Remind me. Which country has waged virtually non stop wars for more than two centuries? Which one devastated the Middle East in the name of – take you pick – a war on terror which massively amplified and weaponised the same … delivering democracy Iraq, Libya and Syria style … taking out non existent weapons of mass destruction?
And which country has spent the past sixteen months arming a genocide it could have stopped in a heartbeat?
China perhaps? We all know – it’s all over the papers, dude! – it’s ruled by a nasty and secretive regime, and not to be fooled by the fact it last fought a war – a 27 day skirmish in the north of Vietnam – in 1979. That’s just window dressing. You know we can’t trust those damn Reds!
Or Russia? It’s fighting a war now, having a peculiar objection to the government of a state on its border being overthrown by a foreign orchestrated coup, its puppet successor waging an eight year not so civil war on ethnic Russians in its eastern regions while seeking membership of an alliance premised on containing not, as we’d been told for decades, the USSR but Russia herself under any but a pliant government like Yeltsin’s. But does Russia circle the planet with military bases? Does Russia bomb, invade or illegally sanction nations whose leaders pursue policies Moscow objects to?
Enough of the disingenuity. You know what country I’m talking about and, if you’ve followed this site or similar, you also know why it acts as it does. That I see fit to ask such tongue-in questions speaks volumes to the truth – when on the one hand mass media (including social media) are in the hands of powerful elites, on the other ours is a species of story tellers – that narratives beat mere facts hands down.
This from Andrew Korybko today …
Five Takeaways From Trump’s Plans To Build An Iron Dome For America
This is a game-changer in the New Cold War since it’ll take the US’ rivalry with Russia and China to a qualitatively more dangerous level through the consequent hyper-militarization of space.
Trump signed an Executive Order to build an Iron Dome for America, which aims to defend the homeland “against ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks.” It’ll also importantly include space-based monitoring and interception systems. Some of the latter will have “non-kinetic capabilities” too, likely referring to directed-energy weapons (DEWs), but it’s unclear whether they’ll be deployed on the ground and/or in space. Here are five takeaways from this monumental move:
———-
1. Strategic Stability Will Never Look The Same
Bush Jr.’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 prompted Russia to develop hypersonic technology so as to prevent the US from feeling comfortable enough with its missile defense shield that it one day plots a first strike after thinking that it could intercept Russia’s second one. Trump’s Iron Dome plans mean that there’s no going back to the era of mutual restrictions on missile defense, which was already dubious after what Bush Jr. did, thus worsening the Russian-US security dilemma.
2. The US Just Sped Up The Second Space Race
The second Space Race has already been underway since Trump created the Space Force in 2019, but his latest Executive Order sped it up by compelling Russia and China to further prioritize their space-based defense plans, which will inevitably result in the hyper-militarization of space. There’s no way that those two won’t suit through the deployment of their own defensive systems there that could also disguise offensive weapons just like the US might secretly be plotting to do under this pretext.
3. “Rods From God” Are The Next Superweapon
Whichever country is the first to position itself to carry out kinetic bombardments against others, which refers to dropping space-based projectiles onto their opponent, will obtain dominance. These weapons are popularly known as “rods from God” and are poised to become the next superweapon since they might be impossible to intercept and can promptly strike opponents due to menacingly orbiting above their targets or in close enough proximity to them at all times. This makes them a military game-changer.
4. This Is An Unprecedented Power Play By The US
The preceding points prove that Trump’s Iron Dome plans are an unprecedented power play against Russia and China. The unofficial “rods from God” offensive element raises the chances that the US can destroy their land-based second-strike capability in a first strike while the official missile defense one is meant to neutralize their remaining (submarine-based) capabilities. The combined effect is intended to place them in positions of nuclear blackmail from which concessions can then be perpetually extracted.
5. Space-Based Arms Control Should Be A Priority
Russia and China will work to counteract the US’ aforesaid power play and then unveil their own such systems so as to try to place it in the same position of nuclear blackmail that it wants to place them. This is a dangerous dynamic since one of these three might feel like time is running out before they’re placed in such a position and that they must thus launch a first strike without delay. The only way to reduce this risk is through a space-based arms control pact with credible monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
* * *
Good luck with the missile systems, Trump.
“Several U.S. experts in the field of missile defence have noted that prospects for the country developing a capable and reliable missile defence system are highly unlikely, with renowned expert Theodore Postol stating in 2016 following a series of failed tests: “I think basic physics would tell you that this system no only doesn’t work, but it will never be able to work. So, this is nothing to do with engineering technology, it has to do with the order to tell the difference between decoys and warheads. This is a fundamental problem with the system.” The New York Times and several other leading U.S. publications have published articles to the same effect, with the Times noting in March 2017: “the $300 billion spent since the Eisenhower era on traditional antimissile systems, often compared to ‘hitting a bullet with a bullet,’ had failed the core purpose of protecting the continental United States. Flight tests of interceptors based in Alaska and California had an overall failure rate of 56 percent, under near-perfect conditions. Privately, many experts warned the system would fare worse in real combat.”
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/the-underperformance-of-u-s-air-defences-how-it-affects-strategic-decision-making-and-reduces-chances-of-war-on-the-korean-peninsula
Newer systems are just the same. Dave has previously posted references to a couple of articles which show why the west has lost, or is rapidly losing, the ability to capitalise on hi-tech engineering skills. Briefly, it’s all being ‘Boeing’ised. Trump can’t turn that tide. For example, China has naval-capable shipyards counted in hundreds – the US has six! And out of forty or fifty or so cutting edge technologies, again (for the moment!) the US leads on six.
These articles may also be instructive. Both of which share a degree of congruency with Andrei Martyanov:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/nato-war-with-russia/
“First, unlike Russia, no major NATO nation is industrially mobilized for war, as evidenced by the fact that Russia is still outproducing NATO on 155mm shells for Ukraine. Which, incidentally, gives the lie to the view that Russia is poised to take more of Europe — if we in NATO truly believed this, we would all be mobilizing at speed….”
Ouch!
“…..NATO is positioning itself as Europe’s defender, yet lacks the industrial capacity to sustain peer-to-peer warfighting, is wholly dependent on U.S. forces for the remotest chance of success, is unable satisfactorily to defend its sea lines of communication against Russian submarine, or its training and industrial infrastructure against strategic ballistic bombardment, is comprised of a diverse mix of un-bloodied conventional forces, and lacks the capacity to think and act strategically. ……”
Obviously a member of the reality based community.
However, this former RN Commodore saves the best bit for the end:
“……we could return to consider — at last — the judgement of many Western realists that NATO expansion was the touchpaper for the Russo-Ukraine War. The Russians warned us, time and again, that such expansion constituted a red line. So too did some of our very greatest strategic thinkers, starting with George Kennan in 1996, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, even Bill Burns in his famous ‘Nyet means Nyet’ diplomatic telegram, and most recently John Mearsheimer with his 2014 forecasts. All ignored.
The truth is that NATO now exists to confront the threats created by its continuing existence. Yet as our scenario shows, NATO does not have the capacity to defeat the primary threat that its continuing existence has created.
So perhaps this is the time to have an honest conversation about the future of NATO, and to ask two questions. How do we return to the sustainable peace in Europe that all sides to the conflict seek? Is NATO the primary obstacle to this sustainable peace? ”
Ouch again!
– Steve Jermy (Ret.) Royal Navy Commodore
https://wartheory.substack.com/p/the-russian-military-is-now-stronger-1a9
After a lengthy consideration of respective productive capacities in terms of resources, procurement systems, efficiencies, effectiveness, training, active personnel and a range of other relevant factors which determine capabilities, we get to this piece of nitty gritty:
“Five to six interceptors are required to have an eighty percent chance of intercepting one strategic nuclear warhead.137 The U.S. has 1,389 nuclear weapons in active service while Russia has 1,458.138 It would take a minimum of 7,847 interceptors to defeat the U.S. nuclear arsenal and 8,237 to defeat the Russian nuclear arsenal.139 The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) only possesses forty-four GMD interceptors140 and the Russian Space Forces only have one S-500 regiment in service.141 These are the only two deployed systems in either military capable of intercepting ICBM. The MDA claims to have developed new advanced interceptors capable of defeating MIRV and distinguishing decoys from warheads, but a deployable prototype is not expected to be ready until 2028 at the earliest.142 Since neither side possesses anywhere near the required volumes of interceptors, a strategic nuclear war between the two blocs is guaranteed to be apocalyptic.”
Concluding, after a little more elaboration: “Therefore, any direct war between any set of superpowers is inherently strategically irrational.”
What neither piece seems to explicitly cover in depth and in terms of joining the dots is the difficulty of prosecuting, never mind sustaining, a Europe wide conflict on Euopean soil. With a Europe effectively deindustrialised by the US in terms of capacity whilst also being vulnarable to energy dependency and shortages, the entire logistics of any such operation (defensive or offensive) would be down to extremely extended, stretched and vulnerable supply lines from the other side of the Atlantic.
Which is not viable. It would probably take at least two decades or more of retrenchment and restructuring for NATO to catch up to the present position of its chosen adversary. Who will not be standing still and resting on their laurals.
Two options present in terms of achieving the objectives of the Western oligarchy: A nuclear first strike or attritional economic and trade war involving sanctions and tarrifs against anyone and everyone not fully complying with the Western Rules Based Order.