close
close

The US Government Plans to ‘WIN’ World War III in All-Out Nuclear War – The Duran

The US Government Plans to ‘WIN’ World War III in All-Out Nuclear War – The Duran

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not provide financial, investment or medical advice.

Eric Zuesse (blogs on https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

It is clear that the US government is planning to launch a large-scale nuclear attack on Russia, China and possibly North Korea simultaneously. This is despite the fact that scientific analyses show that the consequences of a Third World War would be that at least 50% of the total world population would die within the first two years after the explosions.

On August 29, Dr. Theodore Postol of MIT, America’s foremost scientist on nuclear war, was the keynote speaker at The Quincy Institute, the leading think tank on nuclear war. “Biden’s ‘New’ Nuclear Strategy and the Super Detonator That Triggers It: Biden’s ‘New’ Nuclear Strategy and the Super Detonator That Triggers It: The military is already upgrading nuclear warheads capable of waging warfare against both China and Russia simultaneously.”

Dr. Postol reports:

Although any technically accurate assessment of the physical consequences of the large-scale use of nuclear weapons immediately demonstrates that “winning” a nuclear war is meaningless, the United States has placed a strong emphasis on developing nuclear weapons technologies that can only be meaningful if their intended purpose is to wage and win nuclear wars.

The super igniter is exactly such a technology.

It is now possible, at least according to nuclear warfare strategies, for the US to attack the 300+ silo-based ICBMs that China has been building since around 2020 with the abundant numbers of available 100kt W-76 Trident II warheads. The rapid expansion of the “hard-target kill capability” of the 100kt W-76 warhead simultaneously makes it possible for the US to attack the 300 or so silo-based Russian ICBMs.

Framing the development and deployment of these types of preemptive strike technologies in misleading terms such as “enhancing deterrence” does nothing to mislead the military and political leaders of Russia and China. Instead, it leaves them no choice but to consider ways to deter a dangerous American preemption-oriented nuclear weapons state that is constantly seeking better ways to “disarm” large portions of its nuclear forces.

In that article he describes how the ‘superfuse’ works.

On May 3, 2017 I was the main act “Top US scientists confirm: US goal now is to conquer Russia”and reported:

——

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published a study on March 1, 2017what opened:

The U.S. nuclear modernization program has been presented to the public as an effort to ensure the reliability and safety of nuclear warheads in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, rather than to improve its military capabilities. In reality, however, the program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capabilities of the U.S. ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability is astonishing: it increases the overall killing power of existing U.S. ballistic missile forces by a factor of about three. (which is exactly what is happening) —and it creates exactly what you would expect if a nuclear-armed state planned to have the capability to wage and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.

It continues:

Because the innovations in the superfuze appear insignificant to the non-technical eye, policymakers outside the U.S. government (and likely within it as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.

This study was co-authored by America’s three top scientists specializing in the analysis of weapons and in particular the geostrategic balance between countries: Hans Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie and Theodore Postol. Their report continues:

This massive increase in US nuclear target weapons capabilities, which has been largely hidden from the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions.

Russian planners will almost certainly view advances in detonation capabilities as an increasingly feasible American pre-emptive nuclear strike capability. …

——

That 2017 article did not explain how a superfuse works, but Dr. Postol’s August 29, 2024 article did, perhaps because the world press did not pick up on this topic earlier, when it may have been too late to reverse it.

Postol’s August 29 article began as follows:

The New York Times reported last week that President Biden has approved a secret nuclear plan strategy that refocuses on Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons.

According to the document, “the new nuclear guidance reorients the US deterrence strategy” to “meet the need to deter Russia, the People’s Republic of China, and North Korea simultaneously.”

Both US presidential candidates, Trump and Harris, should be asked the question right at the beginning of the Trump-Harris debate on September 10 (Tuesday): “If you become President, will you or will you not cancel the super detonators that are now being loaded onto US missiles and that are specifically designed for a blitz (sneak) nuclear first strike on Russia, China and North Korea, to disable their ability to strike back and thus ‘win’ World War III and gain control of the entire world?” Don’t you think that in a democracy that question would be asked in that debate, at that crucial moment?

—————

The latest book by research historian Eric Zuesse, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory and Why the Social Sciences Must Changeis about how America took over the world after World War II to subjugate it to American and allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by controlling not only their “news” media but also the social “sciences” — by misleading the public.

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not provide financial, investment or medical advice.