Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review: Planning for Nuclear War?

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

In December 2016, President-elect Trump on nuclear weapons ominously tweeted:

“Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

Early in his tenure, he said

“if countries are going to have nukes, we’re going to be at the top of the pack.”

Instead of stepping back from the brink, he wants America’s nuclear arsenal greatly expanded. As long as these weapons exist, they’ll likely be used with devastating effects, risking doom.

The only way to prevent eventual nuclear war is by eliminating these weapons entirely. Nuclear roulette assures losers, not winners.

Einstein said splitting the atom “changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

Washington wants all sovereign independent governments replaced by pro-Western puppet regimes.

Most are non-nuclear states. US policymakers reserve the right to attack them with nuclear weapons, a possible armageddon scenario.

Trump’s reckless remarks show he has no understanding of the destructive power of today’s thermonuclear weapons, able to incinerate major cities like New York, along with surrounding areas, killing millions.

Reportedly, Trump wants America’s nuclear arsenal increased 10-fold. Last October, he called for “greatly strengthen(ing) and expand(ing) (the nation’s) nuclear capability” – at a time its only enemies are invented ones, no others.

According to the Federation of American Scientists, the Pentagon currently has around 4,000 nuclear warheads.

Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations’ Nuclear Posture Reviews asserted America’s preemptive right to unilaterally declare and wage future wars using first strike nuclear weapons.

Madness remains US policy under Trump. Its agenda poses an unparalleled nuclear threat – North Korea, Iran, Russia and China prime targets.

The risk of nuclear war on his watch is ominously high, life on earth threatened by this recklessness.

Days earlier, the Huffington Post released a draft of Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the final version due out in February.

It calls for hugely increasing America’s nuclear arsenal, including greater numbers of low-yield tactical nukes – as powerful as bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, destroying the cities gratuitously after war was won, killing or irradiating hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.

Does Trump intend waging nuclear war? He bragged about his “Nuclear Button,” saying it’s “much bigger and more powerful” than North Korea’s.

Commenting on the risk of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula, Global Zero executive director Derek Johnson said the following in part on January 4:

“This latest flare-up between Trump and Kim puts us into very dangerous, very Freudian waters.”

“We have every reason to expect he will continue to brandish these nuclear threats – which means this crisis will only worsen.”

“(W)e are flirting with unacceptably high risks that carry catastrophic consequences for the country and the world.”

As president and commander-in-chief, Trump “can pick up the phone and order a nuclear strike. Once he makes the call, there are zero safeguards we can count on to prevent that order from being executed.”

“Every effort must be made to avoid that nightmare scenario.”

Given Trump’s rage for war, catastrophic nuclear war is ominously possible on his watch.

In office, Jack Kennedy transformed himself from a warrior to peace president. He abhorred nuclear weapons, wanted them eliminated because of the unacceptable risk they pose.

At odds with Pentagon commanders, the CIA, most congressional members, and nearly all his advisors, he favored general and complete disarmament.

He opposed Pax Americana enforced dominance. He signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty with Soviet Russia. In his first State of the Union address, he said the following:

“The deadly arms race, and the huge resources it absorbs, have too long overshadowed all else we must do.”

“We must prevent the arms race from spreading to new nations, to new nuclear powers and to the reaches of outer space.”

In July 1961, he said “(i)n the thermonuclear age, any misjudgment on either side about the intentions of the other could rain more devastation in several hours than has been wrought in all the wars of humanity,” adding:

“Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable.”

“Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”

“(I)t is a practical matter of life or death The risks inherent in disarmament pale in comparison to the risks inherent in an unlimited arms race” – especially with nukes.

Nuclear powers have a choice. Either eliminate these weapons of mass destruction or risk humanity being eliminated by them.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research


Articles by: Stephen Lendman

About the author:

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]