August 2016– WASHINGTON– With tensions between Russia and the West at post-cold war highs, a former NATO deputy military chief is now saying that a nuclear war with Russia over the Baltic nations in 2017 is “entirely plausible” according to RT. General Sir Richard Shirreff, from Britain, served at the second highest NATO military office in Europe between 2011 and 2014, has written a fictional book about a nuclear war with Russia in 2017 triggered by a dispute of the Baltic nations. While the story is indeed fictional, Shirreff said the story is based on an “entirely plausible” scenario. –Zero Hedge
How did it come to this? The balance of power involving the nuclear arms race between Russia and the U.S. is a chess game. If you’re going to play the game, you not only have to know the rules of the games involving the movement of the chess pieces – you have to also understand your opponent’s strategy. In order to win, you have to be smart enough to exploit your opponent’s blunders. Unfortunately, when it comes to chess – Russia has a long undisputed history of producing undefeatable grand chess-masters. Therefore, it can be said, Russia approaches the nuclear arms race with the U.S. as if it was just that – a chess game, whose every move the Russian nation’s entire existence depended upon.
The U.S. on the other hand, particularly under the Obama administration, has seen America’s nuclear arsenal as a bargaining chip for peace moreso than as a deterrence to prevent an unthinkable mutually assured holocaust. The elimination of nuclear weapons can only be be approached by the same “paradox” as M.A.D., that is M.D.S., or mutual dilution in strength. However, in this chess game, Russia took advantage of two things – America’s push to reduce its nuclear stock piles under the START treaties, and Barack Obama’s naiveté and inexperience as a seasoned politician to know the stark difference between chess and checkers. Obama wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons at almost any cost rather than face the daunting task of staring down his Russian counterparts into the abyss until both sides reached a congenial and verifiable agreement on the mutual reduction of nuclear arms.
In the end, Obama was more concerned with short-term fixes and resolutions that would hold-up during his administration than he was about securing long-term solutions that would eradicate nuclear weapons from the face of the planet once and for all. A series of blunders was enacted by President Obama that, in our estimation, tipped the balance of power in Russia’s favor. This would lead to more aggressive military action by Russia in the Baltic region and call for a complete reordering of Russia’s nuclear forces by Putin to attain a strategic advantage over the U.S. and its NATO allies. Remember, this is the same president that told our number one ally, Great Britain, if its own people made the sovereign decision to leave the EU (BREXIT), he would put them at the back of the trade queue.
Via The Huffington Post/Reuters: “In March of 2012, President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he will have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election. Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him “space” until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin. The unusually frank exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together on the eve of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room…” –Huffington Post – Below: A clip from a CNN news cast with then presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney.
April 6, 2010 – Before Obama’s meeting with Medvedev: WASHINGTON —The Obama administration will release a new national nuclear-weapons strategy Tuesday that makes only modest changes to U.S. nuclear forces, leaving intact the longstanding U.S. threat to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear nations.
Also for the first time, nations complying with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations that attack the U.S. or its allies with chemical or biological weapons will no longer be threatened with nuclear retaliation, the official said. But the president will make clear they would “face the prospect of a devastating conventional attack,” the official said. The document, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, is the first rethinking of the U.S. nuclear strategy since President George W. Bush released his revised policies three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. –WSJ
Obama changes U.S. nuclear policy: July 20, 2016 – WASHINGTON – The threat of striking first in a nuclear conflict is vital to keeping global peace. Why would Obama give it up? Barack Obama’s foreign policy has always been defined by ticking the boxes the far Left long wanted ticked. Now he’s contemplating one more, by far the most dangerous of all: unilateral nuclear disarmament, or at least a rough approximation thereof. After reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal to dangerous levels, the Washington Post reports that Obama is considering a “no first use” policy with regard to nukes.
Peaceniks around the world will cheer; the rest of us will shudder. No First Use (NFU) was first raised as a strategic doctrine by JFK in a March 1961 speech. (Truman and Eisenhower knew better.) But Kennedy quickly dropped the idea after the Cuban missile crisis proved that proclaiming, “We will never strike first in any conflict,” had only encouraged Khrushchev to act more boldly. It was also true that NFU encouraged the Russians to think that they could win an all-out war in Europe. If, for example, a conventional Russian invasion through the Fulda gap into West Germany was so massive that NATO forces couldn’t respond in time or with enough impact, the Russians would be assured of victory with the threat of American nukes off the table.
Other presidents agreed with Kennedy’s abandonment of NFU, and the doctrine lay dormant for the rest of the Cold War. Today, the arguments against it may be even more urgent. As American and NATO troop levels stagnate and Vladimir Putin assumes a more aggressive posture while refurbishing the Russian military, the threat of a nuclear strike may be one of the few ways left to keep Russia in check. After all, Putin himself talks about using nuclear weapons to hold onto Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and his generals, meeting with American officials in March 2015, threatened to use nukes if NATO dared to reinforce the defenses of the Baltic States. As General Sir Richard Shirreff, NATO’s deputy supreme allied commander from 2011 to 2014, said in a BBC Radio 4 interview, Russia has hardwired “nuclear thinking and capability to every aspect of their defense capability.” Renouncing first-use will only encourage Russia or another aggressor with nukes to strike first at what is perceived to be an opponent with one arm deliberately tied behind its back — and to target our nuclear assets so they can’t be used in retaliation. Far from diminishing the likelihood of a nuclear confrontation, then, it could actually trigger one. –National Review
March 25, 2014 – Washington, DC—Congressman Mike Turner, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, and House Armed Services Committee Member Jim Bridenstine along with sixteen House colleagues, sent a letter to Secretary of Energy Moniz regarding the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) FY15 proposal to provide the Russian Federation with the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES).
“It’s ludicrous that U.S. taxpayers are paying to give Russia free military equipment after President Obama announced a suspension in military engagement with Moscow. It’s just another example of how the President is hanging on to his failed “reset with Russia” policy…I expect Secretary of Energy Moniz to act quickly and stop irresponsible military equipment transfers,” said Bridenstine.
“Putin has proven that he has a brazen disregard for the sovereignty and stability of Eastern Europe and that he will continue manipulate and disregard international law. Despite this overwhelming evidence that Putin is not our ally, it is astonishing that the Obama Administration would still provide superior, U.S. military technology to an aggressive and advancing Russia. The United States must seriously redirect its approach and immediately terminate all military aid to Russia,” said Turner. –Brindenstine US Congress