Discussed how Fox axed Lou Dobbs, or I could have passed my opinion on the United Kingdom becoming a complete mad house, which now wants to ban alcohol in pubs. I could have, but I wouldn't because this all are the signs of a complete breakdown of a mental health of the combined West and, remarkably, there is no escaping this sad fact. More of madness is coming and it will not get better.
Sounds plausible? I say it does. China has everything to gain from this alliance, especially, in a face of what seems to be the United States sliding into the stereotypy state, and China definitely having some designs on the US presence in the South China Sea. Plus Taiwan, plus a truckload of other issues among which the last ditch desperate attempt by the United States at preserving what it perceives wrongly as its hegemony may involve a direct military engagement and even escalation to a nuclear threshold. The fact of Russia aiding China with her own SPRN (Missile Attack Early Warning System) is a huge giveaway that Russia views security of China as, at least some, the part of Russia's own security. Well, when you have this:
The head of US Strategic Command is warning that nuclear war with Russia or China is “a real possibility,” pointing to “destabilizing” behaviors of America’s rivals. He also claims the Pentagon is not “stuck in the Cold War.”“There is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons, if they perceived a conventional loss would threaten the regime or state,” STRATCOM chief and Vice Admiral Charles Richard wrote in the February issue of the US Naval Institute's monthly magazine. STRATCOM, which oversees the US nuclear arsenal, views the probability of nuclear war as low. But with Russia and China advancing their capabilities and continuing to “exert themselves globally,” Richard said STRATCOM must understand what it's facing.
You have to pause for a second (you can read the original here) and marvel at the fact that it took STRATCOM 7 years to finally read Russia's Military Doctrine, namely the Article 27. Good.
27. The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy. The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of the Russian Federation.
But, by implication, such a statement assumes that it will be Russia which will be forced to use nuclear weapons first, while reality, of course, is 180 degrees opposite. The reason for that being that in war with Russia the United State's achieving any sort of "victory" by conventional means is, at best, a very dubious proposition and, as I am on record, for many years--it is the United States which is nuclear-biased, especially in a face of losses it will sustain in a large scale conventional conflict. Just a funny coincidence. Yesterday, Sergei Shoigu, during the meeting at one of the plants of the Tactical Missile Corporation's plant in Reutov, announced additional financing and expansion of manufacturing facilities for additional precision stand-off weapons (in Russian). Coincidence? I don't think so. The United States has neither resources nor tools to fight a major conventional conflict against peers without sustaining a scale of losses it never experienced before. As Elmo Zumwalt pondered in 1970s--what happens if one of the US Navy's aircraft carriers is destroyed?
I can tell you what happens next--the United States goes bananas and escalates towards nuclear threshold, because it has no operational and strategic flexibility to really face the war of the 21st century. Scott Ritter shares my views:
The bellicose statements on nuclear war are more dangerous than they might seem, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter told RT. The US hasn't built up its conventional military forces to the extent it could be guaranteed victory over Russia or China, so Washington would likely deploy nuclear weapons in a war with either of those countries, Ritter argued. Russia would have no choice but to respond to such an attack in kind, he said. “This is what makes the admiral's statements about preparing for nuclear war so dangerous because there is no way of containing it,” Ritter said.
So, in plain layman's lingo, Richard's statement is a hidden admission of military weakness and, as STRATCOM's logic goes, a warning about the United States approaching any peer-to-peer conflict with premeditation to use nukes. The upbeat military porn by ignoramuses such as clown David Axe or Michael Peck are good for the consumption of teenagers high on adrenaline from playing their Game Stations, but I ask this question again--what happens when the United States loses a division size formation, of Carrier Battle Group, within of time period of 3-4 days without any use of nuclear weapons? Right, it is a rhetorical question. China sure as hell knows it, but she wants Russia's technology and immense operational experience to be on her side in case the US decides that the window of opportunity closes. And it is closing for the US vis-a-vis China and is now closed against Russia. Of course, there is always Iran for the United States to try to prove that it still got mojo, but Iran is no Iraq, plus, DNC's movements so far indicate lack of interest towards the war with Iran. Considering that Obama is a puppet master behind senile Biden, Obama also has some scores to settle with Israel and especially humiliation BiBi inflicted on Obama when speaking to the US Knesset, ah, pardon me, joint Session of the US Congress, which saw 26 standing ovations five years ago, while BiBi ignored POTUS as if he didn't exist at all. This was Obama's humiliation of a historic proportion and, especially when considering Obama's overly sensitive nature, such things are not forgotten in politics.