Russia at the Crossroads | 51 comments (51 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

First strike, poemless (4.00 / 2)

We have been here before. In the 1950s factions in the US Air Force and the CIA (or intelligence community, generally) wanted to launch a nuclear war against the Soviet Union (after a suitable excuse, or provocation, of course). They figured the US would not lose more than a half dozen cities, and victory would be cheap at the price. I have to emphasize: Even though it seems unconscionable and insane to you and me, they were absolutely, completely serious about doing it.

Fortunately, those factions were held down at that time: They never got their chance to try out their plan.

Most people were only vaguely aware of those folk, and then their existence was forgotten. But it turns out that they have persisted, and are closer to power now than they were back in the 1950s.

Times have changed. In the 1950s Americans would have been outraged (literally) at a strategy entailing the loss of even a single American city. In 2005 a major port city is lost through--at best--neglect and incompetence, and few people notice, while even fewer care. The political climate is no longer a barrier to large-scale war.

Meanwhile, the sites themselves are useless for their ostensible purpose. The shield itself is a boondoggle, obviously. The contractors want to build it, sure, but that does not suffice as an explanation.

What is the real purpose?

For over two decades the US has been seeking a First Strike strategy: The ability to initiate a nuclear war and overcome the opponent while sustaining only "acceptable" losses. This, though sought, has long seemed impossible. But there are now planners who believe that technical advances aimed at the opponent's military communications have reached the point that First Strike is feasible, PROVIDED missiles can be based close enough to their targets to cut communications immediately.

The sites in Poland and the Czech republic are to be that close basing.

Isn't the Cold War over? But. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia remains beyond the reach of US control. Putin did that. US hatred of him for thwarting American domination is real.

The US does not want allies and partners, but subjects and vassals. The language of domination makes this clear. Russia does not want to be a vassal. So, inevitably, the cold war revives.

So now, despite the Russian dead-hand nuclear launch system, there is no way that Russia can safely allow those bases to be established. None. They will invade Poland and Czecho by force first, although they will certainly try other strategies before they do that.

What other strategies? I have no idea. Right now they seem to be groping for alternatives themselves. But as this horror unfolds, I am sure we will find out.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sat Jan 12th, 2008 at 12:28:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First strike, poemless (none / 0)

Your description of likely events jibes pretty much with mine, except for this:

So now, despite the Russian dead-hand nuclear launch system, there is no way that Russia can safely allow those bases to be established. None.

Why? Unless you are speaking politically.

It seems extremely unlikely that a missile system that can even imitate convincingly an anti-missile system could have the throw weight to handle a big MIRV bus, and even then the allowable course change for such multiple warhead systems was limited, even with longer in-flight times. So the small size and short flight time would seem to greatly limit the system as a strategic first strike weapon. Sure, new toys change these things, but the system just aint a credible central player in a new bomb-now strategy.
Yes, Curtiss LeMay's illegitemate bastards still have a lot of power, but this system is not the key to it.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Jan 12th, 2008 at 02:11:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Allowing bases not an option, because: (none / 1)

The Americans would not be looking to place large, MIRV-carrying missiles to saturate many targets, but small, fast (nuclear) missiles that would cut a relatively small number of key communications nodes. That is the concept, anyway. Implementation is, indeed, dicey, and depends upon technical details I don't know.

Once communications are cut, other strategic weapons have a free hand. The close-based missiles are just to prepare the way for what follows.

The Russian reaction is not merely for show. This is not about the politics of public relations and diplomacy, this is about strategic nuclear war.

I DO think the Russians will come up with an effective countermeasure that does not entail invading Poland and Czecho, but as yet, no one seems to know what that will be.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sat Jan 12th, 2008 at 05:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Allowing bases not an option, because: (none / 1)

Gaianne:

Once communications are cut, other strategic weapons have a free hand. The close-based missiles are just to prepare the way for what follows.

Now that as a plan is utterly, utterly, barking at the moon mad. If you're going to do something like that it means that your opponent loses all control over their strategic weapons. From that point their only military option is to go to all out attack, because there is a chance that some missiles will be launched by isolated units on automated routines, because they are out of contact. So the only strategic option for you becomes all out attack.

Gaianne:

I DO think the Russians will come up with an effective countermeasure that does not entail invading Poland and Czecho, but as yet, no one seems to know what that will be.

Theoretically this system makes no real difference in Strategic thinking, unless it can be made extremely effective, it isn't really going to effect the strategic balance between the two sides. Both sides even after various treaties still have enough missiles to utterly devastate their opponents, even if the anti missile systems were capable of bringing down 95% of the opposing missiles.

Probably the best play in the strategic game would be to move any local missiles to other sectors to make the US waste money.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Jan 12th, 2008 at 05:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Allowing bases not an option, because: (none / 1)

still have enough missiles to utterly devastate their opponents

You seem to miss the key point: If the first strike can cut communications, there IS NO retaliatory counter-strike. That is the heart of the whole plan.

Which is why the Russians have now made a very public deal of their decades-old dead-hand system: If their communications are cut their retaliatory strike is launched automatically.

Sort of a Plan B, yes?

But no country can afford for this to be their Plan A. The Russians will not do this. They will arrange something ELSE for Plan A.

BTW The line of yours that I highlighted assumes the strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction. As bad as MAD is, the dismal fact is that MAD was always mostly for public consumption. The Russians never believed in it, and American strategy included counter-force targeting from its earliest days. It may be that nuclear war cannot be won (my own belief), but the targeting people are not allowed to think that way: They are required to try.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 06:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Allowing bases not an option, because: (4.00 / 2)

I DO think the Russians will come up with an effective countermeasure that does not entail invading Poland and Czecho, but as yet, no one seems to know what that will be.

Massively redundant communications network.

It's (relatively) inexpensive, Russia has the technology, and they should really do it anyway ... assuming they haven't already.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Jan 12th, 2008 at 06:00:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Massively redundant communications" (none / 1)

It has to be invulnerable to electromagnetic pulse. Possible? Maybe. Easy? No.

Okay, maybe you go with multiple lines of deep buried optical cable--just for example--but you still have to worry about the interfaces at each end.

Well, it's a technical matter.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 06:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Massively redundant communications" (none / 0)

Aren't fiberoptics (for instance) resistant to EMP? And cannot you shield the stations at either end in Faraday cages?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 01:23:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aren't fiberoptics resistant to EMP (none / 1)

As best I know. That was why I chose that example.

Even with robust technologies, you are not home: You have to worry about the connections.

Faraday cages? Well, that would be an approach.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 03:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Allowing bases not an option, because: (none / 0)

Sorry. It just does not hold water to me. Too many easy ways to make the com system redundant, too many other holes in the whole thing to make a viable strategy.

That said, it's clear that a lot of recent U. S. strategic thinking has at least one foot in lala land, so they might just be trying to do a Kruschev, and choosing to ignore the gaping holes- holes that even half-informed civilians can see-- because of other reasons. Read my diary here for some of them.

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/9/8/53024/82110

They might also be throwing an armageddon-obsessed Pres a bone to keep him occupied until he can be safely ensconced on the ranch as dingbat emeritus.
I'd like to refer you all to the Briggs and Briggs series of very good articles in Truthout about the psychological bases for decision-making processes in the oval office.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011008A.shtml

(mig: none of these links relate to your link problem. Those that do I will shorten.)

Stay with me here, friends. Gaianne has made some good points, and the issue is --interesting.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 02:46:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Allowing bases not an option, because: (none / 1)

When you argue that my putative American strategy is a bad strategy, I certainly agree. But of more interest to me is: Is it actually being pursued?

To my answer of yes, I must add the possibility that it may be something of a feint: The goods may not really be there, and the US may know the goods are not really there, but because it is hard to be sure, it is unsettling, and thus opens advantage.

In the game of go it is often useful to make vague, multi-faceted threats. Will they work out? Who knows, but they keep the opponent's thoughts busy.

In truth though, the whole thing seems stupid. If I were trying to prolong the American empire, I would not be doing any of the things they are currently doing, which just seem a massive waste of shrinking resources.

I missed your essay back in September. That plus the links are very interesting reading. The possibility you raise that the US may begin to engage in wildly violent behavior seems all too likely.

This, in turn, constrains American opponents--not to step too far forward as a target. Managing that will be a real art.

How do you see it playing out?

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 07:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why Russia? (none / 1)

Ok, let's assume you are right, and this is about the will of the US and not about the will of PL and CR. You still have not adequately explained why, WHY, the US would want to target Russia. Because they won't be our vassals? War is based on perceived threat, not perceived independence. Not when we're talking about this level of military engagement. The rule Proportional Response might have gone out the door with BushCo., but people still have to believe there is a threat strong enough to warrant such loss of life. What's the threat Russia poses? Seems to me like the only offense they've caused is that they are doing exactly the kind of things we as Americans always prided ourselves on. Only perhaps better...

There are no longer 2 opposing imperialist ideologies, 2 trains sharing one track headed straight for each other with MAD being the only device to keep them from slamming into each other. The political landscape isn't dictating another match-up between us. Russia seems content to draw its strength from its own resources and seems to be looking eastward for strategic alliances, which can carry a lot more influence than, uhm, the Czech Republic, while America is steeped in the GWOT - which Russia actually is not actually ideologically opposed to, just critical of the way its being carried out- and is drained of resources, having no recourse if god-forbid this muscle-flexing accidentally resulted in international incident. We're all bark and no bite at this point. Why go out of our way to bark at the dog that could bite back?

The current power struggle and war of words might look to the common observer like Cold War 2.0. But it lacks credible "cause" for this "effect." Most importantly, in this version of the Cold War, there is a general lack of consequences for avoiding the containment of Russia, whereas the consequences for getting all up in their face could not possibly help us at the moment. It would however, help them.

Metaphor: Igorant punks decide to go to the zoo for kicks, and bring with them a sling-shot to the tiger's den...

I just don't get it. We don't have enough enemies in the world at the moment? We have to go invent more?

PL and CR having some collective PTSD from their relationship with Russia in the 20th Century, wanting a restraining order, and asking the US for protection in return for their agreeing to be in the coalition of the willing makes more sense than just the us provoking Russia just because ... it's Russia.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 12:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Russia? (none / 1)

I think it is about the metaphor with much stronger words and we don't get it because it doesn't make any sense. 43 et al are psychopaths who cannot distinguish between old resentments and reality.... and cannot give up their bluffs because their lives are not at stake. They live in a parallel, barbarian playground world!

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 01:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Russia? (4.00 / 2)

poemless:

PL and CR having some collective PTSD from their relationship with Russia in the 20th Century, wanting a restraining order, and asking the US for protection in return for their agreeing to be in the coalition of the willing makes more sense than just the us provoking Russia just because ... it's Russia.

But the idea of the missile shield did not originate in Poland or the Czech Republic: it is entirely a US project and the Iranian excuse doesn't hold water. It would be laughable if we didn't have government officials spouting it. As it is, it is a transparent lie meant to sway a supposedly gullible, uninformed, and scared public.

Initially there was a lot of opposition from major European governments, but gradually they all fell back into line, with some behind-the-scenes diplomacy at NATO involved.

It's the same thing that happened with the CIA secret flights/prisons. The USA asked presumably Poland and Romania (why hasn't the WaPo said yet where they were told the prisons were? They've been sitting on it for over 2 years) to allow them to use bases on their territory. We don't even know whether they were told there would be detainees there. WHen the thing blew up there were denials from all quarters and a lot of hand-wringing from European governments. The noise level forced Condi to make a lightning visit to Europe, during which it was reported (a slip, surely) that the European Governments asked her for help managing their public opinions. That is, the problem were not the prisons, the problem was that the public opinion was questioning Atlanticist's complicity or incompetence regarding human right violations on our soil, not to speak of violations of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation.

So there is a pattern.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Russia? (none / 0)

I really agree with you; I mean, everything you say makes sense. I hope I haven't come across as suggesting this was the idea of Poland and us nice Americans are just helping out a friend, only suggesting that explanation would be more logical than any other I've heard (Iran being a particularly bizarre exlanation.) I've no doubt this is all about Washington, from beginning to end. And am aware of the pattern.

What I don't understand is why? Why anyone believes they would benefit from this, including ... Washington. Why do European countries remain complicit? Why does the US want first strike capabilities against Russia, or lacking that, why does it insist on Nato enlargement and military escalation with the containment of Russia the goal? Yes, Bush and Cheney and their cabal are Dr. Stangelove nut jobs. But there are saner people in the Pentagon, and how are they justifying these missile defense shields?

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 01:51:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"What I don't understand is why" (4.00 / 3)

Well, yes, because, it is NOT POSSIBLE to understand.

Unless.

You are obsessed with control. In which case, it is really a no-brainer.

There are indeed strategic reasons to oppose Russia. Russia has oil and gas; the US wants it. (Not for itself, not yet, but it wants the profits and it wants the control.)

The US wants to control the Caspian, and its oil. Russia is in the way.

The US wants to take back Iran. Russia goes and supplies Iran with defensive missiles.

These are all substantive reasons. And the US does not NEED reasons: Look at its history with Cuba.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 03:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Caspian (none / 0)

The West DOES control the Caspian and its oil, mostly. It's just not that big.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jan 15th, 2008 at 04:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First strike, poemless (none / 1)

Gaianne:

Times have changed. In the 1950s Americans would have been outraged (literally) at a strategy entailing the loss of even a single American city. In 2005 a major port city is lost through--at best--neglect and incompetence, and few people notice, while even fewer care. The political climate is no longer a barrier to large-scale war.

Yup, this is important to realize, and rather scary.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 01:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First strike, poemless (none / 0)

I disagree.

"few people notice, while even fewer care." I assume we are speaking of Katrina and NO? I think a lot of people noticed and cared, but most felt helpless to respond, plus we are involved in 2 wars, our economy is tanking, people just feel overwhelmed and their capacity to react in profoundly explicit ways is becoming exhausted.

HOWEVER:

An attack on American soil in which what, less than 3,000 died, outraged the country to such an extent that in their patriotic passion led to 2 full-scale wars. Poor black people die of negligence everyday. Scary Arabs who want to kill us is a whole different story. And it is worth noting that if there were popular mandate for it, we would be in Iran by now. Yet, despite huzzah with which we recently attacked two other countries in the region, one with absolutely no provocation, the war with Iran is proving to be a bit of a difficult sell to the American people. Therefore, I think that 1) Americans still demand, however wearily, some pretense for war and -perhaps more so now- some proof that we can win it, and 2) parallels abound, but NO was not a large-scale act of war - of a foreign attack on a sovereign nation - a fact illustrated by the radically different reactions the American people had to 9-11 and to Katrina.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 01:37:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First strike, poemless (4.00 / 2)

"few people notice, while even fewer care." I assume we are speaking of Katrina and NO? I think a lot of people noticed and cared, but most felt helpless to respond, plus we are involved in 2 wars, our economy is tanking, people just feel overwhelmed and their capacity to react in profoundly explicit ways is becoming exhausted.

Maybe, but what you are describing represents a CHANGE. I do not believe for a moment that in the 1950s it would have gone down like that. People would have responded, without excuses. The GOVERNMENT would have responded, without excuses. And everyone would have expected just that--excuses would not have sufficed.

But I suppose we disagree.

Many things about Katrina and New Orleans are instructive, but the fact that fully five days elapsed in which it was obvious that large-scale relief on the Gulf coast would be needed--and yet nothing at all was done--speaks to me as well as anything about the "whatever" attitude.

This to me was new, I had never in my life seen anything like it--and I am not trying to gloss over past negligences or corruptions during emergencies.

I think history supports me, for example, the 1902 San Francisco earthquake.

About 9/11: I am not concerned here with what provokes blind rage, but with what casualties are acceptable: What it is okay to openly sacrifice.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Tue Jan 15th, 2008 at 04:43:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First strike, poemless (4.00 / 2)

Why go as far back as the SF Earthquake (wasn't it 1906, by the way)?

LBJ Remarks on Hurricane Disaster in New Orleans

Transcript of audio of President Johnson in New Orleans following landfall of Hurricane Betsy, September 10, 1965.
The President's Remarks Upon Arrival at New Orleans Municipal Airport
Mr. Mayor and my friends of New Orleans:
Today at 3 o'clock when Senator Long and Congressman Boggs and Congressman Willis called me on behalf of the entire Louisiana delegation, I put aside all the problems on my desk to come to Louisiana as soon as I could. I have observed from flying over your city how great the catastrophe is that you have experienced. Human suffering and physical damage are measureless. I'm here this evening to pledge to you the full resources of the federal government to Louisiana to help repair as best we can the injury that has been done by nature.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 15th, 2008 at 05:30:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"wasn't it 1906, by the way"--OOPS n/t (none / 1)

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Tue Jan 15th, 2008 at 05:14:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Russia at the Crossroads | 51 comments (51 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2025

Regenerative Energy Transportation Systems

City Agriculture - November 7, 2025

Zero Net Energy - November 11, 2025

Recent Diaries

Trump's Wrecking Ball Ready to Strike Iran

Machado Out In the Cold

Never Trust Any Voice of US Officials In DC

Canada PM Carney 4-day Visit to China

Arab Allies and World Nuclear Power Convince Trump

On the Threshold of Another War In Middle East

On the Verge of World War III

Trump 2.0 Implements Policy Construct of Trump 1.0

NATO Rutte Meets Renew Europe Group

Throwing Iranians Under the Bus of Capitalism

Backcasting Climate Success with a Large Language Model

Founding of NATO and Double Containment

Axis of Evil :: London - Tel Aviv - New York

AI In Support Regime Change w Images/Fakes

Starlink Key In Colour Revolutions

Bewildered in Venezuela

Power Grab: The Outlaw State

Goretti Sweeps UK and North Europe

Venezuelan Parliament Applauds US Senate War Powers Vote

America Slaughtered 100 Persons to Nab Maduro

Occasional Series