A Brief History of Pundits Encouraging Nuclear War

There is an active, influential, and well-paid minority of pundits and politicians in America who apparently believe that escalating conflict between nuclear powers—and even nuclear war itself—is not really that big a deal. 

These, of course, are the sorts of people who fancy themselves “the adults in the room,” while people who proceed with prudence, caution, and regard for the rule of law are to be regarded as traitors, cowards, or Russian agents. 

Consider, for example, Sean Hannity’s March 2 suggestion that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—which really means the United States—should attack a Russian tank column with “some of [NATO’s] fighter jets, or maybe they can use some drone strikes and take out the whole damn convoy.” For Hannity, this would not count as escalation because NATO could elect to not tell the Russians who carried out the attack, and then Moscow “won’t know who to hit back.” 

Meanwhile, support for a “no-fly zone” has been one of the more dangerous avenues to escalation, since a no-fly zone would be a de facto declaration of war on Russia. Sen. Roger Wicker, for example, has said the US should “seriously consider” a no-fly zone. Florida congresswoman Maria Salazar supports a no-fly zone for the very profound reason that “freedom isn’t free.” (Fortunately, most members of Congress appear to recognize that a no-fly zone would mean World War III.) 

And then there are the pundits who have outright treated the gravity of nuclear war with a lot of hand-waving. NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, in an apparent reference to nuclear war, implied the US should risk everything in order to destroy a Russian convoy.

Keep reading

A FEMA document about nuclear explosions reveals the utter fatuousness of our bureaucracy

No matter the purpose for which they’re established, bureaucracies often become ends in themselves, self-perpetuating entities that generate paper to justify their existence.  That seems to be the case with FEMA, at least insofar as its rules for nuclear disasters go.  Some poor desk drone was given the task of updating FEMA documents to reflect the CDC’s ridiculous COVID requirements.  That drone worked hard, with the result being that the FEMA guidelines for a nuclear explosion now include masks and social distancing in bomb shelters.

Once again, Libs of Tik Tok has the news on her irreplaceable Twitter account.  She (or someone with whom she communicates) felt that, with Putin threatening to start a nuclear war, it might be useful to check out the government’s guidance for responding to the fallout from a nuclear attack.  That’s how we learn that someone at FEMA laboriously updated FEMA guidelines with CDC requirements about social distancing and masks.

Keep reading

Republican Sen. Roger Wicker Threatens Nuclear War on Russia to Protect Ukraine

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) is threatening nuclear war against Russia in order to protect Ukraine from alleged Russian aggression.

Wicker appeared on “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on Fox News to make his deranged and psychotic proclamation.

“Well, military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea and reign destruction on Russian military capability. It could mean that we participate, and I would not rule that out, I would not rule out American troops on the ground. You know, we don’t rule out first-use nuclear action,” Wicker said.

Keep reading

Congress may soon enact a ‘no first use’ nuclear weapons law

Everyone in the military knows there’s an officer who follows the President of the United States around with a special briefcase known as the “football.” Since John F. Kennedy was in office, the Presidential Aide accompanied the office holder with this briefcase containing everything needed to launch a nuclear strike. 

Now, Congress may be looking to tie the president’s hands in the use of nuclear weapons. At least, it’s looking at tying his ability to launch a first strike.

Democrats from the House of Representatives and the Senate introduced legislation that will formally enact a “No First Use” policy in regard to nuclear weapons. The U.S. military is, predictably, not thrilled about the idea. The law is intended to avert an accidental nuclear war in case the great power rivalry with China or Russia starts to heat up. 

“This bill would strengthen deterrence while reducing the chance of nuclear use due to miscalculation or misunderstanding,” Rep. Adam Smith, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement. “Codifying that deterring nuclear use is the sole purpose of our nuclear arsenal strengthens U.S. national security and would renew U.S. leadership on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.”

Keep reading

The Rising Threat Of Nuclear War Is The Most Urgent Matter In The World

US Strategic Command, the branch of the US military responsible for America’s nuclear arsenal, tweeted the following on Tuesday:

“The spectrum of conflict today is neither linear nor predictable. We must account for the possibility of conflict leading to conditions which could very rapidly drive an adversary to consider nuclear use as their least bad option.”

The statement, which STRATCOM called a “preview” of the Posture Statement it submits to US Congress every year, was a bit intense for Twitter and sparked a lot of alarmed responses. This alarm was due not to any inaccuracy in STRATCOM’s frank statement, but due to the bizarre fact that our world’s increasing risk of nuclear war barely features in mainstream discourse.

Keep reading