latin  American nations, thereby outraging the 'Street" and the other capitalist bastions of thought which believed this to be a "giveaway"    Because of the program, economic assistance to Latin America nearly tripled between fiscal year 1960 and fiscal year 1961. Between 1962 and 1967 the US supplied $1.4 billion per year to Latin America. If new investment is included, the amount of aid rose to $3.3 billion per year during this time span while the total amount of aid was roughly $22.3 billion. Sadly, once LBJ got in, the amount of aid did not equal the net transfer of resources. 

2) Perhaps the one move that may have signed JFK's death warrant was when he attempted - via Executive Order 11,110 issued on June 4, 1963 - to challenge Fed control of the money supply. (Which under the Constitution authorizes only Congress to create paper money not a private entity) This EO authorized the creation of some $4.2 billion in U.S. Notes - to replace Federal Reserve Notes. These U.S. Notes were issued by Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, and bore his signature.

After the assassination nearly all the notes were recalled. I was fortunate in being able to obtain two from my brother who still had them- a $2 note with Jefferson on the front, and a $5 with Lincoln. Both display the serial numbers in red ink. Not green, like Fed notes. See e.g.

 
In effect, JFK's issuance of U.S. Notes was a shot across the Federal Reserve's bow, as well as the banking class. By releasing all those debt-free notes out of the Treasury he not only undermined the Fed's financial hegemony but challenged their national authority and decision -making powers on money matters. Many observers believe that this alone might well have been enough to put JFK in assorted cross-hairs.

On the level of executive orders, it was perhaps the most daring ever issued, and we remind ourselves again (as RE JAMES  and Robert Dallek ought to) that Presidents can wield power in other ways apart from legislation.

3)Issuance of  National Security Action Memorandum 263, to pull out of Viet Nam by 1965. Many still quibble about whether this was actually done or mere smoke and mirrors  - but any energized citizen can find out for himself if he gets off his butt and digs into the document track!  He would find the main body of the memo actually appears in The Pentagon Papers, while the preface letter (to McGeorge Bundy) is what lazy researchers usually cite.  Bottom line is that NSAM 263 shatters another absurd trope put out by this same "liberal" poster that JFK actually was responsible for all those deaths in Vietnam by first sending personnel - oblivious to the fact it was LBJ's "Tonkin Gulf Resolution" in August, 1964 that ushered in the expansion of the war and tens of thousands of deaths.

4) Though JFK was reluctant for sure, since he could foresee the effects would lead to the now dominant GOP "southern strategy" - he nevertheless federalized the Alabama national guard in the fall of 1963, to protect black students trying to attend academic institutions.

5) In August, 1963 he outraged the extreme right fringe by signing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with Khrushchev. (They were particularly enraged at the ban on anti-missile systems)   Another useless dolt on smirkingchimp  ('J Madison') asserted that the "generals were always in favor of doing that anyway" - trying to diminish the achievement again, but he's as clueless as his bosom buddy RE James. In fact none of the military or Pentagon wanted any part of it! As McNamara shows in his documentary (Lesson 2) they were well on the way to developing a 100 megaton H-bomb - one of which had already been tested. So why the fuck would they be in favor of a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to outlaw such tests? Don't these people read? Don't they think? Are they this clueless about recent history? 

In addition, the Pentagon and Generals wanted no part of any Treaty that prohibited the development and use of anti-missile  systems, which they believed left the U.S. open to attack with no credible defense strategy.

6) Launching the Peace Corps, in which more than a quarter million volunteers have already served around the world - helping millions of impoverished people while letting them see the best face of America - as opposed to the usual 'war, invasion and bombing face'.These PC volunteers have worked in such diverse fields as education, health, agricultural development, HIV/AIDS education and prevention, information technology, business development, protecting the environment and developing water resources,.

  I myself served 4 years and an damned proud to have been a part of Kennedy's program, teaching science to rural kids in Barbados - many of those kids having since gone on to productive careers, i.e. as airplane mechanics, electricians, pharmacists, librarians, college lecturers and police- security officers. Making a solid contribution to their nation as opposed to joining a "brain drain" leaving it.

7) Rapprochement with Fidel Castro, starting in late 1962. This has been well documented by National Archives contributor Peter Kornbluh, and paved the way to normalization of relations, including trade. (cf. 'Kennedy and Castro: What Might Have Been', by Peter Kornbluh, in The Baltimore Sun, Aug. 22, 1999, p. 1C)

National Security Archivist Kornbluh shows (by reference to documents he has accessed), it was William Attwood,, a Washington lawyer (who had negotiated the original release of the Bay of Pigs prisoners), who was instrumental. Attwood was charged with becoming the first American emissary to secure Castro’s ear and trust in a year-long rapprochement. In particular, to show good will and good faith, Attwood arranged for $62 million in medicines and food aid as part of the prisoner deal. All this was approved by JFK and likely sealed his death warrant in the Agency.

8) Space- The Apollo Moon Program:   After the ignominy of the Russian satellite Sputnik, launched on Oct. 4, 1957, the U.S. received a wake up call in respect to its science and technology deficiencies. JFK knew that in order to technologically compete, a single program and focus was needed to capture the nation's imagination and to propel it toward a future where it wouldn't be left behind. Thus the manned space program was launched, and Kennedy declared in 1961 that "before this decade is out we will land a man on the Moon". With this single -minded focus the national resources were summoned through NASA, and he was as good as his word, with the Apollo astronauts setting down on July 20, 1969. Look at most of us who became interested in math or space science, especially physics - at the time - and they will tell you it was Kennedy's challenge of going to the Moon, and manned space exploration in general.


Sadly, if people (including professed liberals)  knew more, became the alert citizens Jefferson hoped for, the manipulators and their slick propaganda and disinfo wouldn't stand a chance in diminishing accomplishments such as those of John F. Kennedy. I leave readers with those famous words, from Thomas Jefferson's Notes on Virginia:

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories. AND TO RENDER THEM SAFE, THEIR MINDS MUST BE IMPROVED"