NY TIMES HINTS AT "NUCLEAR WAR"

NY TIMES HINTS AT "NUCLEAR WAR"        By Mike King

 

NY Times (Editorial): How to Avert a Nuclear War

By JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT and VLADIMIR DVORKIN

We find ourselves in an increasingly risky strategic environment. The Ukrainian crisis has threatened 

REBUTTAL BY

The fact that the New York Slimes is now running headlines mentioning "Nuclear War" ought to serve as a wake-up call for the sports, sex, I-phone and entertainment addicts of America. How good of the Slimes to dredge up two members of the Globalist Council on Foreign Relations to warn us about what a dangerous world this has become (thanks to them!).

Though the editorialists, James Cartwright and Vladimir Dvorkin, assume a tone of feigned "objectivity", it is clear that they are framing Russia for future dangerous developments while programming us for some big event that your concerned reporter here wishes not to even contemplate.

Let's dissect this ominous piece of predictive propaganda:

"The fact is that we are still living with the nuclear-strike doctrine of the Cold War, which dictated three strategic options: first strike, launch on warning and post-attack retaliation. There is no reason to believe that Russia and the United States have discarded these options, as long as the architecture of “mutually assured destruction” remains intact."

A true statement, but the well-connected Globalist writers (CFR, Carnegie etc) are passing themselves off as "objective" analysts of the U.S.-Russia crisis as if they are not part of the American Establishment. That's part of the trick.

"American officials have usually played down the launch-on-warning option. They have argued instead for the advantages of post-attack retaliation, which would allow more time to analyze the situation and make an intelligent decision. Neither the Soviet Union nor Russia ever stated explicitly that it would pursue a similar strategy, but an emphasis on mobile missile launchers and strategic submarines continues to imply a similar reliance on an ability to absorb an attack and carry out retaliatory strikes."

Now that have scared the poop out of us with talk of strikes and retaliatory strikes, they set us up for the poison propaganda pill:

"Today, however, Russia’s early warning system is compromised. The last of the satellites that would have detected missile launches from American territory and submarines in the past stopped functioning last fall. This has raised questions about Russia’s very ability to carry out launch-on-warning attacks.

.....that in turn increases the likelihood of mistaken retaliation. For a submarine missile fired from the Norwegian Sea, Russia’s radar network would give its nuclear decision makers just 10 minutes to respond. America’s early warning systems can be expected to provide about twice as much time."

In other words, Russia may mistakenly shoot first and trigger the nuclear war. More on that theme:

"In theory, no sensible head of state would authorize a launch-on-warning strike after receiving information that just one missile, or a small number of missiles, were inbound, on the assumption that this was not an intentional, full-scale attack. But the launch-on-warning doctrine still rules in both Russia and the United States "

Now, back to the phony "objectivity":

"This risk should motivate the Presidents of Russia and the United States to decide in tandem to eliminate the launch-on-warning concept from their nuclear strategies. They should reinstitute military-to-military talks, which were suspended over the Ukraine crisis, to pursue this stand-down as an urgent priority."

The subtle deception in those two sentences lies in the cunning making a moral equivalence between (the Presidents of Russia and the United States). It's like saying that the home-invading rapist (Obongo) and the law-abiding home owner (Putin) should "decide in tandem" how to avoid violence. There is no equivalence there! There lies the dirty journalistic trick. More:

"To reinforce this accord, both countries should refrain from conducting military exercises that involve practicing missile launches based on information from early warning systems. Even if this restraint cannot yet be fully verified, it would be a valuable contribution to strategic stability."

In other words, Putin should trust the United States. We wouldn't lie to Russia, now; would we? More:

"Detailed verification measures can come later, once better Russian-American relations are restored."

Yeah, right. Verification can come "later", after the U.S. has gained the strategic advantage. More:

 "Our leaders urgently need to talk and, we hope, agree to scrap this obsolete protocol before a devastating error occurs."

No gentlemen; not our leaders, (Putin & Obongo) - it is only your puppet-leader (Obongo) who needs to put a stop to the madness which he - at the behest of invisible government groups like your CFR- initiated in Ukraine in late 2013.

Dear readers! In the two years that your intrepid reporter here at The Anti-New Slimes has been dredging the cesspool located at 8th Avenue in New York, this foul-smelling morsel of Marxist manure has got to be the most ominous and chilling I have had to dissect to date.

This is getting serious.

http://tomatobubble.com/id820.html