Cold War Returned: B-52s Back On 'Ready Alert'

[Origanalist]

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...n-ready-alert/

written by daniel mcadams monday october 23, 2017

The US fleet of B-52 bombers is more than 60 years old. It's been 26 years -- since the end of the Soviet Union -- that these bombers have been ready to take off and drop nuclear weapons at a moment's notice. Over the weekend, US Air Force chief of staff, Gen. David Goldfein, announced that the US would be going back to the future -- restoring this long-dead feature of the Cold War. Is this just a case of weapons in search of a war? Are we really back to the 1950s? Tune in to today's Liberty Report:



Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...n-ready-alert/

[sparebulb]

I'm feeling safer already.

[Jamesiv1]

I love the smell of freedom in the morning.

[Swordsmyth]

Air Force Denies That US Nuclear Bombers Are Being Put Back On 24-Hour Alert

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-23/air-force-denies-us-nuclear-bombers-are-being-put-back-24-hour-alert

[tod evans]

Whew!

Them $#@!in' Chinks were gettin' too big for their britches...

[osan]

Whew!

Them $#@!in' Chinks were gettin' too big for their britches...

Unfortunately, technologically-enabled auto-predatory species makes such possibilities sufficiently likely to give everyone pause.

That said, these fools are capable of anything. I will not be surprised to one day find us all glowing in the dark.

Insane maniacs running a world full of willfully ignorant, wanton cowards. Someone remind me how this is supposed to work out well?

[AZJoe]

From Justin Raimondo:

both the US and the Russians possess enough nuclear firepower to destroy all life on earth several times over. This sword of Damocles is hanging over us by a thread, just as it loomed large during the last cold war with Moscow. It’s a machinery of annihilation that is set on hair-trigger alert, and any number of events could unleash it: a miscalculation, a foolish bluff, a misunderstanding, a technical glitch, a showdown similar to the Cuban missile crisis. All that stands between us and utter extinction is the hope that this apparatus of death can be restrained by mutual agreement.

[AZJoe]

A little prophetic insight from the past that has proven too true:

“Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” - George Kennan

[Danke]

From Justin Raimondo:

both the US and the Russians possess enough nuclear firepower to destroy all life on earth several times over. This sword of Damocles is hanging over us by a thread, just as it loomed large during the last cold war with Moscow. It’s a machinery of annihilation that is set on hair-trigger alert, and any number of events could unleash it: a miscalculation, a foolish bluff, a misunderstanding, a technical glitch, a showdown similar to the Cuban missile crisis. All that stands between us and utter extinction is the hope that this apparatus of death can be restrained by mutual agreement.

“destroy all life on earth several times over”

simply not true.

[AZJoe]

“destroy all life on earth several times over”
simply not true.

How true. You can only destroy life one time over. You can't destroy it a second time no matter how many thousands of nuclear warhead you amass. The extra nukes is just surplus.

[Danke]

How true. You can only destroy life one time over. You can't destroy it a second time no matter how many thousands of nuclear warhead you amass. The extra nukes is just surplus.

[sparebulb]

B-52's couldn't be any more ready than they were in the '50's with Rock in charge.

However, the Air Force is gayer than ever.

[Danke]

B-52's couldn't be any more ready than they were in the '50's with Rock in charge.However, the Air Force is gayer than ever.

[osan]

While I understand whence all the sarcasm, the practical nature of this move is justified. We can debate all day long what we should or should not have done to avoid the current world situation, but that would be moot. The fact is we are here, now. Given the reality and that Fat Boy in NK is what he is, the reactivation of the B52s is a prudent move.

My little brother of another mother was head of all intelligence for Korea for years. He is one of the most clued-in intelligence officers on the planet, if not THE most. He expresses the opinion that Un is pretty much unhinged and poses a clear threat.

Therefore, be careful when assessing these situations. I think we all agree we never should have allowed things to get this way, but given that they ARE this way, we have to proceed based on the current reality and not our wish list world of unicorn poo and kittens.

Just a thought.

[AZJoe]

“When the Cold War ended, I believed that we no longer had to take that risk [nuclear annihilation] so I put all my energy into efforts to dismantle the deadly nuclear legacy of the Cold War. During my period as the Secretary of Defense in the 90s, I oversaw the dismantlement of 8,000 nuclear weapons evenly divided between the United States and the former Soviet Union. And I thought then that we were well on our way to putting behind us this deadly existential threat, But that was not to be.

Today, inexplicably to me, we’re recreating the geopolitical hostility of the Cold War, and we’re rebuilding the nuclear dangers.… We are doing this without any serious public discussion or any real understanding of the consequences of these actions. We are sleepwalking into a new Cold War, and there’s very real danger that we will blunder into a nuclear war.” – William J. Perry, November 28, 2017

[sparebulb]

“When the Cold War ended, I believed that we no longer had to take that risk [nuclear annihilation] so I put all my energy into efforts to dismantle the deadly nuclear legacy of the Cold War. During my period as the Secretary of Defense in the 90s, I oversaw the dismantlement of 8,000 nuclear weapons evenly divided between the United States and the former Soviet Union. And I thought then that we were well on our way to putting behind us this deadly existential threat, But that was not to be.

Today, inexplicably to me, we’re recreating the geopolitical hostility of the Cold War, and we’re rebuilding the nuclear dangers.… We are doing this without any serious public discussion or any real understanding of the consequences of these actions. We are sleepwalking into a new Cold War, and there’s very real danger that we will blunder into a nuclear war.” – William J. Perry, November 28, 2017

Bla, bla, bla,.......But the Russians hacked our democracy.

And they don't respect homosexual rights.

And they invaded Yoocrane.

And they stolled Crayonia.

Boobus ain't afraid.

"murika's never lost a worr.

[AZJoe]

More from William J. Perry, November 28, 2017:

The miscalculations of Soviet and American leaders almost led to a nuclear holocaust. … we avoided that catastrophe as much by good luck as by good management.

Also during the Cold War we faced the risk of an accidental nuclear war … During the Cold War, there were three such false alarms in the United States and at least two that I know about in the Soviet Union. That averages to be about one every eight years.

I personally experienced one of those false alarms, and it changed forever my way of thinking about nuclear dangers. It occurred in October of 1979, when I was the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. Awoken from a sound sleep at 3 o’clock in the morning, as I sleepily put the phone to my ears, the voice on the other end identified himself as the watch officer for the North American Air Defense Command. The general got right to the point: he told me that his computers were showing 200 ICBMs on the way from the Soviet Union to the United States. For one heart-stopping moment, I thought we were about to experience the holocaust … But the general quickly explained they had already concluded there was a false alarm. He was calling me to help him determine what had gone wrong with his computer.

There were actually two separate false alarms during the period I was undersecretary. The most dangerous occurred one night when the computer operators changed shifts, and the new operators mistakenly instead of putting in the operating tape put in a training tape. The training tape, of course, was designed to look like a realistic attack scenario. It was human error. That is, our system, with all of its safety features, was still vulnerable to a single person potentially bringing about the end of our civilization.

Two things saved the world from that fate. … the watch officer that night was exceptionally thoughtful and responsible, for which we can all be thankful. And … There were no international incidents under way that made a Soviet attack especially plausible. But what if that false alarm had occurred during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or during one of our Mideast crises when we had our forces on high alert? In that context, the watch officer surely would have passed the alarm on to the President, who, after being awoken at 3 o’clock in the morning, would have less than ten minutes to decide whether to launch our ICBMs before they were destroyed in their silos.

Had he ordered the launch, there would be no way of recalling the missiles or destroying them in flight; the President would have accidentally started a global nuclear war. …

What about now? … the likelihood of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe today is actually greater than it was during the Cold War. … Because the United States and Russia today are confronting each other with a hostility that is recreating the geopolitical dangers of the Cold War, and because the United States and Russia are rebuilding their Cold War nuclear arsenals, there’s recreating the military dangers of the Cold War. …

we are still vulnerable to blundering into a nuclear war if we have a crisis with Russia comparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis. And when I consider the possibility of another false alarm, I notice humans will err again. Machines will malfunction again. And so we will have another false alarm. …

Even in the face of this, Russia and the United States still today have a policy of launch on warning. And both Russia and the United States are building new ICBMs to replace the ones built during the Cold War.

That means ultimately the future of civilization will depend on the judgment of an anonymous watch officer and the judgment and the temperament of the American President or the Russian President, who have the sole authority to launch a nuclear attack. …

[AZJoe]

Shifting from Cold to Hot

The US ... with no less than 60 diplomats expelled ... This is just the latest gratuitous cold war escalation against the Russian Federation by the Trump administration ... Those previous escalations include Trump's capitulation to the longstanding neoconservative agenda to arm Ukraine against Russia, killing Russians in Syria as part of its regime change occupation of that country, adopting a Nuclear Posture Review with greatly increased aggression toward Russia and blurred lines between when nuclear strikes are and are not appropriate, sending war ships into the Black Sea ... forcing RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents, expanding NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigning Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, shutting down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and throwing out more Russian diplomats in August of last year.

[kcchiefs6465]

While I understand whence all the sarcasm, the practical nature of this move is justified. We can debate all day long what we should or should not have done to avoid the current world situation, but that would be moot. The fact is we are here, now. Given the reality and that Fat Boy in NK is what he is, the reactivation of the B52s is a prudent move.

My little brother of another mother was head of all intelligence for Korea for years. He is one of the most clued-in intelligence officers on the planet, if not THE most. He expresses the opinion that Un is pretty much unhinged and poses a clear threat.

Therefore, be careful when assessing these situations. I think we all agree we never should have allowed things to get this way, but given that they ARE this way, we have to proceed based on the current reality and not our wish list world of unicorn poo and kittens.

Just a thought.

The country which hardly can develop internet capability is an existential threat.

How many nuclear warheads do you presume them to have? Half a dozen? A dozen?

This is just silly.

[osan]

The country which hardly can develop internet capability is an existential threat.

Who said or implied anything about existential threats? They pose a sufficient threat, and that is all that matters as far as the issue in question is concerned.

Once again, we can discuss the reasons all day long. We can even grant that it is all "our" fault; it changes nothing in terms of the very real circumstance with which we must deal, here and now.

We have been dealt a hand that I am confident neither you or I would have chosen for ourselves, or the rest of the nation. I am, however, in no mood for having even a dump like Detroit hit with so much as a relatively innocuous weapon. Therefore, we are in a corner and forced into making choices I for one have no desire to make.

How many nuclear warheads do you presume them to have? Half a dozen? A dozen?

It doesn't matter whether they have nukes as much as the combination of factors of the development of delivery platforms capable of reaching America, and KJU's state of apparent psychosis.

This is just silly.

And baring one's neck, even to an tantrum-pitching three year old with a knife in his hands, is not?

The real world is not comporting itself in accord with our normative specifications for proper living among one's fellows. If you have a practicable alternative that doesn't involve assumption of excessive risk, I am all ears. Until then, it would appear we are constrained. But let us hear your ideas.

[kcchiefs6465]

People on this forum have really lost their way.

Billion dollar aircraft spending millions of dollar grazing the airspace of a piss poor country who really is only a threat to South Korea, although the United States won't so much as let the two come to the table yet I should be concerned.

I'm more concerned with the US igniting a nuclear holocaust.

Your friend of a friend sounds like a whore for the state and you seem confused. North Korea is as big of a threat as Iran, Syria, or Somalia. Wake the $#@! up.

[acptulsa]

The country which hardly can develop internet capability is an existential threat.

How many nuclear warheads do you presume them to have? Half a dozen? A dozen?

This is just silly.

The only part of the U.S. North Korea can legitimately claim to threaten is Guam--unless you don't consider Okinawa to be Japan.

The B-52 is even less of a threat to Russia. Yeah, we can hurt Russia. But those antiques aren't the weapons that will do it.

[kcchiefs6465]

If North Korea attacked even Guam, North Korea would from then on be referred to in past tense. Ignoring even the fact that we are more likely to be attacked out of desperation with our policies of sanctions and grand dick waving.

It is absurd.

I remember when Gaddafi was the mad man of the hour. He had nuclear weapons too. And then he agreed to disarm. And then he was raped and murdered in the street. And now Libya is even more of a $#@!hole than it was under his control. The end.

[osan]

People on this forum have really lost their way.

I can see that.

Billion dollar aircraft spending millions of dollar grazing the airspace of a piss poor country who really is only a threat to South Korea, although the United States won't so much as let the two come to the table yet I should be concerned.

Wealthy and determined enough to develop nuclear weapons and delivery platforms, helmed by a fat little man who's several fries short of a full Happy Meal.

What could possibly go wrong?

And since when is a B-52 $1B?

I'm more concerned with the US igniting a nuclear holocaust.

There's that, too - we agree.

Your friend of a friend sounds like a whore for the state and you seem confused.

Is this directed to me?

North Korea is as big of a threat as Iran, Syria, or Somalia. Wake the $#@! up.

And you know this how, exactly?

Unless you are a highly placed intelligence officer for Korea, I don't think you could possibly know whether NK poses a credible threat.

None of this is to say I trust that to which the superficialities point, but I cannot quite discount it either. I don't any of us know with any reasonable certainty what is truly what. That is the blessing and the curse of living in America where seemingly everything political is run through heavy filtration. Everything we know, or think we know about this or that tends to come from mediating sources which we have come to know are often unworthy of trust. The problem, of course, is that those sources routinely mix truth with lies such that it becomes very difficult to know which bits to disbelieve.

Is NK a threat? I don't know. Some say yes, others no. When in doubt I tend to go the way of caution. If that makes me a bad guy, so be it.

You can call people "lost" if it pleases you, but you have not yet presented your evidence proving that NK poses no threat. Let us recap what we know. NK is developing nukes. NK expresses extreme xenophobic paranoia. NK is developing launch platforms apparently designed to deliver payloads to any point on the globe. NK has specified America as an enemy - which may even be true, further bolstering the notion that they pose a threat.

What credible information do you have that countervails the idea that NK might not be quite trustworthy in terms of their intentions WRT their acquisition of nuclear weapons systems in relation to the United States? If you have it, let us see it. My mind is wide open and I will alter my opinions instantly on seeing something convincing.



ETA: Just to be perfectly clear, I am not saying you are wrong. I just do not see the basis for believing you are correct.

[AZJoe]

Who said or implied anything about existential threats? They pose a sufficient threat, and that is all that matters ...

What do you define as "sufficient" threat to a country?

Would another nation that previously invaded bombed your country into the stone age, killing 15% of the population be a sufficient threat?
Would a nation that has constantly threaten to bomb year year in and year out and practices a mock invasion of your nation be a sufficient threat?
Would a nation that has previously used nuclear nations n another nation - civilian cities no less, and then adopts policies of pre-emptive warfare and nuclear first strike pose a sufficient threat?
Would a nation that has a repeated history of initiating invasions of other nations, based on lies and false flags, and repeatedly threatens your country pose a sufficient threat?
Would a nation that has imposed sanctions and used their overwhelming military to blockade your country be a sufficient threat?
Would a nation that has consistently rejected every attempt at peace made by you and your willingness to give up all nuclear ambitions in exchange for that nation simply stopping is practice invasion operations of your country, be a sufficient threat?
Would a nation that has consistently and repeatedly sabotaged your trade, economic, dialogue and reconciliation measures with your neighbor be a sufficient threat?

What would a rational country do in the face of such sufficient threat? Would a rational county not develop the best means of deterrent available - a nuclear weapon against such sufficient threat?

Who is really threatening who?

I am, however, in no mood for having even a dump like Detroit hit with so much as a relatively innocuous weapon. Therefore, we are in a corner and forced into making choices I for one have no desire to make.

The most militarily powerful and aggressive government on earth backed "in a corner" ? Is this for real? Has Osan gone off the deep end?

How is the Washington backed in "in a corner"? Please try to explain this absurdity. We can use a good laugh.
Washignton can end its ancnctions and open trade with NK any time. Washignton can stop sabotaging the dialogue, trade and reconcialition measures like the priro Sunshine police, anytime it wants. Washignton cna even end the nuclear program immediately by simpyk agreeing to the one request - stop the mock practice invasion of NK, the nation it previously annihilated.

It doesn't matter whether they have nukes as much as the combination of factors of the development of delivery platforms capable of reaching America, and KJU's state of apparent psychosis.

Yes, plenty of nations have both nukes and delivery platforms capable of reaching America. Best not to start wars , threaten, invade, bomb, instituted regime change, false flag , false accusations, perpetual escalations, barking orders and never considering their interests, implementing economic blockade of such nations. Better to open dialogue and trade. In other words - to reduce risk, don't act like Washington.

As to psychosis, NK is actions are extremely rational, logical and predictable in light of all the threats mentioned above, as well as Washington's pattern and practice of invading nations - either outright bombing or via proxy armies or regime changes , and of course Washington pattern of continuously reneging on its promises - Libya, Iraq, treaties. Of course any sane and rational government would do what it takes to defend itself and develop the best means of deterrent it can.
No, NK looks like a bastion of sanity compared to Washington's psychotic actions and pattern.

But hey, why let actual reality get in the way of embracing the non-thinking simpleton slogans of mass media - "its psychosis" "few fries short of as happy meal". Its so much easier not to think and just repeat brainless zombified mantras that to actually use the brain right?

And baring one's neck, even to an tantrum-pitching three year old with a knife in his hands, is not?

Agreed, any country would be stupid to allow itself vulnerable to the tantrum-pitching government of Washington running around the world invading and dropping bombs, terrorist armies, drone assassinations, economic warfare, sanctions, renditions, destruction, proxy armies, color revolutions, ...

[kcchiefs6465]

I can see that.

Wealthy and determined enough to develop nuclear weapons and delivery platforms, helmed by a fat little man who's several fries short of a full Happy Meal.

Later on in this post you ask me to show definitive counter evidence that North Korea is not developing nuclear weapons. A feat fit for Saddam Hussein.

What evidence do you have that Kim Jong Un is a madman? His rhetoric? John Bolton's testimonies? Three minute $#@!ty North Korean propaganda videos?

That he is developing these weapons proves he at the very least understands the fall of countries opposed to US hegemony. To wit: develop and maintain a nuclear arsenal or be murdered in the street.

Donald Trump seems a wee bit more dangerous than some pissant North Korean dictator who would have sooner been poisoned if it weren't for US policy strengthening his base.

What could possibly go wrong?

Donald Trump can spend this country into default and you could be eaten by your neighbors?

Oh you meant about some despot having nuclear weapons. Most 'Gods' aren't suicidal. His comfortable life is ended the moment he makes that step.

And since when is a B-52 $1B?

Forgive me, I misread it as B2. That is the plane they typically use when pissing on North Korea's sovereignty.

There's that, too - we agree.

You mean like when a guy who calls for preemptive tactical nuclear deployment gets into a position of power or like when a guy who writes a book talking about his desire to preemptively strike North Korea gets into a position of power?

Is this directed to me?

You would be confused, your intelligence officer friend would be the probable whore for the state.

And you know this how, exactly?

Unless you are a highly placed intelligence officer for Korea, I don't think you could possibly know whether NK poses a credible threat.

We just need to trust the 'experts.' You know, those in this country who have $#@!ed us into war the last dozen times. But this time is different you see. A madman has weapons of mass destruction. GMAFB.

None of this is to say I trust that to which the superficialities point, but I cannot quite discount it either. I don't any of us know with any reasonable certainty what is truly what. That is the blessing and the curse of living in America where seemingly everything political is run through heavy filtration. Everything we know, or think we know about this or that tends to come from mediating sources which we have come to know are often unworthy of trust. The problem, of course, is that those sources routinely mix truth with lies such that it becomes very difficult to know which bits to disbelieve.

Yeah but after like the twelfth time of lying us into war you might say, hey these people are kind of untrusty, Godless, $#@!ty men.

Is NK a threat? I don't know. Some say yes, others no. When in doubt I tend to go the way of caution. If that makes me a bad guy, so be it.

Then go fight them!

One would think after 15 years in Iraq and 17 years in Afghanistan and wars in Somalia, Yemen, Syria, et $#@!ing cetera you would stop and think, 'Hey, maybe I shouldn't assume the worst about every despot the media pimps tell me to hate.'

You can call people "lost" if it pleases you, but you have not yet presented your evidence proving that NK poses no threat.

Ah. The good old prove a negative! Very good. Brings me back to 2002.

Let us recap what we know. NK is developing nukes. NK expresses extreme xenophobic paranoia. NK is developing launch platforms apparently designed to deliver payloads to any point on the globe. NK has specified America as an enemy - which may even be true, further bolstering the notion that they pose a threat.

What credible information do you have that countervails the idea that NK might not be quite trustworthy in terms of their intentions WRT their acquisition of nuclear weapons systems in relation to the United States? If you have it, let us see it. My mind is wide open and I will alter my opinions instantly on seeing something convincing.

ETA: Just to be perfectly clear, I am not saying you are wrong. I just do not see the basis for believing you are correct.

Their third grade $#@!ty propaganda videos prove they are not a threat.

[kcchiefs6465]

[acptulsa]

Wealthy and determined enough to develop nuclear weapons and delivery platforms, helmed by a fat little man who's several fries short of a full Happy Meal.

I had no idea you were so susceptible to MSM campfire ghost stories.

You know, since the MSM prefers not to lie outright without plausible deniability that they were badly misled, and the Powers that Be only go full Yellowcake Uranium-level dishonest once in a blue moon, it isn't that hard to figure this out. North Korea manages to make something underground go boom with enough force to convince seismologists they are nuclear, but not hydrogen bomb-level nuclear, and they have ballistic missiles which may be able to reach as far as Australia. They certainly don't have enough of either to vaporize Australia before we vaporize them.

Anything beyond that is 'conjecture', meaning there may be credible evidence to suggest it, or it may all be made up out of whole cloth to manipulate you into supporting certain people in Washington, who are also a 'few fries short of a Happy Meal', being reckless and mortgaging the nation's future for a few more soon-to-be-miserably-poor generations.

All it takes to determine the actual state of affairs is to listen carefully for words like 'evidence suggests' and 'projected' and 'developing' and use a tiny little bit of critical thinking. And this will continue to work until they decide they no longer care whether their MSM has any credibility with us or not.

One thing that will not lead one to a realistic view of the situation as it exists is listening to the MSM fearmongering with a mind which is "wide open". Critical thinking is clearly required.

[Danke]

Time to arm the B-52s with nuclear cruise missiles again.

[acptulsa]

Time to arm the B-52s with nuclear cruise missiles again.

That's the only way those ancient beasts are going to get a payload into Russia--by allowing the payload to deliver itself and the aircraft running away without ever getting close to Russian airspace.