The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ron Unz ArchiveBlogview
American Pravda: Did the US Plan a Nuclear First Strike Against Russia in the Early 1960s?
shutterstock_14569234
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Several years ago, my articles advocating a large hike in the minimum wage caught the attention of James Galbraith, the prominent liberal economist, and we became a little friendly. As president of Economists for Peace and Security, he invited me to speak on those issues at his DC conference in late 2013. And after the presentations, he arranged a meeting with a friend of his, influential in DC political circles, at which the two of us could present my minimum wage proposals.

While we were waiting for the taxi to take us to that meeting, I heard him quietly discussing a few other matters with a friend standing next to him. Phrases such as “attacking Russia,” “a nuclear first strike,” and “Kennedy and the Joint Chiefs” came to my ears. I can’t recall the exact words, but the conversation stuck in my mind both at the time and on my later flight home that evening, and although I hadn’t mentioned anything, I wondered what remarkable historical facts he had been discussing. His father, the legendary economist John Kenneth Galbraith, had spent decades as one of America’s most prominent public intellectuals and was a very influential figure in the Kennedy Administration, so I assumed that he was not merely engaging in casual speculation.

Finally, a week or two later, my curiosity got the better of me, and I dropped him a note, gingerly raising the topic I’d accidentally overheard. I suggested that if he possessed any private information regarding so astonishing a possibility—that the Kennedy Administration might have considered a nuclear first strike against the USSR—perhaps he had a duty to bring the facts to public awareness lest they be lost to history.

He replied that he’d indeed found persuasive evidence that the US military had carefully planned a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union in the early 1960s, and agreed about the historical importance. But he’d already published an article laying out the case. Twenty years earlier. In The American Prospect, a very respectable though liberal-leaning magazine. So I located a copy on the Internet:

I quickly read the article and was stunned. The central document was a Top Secret/Eyes Only summary memo of a July 1961 National Security Council meeting written by Howard Burris, the military aide to then-Vice President Lyndon Johnson, which was afterward deposited in the Johnson Archives and eventually declassified. The discussion focused on the effectiveness of a planned nuclear first strike, suggesting that 1963 would be the optimal date since America’s relative advantage in intercontinental nuclear missiles would be greatest at that point. Galbraith’s student, Heather A. Purcell, had discovered the memo and co-authored the article with him, and as they pointed out, this meeting was held soon after the US military had discovered that the Soviet missile forces were far weaker than previously had been realized, leading to the plans for the proposed attack and also proving that the first strike under discussion could only have been an American one.

This history was quite different from the deterrent-based framework of American nuclear-war strategy that I had always absorbed from reading my textbooks and newspapers.

Obviously no nuclear attack took place, so the plans must have been changed at some point or discarded, and there were various indications that President Kennedy had had important doubts from the very beginning. But the argument made was that at the time, the first strike proposal was taken very seriously by America’s top political and military leadership. Once we accept that idea, other historical puzzles more easily fall into place.

Consider, for example, the massive campaign of “civil defense” that America launched immediately thereafter, leading to the construction of large numbers of fallout shelters throughout the country, including the backyard suburban ones which generated some famous ironic images. Although I’m hardly an expert on nuclear war, the motivation had never made much sense to me, since in most cases the supplies would only have been sufficient to last a few weeks or so, while the deadly radioactive fallout from numerous Soviet thermonuclear strikes on our urban centers would have been long-lasting. But an American first strike changes this picture. A successful U.S. attack would have ensured that few if any bombs fell on American soil, with the shelters intended merely to provide a couple of weeks of useful protection until the global radioactive dust-clouds resulting from the nuclear destruction of the Soviet Union had dissipated, and these anyway would have only reached America in highly attenuated form.

Furthermore, we must reassess the background to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, certainly one of the most important and dangerous events of that era. If Soviet military analysts had reached conclusions similar to those of their American counterparts, it is hardly surprising that their political leaders would have taken the considerable risk of deploying nuclear warheads on intermediate range missiles close to American cities, thereby greatly multiplying their deterrent capability immediately prior to their point of greatest strategic vulnerability. And there was also the real possibility that their intelligence agents might have somehow gotten hints of the American plans for an actual nuclear first strike. The traditional view presented in the American media has always been that an unprovoked American attack was simply unimaginable, any Soviet paranoia notwithstanding, but if such an attack was not only imagined but actually planned, then our Cold War narrative must be significantly modified. Indeed, perhaps important aspects of the superpower confrontations of that era should be completely inverted.

Could such a momentous historical discovery have been so totally ignored by our mainstream journalists and historians that I’d never heard of it during the previous twenty years? Gossipy rumors of an additional JFK infidelity might periodically make the headlines, but why was there no discussion of serious plans to launch a non-defensive global thermonuclear war likely to kill many millions?

ORDER IT NOW

I have limited expertise in either analyzing nuclear warfare strategy or interpreting national security documents, so I could easily be making an error in evaluating the strength of the case. But in a later issue of TAP, William Burr and David Alan Rosenberg, scholars proficient in exactly those areas, published a lengthy rebuttal to the article, followed by a rejoinder from Galbraith and Purcell. And in my own opinion, the Burr/Rosenberg critique was quite unpersuasive.

In their arguments, they emphasized that the key document was found in the Vice Presidential archives, while the National Archives and those of President Kennedy himself are usually a far better source of important material. But perhaps that’s exactly the point. The authenticity of the Burris document was never disputed, and Burr/Rosenberg cite absolutely no contradictory archival material, implying that the documentary evidence was not available to them. So the materials dealing with such an extraordinarily explosive proposal had either elsewhere not been declassified or might even have been removed from the main archives, with only the less direct Burris summary memo in a secondary location surviving the purge and later being declassified, perhaps because its treatment of the subject was much less explicit.

Meanwhile, a careful reading of the Burris memo seems to strongly support the Galbraith/Purcell interpretation, namely that in July 1961 President Kennedy and his top national security officials discussed cold-blooded plans for a full nuclear attack against the Soviet Union in roughly two years’ time, when the relative imbalance of strategic forces would be at its maximum. The proposal seemed quite concrete, rather than merely being one of the numerous hypotheticals endlessly produced by all military organizations.

In a later footnote, Galbraith even mentioned that he subsequently had his interpretation personally confirmed by Kennedy’s former National Security Advisor: “When once I asked the late Walt Rostow if he knew anything about the National Security Council meeting of July 20, 1961 (at which these plans were presented), he responded with no hesitation: `Do you mean the one where they wanted to blow up the world?’”

 

Once I accepted the reasonable likelihood of the analysis, I was shocked at how little attention the remarkable article had received. When I simply Googled the names of the authors “Galbraith Heather Purcell” I mostly discovered very brief mentions scattered here and there, generally in specialized books or in articles written by Galbraith himself, and found absolutely nothing in the major media. Possibly one of the most important revisions to our entire history of the Cold War—with huge implications for the Cuban Missile Crisis—seems to have never achieved any significant public awareness.

And there is also a sequel on this same topic. In 2001 military affairs writer Fred Kaplan published a major article in The Atlantic with the explicit title “JFK’s First-Strike Plan.” Drawing on a wealth of newly declassified archival documents, he similarly described how the Kennedy Administration had prepared plans for a nuclear first strike against the Soviets. His analysis was somewhat different, suggesting that Kennedy himself had generally approved the proposal, but that the attack was intended as an option to be used during a hypothetical future military confrontation rather than being aimed for a particular scheduled date.

The government plans unearthed by Kaplan are clearly referring to the same strategy discussed in the Burris memo, but since Kaplan provides none of the documents themselves, it is difficult to determine whether or not the evidence is consistent with the somewhat different Galbraith/Purcell interpretation. It is also decidedly odd that Kaplan’s long article gives no indication that he was even aware of that previous theory or its differing conclusions, containing not a single sentence mentioning or dismissing it. I find it very difficult to believe that a specialist such as Kaplan remained totally unaware of the earlier TAP analysis, but perhaps this might possibly be explained given the near-total media blackout. Prior to the establishment of the Internet or even in its early days, important information ignored by the media might easily vanish almost without a trace.

Kaplan’s long article seems to have suffered that similar fate. Aside from a few mentions in some of Kaplan’s own later pieces, I found virtually no references at all in the last 15 years when I casually Googled it. Admittedly, the timing could not have been worse, with the article appearing in the October 2001 edition of the magazine, released in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, but the silence is still troubling.

The unfortunate fact is that when a massively important story is reported only once, with virtually no follow-up, the impact may be minimal. Only a small slice of the public encounters that initial account, and the lack of any repetition would eventually lead even those individuals to forget it, or perhaps even vaguely assume that the subsequent silence implied that the claims had been mistaken or later debunked. Every standard historical narrative of the 1960s that continues to exclude mention of serious plans for an American nuclear first strike constitutes a tacit denial of that important reality, implicitly suggesting that the evidence does not exist or had been discredited. As a consequence, I doubt whether more than a sliver of those seemingly informed Americans who carefully read the NYT and WSJ each morning are aware of these important historical facts, and perhaps the same is even true of the journalists who write for those esteemed publications. Only repetition and continuing coverage gradually incorporates a story into our framework of the past.

It is easy to imagine how things might have gone differently. Suppose, for example, that similarly solid evidence of plans for a devastating and unprovoked nuclear attack on the Soviet Union had been found in the archival records of the presidential administrations of Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. Is there not a far greater likelihood that the story have been heavily covered and then endlessly repeated in our media outlets, until it had become full embedded in our standard histories and was known to every informed citizen?

 

In some respects, these discussions of events from over a half-century ago have little relevance for us today: the individuals involved are now all merely names in our history books and the world is a very different place. So although the sharp differences between the Galbraith/Purcell analysis and that of Kaplan might engage academic specialists, the practical differences would today be minimal.

But what has enormous significance is the media silence itself. If our media failed to report these shocking new facts about the early 1960s, how much can we rely upon it for coverage of present-day events of enormous importance, given the vastly more immediate pressures and political interests which are surely brought to bear? If our mainstream histories of what happened fifty years ago are highly unreliable, what does that suggest about the stories we read each morning concerning the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine or the South China Sea or the Middle East?

Consider a particularly troubling thought-experiment. Suppose that the proposed nuclear attack on Russia had actually gone ahead, resulting in millions or tens of millions dead from the bombs and worldwide radioactive fallout, perhaps even including a million or more American casualties if the first strike had failed to entirely eliminate all retaliatory capability. Under such a dire scenario, is it not likely that every American media organ would have been immediately enlisted to sanitize and justify the terrible events, with virtually no dissent allowed? Surely John F. Kennedy would have been enshrined as our most heroic wartime president—greater than Lincoln and FDR combined—the leader who boldly saved the West from an imminent Soviet attack, a catastrophic nuclear Pearl Harbor. How could our government ever admit the truth? Even decades later, this patriotic historical narrative, uniformly endorsed by newspapers, books, films, and television, would have become almost unassailable. Only the most marginal and anti-social individuals would dare to suggest that the facts might actually have been otherwise, and they would be widely regarded as eccentric or even mentally ill for doing so. After all, how would the general public know anything different? As I always tell people, the media creates reality.

I am grateful that the world escaped this terrible nuclear disaster. But I find it disturbing that I spent decades religiously reading The New York Times every morning, but only discovered this crucial element of the Cold War by overhearing a conversation while waiting for a taxi.

For Further Reading:

Postscript:

Prof. James Galbraith has now provided a note, clarifying his own views on the issues discussed in this article:

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1531657

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
The American Pravda Series
    []
  1. The American elected government had lost some control of its foreign policy to a “Secret Team”, as this article hints. For example, from my blog that has links:

    Aug 14, 2016 – President Eisenhower’s Peace Effort Sabotaged

    Some Americans recall the 1960 loss of an American U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union. This occurred just before President Eisenhower was to meet with Soviet Premier Kruschev and sign agreements to end the Cold War. History books mention the U-2 crash as an unfortunate coincidence that derailed this agreement, but few know that former US Air Force Col. Fletcher Prouty proved this was no coincidence.

    He provided details in his book “The Secret Team”, later in a magazine article, and in this interview, that a super-secret CIA team ordered the mission and sabotaged the U-2 so it would crash over the Soviet Union. Prouty was the US Air Force liaison officer to the CIA. Eisenhower had ordered all U-2 flights halted weeks before this meeting to avoid an incident, yet this U-2 was launched without his authority, and even head of CIA claimed he was not aware of it.

    This made relations even worse because when the Soviets claimed they had shot down a spy plane, Eisenhower publicly denied it since he knew it to be false. Imagine his embarrassment and anger when the Soviets paraded its pilot, Gary Francis Powers (pictured), before the international press to admit his role. This successful op by “The Secret Team” ended Eisenhower’s “Crusade for Peace” and kept the profitable Cold War conflict going another two decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Baldrin
    Besides The Secret Team, there was the neocon-infested Team B.

    Appointed by President Ford in 1976 to evaluate the CIA's intelligence estimates on the Soviet Union, Team B concluded the Soviets had built up their military and had abandoned the agreed upon mutually assured destruction policy.

    A Wikipedia article credits the Team B reports as prompting "the massive arms buildup that began toward the end of the Carter administration and accelerated under President Ronald Reagan."

    Adam Curtis included BBC archival film clips of Team B members and their critics in his documentary, The Power of Nightmares.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTg4qnyUGxg

    The documentary debunks Team B's motives, methods, and their evidence of the Soviets abandoning detente and MAD.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1529665
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Fascinating and scary….one error….the Cuban missile crisis was of course 1962

    Read More
  3. If our media failed to report these shocking new facts about the early 1960s, how much can we rely upon it for coverage of present-day events of enormous importance, given the vastly more immediate pressures and political interests which are surely brought to bear?

    It’s the same character of media that shields Democrats from their corrupt sins of today. If the Kennedy/First Strike missive had belonged to Reagan (and they considered Reagan a madman anyway) or Nixon, they would have broken the story. Goldwater was in no position and look at the ads they ran against HIM just a year after JFK was assassinated. Johnson had the First Strike plan in his breast pocket and was about to sign off on Vietnam, but oh sure, Goldwater was the madman.. There is no journalism, there is only the Democrat Billboard. I don’t know when it crossed, but the “Fourth Estate” ceased to exist long, long ago.

    Read More
  4. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    According to the Liberal Narrative, only far-right generals like Jack D. Ripper of DR. STRANGELOVE could have thought of such a thing. The idea that Kennedy and men around him had anything to do with an idea like this would undermine the Liberal Narrative that all the paranoid anti-communist red-baiting loonies were on the Right.
    The Narrative also says that cool, calm, and collected Kennedy sanely prevented a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And Johnson in 64 ran against Goldwater as the nuke-maniac. A famous TV commercial had the world blowing up under Goldwater the ‘extremist’. So, the idea that Kennedy considered such war plans throws a monkey wrench into the Narrative.

    There were plenty of Libs who refused to believe that Oswald the commie was the killer of Kennedy. The Lib Narrative still blames, ‘spiritually’ anyway, Dallas as the City of Hate.

    Also, the Vietnam debacle under Johnson and Nixon led to the myth that Kennedy would have done things differently because he was a man of peace.
    But then, look around today. Obama the Nobel Prize winner turned out to be a War Criminal, destroying Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. But the Liberal Narrative requires him to be a peace-making ‘progressive’ who unites the world. And Hillary toppled a regime in Honduras, but never mind all that.

    All the top media outlets are owned and controlled by the same kind of people if not the same people. Lib and Zionist.

    [MORE]

    Zionists have corrupted American Conservatism by infusing too much Liberalism into it. Neocons done that, and so, American Conservatism became ‘cucked’.
    Zionists have also corrupted American Liberalism by infusing too much tribalism into it.
    NYT and even NPR are staunchly pro-Zionist even as Libs decry nationalism and tribalism.
    It makes American Liberalism hypocritical, denouncing nationalism and tribalism while forcing all politicians to sing hosannas to the ultra-nationalism of Israel and ultra-tribalism of Jewish unity and power.

    So, the Narratives get skewed. But we see that with BLM as well. Blacks kill each other and non-blacks by the bushel. But we are supposed to see a handful of blacks killed by police as evidence of HATE AGAINST BLACKS.

    In a world where Bruce Jenner is a ‘woman’, myths are truths, and facts don’t matter.

    Now that we have a new ‘cold war’ with Russia, the Narrative requires Russia to be the aggressor. It’s dejavu all over again. So, the idea that the original Cold War might have been driven largely by US aggression(as that of the Soviets) doesn’t fit the Narrative.

    It would be interesting to imagine the debate about Russia if Jeb or Rubio had been the nominee. They might be attacking Hillary for not being tough enough on Russia.

    When the GOP was totally anti-Russian, the Dems could be anti-Russian but also seem more balanced on the matter by making GOP out to be overly paranoid.
    But with Trump calling for peace, the Dems are at a loss. Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of peace, but Trump is the one calling for peace. So, this time around, Dems had no choice but to play Crazy Hawk. But they’ve gotten away with the lunacy cuz they have media on their side.

    This media need to be nuked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    There were plenty of Libs who refused to believe that Oswald the commie was the killer of Kennedy.
     
    They refused to believe it for good reason. Oswald was just a patsy.

    In any case, whether Oswald killed Kennedy or not is a factual question, not a left/right ideological issue.
    , @Che Guava
    I came across a thread where someone had made the connection between the Priss Factory and Dominique Francon Society.

    I posted a connent about it months ago.

    Congrats to you. Anonyny is the same poster as Priss Factor, also learnt (though only very recently) how to sound a little different from Priss, as DFS. Early DFS posts have the exact same style as Priss.

    Mods, please do not act on this simple truth, the writing is enjoyable at times.
  5. Nuclear policy is an important thread through Richard Rhodes’ brilliant Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. It is very clear that from the beginning, SAC under Curtis LeMay planned for a first strike on the Soviet Union. However, one would expect that; it was part of their job. What you’re describing sounds to me along the lines of plans that should be made for completeness, not really as an expected viable option.

    More worrying to me was the documented behavior of Thomas Power, LeMay’s successor as head of SAC, during the Cuban missile crisis. Power went outside of his legitimate authority several times in apparent attempts to provoke the Soviets, such as broadcasting inflammatory messages in the clear, and flying bombers closer to Soviet airspace than normal. According to Rhodes, Power was considered mentally unstable by some officers under his command.

    I agree that it would be useful for all of us to understand and have ready access to how our government officials thought and planned during the first decades of the Cold War. Rhodes had access to Soviet archives as well for his book, although apparently those sources have been withdrawn in the Putin era. Superpower confrontation looks like much less of a concern than back then, but nuclear policy is still one of the most important elements of our country’s defense strategy.

    Read More
    • Agree: Outwest
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "It is very clear that from the beginning, SAC under Curtis LeMay planned for a first strike on the Soviet Union. However, one would expect that; it was part of their job. What you’re describing sounds to me along the lines of plans that should be made for completeness, not really as an expected viable option."

    I would agree with this.

    However, I think there were some people who didn't see it as a possible option(for which US must be prepared) but as a necessity in the fear that Soviet arsenal would eventually outnumber that of the US. I think Soviets did eventually gain missile superiority.

    If missile status quo could have been maintained with US being clearly superior, a first strike wouldn't have been necessary. But what if Soviets were to one day not only catch up and but gain superiority?
    To prevent such a future, it would made sense to attack the USSR when US was still clearly ahead in the missile gap. Waiting would allow Soviets to not only catch up but overtake the US, and then it would be too late to do anything about it.

    When China got its first nuke, Russia too considered nuking Chinese facilities to prevent China advancement in the field. But Russia also decided not to.

    Well, US did finally get its First Strike War to take out WMD. Iraq in 2003. Didn't turn out so great.
    , @annamaria
    And now we have an unstable Samantha...
    , @eric
    As far as the military dreaming up first strike or retaliate strikes does not bother me How ever when George Bush jr the United States president in a public speech claimed the right to strike 1st against anyone they felt like . This is where it became plain to me the United States had given up all hope of traveling the high moral ground . I thought this was a incredible stupid announcement . I had already noticed NATO was no different than the NAZi's in Yugoslavia by initiating false flag attacks and reporting exaggerated lie after lie in their propaganda . So if some country such as Russia should finally consider they have might have a better chance to win if they bombed first . They just beat us with our own plan .
  6. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    JFK was in combat and injured when PT109 sank. He also lost his big brother Joe Jr. over Germany when his special operation aircraft loaded full of explosives, exploded, prematurely.

    Not too many of todays ”chicken hawks” have any distinction, I won’t mention the one that is sort of an exception, he’s nuts, (and a lair!).

    Usually the combat veterans are much less trigger happy, and I believe JFK was seriously working to avoid nuclear war, indeed worked diligently on the test ban with Kruschev on the back channels.
    But however Kennedy was surrounded by hawks, that is for sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "JFK was in combat and injured when PT109 sank. He also lost his big brother Joe Jr. over Germany when his special operation aircraft loaded full of explosives, exploded, prematurely."

    And in the time of Teddy Roosevelt, even elite men joined the fight in the name of honor and manhood.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK8XiUinllI

    The anti-war peace movement of the 60s gave rise to elites who don't believe in military service and honor.
    But these very people gained power and itched to use the military to push their agendas around the world.

    Hillary the anti-war radical of 60s who couldn't stand the sight of military men in the White House in the 90s is now a hawkish bitch.

    When those who disdain military culture gain control of the military, it's some strange shit.

    I guess there's a parallel in how Jewish socialists became nationalist-militarists in Israel. But at least Jews do their own fighting in Israel, and all(except the rabbinical types) have to serve. Rich and poor.
    In the US, it's white gentiles serving the globalists who want to control the world(and will use military to get what they want) but really look down on military honor and culture.
    , @Priss Factor
    "Usually the combat veterans are much less trigger happy, and I believe JFK was seriously working to avoid nuclear war, indeed worked diligently on the test ban with Kruschev on the back channels."

    This is true of some veterans. But 'usually'? I don't know.

    Mussolini and Hitler were wounded in war, but they became war hawks.

    McCain became a war hawk nut despite his hardships in Vietnam.

    Teddy Roosevelt served in Spanish-American War but later pushed for US entry in WWI.

    Reagan and Gorbachev didn't serve in war, but both chose peace in the end.
    , @xyZ
    lol, do u believe the msm BS? Do u believe the Kennedy myth? Idiot.
    , @Paul Jolliffe
    President Kennedy was surrounded by hawks, with very few exceptions.

    But he consistently rejected the hawkish advice of both his military experts and his own cabinet to choose instead the steps leading away from war in every crisis after April of 1961. (Authorizing the pre-planned Bay of Pigs invasion was a serious mistake, as Kennedy readily admitted.)

    Every major foreign policy crisis/decision from then on had JFK on his own against his own administration, from Laos and Berlin in 1961, to the crucial decision in November of 1961 NOT to send US combat troops to help South Vietnam, to Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963, to his October 1963 DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION to withdraw all American forces from Vietnam by 1965, regardless of the battlefield situation.

    Professor James Blight is probably the pre-eminent authority on this history. His documentary "Virtual JFK" is well worth watching.

    Mr. Unz, you are right to be shocked by the silence of the media gatekeepers on Galbraith's
    important article. And you are right to be shocked by the insanity of the plans for a nuclear first-strike that were presented to President Kennedy in the summer of 1961.

    But I think you've underestimated President Kennedy's resistance and revulsion to such plans.

    And a line from the third paragraph of Galbraith's 1994 article, "some high Air Force and CIA apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963" is mighty intriguing . . .

    That some high-ranking officers believed that a window of "first-strike" opportunity existed in late 1963 and would close permanently by 1964, and that such a window could be opened with a "triggering event" is a fact. (See the NSC meeting minutes of September 12, 1963 for the official assumptions about first-strike possibilities from 1964-1968.)

    Whether such beliefs were connected to the later events in Dallas is not yet provable beyond doubt.

    Mr. Unz, there is more to this, and I hope you keep digging and writing.
  7. If our media failed to report these shocking new facts about the early 1960s

    While seeing the details might be interesting, it is common knowledge the USA has had since about 1950 first strike plans against the USSR, separate plans targeting China, and periodically has updated them including adapting them for a first strike plan against Russia. Likewise, those countries all have first strike plans against the USA. Indeed, there are probably multiple American plans produced by different parts of the NatSec complex. For instance, RAND Corporation almost certainly created first strike plans separate from the Pentagon so the latter could have a “second opinion.” So I disagree that there is anything shocking in these articles. That some within our government advocated for a first strike against the USSR was such common knowledge that they were parodied in Dr. Strangelove.

    Pointing out an optimal date for such strike and undertaking civil defense measures does not mean Kennedy ever actually had a desire that such plan be undertaken.

    The specific and not-secret scenario for Able Archer was a nuclear first strike in response to a conventional and chemical weapon attack.

    Consider, for example, the massive campaign of “civil defense” that America launched immediately thereafter,

    Civil defense measures started in the early 1950′s, and were not specific to the USA. To the extent they were increased in the early 1960′s, that is also the period when the Soviet nuclear arsenal was increasing the fastest.

    Suppose that the proposed nuclear attack on Russia had actually gone ahead, resulting in millions or tens of millions dead from the bombs and worldwide radioactive fallout, perhaps even including a million or more American casualties if the first strike had failed to entirely eliminate all retaliatory capability.

    It is very unlikely that in 1963 a first strike would have been so effective as to limit US deaths in the counterstrike to anything near one million. Siberia is a very big place. One long-range bomber, one Czar Bomb (1500 times bigger than the Hiroshima bomb) hitting a large city, and you have a number much bigger than one million.

    Under such a dire scenario, is it not likely that every American media organ would have been immediately enlisted to sanitize and justify the terrible events, with virtually no dissent allowed?

    Maybe, but we managed to kill more than a million Vietnamese and Iraqis without becoming a police state.

    I think where you see media cover-ups and conspiracies, I see capitalism at work giving Americans the media they want, or at least the media they are willing to pay for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava

    For instance, RAND Corporation almost certainly created first strike plans separate from the Pentagon so the latter could have a “second opinion.”
     
    It isn't 'almost certain', it is true. I have read the documents (length of a small encyclopedia, only one volume on that) concerned.

    The calculation was roughly 'US loses 10 to 20 million, the USSR loses 100 to 200 million. so US economy recovers more quickly', I resigned from our US-allied military not much later because of reading it, disgusting document.

    For Mr. Unz, I recommend trying to track it down, do not recall the title, sorry, but a list of RAND corp. documents must be readily available.

    The idea of the RAND corp. being behind nuclear war first strike also appears in US post-apocalyptic science fiction of the time, being much younger, can only guess they had heard rumours from US servicemen who had read the same volume I did.

    It was classified at the time, perhaps still is now, I don't care either way, if it still is classified, that is illegal.

    Guarantee that I read it.
    , @Anonymous
    Good points.

    Why wouldn't our nation's leaders have contemplated a first strike? To have not weighed all the options would have been dereliction of duty. Or, to put it more succinctly, "That's their job."
    , @Ron Unz

    While seeing the details might be interesting, it is common knowledge the USA has had since about 1950 first strike plans against the USSR...So I disagree that there is anything shocking in these articles.
     
    Numerous other commenters have made exactly this same point, which I think may be mistaken.

    Obviously, militaries produce a huge number of contingency plans, presumably including attack and first strike scenarios. However, the Burris Memo seems to treat the NSC discussion as being far more detailed and focused than that, including discussion of a particular target-date for the attack, based on greatest Soviet weakness. This is also is seemingly supported by the later reported statement by Walt Rostow, JFK's National Security Advisor.

    I am hardly an expert on these matters, but Burr and Rosenberg certainly are, and if such an easily innocuous interpretation were remotely plausible, why would they not have focused on it in their desperate attempt to refute the TAP article? Instead, they mostly rely upon an implausible misreading of the document and numerous other irrelevancies.

    To me, it seems very odd that there are apparently no more detailed documents about the NSC meeting available in the primary archives to refute the TAP interpretation of the Burris Memo. If the discussion were actually so innocuous, why would those other documents seemingly be missing?

    Civil defense measures started in the early 1950′s, and were not specific to the USA. To the extent they were increased in the early 1960′s, that is also the period when the Soviet nuclear arsenal was increasing the fastest.
     
    This seems incorrect.

    As I have emphasized, fallout shelters should seem rather useless against a substantial Soviet nuclear attack, but very helpful protection against merely radioactive dust due to US strikes against the USSR. Therefore, they seem almost entirely a first strike people. It seems quite suspicious that there had apparently been no significant effort to contruct American fallout shelters until JFK launched the major drive just a couple of months after the NSC "first strike" meeting:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-look-back-at-americas-fallout-shelter-fatuation/

    It is very unlikely that in 1963 a first strike would have been so effective as to limit US deaths in the counterstrike to anything near one million. Siberia is a very big place.
     
    Well, the very long and detailed Kaplan article seems to present a very different conclusion, based upon the declassified documents and studies of that era. Perhaps you know more than America's top nuclear warfare experts did at the time; I certainly don't.

    The Internet is filled with anonymous commenters who arrogantly imply all sorts of deep knowledge about complex subjects while being much too lazy to do their homework. I have repeatedly emphasized my lack of expertise in this particular area, but I get the sense that "Lot" may not have even bothered to read the handful of articles I cited for my analysis. Just last week, I noted his tendency to spout off on topics about which he seems to be totally ignorant aside from having read a few blogs here and there:

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-maya-who-woulda-thunk-it/#comment-1520072
  8. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @edNels


    JFK was in combat and injured when PT109 sank. He also lost his big brother Joe Jr. over Germany when his special operation aircraft loaded full of explosives, exploded, prematurely.

    Not too many of todays ''chicken hawks'' have any distinction, I won't mention the one that is sort of an exception, he's nuts, (and a lair!).

    Usually the combat veterans are much less trigger happy, and I believe JFK was seriously working to avoid nuclear war, indeed worked diligently on the test ban with Kruschev on the back channels.
    But however Kennedy was surrounded by hawks, that is for sure.

    “JFK was in combat and injured when PT109 sank. He also lost his big brother Joe Jr. over Germany when his special operation aircraft loaded full of explosives, exploded, prematurely.”

    And in the time of Teddy Roosevelt, even elite men joined the fight in the name of honor and manhood.

    The anti-war peace movement of the 60s gave rise to elites who don’t believe in military service and honor.
    But these very people gained power and itched to use the military to push their agendas around the world.

    Hillary the anti-war radical of 60s who couldn’t stand the sight of military men in the White House in the 90s is now a hawkish bitch.

    When those who disdain military culture gain control of the military, it’s some strange shit.

    I guess there’s a parallel in how Jewish socialists became nationalist-militarists in Israel. But at least Jews do their own fighting in Israel, and all(except the rabbinical types) have to serve. Rich and poor.
    In the US, it’s white gentiles serving the globalists who want to control the world(and will use military to get what they want) but really look down on military honor and culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lawrence Fitton
    henry kissenger: "soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in world affairs."
    , @Anonymous
    You say, "The anti-war peace movement of the 60s gave rise to elites who don’t believe in military service and honor."

    Not so fast, my friend, This from Wiki:

    "Henry Gwyn Jeffreys Moseley (23 November 1887 – 10 August 1915) was an English physicist, whose contribution to the science of physics was the justification from physical laws of the previous empirical and chemical concept of the atomic number. This stemmed from his development of Moseley's law in X-ray spectra. Moseley's Law justified many concepts in chemistry by sorting the chemical elements of the periodic table of the elements in a logical order based on their physics.…...

    When World War I broke out in Western Europe, Moseley left his research work at the University of Oxford behind to volunteer for the Royal Engineers of the British Army. Moseley was assigned to the force of British Empire soldiers that invaded the region of Gallipoli, Turkey, in April 1915, as a telecommunications officer. Moseley was shot and killed during the Battle of Gallipoli on 10 August 1915, at the age of 27. Experts have speculated that Moseley could have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1916, had he not been killed.[1][2] As a consequence, the British government instituted new policies for eligibility for combat duty.
    , @solontoCroesus

    And in the time of Teddy Roosevelt, even elite men joined the fight in the name of honor and manhood.
     
    spare me the fifes and drums.

    TR was as prissy as one of your other three handles. TR dressed up in little soldier boy clothes that his cowardly father had made for him (Dad Roosevelt paid someone to fight in his place in Civil War. The payee was killed.)

    Kermit Roosevelt was another dress-em-up soldier; he and his pals thought Lawrence of Arabia the embodiment of their romantic heroes -- the ones that caused British schoolgirls to swoon and glamorize those men in uniform.

    honor and manhood?

    pfff

    little boys in search of their masculinity = more like it.

    btw, re

    But at least Jews do their own fighting in Israel,
     
    is that a serious statement?
    Jews in Israel fight only against unarmed and starving, destitute civilians who are unable to escape.

    otoh, Israel's Jewish military is pretty good at extra-judicially killing Palestinian adolescents who allegedly killed a Jew, then knocking down the home of her family -- so Trumpian.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-destroys-home-palestinian-killed-girl-army-070927553.html
  9. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @edNels


    JFK was in combat and injured when PT109 sank. He also lost his big brother Joe Jr. over Germany when his special operation aircraft loaded full of explosives, exploded, prematurely.

    Not too many of todays ''chicken hawks'' have any distinction, I won't mention the one that is sort of an exception, he's nuts, (and a lair!).

    Usually the combat veterans are much less trigger happy, and I believe JFK was seriously working to avoid nuclear war, indeed worked diligently on the test ban with Kruschev on the back channels.
    But however Kennedy was surrounded by hawks, that is for sure.

    “Usually the combat veterans are much less trigger happy, and I believe JFK was seriously working to avoid nuclear war, indeed worked diligently on the test ban with Kruschev on the back channels.”

    This is true of some veterans. But ‘usually’? I don’t know.

    Mussolini and Hitler were wounded in war, but they became war hawks.

    McCain became a war hawk nut despite his hardships in Vietnam.

    Teddy Roosevelt served in Spanish-American War but later pushed for US entry in WWI.

    Reagan and Gorbachev didn’t serve in war, but both chose peace in the end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    That would be John McCain? The famous collaborator. There have been many despicable human beings within the US government over the centuries; he is currently the most despicable.
  10. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @cthulhu
    Nuclear policy is an important thread through Richard Rhodes' brilliant Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. It is very clear that from the beginning, SAC under Curtis LeMay planned for a first strike on the Soviet Union. However, one would expect that; it was part of their job. What you're describing sounds to me along the lines of plans that should be made for completeness, not really as an expected viable option.

    More worrying to me was the documented behavior of Thomas Power, LeMay's successor as head of SAC, during the Cuban missile crisis. Power went outside of his legitimate authority several times in apparent attempts to provoke the Soviets, such as broadcasting inflammatory messages in the clear, and flying bombers closer to Soviet airspace than normal. According to Rhodes, Power was considered mentally unstable by some officers under his command.

    I agree that it would be useful for all of us to understand and have ready access to how our government officials thought and planned during the first decades of the Cold War. Rhodes had access to Soviet archives as well for his book, although apparently those sources have been withdrawn in the Putin era. Superpower confrontation looks like much less of a concern than back then, but nuclear policy is still one of the most important elements of our country's defense strategy.

    “It is very clear that from the beginning, SAC under Curtis LeMay planned for a first strike on the Soviet Union. However, one would expect that; it was part of their job. What you’re describing sounds to me along the lines of plans that should be made for completeness, not really as an expected viable option.”

    I would agree with this.

    However, I think there were some people who didn’t see it as a possible option(for which US must be prepared) but as a necessity in the fear that Soviet arsenal would eventually outnumber that of the US. I think Soviets did eventually gain missile superiority.

    If missile status quo could have been maintained with US being clearly superior, a first strike wouldn’t have been necessary. But what if Soviets were to one day not only catch up and but gain superiority?
    To prevent such a future, it would made sense to attack the USSR when US was still clearly ahead in the missile gap. Waiting would allow Soviets to not only catch up but overtake the US, and then it would be too late to do anything about it.

    When China got its first nuke, Russia too considered nuking Chinese facilities to prevent China advancement in the field. But Russia also decided not to.

    Well, US did finally get its First Strike War to take out WMD. Iraq in 2003. Didn’t turn out so great.

    Read More
  11. @Priss Factor
    According to the Liberal Narrative, only far-right generals like Jack D. Ripper of DR. STRANGELOVE could have thought of such a thing. The idea that Kennedy and men around him had anything to do with an idea like this would undermine the Liberal Narrative that all the paranoid anti-communist red-baiting loonies were on the Right.
    The Narrative also says that cool, calm, and collected Kennedy sanely prevented a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And Johnson in 64 ran against Goldwater as the nuke-maniac. A famous TV commercial had the world blowing up under Goldwater the 'extremist'. So, the idea that Kennedy considered such war plans throws a monkey wrench into the Narrative.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-VzZQGWOqA

    There were plenty of Libs who refused to believe that Oswald the commie was the killer of Kennedy. The Lib Narrative still blames, 'spiritually' anyway, Dallas as the City of Hate.

    Also, the Vietnam debacle under Johnson and Nixon led to the myth that Kennedy would have done things differently because he was a man of peace.
    But then, look around today. Obama the Nobel Prize winner turned out to be a War Criminal, destroying Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. But the Liberal Narrative requires him to be a peace-making 'progressive' who unites the world. And Hillary toppled a regime in Honduras, but never mind all that.

    All the top media outlets are owned and controlled by the same kind of people if not the same people. Lib and Zionist.

    Zionists have corrupted American Conservatism by infusing too much Liberalism into it. Neocons done that, and so, American Conservatism became 'cucked'.
    Zionists have also corrupted American Liberalism by infusing too much tribalism into it.
    NYT and even NPR are staunchly pro-Zionist even as Libs decry nationalism and tribalism.
    It makes American Liberalism hypocritical, denouncing nationalism and tribalism while forcing all politicians to sing hosannas to the ultra-nationalism of Israel and ultra-tribalism of Jewish unity and power.

    So, the Narratives get skewed. But we see that with BLM as well. Blacks kill each other and non-blacks by the bushel. But we are supposed to see a handful of blacks killed by police as evidence of HATE AGAINST BLACKS.

    In a world where Bruce Jenner is a 'woman', myths are truths, and facts don't matter.

    Now that we have a new 'cold war' with Russia, the Narrative requires Russia to be the aggressor. It's dejavu all over again. So, the idea that the original Cold War might have been driven largely by US aggression(as that of the Soviets) doesn't fit the Narrative.

    It would be interesting to imagine the debate about Russia if Jeb or Rubio had been the nominee. They might be attacking Hillary for not being tough enough on Russia.

    When the GOP was totally anti-Russian, the Dems could be anti-Russian but also seem more balanced on the matter by making GOP out to be overly paranoid.
    But with Trump calling for peace, the Dems are at a loss. Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of peace, but Trump is the one calling for peace. So, this time around, Dems had no choice but to play Crazy Hawk. But they've gotten away with the lunacy cuz they have media on their side.

    This media need to be nuked.

    There were plenty of Libs who refused to believe that Oswald the commie was the killer of Kennedy.

    They refused to believe it for good reason. Oswald was just a patsy.

    In any case, whether Oswald killed Kennedy or not is a factual question, not a left/right ideological issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "They refused to believe it for good reason. Oswald was just a patsy."

    Patsy of whom?

    "In any case, whether Oswald killed Kennedy or not is a factual question, not a left/right ideological issue."

    But it became an issue due to ideology. Leftists refused to believe that a leftist killed Kennedy.
    , @CK
    It's a floor polish, it's a desert topping. It's both. All factual questions have become ideological questions; an inevitability in a progressive/liberal dominated, dumbed down society. There can be no verities not subject to revision, no immutable truths not subject to mutation, no reality no subject to falsification. If any of the verities, immutable truths, objective realities, Gods of the Copy Book Headings are allowed to exist, they eventually undermine the progressive agenda.
  12. It seems to me that they couldn’t have just attacked the USSR with no pretext whatsoever. They must have also been preparing some sort of false flag event that would have justified the war for the American public.

    With the “Global War on Terror”, there was 9/11 of course. Similarly, they surely would have had to be preparing some major psy op to make it seem like the attack was justified.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    If you are a truther as I infer perhaps you will tell me what is wrong with the 2014 TV doco I have just seen "The Missing Evidence" which explains the explosions in the twin towers as caused by molten aluminium coming into contact with the water of the buildings' fire ptotection system. I am not sure whether the molten alumium also just contributed to the heat that caused the steel structure to fail according to the film or whether the explosions are supposed to have been critically destructive.
    , @CK
    It was called Operation Northwoods.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
    , @Clearpoint
    Or something minor for that matter...like the assassination of archduke Ferdinand that got WW I rolling.
  13. I’ve had, maybe four or five drinks, so maybe I missed something in your article, but why is this news to you? I’m an acquaintance with an elderly SAC officer, and he told me they were constantly planning nuclear war scenarios, some of which might have been a first strike. Each side had a limited number of bombs/missiles, so they were constantly revising which power plant/damn/air base/army post, etc. to make sure they had both an actionable defense plan, but also something that would serve if we had to make the first move.

    Read More
  14. Galbraith/Purcell are clearly right that the meeting was about a surprise US attack on the USSR, not the other way round as ridiculously claimed by Burr/Rosenberg. But their statement that “One meeting, even in the White House, does not establish that first-strike was in fact the nuclear policy of the United States” seems to show a misunderstanding of the situation. Not to rule out a first strike has been US policy since the development of nuclear weapons and continues to be so to this day. And in the universal practice of governments, things which are not ruled out are planned for. That is different from an actual intention to launch a first strike in the near future, which is not shown by this or other evidence and would indeed require a different level of security to prepare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Why don't you contribute like that more often instead of affecting a superiority which allows you to deliver disdainful sniping.?
  15. There is no doubt that these first-strike plans existed. I think it was in “Arsenals of Folly” that I read the SAC has plans to promenade B-52 into the Soviet Union dropping bombs left and right to take out as many civvies as possible, and also wander into PRC territory doing the same, because why the hell not, they are all commies anyway (that was before it was known that nuking at will is not good for the continuing health of the ecosystem).

    We had several brushes with death due to malfunctioning “early warning systems” on both sides of the fence — which yielded such gems as Brian Cantwell Smith’s “The Limits of Correctness” (1985) and Alan Borning’s “Computer System Reliability and Nuclear War” (1987) which are about whether people could really be so dumb as to hand over their fate to basically undebuggable and untestable computer systems — one might consider Nixon’s Great Idea of playing the Drunken Saloon Guy With Nukes in (October ’69) Operation Giant Lance Then 14 years later, Soviets were shitting bricks, convinced of an imminent nuclear attack but they didn’t push the button first … Lady Luck really has smiled on humanity … so far!

    Read More
  16. @edNels


    JFK was in combat and injured when PT109 sank. He also lost his big brother Joe Jr. over Germany when his special operation aircraft loaded full of explosives, exploded, prematurely.

    Not too many of todays ''chicken hawks'' have any distinction, I won't mention the one that is sort of an exception, he's nuts, (and a lair!).

    Usually the combat veterans are much less trigger happy, and I believe JFK was seriously working to avoid nuclear war, indeed worked diligently on the test ban with Kruschev on the back channels.
    But however Kennedy was surrounded by hawks, that is for sure.

    lol, do u believe the msm BS? Do u believe the Kennedy myth? Idiot.

    Read More
  17. John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap, by Christopher Preble, might help put cold warrior and military Keynesianism JFK’s reversal of Ike’s peace and prosperity policies into perspective.

    Under Ike, the US had a quality and numerical lead in missiles, including quickly fired tactical and submarine-launched solid fuel missiles. Meanwhile, the fewer Soviet fleet consisted of liquid-fueled rockets that took hours to launch. These sitting ducks, which Ike monitored from U2s, were better designed to launch Sputniks than to attempt a slow-motion surprise attack.

    Yet JFK, perhaps with matinee idol looks, scared the be-Jesus out of enough Americans to mutate Eisenhower America, which balanced necessary military and domestic spending, protected borders, and industries, and maintained a strong dollar, into the aggressive imperial nation that Mrs. Clinton is eager to expand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unit472
    You raise the key issue, the unreliability of ICBMS of the era and the travel time for manned bombers to reach their targets. I have no doubt military planners theorized about 'First Strike' scenarios and even developed operational plans to conduct one but, even today, the logistical problems of carrying one out are daunting.

    No nation has ever salvo launched dozens of its ICBMS much less a hundred or more. It's too expensive and could be misinterpreted even if pre-announced as a training exercise. Look at the difficulty space agencies still have in successfully launching a satellite ( and nuclear warhead is nothing but a suborbital satellite). Teams of technicians carefully monitor the launch vehicle and will postpone the launch if conditions are not ideal and yet failures still occur! Attempting to launch hundreds of missiles that have been sitting in inventory for months or even years and not have a significant number of launch and or guidance failures would be miraculous yet a 'first strike' requires such a scenario to be 'successful'. Weather alone would make some ICBM locales non operational. Thunderstorms over a missile or airbase would rule out using those launch vehicles yet the targets they are intended to strike might be absolutely necessary to hit in the first wave of strikes.

    The idea that either Russia or the US could send 100s of ICBMs in a perfectly synchronized wave of annihilation, evaluate the success of the strikes, and send a secondary wave in to mop up any misses isn't a rational war plan. A 'first strike' can only really mean attacking population centers and hoping that would destroy the military chain of command and render the enemy nations 2nd strike potential impotent.
  18. His analysis was somewhat different, suggesting that Kennedy himself had generally approved the proposal, but that the attack was intended as an option to be used during a hypothetical future military confrontation rather than being aimed for a particular scheduled date.

    I think that’s the consensus view. I recall that, back in the 80s, a nuclear first-strike was standard NATO doctrine in the event of a Red Army attack on western Europe. NATO had no choice but to rely on MAD, since the Warsaw Pact countries had such a massive conventional advantage in Europe.

    Now, if it’s true that the Kennedy people were actually contemplating a nuclear first-strike without a genuine casus belli, that would definitely be news. I haven’t yet read the Galbraith article you linked to above, but I plan to do so in detail. And if true, it definitely would put the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis and even the Kennedy assassination itself in a whole new light. (No, I don’t believe the lone-gunman theory.)

    Once again, Mr. Unz, thanks for a very informative and challenging article.

    Read More
  19. Hilaire Belloc’s 1918 classic The Free Press is prescient in an era when six media conglomerates control mass market information dissemination. These conglomerates are in turn controlled by the controllers of finance who have inflated money to an extent that any meaningful media competition is for all practical purposes impossible to mount. The complacent, brainwashed citizenry that allows government to grow unchecked and thus allows for dangerous delusions of grandeur by those in power will eventually suffer the consequences, perhaps catastrophic consequences, as this essay on a too-little-publicized historical horror illustrates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @schmenz
    Agreed. Belloc should be required reading for anyone interested in how the world really works.
  20. Ahh History!

    UNZ’ article is about a plan, a maybe, from the only Nation to ever use nuclear weapons in war.

    Find it necessary to mention - that the Nuclear First Strike against the Soviet Union (Russia), did not happen.

    America’s Kennedy brokered a peace with Russia’s Khruschev, and, together, they resolved The Cuban Missile Crisis, peacefully. The real bloodletting, with a total, in excess of 6 million deaths, (The Actual, and still increasing in bloodshed and horror, Holocaust), and 10 million humans dislocated, and entire nations destroyed, and the victory of the Zionist New World Order, arrived only over the dead bodies of the Kennedys, and the destruction of the remnant of our Democratic Republic.

    *The murder of Malcolm X, Martin L. King, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and thousands of other political leaders, was the bitter fruit of the Destruction of our Republic, with the suborning of our politics and our honor, and the loss of our sovereignty.

    The Restoration of our Republic is The Only Road – out of this mess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    There is a very interesting book on that "JFK and The Unspeakable" by James W Douglass and according to the documents he presents it was the J.C.S that were pushing for a nuclear strike on Russia, which of course JFK prevented, saying "by your own experts it will cause 77 million deaths and millions more who would be better off dead and close to half of that number in the U.S. and where do you go from there.!!!
  21. @cthulhu
    Nuclear policy is an important thread through Richard Rhodes' brilliant Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. It is very clear that from the beginning, SAC under Curtis LeMay planned for a first strike on the Soviet Union. However, one would expect that; it was part of their job. What you're describing sounds to me along the lines of plans that should be made for completeness, not really as an expected viable option.

    More worrying to me was the documented behavior of Thomas Power, LeMay's successor as head of SAC, during the Cuban missile crisis. Power went outside of his legitimate authority several times in apparent attempts to provoke the Soviets, such as broadcasting inflammatory messages in the clear, and flying bombers closer to Soviet airspace than normal. According to Rhodes, Power was considered mentally unstable by some officers under his command.

    I agree that it would be useful for all of us to understand and have ready access to how our government officials thought and planned during the first decades of the Cold War. Rhodes had access to Soviet archives as well for his book, although apparently those sources have been withdrawn in the Putin era. Superpower confrontation looks like much less of a concern than back then, but nuclear policy is still one of the most important elements of our country's defense strategy.

    And now we have an unstable Samantha…

    Read More
  22. @Lot

    If our media failed to report these shocking new facts about the early 1960s
     
    While seeing the details might be interesting, it is common knowledge the USA has had since about 1950 first strike plans against the USSR, separate plans targeting China, and periodically has updated them including adapting them for a first strike plan against Russia. Likewise, those countries all have first strike plans against the USA. Indeed, there are probably multiple American plans produced by different parts of the NatSec complex. For instance, RAND Corporation almost certainly created first strike plans separate from the Pentagon so the latter could have a "second opinion." So I disagree that there is anything shocking in these articles. That some within our government advocated for a first strike against the USSR was such common knowledge that they were parodied in Dr. Strangelove.

    Pointing out an optimal date for such strike and undertaking civil defense measures does not mean Kennedy ever actually had a desire that such plan be undertaken.

    The specific and not-secret scenario for Able Archer was a nuclear first strike in response to a conventional and chemical weapon attack.


    Consider, for example, the massive campaign of “civil defense” that America launched immediately thereafter,
     
    Civil defense measures started in the early 1950's, and were not specific to the USA. To the extent they were increased in the early 1960's, that is also the period when the Soviet nuclear arsenal was increasing the fastest.

    Suppose that the proposed nuclear attack on Russia had actually gone ahead, resulting in millions or tens of millions dead from the bombs and worldwide radioactive fallout, perhaps even including a million or more American casualties if the first strike had failed to entirely eliminate all retaliatory capability.
     
    It is very unlikely that in 1963 a first strike would have been so effective as to limit US deaths in the counterstrike to anything near one million. Siberia is a very big place. One long-range bomber, one Czar Bomb (1500 times bigger than the Hiroshima bomb) hitting a large city, and you have a number much bigger than one million.

    Under such a dire scenario, is it not likely that every American media organ would have been immediately enlisted to sanitize and justify the terrible events, with virtually no dissent allowed?
     
    Maybe, but we managed to kill more than a million Vietnamese and Iraqis without becoming a police state.

    I think where you see media cover-ups and conspiracies, I see capitalism at work giving Americans the media they want, or at least the media they are willing to pay for.

    For instance, RAND Corporation almost certainly created first strike plans separate from the Pentagon so the latter could have a “second opinion.”

    It isn’t ‘almost certain’, it is true. I have read the documents (length of a small encyclopedia, only one volume on that) concerned.

    The calculation was roughly ‘US loses 10 to 20 million, the USSR loses 100 to 200 million. so US economy recovers more quickly’, I resigned from our US-allied military not much later because of reading it, disgusting document.

    For Mr. Unz, I recommend trying to track it down, do not recall the title, sorry, but a list of RAND corp. documents must be readily available.

    The idea of the RAND corp. being behind nuclear war first strike also appears in US post-apocalyptic science fiction of the time, being much younger, can only guess they had heard rumours from US servicemen who had read the same volume I did.

    It was classified at the time, perhaps still is now, I don’t care either way, if it still is classified, that is illegal.

    Guarantee that I read it.

    Read More
  23. @Priss Factor
    "JFK was in combat and injured when PT109 sank. He also lost his big brother Joe Jr. over Germany when his special operation aircraft loaded full of explosives, exploded, prematurely."

    And in the time of Teddy Roosevelt, even elite men joined the fight in the name of honor and manhood.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK8XiUinllI

    The anti-war peace movement of the 60s gave rise to elites who don't believe in military service and honor.
    But these very people gained power and itched to use the military to push their agendas around the world.

    Hillary the anti-war radical of 60s who couldn't stand the sight of military men in the White House in the 90s is now a hawkish bitch.

    When those who disdain military culture gain control of the military, it's some strange shit.

    I guess there's a parallel in how Jewish socialists became nationalist-militarists in Israel. But at least Jews do their own fighting in Israel, and all(except the rabbinical types) have to serve. Rich and poor.
    In the US, it's white gentiles serving the globalists who want to control the world(and will use military to get what they want) but really look down on military honor and culture.

    henry kissenger: “soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in world affairs.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    [It's not good behavior to clutter up a thread with so many comments, especially since nearly all of them are merely opinions with no substantive content.]

    Kissinger was right. Soldiers are dumb.

    Give them guns and they think they got the power when, in fact, they don't decide what to do with the guns.

    Give them medals and they think they are honorable and heroic when they usually risk life/limb and kill strangers at the behest of cynical global players.

    Where have all the flowers gone?

    Soldiers are heroes only when defending their homeland.
    In this, Iraqi soldiers were more heroic and honorable than American invaders.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your authority/source?
  24. … despite America’s overwhelming nuclear preponderance, JFK … had ordered … deploying, beginning in 1961, intermediate-range “Jupiter” nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey—adjacent to the Soviet Union. From there, the missiles could reach all of the western U.S.S.R., including Moscow and Leningrad …

    The Jupiter missiles were an exceptionally vexing component of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Because they sat aboveground, were immobile, and required a long time to prepare for launch, they were extremely vulnerable. Of no value as a deterrent, they appeared to be weapons meant for a disarming first strike …

    The Jupiters’ destabilizing effect was widely recognized among defense experts within and outside the U.S. government and even by congressional leaders. For instance, Senator Albert Gore Sr., an ally of the administration, told Secretary of State Dean Rusk that they were a “provocation” in a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February 1961 (more than a year and a half before the missile crisis), adding, “I wonder what our attitude would be” if the Soviets deployed nuclear-armed missiles to Cuba. Senator Claiborne Pell raised an identical argument in a memo passed on to Kennedy in May 1961.

    That’s from an article that’s well worth reading:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/?single_page=true

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    Wow, thanks!

    Indeed, Washington’s self-regard for its credibility was almost certainly the main reason it risked nuclear war over a negligible threat to national security... In the tense days of October 1962, being allied with the United States potentially amounted to, as Charles de Gaulle had warned, “annihilation without representation.” It seems never to have occurred to Kennedy and the ExComm that whatever Washington gained by demonstrating the steadfastness of its commitments, it lost in an erosion of confidence in its judgment.

    This could have been written about 2016.
    , @unit472
    The Turkish based missiles were rendered obsolete when the US deployed the Polaris system on nuclear submarines. The Russian's had no equivalent sub launched system and thus Cuba was their only counter.
  25. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jonathan Revusky

    There were plenty of Libs who refused to believe that Oswald the commie was the killer of Kennedy.
     
    They refused to believe it for good reason. Oswald was just a patsy.

    In any case, whether Oswald killed Kennedy or not is a factual question, not a left/right ideological issue.

    “They refused to believe it for good reason. Oswald was just a patsy.”

    Patsy of whom?

    “In any case, whether Oswald killed Kennedy or not is a factual question, not a left/right ideological issue.”

    But it became an issue due to ideology. Leftists refused to believe that a leftist killed Kennedy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels


    Some of my more recent informantion about JFK, was the reading of William Douglas's book. He brought some new stuff about it. Including the part about how Kennedy was really deeply mortified about what his cheifs were planing and talking openly about in the first strike sense.

    One thing that I don't exactly know for sure was in that book, but, so anyways, here is the thing that above or bellow at Revulski's comment, calling Oswald a ''commie'' and just a ''patsy''.

    Now I'm not prepared to retrieve the exact source for this, but my recollection has it, that Oswald, a US Marine, had previously worked SIGINT on the U2 project, (Gary Powers was a pilot who was captured in USSR back in those times,) The spy plane was part of a huge involved technology, and Oswald no less was part of it. Later Oswald ''defected to the USSR, where he met his wife, but he didn't stay there, he redefected back to US, (unheard of...!) and resumed clandestined activities in CIA, where he was ''sheepdiped'' to appear to be a ''Leftist ''supporting Castro. Which would be useful as a to fabricat a Castro instigation story, about who killed JFK.

    So anyways, Douglas's book is good, but, I don't know where I got the details about Oswald, but there may be a few things about him that aren't generally known.

    I bet Ruvulski's been watching Roger Rabbit reruns again. That's what my BSD says.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    “They refused to believe it for good reason. Oswald was just a patsy.”

    Patsy of whom?
     
    You know, what is strange about this is that, if you asked, for example, which countries were at war with one another in WW2, people would surely just tell you to get lost, go get educated a bit and then come back to this forum, right? Yet you (and plenty of others) feel that you can pose this kind of utterly idiotic question, flaunt your utter ignorance like this, and there is no stigma attached to this whatsoever.

    It even goes beyond that. People flaunt their ignorance about certain topics -- like JFK and 9/11 -- and it's like a badge of pride for them: "I'm no 'conspiracy theorist'." Well, fine, whatever, but the fact remains that there is a vast literature on the JFK assassination. One commenter mentioned the excellent Douglass book, but that is just one example.

    But it became an issue due to ideology. Leftists refused to believe that a leftist killed Kennedy.
     
    Sorry, this is pathetic, ignorant nonsense. NO, it did not become an issue due to "ideology". The reason why people generally, informed people I mean, do not believe that Oswald killed Kennedy is because they looked at the available evidence and decided that Oswald did not kill Kennedy.

    This is a factual question. It has nothing to do with where one is on some sort of left-right spectrum.
  26. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Lawrence Fitton
    henry kissenger: "soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in world affairs."

    [It's not good behavior to clutter up a thread with so many comments, especially since nearly all of them are merely opinions with no substantive content.]

    Kissinger was right. Soldiers are dumb.

    Give them guns and they think they got the power when, in fact, they don’t decide what to do with the guns.

    Give them medals and they think they are honorable and heroic when they usually risk life/limb and kill strangers at the behest of cynical global players.

    Where have all the flowers gone?

    Soldiers are heroes only when defending their homeland.
    In this, Iraqi soldiers were more heroic and honorable than American invaders.

    Read More
  27. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Che Guava

    For instance, RAND Corporation almost certainly created first strike plans separate from the Pentagon so the latter could have a “second opinion.”
     
    It isn't 'almost certain', it is true. I have read the documents (length of a small encyclopedia, only one volume on that) concerned.

    The calculation was roughly 'US loses 10 to 20 million, the USSR loses 100 to 200 million. so US economy recovers more quickly', I resigned from our US-allied military not much later because of reading it, disgusting document.

    For Mr. Unz, I recommend trying to track it down, do not recall the title, sorry, but a list of RAND corp. documents must be readily available.

    The idea of the RAND corp. being behind nuclear war first strike also appears in US post-apocalyptic science fiction of the time, being much younger, can only guess they had heard rumours from US servicemen who had read the same volume I did.

    It was classified at the time, perhaps still is now, I don't care either way, if it still is classified, that is illegal.

    Guarantee that I read it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Am not the first to note that appointing a General 'Breedlove' Supreme Military Commandant of NATO falls into the 'couldn't make it up' category.

    All of the main players are great in Strangelove, but Sellers playing both Strangelove and the polite and confused RAF officer was a tour de force.

    Haven't seen it lately, think he
    showed up as another minor character, too. If not, that was intended at one stage, from reading on the making of the film.

    Strangelove the character is very prescient, not just because of Breedlove, but because Sellers played him in a way very similar to the real-life Kissinger, except for Kissinger not being in a wheelchair.
  28. @Durruti
    Ahh History!

    UNZ' article is about a plan, a maybe, from the only Nation to ever use nuclear weapons in war.

    Find it necessary to mention - that the Nuclear First Strike against the Soviet Union (Russia), did not happen.

    America's Kennedy brokered a peace with Russia's Khruschev, and, together, they resolved The Cuban Missile Crisis, peacefully. The real bloodletting, with a total, in excess of 6 million deaths, (The Actual, and still increasing in bloodshed and horror, Holocaust), and 10 million humans dislocated, and entire nations destroyed, and the victory of the Zionist New World Order, arrived only over the dead bodies of the Kennedys, and the destruction of the remnant of our Democratic Republic.

    *The murder of Malcolm X, Martin L. King, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and thousands of other political leaders, was the bitter fruit of the Destruction of our Republic, with the suborning of our politics and our honor, and the loss of our sovereignty.

    The Restoration of our Republic is The Only Road - out of this mess.

    There is a very interesting book on that “JFK and The Unspeakable” by James W Douglass and according to the documents he presents it was the J.C.S that were pushing for a nuclear strike on Russia, which of course JFK prevented, saying “by your own experts it will cause 77 million deaths and millions more who would be better off dead and close to half of that number in the U.S. and where do you go from there.!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Durruti
    Yes!

    There was a reason JFK was assassinated. He actually believed in something. His book, Profiles in Courage, remains fine reading.

    One of the Highlights of the 1000 Days:

    During his trip to Ireland, Kennedy showed keen wit, and a clear independent (of the Anglo-Zionists), world view. Nice movie made of his trip. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwidi6Pv-cPOAhVGrB4KHZStDNIQtwIIIzAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDR99UXiKrBk&usg=AFQjCNFUowQYv7W_KWrtkex5HHiyaRdTww&sig2=cCM3eArBTBI-V-8Z4733OA
  29. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Macarthur wanted to use nukes in the Korean War.

    Wonder how things would have turned out.

    Read More
  30. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Lot

    If our media failed to report these shocking new facts about the early 1960s
     
    While seeing the details might be interesting, it is common knowledge the USA has had since about 1950 first strike plans against the USSR, separate plans targeting China, and periodically has updated them including adapting them for a first strike plan against Russia. Likewise, those countries all have first strike plans against the USA. Indeed, there are probably multiple American plans produced by different parts of the NatSec complex. For instance, RAND Corporation almost certainly created first strike plans separate from the Pentagon so the latter could have a "second opinion." So I disagree that there is anything shocking in these articles. That some within our government advocated for a first strike against the USSR was such common knowledge that they were parodied in Dr. Strangelove.

    Pointing out an optimal date for such strike and undertaking civil defense measures does not mean Kennedy ever actually had a desire that such plan be undertaken.

    The specific and not-secret scenario for Able Archer was a nuclear first strike in response to a conventional and chemical weapon attack.


    Consider, for example, the massive campaign of “civil defense” that America launched immediately thereafter,
     
    Civil defense measures started in the early 1950's, and were not specific to the USA. To the extent they were increased in the early 1960's, that is also the period when the Soviet nuclear arsenal was increasing the fastest.

    Suppose that the proposed nuclear attack on Russia had actually gone ahead, resulting in millions or tens of millions dead from the bombs and worldwide radioactive fallout, perhaps even including a million or more American casualties if the first strike had failed to entirely eliminate all retaliatory capability.
     
    It is very unlikely that in 1963 a first strike would have been so effective as to limit US deaths in the counterstrike to anything near one million. Siberia is a very big place. One long-range bomber, one Czar Bomb (1500 times bigger than the Hiroshima bomb) hitting a large city, and you have a number much bigger than one million.

    Under such a dire scenario, is it not likely that every American media organ would have been immediately enlisted to sanitize and justify the terrible events, with virtually no dissent allowed?
     
    Maybe, but we managed to kill more than a million Vietnamese and Iraqis without becoming a police state.

    I think where you see media cover-ups and conspiracies, I see capitalism at work giving Americans the media they want, or at least the media they are willing to pay for.

    Good points.

    Why wouldn’t our nation’s leaders have contemplated a first strike? To have not weighed all the options would have been dereliction of duty. Or, to put it more succinctly, “That’s their job.”

    Read More
  31. This article by Ron Unz is one of the most important news reports I’ve ever seen. It’s news, despite its being about the past; it’s news because virtually all of the public were never before made aware that this had happened. My only objection — and it is a major one — is that the title, the headline (which constitutes half the value of any news report or commentary) is deceptive because it asks a question and ends in a question-mark, it doesn’t make an assertion, though the news-report itself is clear that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was seriously considering a blitz nuclear invasion of the Soviet Union prior to not only the Cuban Missile Crisis, but prior even to the start of any Soviet plan to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The reason why this history is of mega-importance is that it lays bare that, even under the widely respected President JFK, America’s top leadership not only were NOT committed to a no-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons strategic policy, but that they were so psychopathic and hateful against the people who lived in the Soviet Union, as to be seriously debating amongst themselves whether destroying them and their land was net a desirable or undesirable thing for the U.S. government to do, even though the U.S. itself (and most of the world) would at the very least receive the downwind effects from it (nuclear contamination, etc.). In other words, the American aristocracy, even as early as the era of JFK, were craving global dictatorship. We all are fortunate that, at that time, that wasn’t the viewpoint which won out. Perhaps it will win out if Hillary Clinton becomes President. America is too psychopathic at its top leadership levels; this is the nation that might destroy the world. America needs to be restrained. A mono-polar world, with no effective countervailing world power, would be global rule by unrestrained psychopaths. The entire world needs to debate what this undeniable history means, for today’s world. Continuing news-suppression by the West’s ‘news’ media would be a mega-crime perpetrated by them. This article by Ron Unz should be front-page in every American newspaper — but with a headline that doesn’t mealy-mouth and end in a question-mark.

    Read More
    • Agree: edNels
    • Replies: @Eric Zuesse
    PS: Looking through http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Did_the_US_Military_Plan_a_Nuclear_First_Strike_for_1963.html makes clearer to me than was conveyed in Unz's article, that JFK was appalled at this proposal. This changes my evaluation a bit: JFK should have immediately set about replacing every one of his advisors who were favorable toward a blitz nuclear attack against the USSR. He did not do that. However, Unz failed to convey JFK's utter disgust at the matter, which was such that he walked out of the meeting at which the matter was being proposed.
  32. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Priss Factor
    "JFK was in combat and injured when PT109 sank. He also lost his big brother Joe Jr. over Germany when his special operation aircraft loaded full of explosives, exploded, prematurely."

    And in the time of Teddy Roosevelt, even elite men joined the fight in the name of honor and manhood.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK8XiUinllI

    The anti-war peace movement of the 60s gave rise to elites who don't believe in military service and honor.
    But these very people gained power and itched to use the military to push their agendas around the world.

    Hillary the anti-war radical of 60s who couldn't stand the sight of military men in the White House in the 90s is now a hawkish bitch.

    When those who disdain military culture gain control of the military, it's some strange shit.

    I guess there's a parallel in how Jewish socialists became nationalist-militarists in Israel. But at least Jews do their own fighting in Israel, and all(except the rabbinical types) have to serve. Rich and poor.
    In the US, it's white gentiles serving the globalists who want to control the world(and will use military to get what they want) but really look down on military honor and culture.

    You say, “The anti-war peace movement of the 60s gave rise to elites who don’t believe in military service and honor.”

    Not so fast, my friend, This from Wiki:

    “Henry Gwyn Jeffreys Moseley (23 November 1887 – 10 August 1915) was an English physicist, whose contribution to the science of physics was the justification from physical laws of the previous empirical and chemical concept of the atomic number. This stemmed from his development of Moseley’s law in X-ray spectra. Moseley’s Law justified many concepts in chemistry by sorting the chemical elements of the periodic table of the elements in a logical order based on their physics.……

    When World War I broke out in Western Europe, Moseley left his research work at the University of Oxford behind to volunteer for the Royal Engineers of the British Army. Moseley was assigned to the force of British Empire soldiers that invaded the region of Gallipoli, Turkey, in April 1915, as a telecommunications officer. Moseley was shot and killed during the Battle of Gallipoli on 10 August 1915, at the age of 27. Experts have speculated that Moseley could have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1916, had he not been killed.[1][2] As a consequence, the British government instituted new policies for eligibility for combat duty.

    Read More
  33. @Eric Zuesse
    This article by Ron Unz is one of the most important news reports I've ever seen. It's news, despite its being about the past; it's news because virtually all of the public were never before made aware that this had happened. My only objection -- and it is a major one -- is that the title, the headline (which constitutes half the value of any news report or commentary) is deceptive because it asks a question and ends in a question-mark, it doesn't make an assertion, though the news-report itself is clear that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was seriously considering a blitz nuclear invasion of the Soviet Union prior to not only the Cuban Missile Crisis, but prior even to the start of any Soviet plan to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The reason why this history is of mega-importance is that it lays bare that, even under the widely respected President JFK, America's top leadership not only were NOT committed to a no-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons strategic policy, but that they were so psychopathic and hateful against the people who lived in the Soviet Union, as to be seriously debating amongst themselves whether destroying them and their land was net a desirable or undesirable thing for the U.S. government to do, even though the U.S. itself (and most of the world) would at the very least receive the downwind effects from it (nuclear contamination, etc.). In other words, the American aristocracy, even as early as the era of JFK, were craving global dictatorship. We all are fortunate that, at that time, that wasn't the viewpoint which won out. Perhaps it will win out if Hillary Clinton becomes President. America is too psychopathic at its top leadership levels; this is the nation that might destroy the world. America needs to be restrained. A mono-polar world, with no effective countervailing world power, would be global rule by unrestrained psychopaths. The entire world needs to debate what this undeniable history means, for today's world. Continuing news-suppression by the West's 'news' media would be a mega-crime perpetrated by them. This article by Ron Unz should be front-page in every American newspaper -- but with a headline that doesn't mealy-mouth and end in a question-mark.

    PS: Looking through http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Did_the_US_Military_Plan_a_Nuclear_First_Strike_for_1963.html makes clearer to me than was conveyed in Unz’s article, that JFK was appalled at this proposal. This changes my evaluation a bit: JFK should have immediately set about replacing every one of his advisors who were favorable toward a blitz nuclear attack against the USSR. He did not do that. However, Unz failed to convey JFK’s utter disgust at the matter, which was such that he walked out of the meeting at which the matter was being proposed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    Maybe JFK was planning to get rid of these madmen. He did start talking about disbanding the CIA, which was out of control, and forcing Israel to cancel its secret nuclear program. Three weeks later, he was dead.....
  34. @Jonathan Revusky
    It seems to me that they couldn't have just attacked the USSR with no pretext whatsoever. They must have also been preparing some sort of false flag event that would have justified the war for the American public.

    With the "Global War on Terror", there was 9/11 of course. Similarly, they surely would have had to be preparing some major psy op to make it seem like the attack was justified.

    If you are a truther as I infer perhaps you will tell me what is wrong with the 2014 TV doco I have just seen “The Missing Evidence” which explains the explosions in the twin towers as caused by molten aluminium coming into contact with the water of the buildings’ fire ptotection system. I am not sure whether the molten alumium also just contributed to the heat that caused the steel structure to fail according to the film or whether the explosions are supposed to have been critically destructive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    If you are a truther as I infer perhaps you will tell me what is wrong with the 2014 TV doco I have just seen “The Missing Evidence” which explains the explosions in the twin towers as caused by molten aluminium coming into contact with the water of the buildings’ fire ptotection system.
     
    Well, I haven't seen the specific TV doco you mention and have no particular desire to waste an hour or two of my life watching it. Moreover, as usual, you don't even provide a link, in case I did want to waste my time. (Typical fucknuckle behavior from you that we are accustomed to.)

    However, just offhand, the biggest problem with the whole explanation is that it doesn't explain the third building, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane.

    Of course, the other big problem with it is that no massive steel framed skyscraper of these characteristics has ever imploded in this way EXCEPT as the result of a controlled demolition. All of these explanations involve something happening that has never happened except on that special day, before or since. The older term for this would be "miracle". Basically, a documentary like this is claiming that a miracle occurred -- but then they have to wrap that up in some pseudo-science and hand-waving.

    Anyway, as for being a "truther", I assume that this means that I do not believe the official story. My position on that is well known. The official story is about as possible as any story that involves pigs flying.

    If you do believe the official story, could you please tell me what, in your opinion, is the strongest evidence available that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by a bearded religious fanatic in faroff Afghanistan? I know I asked you (an many other similar fucknuckles) this question before and you declined to answer. But you have had some months to think about it.

    So I would be interested in your answer. If you decline to answer, as I assume you will, then at least I documented for the several hundredth time that people refuse to answer this question.
  35. @5371
    Galbraith/Purcell are clearly right that the meeting was about a surprise US attack on the USSR, not the other way round as ridiculously claimed by Burr/Rosenberg. But their statement that "One meeting, even in the White House, does not establish that first-strike was in fact the nuclear policy of the United States" seems to show a misunderstanding of the situation. Not to rule out a first strike has been US policy since the development of nuclear weapons and continues to be so to this day. And in the universal practice of governments, things which are not ruled out are planned for. That is different from an actual intention to launch a first strike in the near future, which is not shown by this or other evidence and would indeed require a different level of security to prepare.

    Why don’t you contribute like that more often instead of affecting a superiority which allows you to deliver disdainful sniping.?

    Read More
  36. @Lawrence Fitton
    henry kissenger: "soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in world affairs."

    Your authority/source?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    There is no authority for that quote. It is in the Woodward and Bernstein paperback as a statement by Haig that someone told Haig that Kissinger was overheard by someone else saying that to someone.
    It sounds more like a Hillary quote than a Henry quote.
  37. @Priss Factor
    "Usually the combat veterans are much less trigger happy, and I believe JFK was seriously working to avoid nuclear war, indeed worked diligently on the test ban with Kruschev on the back channels."

    This is true of some veterans. But 'usually'? I don't know.

    Mussolini and Hitler were wounded in war, but they became war hawks.

    McCain became a war hawk nut despite his hardships in Vietnam.

    Teddy Roosevelt served in Spanish-American War but later pushed for US entry in WWI.

    Reagan and Gorbachev didn't serve in war, but both chose peace in the end.

    That would be John McCain? The famous collaborator. There have been many despicable human beings within the US government over the centuries; he is currently the most despicable.

    Read More
  38. @Jonathan Revusky

    There were plenty of Libs who refused to believe that Oswald the commie was the killer of Kennedy.
     
    They refused to believe it for good reason. Oswald was just a patsy.

    In any case, whether Oswald killed Kennedy or not is a factual question, not a left/right ideological issue.

    It’s a floor polish, it’s a desert topping. It’s both. All factual questions have become ideological questions; an inevitability in a progressive/liberal dominated, dumbed down society. There can be no verities not subject to revision, no immutable truths not subject to mutation, no reality no subject to falsification. If any of the verities, immutable truths, objective realities, Gods of the Copy Book Headings are allowed to exist, they eventually undermine the progressive agenda.

    Read More
  39. @Jonathan Revusky
    It seems to me that they couldn't have just attacked the USSR with no pretext whatsoever. They must have also been preparing some sort of false flag event that would have justified the war for the American public.

    With the "Global War on Terror", there was 9/11 of course. Similarly, they surely would have had to be preparing some major psy op to make it seem like the attack was justified.

    It was called Operation Northwoods.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    Read More
  40. @Wizard of Oz
    Your authority/source?

    There is no authority for that quote. It is in the Woodward and Bernstein paperback as a statement by Haig that someone told Haig that Kissinger was overheard by someone else saying that to someone.
    It sounds more like a Hillary quote than a Henry quote.

    Read More
  41. @Buzz Baldrin
    John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap, by Christopher Preble, might help put cold warrior and military Keynesianism JFK's reversal of Ike's peace and prosperity policies into perspective.

    Under Ike, the US had a quality and numerical lead in missiles, including quickly fired tactical and submarine-launched solid fuel missiles. Meanwhile, the fewer Soviet fleet consisted of liquid-fueled rockets that took hours to launch. These sitting ducks, which Ike monitored from U2s, were better designed to launch Sputniks than to attempt a slow-motion surprise attack.

    Yet JFK, perhaps with matinee idol looks, scared the be-Jesus out of enough Americans to mutate Eisenhower America, which balanced necessary military and domestic spending, protected borders, and industries, and maintained a strong dollar, into the aggressive imperial nation that Mrs. Clinton is eager to expand.

    You raise the key issue, the unreliability of ICBMS of the era and the travel time for manned bombers to reach their targets. I have no doubt military planners theorized about ‘First Strike’ scenarios and even developed operational plans to conduct one but, even today, the logistical problems of carrying one out are daunting.

    No nation has ever salvo launched dozens of its ICBMS much less a hundred or more. It’s too expensive and could be misinterpreted even if pre-announced as a training exercise. Look at the difficulty space agencies still have in successfully launching a satellite ( and nuclear warhead is nothing but a suborbital satellite). Teams of technicians carefully monitor the launch vehicle and will postpone the launch if conditions are not ideal and yet failures still occur! Attempting to launch hundreds of missiles that have been sitting in inventory for months or even years and not have a significant number of launch and or guidance failures would be miraculous yet a ‘first strike’ requires such a scenario to be ‘successful’. Weather alone would make some ICBM locales non operational. Thunderstorms over a missile or airbase would rule out using those launch vehicles yet the targets they are intended to strike might be absolutely necessary to hit in the first wave of strikes.

    The idea that either Russia or the US could send 100s of ICBMs in a perfectly synchronized wave of annihilation, evaluate the success of the strikes, and send a secondary wave in to mop up any misses isn’t a rational war plan. A ‘first strike’ can only really mean attacking population centers and hoping that would destroy the military chain of command and render the enemy nations 2nd strike potential impotent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Very convincing. And from it flows another major point in relation to the shock/horror value of the planning story to the media. The best way to assess whether your professional opposite numbers might make a first strike against your country is to have a good look at exactly how you might go about it and what the expected result would be. It would not be beyond belief that the US might have leaked information to Soviet spies with a view to supporting the views of Soviet analysts who would also find the prospects of a first strike unpromising. Mind you the leak would have to survive suspicion if it wasn't to make things worse.
    , @palmtoptiger

    No nation has ever salvo launched dozens of its ICBMS much less a hundred or more.
     
    that's not correct. on 06.08.1991 the SSBN K-407 "Novomoskovsk" (project 667 "Delfin", or "Delta in NATO classification) salvo-fired its full complement of 16 "Sineva" ICBMs from a submerged position. you can easily find it on Youtube, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHChZHzUUbg. All missiles launched and hit the planned targets successfully.
  42. @Priss Factor
    "JFK was in combat and injured when PT109 sank. He also lost his big brother Joe Jr. over Germany when his special operation aircraft loaded full of explosives, exploded, prematurely."

    And in the time of Teddy Roosevelt, even elite men joined the fight in the name of honor and manhood.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK8XiUinllI

    The anti-war peace movement of the 60s gave rise to elites who don't believe in military service and honor.
    But these very people gained power and itched to use the military to push their agendas around the world.

    Hillary the anti-war radical of 60s who couldn't stand the sight of military men in the White House in the 90s is now a hawkish bitch.

    When those who disdain military culture gain control of the military, it's some strange shit.

    I guess there's a parallel in how Jewish socialists became nationalist-militarists in Israel. But at least Jews do their own fighting in Israel, and all(except the rabbinical types) have to serve. Rich and poor.
    In the US, it's white gentiles serving the globalists who want to control the world(and will use military to get what they want) but really look down on military honor and culture.

    And in the time of Teddy Roosevelt, even elite men joined the fight in the name of honor and manhood.

    spare me the fifes and drums.

    TR was as prissy as one of your other three handles. TR dressed up in little soldier boy clothes that his cowardly father had made for him (Dad Roosevelt paid someone to fight in his place in Civil War. The payee was killed.)

    Kermit Roosevelt was another dress-em-up soldier; he and his pals thought Lawrence of Arabia the embodiment of their romantic heroes — the ones that caused British schoolgirls to swoon and glamorize those men in uniform.

    honor and manhood?

    pfff

    little boys in search of their masculinity = more like it.

    btw, re

    But at least Jews do their own fighting in Israel,

    is that a serious statement?
    Jews in Israel fight only against unarmed and starving, destitute civilians who are unable to escape.

    otoh, Israel’s Jewish military is pretty good at extra-judicially killing Palestinian adolescents who allegedly killed a Jew, then knocking down the home of her family — so Trumpian.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-destroys-home-palestinian-killed-girl-army-070927553.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @hhsiii
    Ted Jr. was pretty brave. The oldest man to go in with the first wave at D-Day (first wave being a relative term here). His son Quentin also fought on D-Day. He also pissed off Patton for "dressing down", so he didn't go for the spit and polish uniform.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_Jr.
    , @annamaria
    "Jews in Israel fight only against unarmed and starving, destitute civilians who are unable to escape." And do not forget that the Israeli cowards have been saving the lives of wounded ISIS fighters in a hope that the "moderate jihadis" would help Israelis to grab the Golan Heights from the weakened Syria.
  43. @solontoCroesus

    And in the time of Teddy Roosevelt, even elite men joined the fight in the name of honor and manhood.
     
    spare me the fifes and drums.

    TR was as prissy as one of your other three handles. TR dressed up in little soldier boy clothes that his cowardly father had made for him (Dad Roosevelt paid someone to fight in his place in Civil War. The payee was killed.)

    Kermit Roosevelt was another dress-em-up soldier; he and his pals thought Lawrence of Arabia the embodiment of their romantic heroes -- the ones that caused British schoolgirls to swoon and glamorize those men in uniform.

    honor and manhood?

    pfff

    little boys in search of their masculinity = more like it.

    btw, re

    But at least Jews do their own fighting in Israel,
     
    is that a serious statement?
    Jews in Israel fight only against unarmed and starving, destitute civilians who are unable to escape.

    otoh, Israel's Jewish military is pretty good at extra-judicially killing Palestinian adolescents who allegedly killed a Jew, then knocking down the home of her family -- so Trumpian.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-destroys-home-palestinian-killed-girl-army-070927553.html

    Ted Jr. was pretty brave. The oldest man to go in with the first wave at D-Day (first wave being a relative term here). His son Quentin also fought on D-Day. He also pissed off Patton for “dressing down”, so he didn’t go for the spit and polish uniform.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_Jr.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Source I relied on is The Warlovers, by Evan Thomas.

    imo there's a difference between bravery and bravado. I don't count TR as brave, courageous, or in most ways contributing much to the betterment of the US Constitutional republic. imo he was an insecure little man who sought attention and took risks to cover up his inadequacies.

    Inasmuch as he was a model for his even more inadequate and insecure cousin, Franklin D., I believe he, and his cousin, did enormous harm to the US, in the long term.

    others may differ.
  44. With military planning a necessity, contingent first-strike plans are to be expected. Rather like the Pentagon Papers.

    Read More
  45. @bluedog
    There is a very interesting book on that "JFK and The Unspeakable" by James W Douglass and according to the documents he presents it was the J.C.S that were pushing for a nuclear strike on Russia, which of course JFK prevented, saying "by your own experts it will cause 77 million deaths and millions more who would be better off dead and close to half of that number in the U.S. and where do you go from there.!!!

    Yes!

    There was a reason JFK was assassinated. He actually believed in something. His book, Profiles in Courage, remains fine reading.

    One of the Highlights of the 1000 Days:

    During his trip to Ireland, Kennedy showed keen wit, and a clear independent (of the Anglo-Zionists), world view. Nice movie made of his trip. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwidi6Pv-cPOAhVGrB4KHZStDNIQtwIIIzAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDR99UXiKrBk&usg=AFQjCNFUowQYv7W_KWrtkex5HHiyaRdTww&sig2=cCM3eArBTBI-V-8Z4733OA

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "His book, Profiles in Courage, remains fine reading." Not that he wrote it himself, of course. Like his undergraduate dissertation, it was written by a hired hand.
  46. I share the somewhat dismissive attitude towards this. The military was just beginning to develop the SIOP, and apparently figured out that prior intell about Soviet capabilities was wrong and likely to stay wrong for another couple of years. In any fight, whether a street fight or global nuclear war, tactical advantage accrues to he who can hit first. Moral (and hence political) advantage accrues to he who gets hit first. So the intersection of military and political strategic planning is how to reconcile those two contradictions (defense in depth to absorb a firrst hit? False flag to justify your own first strike? Advertise an actual grievance to justify first strike? Claim rightly or wrongly that you were pre-empting the other side’s first strike?). Looks like in 1961 they talked about it and then didn’t do it. They would talk about it again in 1964 WRT China’s development of nuclear weapons, and again in 1969 when the Soviets proposed a joint nuclear attack against China. They’ve probably talked about it many other times as well.

    Besides, military plans tend to look different once the politicians implement them. Look at the disparity between the military’s plans to fight the Vietnam War and what the national leadership actually did (https://www.amazon.com/American-Plan-Victory-Vietnam-Implemented/dp/1482795329). Above comments about the realities of actually conducting a global nuclear attack (especially in the technology’s infancy in the early 60s) are apropos.

    What I really find potentially fascinating in this story would be if there is a tie to Soviet intelligence picking up on this similar to the 1983 Able Archer crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83). If, as in 1983, some Soviet leaders really believed that the American first strike discussions reflected an imminent attack then the JFK assassination looks a lot different. The most plausible “conspiracy” theory about the JFK assassination is that the KGB engineered it (https://www.amazon.com/Programmed-Kill-Harvey-Kennedy-Assassination/dp/1566637619). However, the basic counter is whey would the KGB have killed a leftist president who was trying to attain early detente. However, if they believed him about to attack it makes more sense.

    Read More
  47. @hhsiii
    Ted Jr. was pretty brave. The oldest man to go in with the first wave at D-Day (first wave being a relative term here). His son Quentin also fought on D-Day. He also pissed off Patton for "dressing down", so he didn't go for the spit and polish uniform.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_Jr.

    Source I relied on is The Warlovers, by Evan Thomas.

    imo there’s a difference between bravery and bravado. I don’t count TR as brave, courageous, or in most ways contributing much to the betterment of the US Constitutional republic. imo he was an insecure little man who sought attention and took risks to cover up his inadequacies.

    Inasmuch as he was a model for his even more inadequate and insecure cousin, Franklin D., I believe he, and his cousin, did enormous harm to the US, in the long term.

    others may differ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hhsiii
    My reply was a bit of a non-sequitur, since I was talking about Ted Jr., not his dad.
  48. The mainstream media used to think of itself as principally purveyors of news, preferably new news, preferably contemporaneous news and an exclusive as well. So discussions in the Whitehouse a few years earlier of which the first leaked in formation was declared wrong by public officials didn’t have great claims to be sexy unless…. Unless the President – tbe ultimate decider – could be shown to have been preparing for a first nuclear strike in a way and in a sense which required that there be another big inside story, viz. what stopped the President pressing the button. Very difficult and most editors would just have bought the short cut answer: “well of course there were plans for everything, plans just to practice making plans and assessing the planners, plans to test the limits of possibility etc. – that’s a far cry from saying the country came seriously close to starting a nuclear war. In fact no President is going to take responsibility without a vote of Congress for starting a war which kills millions of Americans”.

    Looking at it from another angle, was it only a Dr Strangelove or other psychopath who could look seriously at a first strike war? It wouldn’t be surprising to find an affirmative answer being given by many young journalists. But a creative tax lawyer can see another approach. You think of the ingeniously outrageous and then wistfully let it go as its blatant dishonesty competes with the possibility that a court will find against the scheme and jail your client for best objection.

    I am reminded too of the decision the board of James Hardie Ltd – originally a major Australian supplier to building and consruction but based on asbestos – made to move their increasingly US based cement cladding business offshore to the Netherlands and Ireland when the Australian business was threatened with insolvency from longtail asbestos related damages claims. They actually did it and shareholders are doing much better than the damages claimants but there was enoughmoral outrage generated for governments to use heavy handed pressure for a big slice of future profits and tbe directors to be prosecuted on rather dubious barely related matters. My point is that the directors were indeed quite entitled to consider the offshoring IMO even if it was outrageous and, after careful consideration of all angles they should not have gone ahead with it.

    Read More
  49. @Priss Factor
    According to the Liberal Narrative, only far-right generals like Jack D. Ripper of DR. STRANGELOVE could have thought of such a thing. The idea that Kennedy and men around him had anything to do with an idea like this would undermine the Liberal Narrative that all the paranoid anti-communist red-baiting loonies were on the Right.
    The Narrative also says that cool, calm, and collected Kennedy sanely prevented a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And Johnson in 64 ran against Goldwater as the nuke-maniac. A famous TV commercial had the world blowing up under Goldwater the 'extremist'. So, the idea that Kennedy considered such war plans throws a monkey wrench into the Narrative.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-VzZQGWOqA

    There were plenty of Libs who refused to believe that Oswald the commie was the killer of Kennedy. The Lib Narrative still blames, 'spiritually' anyway, Dallas as the City of Hate.

    Also, the Vietnam debacle under Johnson and Nixon led to the myth that Kennedy would have done things differently because he was a man of peace.
    But then, look around today. Obama the Nobel Prize winner turned out to be a War Criminal, destroying Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. But the Liberal Narrative requires him to be a peace-making 'progressive' who unites the world. And Hillary toppled a regime in Honduras, but never mind all that.

    All the top media outlets are owned and controlled by the same kind of people if not the same people. Lib and Zionist.

    Zionists have corrupted American Conservatism by infusing too much Liberalism into it. Neocons done that, and so, American Conservatism became 'cucked'.
    Zionists have also corrupted American Liberalism by infusing too much tribalism into it.
    NYT and even NPR are staunchly pro-Zionist even as Libs decry nationalism and tribalism.
    It makes American Liberalism hypocritical, denouncing nationalism and tribalism while forcing all politicians to sing hosannas to the ultra-nationalism of Israel and ultra-tribalism of Jewish unity and power.

    So, the Narratives get skewed. But we see that with BLM as well. Blacks kill each other and non-blacks by the bushel. But we are supposed to see a handful of blacks killed by police as evidence of HATE AGAINST BLACKS.

    In a world where Bruce Jenner is a 'woman', myths are truths, and facts don't matter.

    Now that we have a new 'cold war' with Russia, the Narrative requires Russia to be the aggressor. It's dejavu all over again. So, the idea that the original Cold War might have been driven largely by US aggression(as that of the Soviets) doesn't fit the Narrative.

    It would be interesting to imagine the debate about Russia if Jeb or Rubio had been the nominee. They might be attacking Hillary for not being tough enough on Russia.

    When the GOP was totally anti-Russian, the Dems could be anti-Russian but also seem more balanced on the matter by making GOP out to be overly paranoid.
    But with Trump calling for peace, the Dems are at a loss. Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of peace, but Trump is the one calling for peace. So, this time around, Dems had no choice but to play Crazy Hawk. But they've gotten away with the lunacy cuz they have media on their side.

    This media need to be nuked.

    I came across a thread where someone had made the connection between the Priss Factory and Dominique Francon Society.

    I posted a connent about it months ago.

    Congrats to you. Anonyny is the same poster as Priss Factor, also learnt (though only very recently) how to sound a little different from Priss, as DFS. Early DFS posts have the exact same style as Priss.

    Mods, please do not act on this simple truth, the writing is enjoyable at times.

    Read More
  50. @unit472
    You raise the key issue, the unreliability of ICBMS of the era and the travel time for manned bombers to reach their targets. I have no doubt military planners theorized about 'First Strike' scenarios and even developed operational plans to conduct one but, even today, the logistical problems of carrying one out are daunting.

    No nation has ever salvo launched dozens of its ICBMS much less a hundred or more. It's too expensive and could be misinterpreted even if pre-announced as a training exercise. Look at the difficulty space agencies still have in successfully launching a satellite ( and nuclear warhead is nothing but a suborbital satellite). Teams of technicians carefully monitor the launch vehicle and will postpone the launch if conditions are not ideal and yet failures still occur! Attempting to launch hundreds of missiles that have been sitting in inventory for months or even years and not have a significant number of launch and or guidance failures would be miraculous yet a 'first strike' requires such a scenario to be 'successful'. Weather alone would make some ICBM locales non operational. Thunderstorms over a missile or airbase would rule out using those launch vehicles yet the targets they are intended to strike might be absolutely necessary to hit in the first wave of strikes.

    The idea that either Russia or the US could send 100s of ICBMs in a perfectly synchronized wave of annihilation, evaluate the success of the strikes, and send a secondary wave in to mop up any misses isn't a rational war plan. A 'first strike' can only really mean attacking population centers and hoping that would destroy the military chain of command and render the enemy nations 2nd strike potential impotent.

    Very convincing. And from it flows another major point in relation to the shock/horror value of the planning story to the media. The best way to assess whether your professional opposite numbers might make a first strike against your country is to have a good look at exactly how you might go about it and what the expected result would be. It would not be beyond belief that the US might have leaked information to Soviet spies with a view to supporting the views of Soviet analysts who would also find the prospects of a first strike unpromising. Mind you the leak would have to survive suspicion if it wasn’t to make things worse.

    Read More
  51. I am surprised that anyone would be surprised at the existence of any number of such strike plans, elegant in attention to detail, such as appendices updating changes in radar shadows where strike planes or missiles could close on targets without being under observation.

    Read More
  52. @solontoCroesus

    And in the time of Teddy Roosevelt, even elite men joined the fight in the name of honor and manhood.
     
    spare me the fifes and drums.

    TR was as prissy as one of your other three handles. TR dressed up in little soldier boy clothes that his cowardly father had made for him (Dad Roosevelt paid someone to fight in his place in Civil War. The payee was killed.)

    Kermit Roosevelt was another dress-em-up soldier; he and his pals thought Lawrence of Arabia the embodiment of their romantic heroes -- the ones that caused British schoolgirls to swoon and glamorize those men in uniform.

    honor and manhood?

    pfff

    little boys in search of their masculinity = more like it.

    btw, re

    But at least Jews do their own fighting in Israel,
     
    is that a serious statement?
    Jews in Israel fight only against unarmed and starving, destitute civilians who are unable to escape.

    otoh, Israel's Jewish military is pretty good at extra-judicially killing Palestinian adolescents who allegedly killed a Jew, then knocking down the home of her family -- so Trumpian.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-destroys-home-palestinian-killed-girl-army-070927553.html

    “Jews in Israel fight only against unarmed and starving, destitute civilians who are unable to escape.” And do not forget that the Israeli cowards have been saving the lives of wounded ISIS fighters in a hope that the “moderate jihadis” would help Israelis to grab the Golan Heights from the weakened Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hhsiii
    It is my understanding that Israel has occupied and administered the Golan Heights since the Six Day War in 1967. Unless you are talking about the part ceded after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and the demilitarised zone under UNDOF.
  53. @dearieme
    ... despite America’s overwhelming nuclear preponderance, JFK ... had ordered ... deploying, beginning in 1961, intermediate-range “Jupiter” nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey—adjacent to the Soviet Union. From there, the missiles could reach all of the western U.S.S.R., including Moscow and Leningrad ...


    The Jupiter missiles were an exceptionally vexing component of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Because they sat aboveground, were immobile, and required a long time to prepare for launch, they were extremely vulnerable. Of no value as a deterrent, they appeared to be weapons meant for a disarming first strike ...

    The Jupiters’ destabilizing effect was widely recognized among defense experts within and outside the U.S. government and even by congressional leaders. For instance, Senator Albert Gore Sr., an ally of the administration, told Secretary of State Dean Rusk that they were a “provocation” in a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February 1961 (more than a year and a half before the missile crisis), adding, “I wonder what our attitude would be” if the Soviets deployed nuclear-armed missiles to Cuba. Senator Claiborne Pell raised an identical argument in a memo passed on to Kennedy in May 1961.

    That's from an article that's well worth reading:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/?single_page=true

    Wow, thanks!

    Indeed, Washington’s self-regard for its credibility was almost certainly the main reason it risked nuclear war over a negligible threat to national security… In the tense days of October 1962, being allied with the United States potentially amounted to, as Charles de Gaulle had warned, “annihilation without representation.” It seems never to have occurred to Kennedy and the ExComm that whatever Washington gained by demonstrating the steadfastness of its commitments, it lost in an erosion of confidence in its judgment.

    This could have been written about 2016.

    Read More
  54. @SolontoCroesus
    Source I relied on is The Warlovers, by Evan Thomas.

    imo there's a difference between bravery and bravado. I don't count TR as brave, courageous, or in most ways contributing much to the betterment of the US Constitutional republic. imo he was an insecure little man who sought attention and took risks to cover up his inadequacies.

    Inasmuch as he was a model for his even more inadequate and insecure cousin, Franklin D., I believe he, and his cousin, did enormous harm to the US, in the long term.

    others may differ.

    My reply was a bit of a non-sequitur, since I was talking about Ted Jr., not his dad.

    Read More
  55. @annamaria
    "Jews in Israel fight only against unarmed and starving, destitute civilians who are unable to escape." And do not forget that the Israeli cowards have been saving the lives of wounded ISIS fighters in a hope that the "moderate jihadis" would help Israelis to grab the Golan Heights from the weakened Syria.

    It is my understanding that Israel has occupied and administered the Golan Heights since the Six Day War in 1967. Unless you are talking about the part ceded after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and the demilitarised zone under UNDOF.

    Read More
  56. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Of course there was a plan for a US first strike. It would have been negligent not to make such a plan. There should be plans for all extreme hazards of any risk level and less extreme hazards of high risk level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    You need to reread the article. This is not a kindergarden stuff as your statement implies. Pay attention to the idea of preemptive nuclear strike.
  57. Ron, your dismissiveness of “duck and cover” is wrong. Common, but wrong.

    Every nuke, no matter the yield, has essentially four concentric circles of destructive power. The main difference is how big those circles are. (It’s also true that the more yield derives from fusion rather than fission, the “cleaner” the kaboom.) The smallest circle is the prompt radiation release. This is different than fallout. These are neutrons and gamma rays that will kill you instantly. But you’d be dead anyway, because this effect is covered completely by the actual explosion. Prompt radiation only matters on relatively small (<50kt) bombs, i.e., not the kind we or the Russians have actually deployed in 70 years.

    Slightly larger than that is the fireball, which may or may not kill you depending on your cover. After that is the "overpressure," i.e., air blast. In this zone, which can be quite large, the overpressure will break windows and sweep up a lot flying debris. Some of it very sharp. But it doesn't have to be sharp to hurt you. There will be many, many more people in this zone than will be effected by prompt radiation or the explosion/fireball. If you are in this zone, ducking and covering can save you.

    Basically, if you are in a big city and ever see (hopefully you're not looking right at it) a light so bright it looks like the sun has descended to earth, you have a few seconds to duck and cover before the shock wave throws glass shards at your jugular.

    The outermost zone (which overlaps with the air blast) is thermal radiation, i.e., intense heat that probably won't kill you but can cause 3rd degree burns. It's a good idea to duck and cover from this too.

    The effects of radiation are overstated. Yes, it's very bad. But it's not true that "most cases the supplies would only have been sufficient to last a few weeks or so, while the deadly radioactive fallout from numerous Soviet thermonuclear strikes on our urban centers would have been long-lasting." I guess that depends on how many supplies you have. But the rule of thumb is 90/7, 99/48. That is, fallout loses 90% of its intensity in 7 hours and 99% in two days. Now, ground zero will be contaminated for longer, but the idea that the ground is deadly more or less for several human lifetimes is false.

    This article is quite accurate:

    http://www.goodnewsnuke.com/

    Read More
  58. @Philip Owen


    Of course there was a plan for a US first strike. It would have been negligent not to make such a plan. There should be plans for all extreme hazards of any risk level and less extreme hazards of high risk level.

    You need to reread the article. This is not a kindergarden stuff as your statement implies. Pay attention to the idea of preemptive nuclear strike.

    Read More
  59. @Lot

    If our media failed to report these shocking new facts about the early 1960s
     
    While seeing the details might be interesting, it is common knowledge the USA has had since about 1950 first strike plans against the USSR, separate plans targeting China, and periodically has updated them including adapting them for a first strike plan against Russia. Likewise, those countries all have first strike plans against the USA. Indeed, there are probably multiple American plans produced by different parts of the NatSec complex. For instance, RAND Corporation almost certainly created first strike plans separate from the Pentagon so the latter could have a "second opinion." So I disagree that there is anything shocking in these articles. That some within our government advocated for a first strike against the USSR was such common knowledge that they were parodied in Dr. Strangelove.

    Pointing out an optimal date for such strike and undertaking civil defense measures does not mean Kennedy ever actually had a desire that such plan be undertaken.

    The specific and not-secret scenario for Able Archer was a nuclear first strike in response to a conventional and chemical weapon attack.


    Consider, for example, the massive campaign of “civil defense” that America launched immediately thereafter,
     
    Civil defense measures started in the early 1950's, and were not specific to the USA. To the extent they were increased in the early 1960's, that is also the period when the Soviet nuclear arsenal was increasing the fastest.

    Suppose that the proposed nuclear attack on Russia had actually gone ahead, resulting in millions or tens of millions dead from the bombs and worldwide radioactive fallout, perhaps even including a million or more American casualties if the first strike had failed to entirely eliminate all retaliatory capability.
     
    It is very unlikely that in 1963 a first strike would have been so effective as to limit US deaths in the counterstrike to anything near one million. Siberia is a very big place. One long-range bomber, one Czar Bomb (1500 times bigger than the Hiroshima bomb) hitting a large city, and you have a number much bigger than one million.

    Under such a dire scenario, is it not likely that every American media organ would have been immediately enlisted to sanitize and justify the terrible events, with virtually no dissent allowed?
     
    Maybe, but we managed to kill more than a million Vietnamese and Iraqis without becoming a police state.

    I think where you see media cover-ups and conspiracies, I see capitalism at work giving Americans the media they want, or at least the media they are willing to pay for.

    While seeing the details might be interesting, it is common knowledge the USA has had since about 1950 first strike plans against the USSR…So I disagree that there is anything shocking in these articles.

    Numerous other commenters have made exactly this same point, which I think may be mistaken.

    Obviously, militaries produce a huge number of contingency plans, presumably including attack and first strike scenarios. However, the Burris Memo seems to treat the NSC discussion as being far more detailed and focused than that, including discussion of a particular target-date for the attack, based on greatest Soviet weakness. This is also is seemingly supported by the later reported statement by Walt Rostow, JFK’s National Security Advisor.

    I am hardly an expert on these matters, but Burr and Rosenberg certainly are, and if such an easily innocuous interpretation were remotely plausible, why would they not have focused on it in their desperate attempt to refute the TAP article? Instead, they mostly rely upon an implausible misreading of the document and numerous other irrelevancies.

    To me, it seems very odd that there are apparently no more detailed documents about the NSC meeting available in the primary archives to refute the TAP interpretation of the Burris Memo. If the discussion were actually so innocuous, why would those other documents seemingly be missing?

    Civil defense measures started in the early 1950′s, and were not specific to the USA. To the extent they were increased in the early 1960′s, that is also the period when the Soviet nuclear arsenal was increasing the fastest.

    This seems incorrect.

    As I have emphasized, fallout shelters should seem rather useless against a substantial Soviet nuclear attack, but very helpful protection against merely radioactive dust due to US strikes against the USSR. Therefore, they seem almost entirely a first strike people. It seems quite suspicious that there had apparently been no significant effort to contruct American fallout shelters until JFK launched the major drive just a couple of months after the NSC “first strike” meeting:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-look-back-at-americas-fallout-shelter-fatuation/

    It is very unlikely that in 1963 a first strike would have been so effective as to limit US deaths in the counterstrike to anything near one million. Siberia is a very big place.

    Well, the very long and detailed Kaplan article seems to present a very different conclusion, based upon the declassified documents and studies of that era. Perhaps you know more than America’s top nuclear warfare experts did at the time; I certainly don’t.

    The Internet is filled with anonymous commenters who arrogantly imply all sorts of deep knowledge about complex subjects while being much too lazy to do their homework. I have repeatedly emphasized my lack of expertise in this particular area, but I get the sense that “Lot” may not have even bothered to read the handful of articles I cited for my analysis. Just last week, I noted his tendency to spout off on topics about which he seems to be totally ignorant aside from having read a few blogs here and there:

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-maya-who-woulda-thunk-it/#comment-1520072

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies: @Boomstick
    Fallout shelters are quite valuable for survival against direct nuclear attack. The Swiss have long required all large buildings to have a shelter, for example.
    , @Lot

    Perhaps you know more than America’s top nuclear warfare experts did at the time
     
    In some respects I do, and likely you as well. A lot of things our government believed about the Soviet military and economy turned out to be very wrong.

    Instead, they mostly rely upon an implausible misreading of the document and numerous other irrelevancies.
     
    I found the response published in TAP to be more plausible than the article.


    If the discussion were actually so innocuous, why would those other documents seemingly be missing?
     
    The US government is oversecretive about everything, even when they have no reason to do so. Just because the government refuses to describe what happens at Area 51 does not mean there are actually space aliens there.

    However, the Burris Memo seems to treat the NSC discussion as being far more detailed and focused than that, including discussion of a particular target-date for the attack, based on greatest Soviet weakness.
     
    What makes you think all of the other nuclear strike plans against the USSR were not as "detailed and focused"? Here's one that is 800 pages from 1956-59:

    http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/05/09/mapping-us-nuclear-war-plan-1956/

    The Internet is filled with anonymous commenters who arrogantly imply all sorts of deep knowledge about complex subjects while being much too lazy to do their homework. I have repeatedly emphasized my lack of expertise in this particular area, but I get the sense that “Lot” may not have even bothered to read the handful of articles I cited for my analysis.
     
    I never implied I had "deep knowledge" of Cold War history, must less arrogantly. I have read a few books about it, as it was a favorite topic of mine at one point in the 1990's when I was a teenager. Since then a few articles a year, maybe amounting to 50 pages total per year. Maybe that counts as deep, but I would not say so.

    But again, the desire of people within the US gov to attack the USSR, and their detailed plans to do so, is such common knowledge they parodied it in a famous movie.

    I don't think the parody was fair, and treating LaMay et al as obviously wrong with the benefit of hindsight I also think is wrong. While it isn't news to me or anyone with a passing familiarity with the era that Kennedy considered a first strike, it is morbid subject that the media understandably does not want to dwell on. Which gets me back to my prior point:

    I think where you see media cover-ups and conspiracies, I see capitalism at work giving Americans the media they want, or at least the media they are willing to pay for.
     
    So yes, I do think the equivalent article featuring Nixon rather than Kennedy would also be largely or entirely ignored by the MSM.

    As I have emphasized, fallout shelters should seem rather useless against a substantial Soviet nuclear attack, but very helpful protection against merely radioactive dust due to US strikes against the USSR.
     
    They'd be useless against a direct hit, but quite handy if you were 50 or 70 miles away. And it was not like we knew all of the exact targets in advance, nor did we know who'd actually be hit rather than saved by aerial defense, errors in the bomb, ICMBs, or pilot. Nagasaki was supposed to be the 4th city in Japan we hit, not the second one.

    Even if did have certain knowledge, "no shelter for you folks in Newport News, you are a top target with no chance of surviving" does not make for good morale.

    Also, the USSR had their own system of fall-out shelters, similar too ours though generally more extensive. Still not enough to survive a direct hit however.
    , @Kiza
    Whilst reading your article a thought came that the propaganda imbued commenting brigade will conflate the military (every) contingency planning and your story of a First Strike plan at an optimum moment. I believe that most commenters have misunderstood such level of planning. It was not standard military planning at the low military end and it was not a concrete plan of attack on the other extreme. I believe that this was a one-off strategic plan at the top level (top political level) with a lot of concrete details. A very realistic plan, let us solve the "problem" of USSR once and for all, subject to presidential decision.

    One of your rethorical questions was - why was it abandoned? My opinion is that the plan established a range of possible cost (sensitivity analysis) to the US which was unacceptable. Even in 1963, one un-tracked nuclear missile submarine could have destroyed 20-30 major US cities. This First Attack plan just could not convince the "legendary" US President that the cost of attack would be sufficiently low, although there is no doubt that the winner would have written the history of who did the First Strike (enjoyed your mental experiment on post attack propaganda). In every military simulation, who strikes nuclear first "wins", if cost is neglected.

    Therefore, the inability to track 100% of the Soviet nuclear missile submarines is probably what saved the World from the Presidential YES. I keep promoting the point that SCS conflict is in part due to the US desire to track the growing fleet of the Chinese nuclear missile submarines.

    Btw, to my knowledge, nuclear missile submarines are tracked by the so called attack submarines, by satellite sensors (infra-red, visual range, and even gravitational sensors) and by long chains of similar underwater sensors. But tracking 100% of them is an impossible task. This is why the nuclear missile submarine will remain the ultimate First Strike payback tool for a long time and the single most important reason the decision has been NO.
  60. I certainly hope the Joint Chiefs did have a plan for a nuclear first strike. That’s what general staff officers do in peacetime: generate plans. The idea is that, if a situation presents itself, a plan doesn’t need to be generated on the fly and with no reflection. An existing plan can simply be grabbed off the shelf. There is a long history of general staff planning, for events likely and unlikely. The US had staff plans to invade Canada (War Plan Red) that was updated through 1935. War Plan Orange plotted out a likely Pacific War with Japan, and was updated from 1919 on. Winston Churchill ordered a study on attacking the Soviet Union in the aftermath of WW2 called “Operation Unthinkable.” The German General Staff had plans for all sorts of combinations of opponents in the run-ups to WW1 and WW2.

    Certainly in the early 60′s it was critical for the US to have a plan for a nuclear first strike if, say, the Soviets invaded Europe, or simply for force structure decisions. It would be criminal negligence for the Joint Chiefs to not have one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Maybe it would simply be better to simply disband the JC'S send them back to whatever service they represent until congress declares war, for everyone knows or should know the JC'S love war, after all that's where they get all those lucrative jobs from after they retire,corp. xyz their choice.!!!
  61. @Ron Unz

    While seeing the details might be interesting, it is common knowledge the USA has had since about 1950 first strike plans against the USSR...So I disagree that there is anything shocking in these articles.
     
    Numerous other commenters have made exactly this same point, which I think may be mistaken.

    Obviously, militaries produce a huge number of contingency plans, presumably including attack and first strike scenarios. However, the Burris Memo seems to treat the NSC discussion as being far more detailed and focused than that, including discussion of a particular target-date for the attack, based on greatest Soviet weakness. This is also is seemingly supported by the later reported statement by Walt Rostow, JFK's National Security Advisor.

    I am hardly an expert on these matters, but Burr and Rosenberg certainly are, and if such an easily innocuous interpretation were remotely plausible, why would they not have focused on it in their desperate attempt to refute the TAP article? Instead, they mostly rely upon an implausible misreading of the document and numerous other irrelevancies.

    To me, it seems very odd that there are apparently no more detailed documents about the NSC meeting available in the primary archives to refute the TAP interpretation of the Burris Memo. If the discussion were actually so innocuous, why would those other documents seemingly be missing?

    Civil defense measures started in the early 1950′s, and were not specific to the USA. To the extent they were increased in the early 1960′s, that is also the period when the Soviet nuclear arsenal was increasing the fastest.
     
    This seems incorrect.

    As I have emphasized, fallout shelters should seem rather useless against a substantial Soviet nuclear attack, but very helpful protection against merely radioactive dust due to US strikes against the USSR. Therefore, they seem almost entirely a first strike people. It seems quite suspicious that there had apparently been no significant effort to contruct American fallout shelters until JFK launched the major drive just a couple of months after the NSC "first strike" meeting:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-look-back-at-americas-fallout-shelter-fatuation/

    It is very unlikely that in 1963 a first strike would have been so effective as to limit US deaths in the counterstrike to anything near one million. Siberia is a very big place.
     
    Well, the very long and detailed Kaplan article seems to present a very different conclusion, based upon the declassified documents and studies of that era. Perhaps you know more than America's top nuclear warfare experts did at the time; I certainly don't.

    The Internet is filled with anonymous commenters who arrogantly imply all sorts of deep knowledge about complex subjects while being much too lazy to do their homework. I have repeatedly emphasized my lack of expertise in this particular area, but I get the sense that "Lot" may not have even bothered to read the handful of articles I cited for my analysis. Just last week, I noted his tendency to spout off on topics about which he seems to be totally ignorant aside from having read a few blogs here and there:

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-maya-who-woulda-thunk-it/#comment-1520072

    Fallout shelters are quite valuable for survival against direct nuclear attack. The Swiss have long required all large buildings to have a shelter, for example.

    Read More
  62. You’re wrong about the uselessness of fallout shelters, as I noted above. They could have saved a substantial portion of the population living beyond the fireball zone and even many within it. Nuclear weapons, powerful as they are, cannot kill everyone, or even close.

    Now, the nuclear winter question is another matter. Of course, that didn’t arise until later. It was subsequently “debunked” but is now back in vogue. I couldn’t say whether it’s true or not, but given what volcanic ash was able to do in the past, it seems plausible. Alas, the only way to know for sure would be a controlled experiment and, um, with only one planet to experiment on, I say “no.”

    Another problem would be the potential breakdown of society, the supply chain and so on. So let’s say that some substantial portion of the population were to store enough non-perishable food to ride out two weeks after an attack. Beyond the ground zeros, radioactive contamination would be negligible. However, what would be going one when we crawled out? Certainly the trucks delivering food would not be on the road. So would we just starve? Couldn’t say. Plausible. But somebody would sure live to farm again.

    Anyway, two other things: the reason we abandoned civil defense is not because it was useless but because it was useful. That is to say, the nuclear priesthood had a debate about “counter force” or counter-value,” that is, do you target weapons or cities? The “hawks” said the former, the “doves” the latter. The doves won. The key to making counter-value work is MAD, and the key to making MAD work is defenselessness: no missile defense, hence the ABM treaty. No civil defense. This was held to be “destabilizing.” It was held this *precisely* because it was understood to be effective. If you can protect your own population, the logic went, you were more likely to risk a first strike. So the “moral” thing to do was to leave your own population defenseless. Which,after counter-value was adopted, we did. You don’t read or hear much about fallout shelters after the early 1960s and few if any were built after that.

    Second: twice before JFK did the military float the idea of using nukes in a limited way. One was MacArthur’s request to nuke China, as noted, which Truman rejected. The second, less well known, was a recommendation to Ike to nuke North Vietnam to help the French at Dien Bien Phu. Ike rejected it out of hand.

    So it’s sort of hard to imagine these two presidents of each party saying “no” to a strike with one or a few bombs for tactical purposes, and JFK seriously contemplating a wholesale strategic attack that would have made him go down in history as the greatest mass killer of all time, by many orders of magnitude. Beyond this, JFK was a strongly anti-proliferation president–more so than Ike or LBJ. That doesn’t make him a nuclear peacenik, but it casts further doubt on this. And beyond this, Ike’s stated policy was “massive retaliation.” Which meant, no matter what you do, we will hit you with everything. Ike’s reasoning was that he didn’t want a massive standing army in peacetime, so to deter the Soviets, we’d use our (relatively much cheaper) nuclear arsenal. Now, the chance that we would actually do that was not that credible, which made its deterrent value somewhat suspect. JFK realized that and changed our policy to “flexible response,” which downgraded the role of nukes in guaranteeing US and western security. So the guy who downgraded “massive retaliation” to “flexible response” was going to launch an all-out first strike? How does that make sense, unless his declaratory policy was just a ruse?

    There is, in the nuclear priesthood, something called “the tradition of non-use.” It was in its infancy then, but it was alive. When Truman said “no” in ’51, the baby was born. When Ike said “no” in ’54, it had survived its dicey first years. By JFK’s time, nukes had not been used in battle in more than 15 years despite some tense situations in many parts of the world, and despite at least two military recommendations to use them. The tradition was getting stronger. It’s just really hard to believe that JFK seriously contemplated an all-out, unprovoked first-strike.

    Read More
  63. @Durruti
    Yes!

    There was a reason JFK was assassinated. He actually believed in something. His book, Profiles in Courage, remains fine reading.

    One of the Highlights of the 1000 Days:

    During his trip to Ireland, Kennedy showed keen wit, and a clear independent (of the Anglo-Zionists), world view. Nice movie made of his trip. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwidi6Pv-cPOAhVGrB4KHZStDNIQtwIIIzAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDR99UXiKrBk&usg=AFQjCNFUowQYv7W_KWrtkex5HHiyaRdTww&sig2=cCM3eArBTBI-V-8Z4733OA

    “His book, Profiles in Courage, remains fine reading.” Not that he wrote it himself, of course. Like his undergraduate dissertation, it was written by a hired hand.

    Read More
  64. @dearieme
    ... despite America’s overwhelming nuclear preponderance, JFK ... had ordered ... deploying, beginning in 1961, intermediate-range “Jupiter” nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey—adjacent to the Soviet Union. From there, the missiles could reach all of the western U.S.S.R., including Moscow and Leningrad ...


    The Jupiter missiles were an exceptionally vexing component of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Because they sat aboveground, were immobile, and required a long time to prepare for launch, they were extremely vulnerable. Of no value as a deterrent, they appeared to be weapons meant for a disarming first strike ...

    The Jupiters’ destabilizing effect was widely recognized among defense experts within and outside the U.S. government and even by congressional leaders. For instance, Senator Albert Gore Sr., an ally of the administration, told Secretary of State Dean Rusk that they were a “provocation” in a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February 1961 (more than a year and a half before the missile crisis), adding, “I wonder what our attitude would be” if the Soviets deployed nuclear-armed missiles to Cuba. Senator Claiborne Pell raised an identical argument in a memo passed on to Kennedy in May 1961.

    That's from an article that's well worth reading:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/?single_page=true

    The Turkish based missiles were rendered obsolete when the US deployed the Polaris system on nuclear submarines. The Russian’s had no equivalent sub launched system and thus Cuba was their only counter.

    Read More
  65. @Eric Zuesse
    PS: Looking through http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Did_the_US_Military_Plan_a_Nuclear_First_Strike_for_1963.html makes clearer to me than was conveyed in Unz's article, that JFK was appalled at this proposal. This changes my evaluation a bit: JFK should have immediately set about replacing every one of his advisors who were favorable toward a blitz nuclear attack against the USSR. He did not do that. However, Unz failed to convey JFK's utter disgust at the matter, which was such that he walked out of the meeting at which the matter was being proposed.

    Maybe JFK was planning to get rid of these madmen. He did start talking about disbanding the CIA, which was out of control, and forcing Israel to cancel its secret nuclear program. Three weeks later, he was dead…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    He was also making noise about restoring relations with Cuba and getting out of Vietnam.
  66. @Boomstick
    I certainly hope the Joint Chiefs did have a plan for a nuclear first strike. That's what general staff officers do in peacetime: generate plans. The idea is that, if a situation presents itself, a plan doesn't need to be generated on the fly and with no reflection. An existing plan can simply be grabbed off the shelf. There is a long history of general staff planning, for events likely and unlikely. The US had staff plans to invade Canada (War Plan Red) that was updated through 1935. War Plan Orange plotted out a likely Pacific War with Japan, and was updated from 1919 on. Winston Churchill ordered a study on attacking the Soviet Union in the aftermath of WW2 called "Operation Unthinkable." The German General Staff had plans for all sorts of combinations of opponents in the run-ups to WW1 and WW2.

    Certainly in the early 60's it was critical for the US to have a plan for a nuclear first strike if, say, the Soviets invaded Europe, or simply for force structure decisions. It would be criminal negligence for the Joint Chiefs to not have one.

    Maybe it would simply be better to simply disband the JC’S send them back to whatever service they represent until congress declares war, for everyone knows or should know the JC’S love war, after all that’s where they get all those lucrative jobs from after they retire,corp. xyz their choice.!!!

    Read More
  67. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    In an article on the Iranian nuclear deal, the comment was made that as soon as a country gets nuclear weapons, they realize they can’t be used. Except as a deterrent — so nothing changes. Except regime change is mostly off the table.

    There was enormous interest in and development of tactical nuclear weapons. For that very reason. Use of nukes is a ‘bright line’ and unthinkable. Tactical nukes blur the line. There was an obsession with them in the 50′s. “Hey .. we got this great technology. Let’s scale it back until its use is thinkable.

    The extreme ‘experiment’ was the Davey Crockett.

    “The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System was the tactical nuclear recoilless gun (smoothbore) for firing the M-388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War. It was one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built. It is named after American soldier, congressman, and American folk hero Davy Crockett.”

    It wasn’t quite a shoulder fired nuke, but it was close. Of course, it made perfect sense at the time to some people. Hell of a anti tank weapon. Deploy in Korea and Germany to use against commie tanks. However, imagine this used today as a terrorist weapon? Talk about blow back. Is a suitcase bomb really a threat? I dunno, but these things were tested and you would have to pay an extra $25 for overweight luggage on a US Commercial airline, but it is, in theory, our worst nightmare.

    I believe that the presence of military capability creates virtually irritable pressures for its use. Maybe first in contingency plans. Or purely defensive purposes.

    There aren’t large lobby’s for doing nothing. The nothing lobby is sort of empty.

    We are now bombing Iraq, Syria, and back to Lybia. And droning other countries. And we are hearing the drumbeats for war with Russia over Ukraine. Economic sanctions are the first step. Both Georgia and Ukraine are cued up for inclusion in NATO.

    If the power exists, there will be ceaseless examination of ways to use it. Anyway, we have been lucky with nukes. I think development and use of tactical nukes was more of a danger than a first strike. But its just a guess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Tactical nuclear weapons is one of those oxymorons.
  68. @Carlton Meyer
    The American elected government had lost some control of its foreign policy to a "Secret Team", as this article hints. For example, from my blog that has links:

    Aug 14, 2016 - President Eisenhower's Peace Effort Sabotaged

    Some Americans recall the 1960 loss of an American U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union. This occurred just before President Eisenhower was to meet with Soviet Premier Kruschev and sign agreements to end the Cold War. History books mention the U-2 crash as an unfortunate coincidence that derailed this agreement, but few know that former US Air Force Col. Fletcher Prouty proved this was no coincidence.

    He provided details in his book "The Secret Team", later in a magazine article, and in this interview, that a super-secret CIA team ordered the mission and sabotaged the U-2 so it would crash over the Soviet Union. Prouty was the US Air Force liaison officer to the CIA. Eisenhower had ordered all U-2 flights halted weeks before this meeting to avoid an incident, yet this U-2 was launched without his authority, and even head of CIA claimed he was not aware of it.

    This made relations even worse because when the Soviets claimed they had shot down a spy plane, Eisenhower publicly denied it since he knew it to be false. Imagine his embarrassment and anger when the Soviets paraded its pilot, Gary Francis Powers (pictured), before the international press to admit his role. This successful op by "The Secret Team" ended Eisenhower's "Crusade for Peace" and kept the profitable Cold War conflict going another two decades.

    Besides The Secret Team, there was the neocon-infested Team B.

    Appointed by President Ford in 1976 to evaluate the CIA’s intelligence estimates on the Soviet Union, Team B concluded the Soviets had built up their military and had abandoned the agreed upon mutually assured destruction policy.

    A Wikipedia article credits the Team B reports as prompting “the massive arms buildup that began toward the end of the Carter administration and accelerated under President Ronald Reagan.”

    Adam Curtis included BBC archival film clips of Team B members and their critics in his documentary, The Power of Nightmares.

    The documentary debunks Team B’s motives, methods, and their evidence of the Soviets abandoning detente and MAD.

    Read More
  69. @pyrrhus
    Maybe JFK was planning to get rid of these madmen. He did start talking about disbanding the CIA, which was out of control, and forcing Israel to cancel its secret nuclear program. Three weeks later, he was dead.....

    He was also making noise about restoring relations with Cuba and getting out of Vietnam.

    Read More
  70. @Anon
    In an article on the Iranian nuclear deal, the comment was made that as soon as a country gets nuclear weapons, they realize they can't be used. Except as a deterrent -- so nothing changes. Except regime change is mostly off the table.

    There was enormous interest in and development of tactical nuclear weapons. For that very reason. Use of nukes is a 'bright line' and unthinkable. Tactical nukes blur the line. There was an obsession with them in the 50's. "Hey .. we got this great technology. Let's scale it back until its use is thinkable.

    The extreme 'experiment' was the Davey Crockett.

    "The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System was the tactical nuclear recoilless gun (smoothbore) for firing the M-388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War. It was one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built. It is named after American soldier, congressman, and American folk hero Davy Crockett."

    It wasn't quite a shoulder fired nuke, but it was close. Of course, it made perfect sense at the time to some people. Hell of a anti tank weapon. Deploy in Korea and Germany to use against commie tanks. However, imagine this used today as a terrorist weapon? Talk about blow back. Is a suitcase bomb really a threat? I dunno, but these things were tested and you would have to pay an extra $25 for overweight luggage on a US Commercial airline, but it is, in theory, our worst nightmare.

    I believe that the presence of military capability creates virtually irritable pressures for its use. Maybe first in contingency plans. Or purely defensive purposes.

    There aren't large lobby's for doing nothing. The nothing lobby is sort of empty.

    We are now bombing Iraq, Syria, and back to Lybia. And droning other countries. And we are hearing the drumbeats for war with Russia over Ukraine. Economic sanctions are the first step. Both Georgia and Ukraine are cued up for inclusion in NATO.

    If the power exists, there will be ceaseless examination of ways to use it. Anyway, we have been lucky with nukes. I think development and use of tactical nukes was more of a danger than a first strike. But its just a guess.

    Tactical nuclear weapons is one of those oxymorons.

    Read More
  71. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The idea of preventing macro-genocide with micro-genocide wasn’t new in the early 60s.

    Such was the rationale for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If US didn’t do micro-genocide on those cities, it would have to invade, and that would lead to macro-genocide of too many dead US soldiers and millions of dead Japanese.

    So, maybe the generals around Kennedy thought we should have a nuclear war now when it is winnable than later when the whole world will blow up(cuz USSR will have lot more nukes then). Nuclear war now would be micro-genocide. Nuclear war later would be macro- or even total genocide.

    Maybe US generals saw Soviet leaders like new Hitlers.
    Hitler was willing to gamble all in a war that led to tens of millions of deaths.

    Many anti-communists thought the communists were ruthless buggers who will stop at nothing for world conquest. Maybe such fears wouldn’t have existed if China hadn’t fallen to commies too.
    Also, when Cuba, once considered a secure US property, fell to commies(and so easily), many American anti-communists were shitting. There were genuine fears that the Cuban ‘disease’ would spread all over Latin America as there was such divide between rich and poor and so much anti-yanquism. And of course, things were getting worse and worse in SE Asia with Vietnam and Indonesia(that might have turned communist if the coup had succeeded in 65).

    Stalin was surely a mass killer on the level of Hitler. And Mao was prone to say crazy things like ‘if there nuclear war and 100s of millions die, it okay because we chinese have 100 millions more’.

    To be sure, Stalin, though mass killer, was a cautious player. And the reason why most of Eastern Europe fell to USSR was not cuz of naked Soviet aggression but because Eastern European nations collaborated with Nazi Germany in invading Russia. Romanians, Hungarians, Croatians, Slovaks,and others played their part in joining the German attack on Russia. So, when Russia was rolling back the invasion, they not only went into Germany but German ally territory.

    Stalin was a mass killer but no crazy gambler. When it came to aggression, he was a toe-dipper.
    But in WWII, he had no choice but to fight and in rolling back Nazis, he had to roll back Nazi allies too in Eastern European nations that were mostly collaborationist regimes of Nazi Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    You are so unoriginal and boring thinker in all matters except of race and homo.
  72. It goes without saying that countries like Poland and the Baltic States would have been obliterated. And much of Western Europe rendered unliveable.

    Read More
  73. @Priss Factor
    The idea of preventing macro-genocide with micro-genocide wasn't new in the early 60s.

    Such was the rationale for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If US didn't do micro-genocide on those cities, it would have to invade, and that would lead to macro-genocide of too many dead US soldiers and millions of dead Japanese.

    So, maybe the generals around Kennedy thought we should have a nuclear war now when it is winnable than later when the whole world will blow up(cuz USSR will have lot more nukes then). Nuclear war now would be micro-genocide. Nuclear war later would be macro- or even total genocide.

    Maybe US generals saw Soviet leaders like new Hitlers.
    Hitler was willing to gamble all in a war that led to tens of millions of deaths.

    Many anti-communists thought the communists were ruthless buggers who will stop at nothing for world conquest. Maybe such fears wouldn't have existed if China hadn't fallen to commies too.
    Also, when Cuba, once considered a secure US property, fell to commies(and so easily), many American anti-communists were shitting. There were genuine fears that the Cuban 'disease' would spread all over Latin America as there was such divide between rich and poor and so much anti-yanquism. And of course, things were getting worse and worse in SE Asia with Vietnam and Indonesia(that might have turned communist if the coup had succeeded in 65).

    Stalin was surely a mass killer on the level of Hitler. And Mao was prone to say crazy things like 'if there nuclear war and 100s of millions die, it okay because we chinese have 100 millions more'.

    To be sure, Stalin, though mass killer, was a cautious player. And the reason why most of Eastern Europe fell to USSR was not cuz of naked Soviet aggression but because Eastern European nations collaborated with Nazi Germany in invading Russia. Romanians, Hungarians, Croatians, Slovaks,and others played their part in joining the German attack on Russia. So, when Russia was rolling back the invasion, they not only went into Germany but German ally territory.

    Stalin was a mass killer but no crazy gambler. When it came to aggression, he was a toe-dipper.
    But in WWII, he had no choice but to fight and in rolling back Nazis, he had to roll back Nazi allies too in Eastern European nations that were mostly collaborationist regimes of Nazi Germany.

    You are so unoriginal and boring thinker in all matters except of race and homo.

    Read More
  74. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Priss Factor
    "They refused to believe it for good reason. Oswald was just a patsy."

    Patsy of whom?

    "In any case, whether Oswald killed Kennedy or not is a factual question, not a left/right ideological issue."

    But it became an issue due to ideology. Leftists refused to believe that a leftist killed Kennedy.

    Some of my more recent informantion about JFK, was the reading of William Douglas’s book. He brought some new stuff about it. Including the part about how Kennedy was really deeply mortified about what his cheifs were planing and talking openly about in the first strike sense.

    One thing that I don’t exactly know for sure was in that book, but, so anyways, here is the thing that above or bellow at Revulski’s comment, calling Oswald a ”commie” and just a ”patsy”.

    Now I’m not prepared to retrieve the exact source for this, but my recollection has it, that Oswald, a US Marine, had previously worked SIGINT on the U2 project, (Gary Powers was a pilot who was captured in USSR back in those times,) The spy plane was part of a huge involved technology, and Oswald no less was part of it. Later Oswald ”defected to the USSR, where he met his wife, but he didn’t stay there, he redefected back to US, (unheard of…!) and resumed clandestined activities in CIA, where he was ”sheepdiped” to appear to be a ”Leftist ”supporting Castro. Which would be useful as a to fabricat a Castro instigation story, about who killed JFK.

    So anyways, Douglas’s book is good, but, I don’t know where I got the details about Oswald, but there may be a few things about him that aren’t generally known.

    I bet Ruvulski’s been watching Roger Rabbit reruns again. That’s what my BSD says.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    One thing that I don’t exactly know for sure was in that book, but, so anyways, here is the thing that above or bellow at Revulski’s comment, calling Oswald a ”commie” and just a ”patsy”.
     
    An analysis of the available facts seems to suggest that Oswald was not real "commie" but was just pretending to be one as part of his cover.

    BUT, given that Oswald was just a patsy, it hardly matters whether he was a real commie or not. It would matter if Oswald really had killed JFK.

    Similarly, Mohammed Atta and the rest of the 19 misfits they claim did 9/11 may or may not have been devout Muslims. Probably they weren't, but again, given that they didn't do shit, that their only role in the story is as patsies, it hardly matters whether they were really religious or not.

    All of these things, whether Oswald was a commie or not, or whether the alleged 9/11 hijackers were religious -- these are just red herrings. A total waste of time. I hope you do agree, but if you don't, then just think about it and you will almost certainly come round to seeing that I am right.
  75. @Ron Unz

    While seeing the details might be interesting, it is common knowledge the USA has had since about 1950 first strike plans against the USSR...So I disagree that there is anything shocking in these articles.
     
    Numerous other commenters have made exactly this same point, which I think may be mistaken.

    Obviously, militaries produce a huge number of contingency plans, presumably including attack and first strike scenarios. However, the Burris Memo seems to treat the NSC discussion as being far more detailed and focused than that, including discussion of a particular target-date for the attack, based on greatest Soviet weakness. This is also is seemingly supported by the later reported statement by Walt Rostow, JFK's National Security Advisor.

    I am hardly an expert on these matters, but Burr and Rosenberg certainly are, and if such an easily innocuous interpretation were remotely plausible, why would they not have focused on it in their desperate attempt to refute the TAP article? Instead, they mostly rely upon an implausible misreading of the document and numerous other irrelevancies.

    To me, it seems very odd that there are apparently no more detailed documents about the NSC meeting available in the primary archives to refute the TAP interpretation of the Burris Memo. If the discussion were actually so innocuous, why would those other documents seemingly be missing?

    Civil defense measures started in the early 1950′s, and were not specific to the USA. To the extent they were increased in the early 1960′s, that is also the period when the Soviet nuclear arsenal was increasing the fastest.
     
    This seems incorrect.

    As I have emphasized, fallout shelters should seem rather useless against a substantial Soviet nuclear attack, but very helpful protection against merely radioactive dust due to US strikes against the USSR. Therefore, they seem almost entirely a first strike people. It seems quite suspicious that there had apparently been no significant effort to contruct American fallout shelters until JFK launched the major drive just a couple of months after the NSC "first strike" meeting:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-look-back-at-americas-fallout-shelter-fatuation/

    It is very unlikely that in 1963 a first strike would have been so effective as to limit US deaths in the counterstrike to anything near one million. Siberia is a very big place.
     
    Well, the very long and detailed Kaplan article seems to present a very different conclusion, based upon the declassified documents and studies of that era. Perhaps you know more than America's top nuclear warfare experts did at the time; I certainly don't.

    The Internet is filled with anonymous commenters who arrogantly imply all sorts of deep knowledge about complex subjects while being much too lazy to do their homework. I have repeatedly emphasized my lack of expertise in this particular area, but I get the sense that "Lot" may not have even bothered to read the handful of articles I cited for my analysis. Just last week, I noted his tendency to spout off on topics about which he seems to be totally ignorant aside from having read a few blogs here and there:

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-maya-who-woulda-thunk-it/#comment-1520072

    Perhaps you know more than America’s top nuclear warfare experts did at the time

    In some respects I do, and likely you as well. A lot of things our government believed about the Soviet military and economy turned out to be very wrong.

    Instead, they mostly rely upon an implausible misreading of the document and numerous other irrelevancies.

    I found the response published in TAP to be more plausible than the article.

    If the discussion were actually so innocuous, why would those other documents seemingly be missing?

    The US government is oversecretive about everything, even when they have no reason to do so. Just because the government refuses to describe what happens at Area 51 does not mean there are actually space aliens there.

    However, the Burris Memo seems to treat the NSC discussion as being far more detailed and focused than that, including discussion of a particular target-date for the attack, based on greatest Soviet weakness.

    What makes you think all of the other nuclear strike plans against the USSR were not as “detailed and focused”? Here’s one that is 800 pages from 1956-59:

    http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/05/09/mapping-us-nuclear-war-plan-1956/

    The Internet is filled with anonymous commenters who arrogantly imply all sorts of deep knowledge about complex subjects while being much too lazy to do their homework. I have repeatedly emphasized my lack of expertise in this particular area, but I get the sense that “Lot” may not have even bothered to read the handful of articles I cited for my analysis.

    I never implied I had “deep knowledge” of Cold War history, must less arrogantly. I have read a few books about it, as it was a favorite topic of mine at one point in the 1990′s when I was a teenager. Since then a few articles a year, maybe amounting to 50 pages total per year. Maybe that counts as deep, but I would not say so.

    But again, the desire of people within the US gov to attack the USSR, and their detailed plans to do so, is such common knowledge they parodied it in a famous movie.

    I don’t think the parody was fair, and treating LaMay et al as obviously wrong with the benefit of hindsight I also think is wrong. While it isn’t news to me or anyone with a passing familiarity with the era that Kennedy considered a first strike, it is morbid subject that the media understandably does not want to dwell on. Which gets me back to my prior point:

    I think where you see media cover-ups and conspiracies, I see capitalism at work giving Americans the media they want, or at least the media they are willing to pay for.

    So yes, I do think the equivalent article featuring Nixon rather than Kennedy would also be largely or entirely ignored by the MSM.

    As I have emphasized, fallout shelters should seem rather useless against a substantial Soviet nuclear attack, but very helpful protection against merely radioactive dust due to US strikes against the USSR.

    They’d be useless against a direct hit, but quite handy if you were 50 or 70 miles away. And it was not like we knew all of the exact targets in advance, nor did we know who’d actually be hit rather than saved by aerial defense, errors in the bomb, ICMBs, or pilot. Nagasaki was supposed to be the 4th city in Japan we hit, not the second one.

    Even if did have certain knowledge, “no shelter for you folks in Newport News, you are a top target with no chance of surviving” does not make for good morale.

    Also, the USSR had their own system of fall-out shelters, similar too ours though generally more extensive. Still not enough to survive a direct hit however.

    Read More
  76. Related point, I am skeptical of all the conspiracies RKU and others promote because I see that elites in America are quite capable of getting want they want without secret plotting. They got us into a war of choice with Iraq with little consequence to them other than big profits from higher oil prices and defense contracts. And they are now destroying the middle class and the environment by importing a permanent third-world underclass.

    Notice that there was nothing really damaging to them in the 50,000+ HRC and DNC e-mail release. Sure, a few were embarrassing, but they could do everything they do with complete transparency, and still do what they want. HRC just does not need to work in secret.

    What it comes down to is that by working in the system you can have a nice cozy upper middle class life, or maybe even get rich. Oppose the system and you get steamrolled into nothing. And the steamrolling is not only not in secret, but often very public.

    The best that public spirited people who do not want to be martyrs can do is work within the system and try to change it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "...here was nothing really damaging to them in the 50,000+ HRC and DNC e-mail release."
    Lets look at some of Clinton's email to get the idea of why the trillions of the US taxpayers money have been wasted in the Middle East:
    Clinton in her own words: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
    Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015
    "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad...
    The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind."

    She talks like a mafia boss. Did she pick this tone from her Israel-first donors?
  77. From a simple game-theory standpoint, working out the figures and procedural options for a nuclear first strike, unprovoked or otherwise, would be something that a nuclear power would want to do in any case, just as anyone tasked with guarding a bank would reasonably ask, “How would I stage a heist of this bank?” That does not, in my mind, indicate to me that one reasonably planned to start a war or rob a bank. In both cases, one would not discuss those plans in any detail with anyone ‘on the outside’ either.

    Nuclear weapons experts, in fact, spend a lot of time and energy planning out possible attacks on their weapons’ storage, transportation, and “surety” (fuzing, safing and arming) systems. The results are kept very secret, even decades after the weapons systems are retired. Personnel who have worked on these “tiger team” studies are barred from future assignments as part of a working weapons team on the systems they have ‘studied’ in this way.

    It would be very interesting to read such studies: perhaps the policy on classification of such studies on long extinct systems can be changed. I know people who worked at the plant where some of these systems were manufactured, even fifty or more years ago, and while they are unwilling to provide exact details of the mechanisms and circuits they worked on, all have said that some were very interesting and nonobvious, akin to mechanisms built for professional stage magicians: in fact they actually hired one engineer who had a background in that business.

    Read More
  78. I would like to make a comment on the new meaning of the word defense in its military sense. This in relation to Anti Ballistic Missile Defense, one of the most misleading terms in recent history. I consider the discussion of this word aligned with the topic of this article.

    Two AMBD missile sites, one in Poland and one in Romania, are the enablers of just such First Strike, the planning of which this article describes. By enabling the First Strike, they are truly offensive military sites. On top of this, they can easily contain offensive nuclear missiles, because without a close inspection it’s impossible to distinguish them (this was a Putin’s discussion point).

    When establishing these offensive military sites, the US Government was counting on the selfishness of the US public to easily convince them of their defensiveness. They never really expected for Russia to buy the propaganda fluff, although it would have been nice to get some defensive rethorical reaction which could be easily turned into another “Russian aggression”. It is such an inconvenience that Putin and Lavrov are so careful and skilful with words that nothing useful eventuated (remember translation of Ahmadinejad).

    Therefore, ABMD is just the last instalment in the US Military Industrial Propaganda Complex saga of successfully turning the word defense on its head. Some experts call it the blurring of lines between offense and defense, but I believe that it is a language play. Defense, meaning protection of own people and property from attack has been turned into protection of the US interests anywhere on the planet. If the US interest is to launch the First Nuclear Strike on Russia, then ABMD is the defense of such interest, plan or intention.

    This special new meaning of the word is sipping through into other English speaking countries. Defense has become the defense of the Anglo-Zionist ownership of the planet. I use this sentence as mental inoculation whenever I hold my nose and consume the MSM to get an update on regime’s intentions. The MSM mention the word – I apply the translation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @posa
    Putin echoes your comment. So let's give a shout out to Obama- Clinton for putting us on a path of near term nuclear war led by first strike capacity.
    , @edNels

    It is such an inconvenience that Putin and Lavrov are so careful and skilful with words that nothing useful eventuated (remember translation of Ahmadinejad).
     
    How many US presidential candidates speak Russian or Chinese? How many can belt out a competent ''Blueberry Hill''?

    He lets his translators do their job, (smart!), and holds his cards, smart, he understands English, better than the doofus he's lookin' at.

    Two AMBD missile sites, one in Poland and one in Romania, are the enablers of just such First Strike,
     
    Would placing missiles 90 miles off Russian border be anything like the Cuban Missile Crises, of long ago? Well what about a ''first Strike'' on a first strike provocation, provocation?

    Fundimentally Watson: there's a lot of bad paper out there, War is the answer, and the question might be: "How do you make the next war doable?'' Maybe it could be contained into the Eurasian area by making it all about little border issues, and try to ''fool 'em'' into not using their submarines… sheesh, not going full Ballistic.

    Surmise: by making some kind of ''Limited Nuclear war'' which would be huge, but not the Big Kahuna! Got to figure out how to do that, cause war is needed.

    Can you really ever trust a Neauvo Riche multi millionaire murdering old crone, (and that whole semi sentient class ) to not go for one last laugh, one hella fun last …Blast, or I duno (Thelma & Loise moment)?
  79. There have been a lot of FOIA disclosures about this in the years since Galbraith’s article, including what purports to be a censored form of the Net Evaluation Subcommitte (NSA nuclear war scenario analysis group) annual report discussed at the July 20, 1961 meeting.

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb480/

    has a lot of background and links to the released versions of the annual NESc reports.

    The uncensored portion of the (purported) report discussed in 1961 states at the very beginning that the topic of that year’s analysis was a Soviet surprise attack on the USA in late 1963, not the reverse. Casualty estimates are enormous for USSR, USA and China. Up to half the US population is predicted to die within a year, and overall, “damage and destruction was of such magnitude that the survival of the nation was in jeopardy”.

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb480/docs/doc%207A%201961.pdf

    McGeorge Bundy’s memo of the same meeting disputes some of Unz’ speculations about the connection to civil defense drills (apparently others had already drawn similar conclusions to Unz in published articles in the 1960′s, and Bundy was addressing those):

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb480/docs/doc%207D%20Bundy%20memo%20on%20NSC%20meeting.pdf

    Bundy lists 43 people at the NSC meeting, including Rostow, nuclear hawk Lemay, JFK and LBJ, but also well known scientists (Seaborg, Wiesner) and a journalist (Edward R Murrow, for USIA). This and the FOIA disclosures narrow the possibilities for a successful 55-year coverup of a US intention to conduct a first strike in 1963. It is possible that at a discussion based on such a report, that given the destruction predicted, the idea of a first strike would be considered. That indeed seems to be what happened:

    The Burris memo quoted by Galbraith says that “the assumption of this year’s study was a surprise attack in late 1963 “, not specifying which side launched the attack. The phrase they use as the basis of speculation that a US attack was meant is this: “the President asked if there had ever been made an assessment of damage results to the U.S.S.R which would be incurred by a preemptive attack”. However, the answer to JFK’s question, that these studies had been made and General Lemnitzer would bring them over to the White House, implies that they were not part of the scenario analysis discussed at the July 20 meeting of the National Security Council.

    So the evidence all seems to indicate that the discussion was of a USSR first strike, with devastating consequences, and JFK raised the obvious question based on that assessment, of what the opposite scenario, a surprise pre-emptive strike by the USA, would look like. This could have, but apparently did not, led to a first-strike policy and action plan formulated at a later date. As far as the meeting is concerned there is no indication that this was the point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    There have been a lot of FOIA disclosures about this in the years since Galbraith’s article, including what purports to be a censored form of the Net Evaluation Subcommitte (NSA nuclear war scenario analysis group) annual report discussed at the July 20, 1961 meeting.

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb480/

    has a lot of background and links to the released versions of the annual NESc reports.

    The uncensored portion of the (purported) report discussed in 1961 states at the very beginning that the topic of that year’s analysis was a Soviet surprise attack on the USA in late 1963, not the reverse.
     
    That's very interesting about the relatively recent release in censored form of supposed documents related to the NSC meeting in question.

    However, I'll admit I find that reconstruction very puzzling. One very obvious point made by Galbraith is that America obviously had far more operational ICBMs than the Soviet Union during that entire period, certainly into 1963, and the Soviet bomber fleet was also relatively weak. Under such circumstances, how is it even *theoretically* possible for the Soviets to launch an effective first strike (so long as the retaliatory ICBMs are reasonably dispersed)? That was long before the MIRV era.

    It just seems odd that a government committee including lots of smart, well-educated people could put a lot of time and effort into analyzing a theoretically-impossible attack scenario.

    As I've said, I don't have the expertise to properly evaluate these purported documents from the early 1960s, apparently released within the last couple of years or so, but I find the scenario mystifying.

    Anyway, all these nuclear war scenarios from a half-century ago obviously have no relevance today, and the main point of my article was regarding the two decades of total MSM silence on this important issue, which does have massive current relevance.
  80. @Ron Unz

    While seeing the details might be interesting, it is common knowledge the USA has had since about 1950 first strike plans against the USSR...So I disagree that there is anything shocking in these articles.
     
    Numerous other commenters have made exactly this same point, which I think may be mistaken.

    Obviously, militaries produce a huge number of contingency plans, presumably including attack and first strike scenarios. However, the Burris Memo seems to treat the NSC discussion as being far more detailed and focused than that, including discussion of a particular target-date for the attack, based on greatest Soviet weakness. This is also is seemingly supported by the later reported statement by Walt Rostow, JFK's National Security Advisor.

    I am hardly an expert on these matters, but Burr and Rosenberg certainly are, and if such an easily innocuous interpretation were remotely plausible, why would they not have focused on it in their desperate attempt to refute the TAP article? Instead, they mostly rely upon an implausible misreading of the document and numerous other irrelevancies.

    To me, it seems very odd that there are apparently no more detailed documents about the NSC meeting available in the primary archives to refute the TAP interpretation of the Burris Memo. If the discussion were actually so innocuous, why would those other documents seemingly be missing?

    Civil defense measures started in the early 1950′s, and were not specific to the USA. To the extent they were increased in the early 1960′s, that is also the period when the Soviet nuclear arsenal was increasing the fastest.
     
    This seems incorrect.

    As I have emphasized, fallout shelters should seem rather useless against a substantial Soviet nuclear attack, but very helpful protection against merely radioactive dust due to US strikes against the USSR. Therefore, they seem almost entirely a first strike people. It seems quite suspicious that there had apparently been no significant effort to contruct American fallout shelters until JFK launched the major drive just a couple of months after the NSC "first strike" meeting:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-look-back-at-americas-fallout-shelter-fatuation/

    It is very unlikely that in 1963 a first strike would have been so effective as to limit US deaths in the counterstrike to anything near one million. Siberia is a very big place.
     
    Well, the very long and detailed Kaplan article seems to present a very different conclusion, based upon the declassified documents and studies of that era. Perhaps you know more than America's top nuclear warfare experts did at the time; I certainly don't.

    The Internet is filled with anonymous commenters who arrogantly imply all sorts of deep knowledge about complex subjects while being much too lazy to do their homework. I have repeatedly emphasized my lack of expertise in this particular area, but I get the sense that "Lot" may not have even bothered to read the handful of articles I cited for my analysis. Just last week, I noted his tendency to spout off on topics about which he seems to be totally ignorant aside from having read a few blogs here and there:

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-maya-who-woulda-thunk-it/#comment-1520072

    Whilst reading your article a thought came that the propaganda imbued commenting brigade will conflate the military (every) contingency planning and your story of a First Strike plan at an optimum moment. I believe that most commenters have misunderstood such level of planning. It was not standard military planning at the low military end and it was not a concrete plan of attack on the other extreme. I believe that this was a one-off strategic plan at the top level (top political level) with a lot of concrete details. A very realistic plan, let us solve the “problem” of USSR once and for all, subject to presidential decision.

    One of your rethorical questions was – why was it abandoned? My opinion is that the plan established a range of possible cost (sensitivity analysis) to the US which was unacceptable. Even in 1963, one un-tracked nuclear missile submarine could have destroyed 20-30 major US cities. This First Attack plan just could not convince the “legendary” US President that the cost of attack would be sufficiently low, although there is no doubt that the winner would have written the history of who did the First Strike (enjoyed your mental experiment on post attack propaganda). In every military simulation, who strikes nuclear first “wins”, if cost is neglected.

    Therefore, the inability to track 100% of the Soviet nuclear missile submarines is probably what saved the World from the Presidential YES. I keep promoting the point that SCS conflict is in part due to the US desire to track the growing fleet of the Chinese nuclear missile submarines.

    Btw, to my knowledge, nuclear missile submarines are tracked by the so called attack submarines, by satellite sensors (infra-red, visual range, and even gravitational sensors) and by long chains of similar underwater sensors. But tracking 100% of them is an impossible task. This is why the nuclear missile submarine will remain the ultimate First Strike payback tool for a long time and the single most important reason the decision has been NO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    One has to think of the missed opportunities to nuke USSR whilst it did not have a nuclear weapon, then whilst it did not have the much more powerful fusion (hydrogen) nuclear weapon, then when it did not have the nuclear missile submarines, then ...

    From the standpoint of the US political (not military) establishment, these were all the missed opportunities. Why squander another one, gained from the Nazi rocket scientists that US snatched from defeated Germany, who developed superior long-range ground based ballistic nuclear missiles for their new masters. It was a window of political and military opportunity not to miss and they put a plan in place.

    If one knows the US establishment, it is really not that surprising. Today, things are only worse.
  81. @Kiza
    Whilst reading your article a thought came that the propaganda imbued commenting brigade will conflate the military (every) contingency planning and your story of a First Strike plan at an optimum moment. I believe that most commenters have misunderstood such level of planning. It was not standard military planning at the low military end and it was not a concrete plan of attack on the other extreme. I believe that this was a one-off strategic plan at the top level (top political level) with a lot of concrete details. A very realistic plan, let us solve the "problem" of USSR once and for all, subject to presidential decision.

    One of your rethorical questions was - why was it abandoned? My opinion is that the plan established a range of possible cost (sensitivity analysis) to the US which was unacceptable. Even in 1963, one un-tracked nuclear missile submarine could have destroyed 20-30 major US cities. This First Attack plan just could not convince the "legendary" US President that the cost of attack would be sufficiently low, although there is no doubt that the winner would have written the history of who did the First Strike (enjoyed your mental experiment on post attack propaganda). In every military simulation, who strikes nuclear first "wins", if cost is neglected.

    Therefore, the inability to track 100% of the Soviet nuclear missile submarines is probably what saved the World from the Presidential YES. I keep promoting the point that SCS conflict is in part due to the US desire to track the growing fleet of the Chinese nuclear missile submarines.

    Btw, to my knowledge, nuclear missile submarines are tracked by the so called attack submarines, by satellite sensors (infra-red, visual range, and even gravitational sensors) and by long chains of similar underwater sensors. But tracking 100% of them is an impossible task. This is why the nuclear missile submarine will remain the ultimate First Strike payback tool for a long time and the single most important reason the decision has been NO.

    One has to think of the missed opportunities to nuke USSR whilst it did not have a nuclear weapon, then whilst it did not have the much more powerful fusion (hydrogen) nuclear weapon, then when it did not have the nuclear missile submarines, then …

    From the standpoint of the US political (not military) establishment, these were all the missed opportunities. Why squander another one, gained from the Nazi rocket scientists that US snatched from defeated Germany, who developed superior long-range ground based ballistic nuclear missiles for their new masters. It was a window of political and military opportunity not to miss and they put a plan in place.

    If one knows the US establishment, it is really not that surprising. Today, things are only worse.

    Read More
  82. Yup !

    They had planned these continuously since the ’40′s.

    See “To Win a Nuclear War”.

    Hillary was NEVER an anti-war Radical in the’60’5 nor hated the military in the White House in the’90′s.”

    Indeed without her the wars of the ’90′s against Jugoslavia, Somalia and Ruanda may not have taken place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    "war...against Ruanda (sic)" *What on earth are you talking about?!?*
  83. @Wizard of Oz
    If you are a truther as I infer perhaps you will tell me what is wrong with the 2014 TV doco I have just seen "The Missing Evidence" which explains the explosions in the twin towers as caused by molten aluminium coming into contact with the water of the buildings' fire ptotection system. I am not sure whether the molten alumium also just contributed to the heat that caused the steel structure to fail according to the film or whether the explosions are supposed to have been critically destructive.

    If you are a truther as I infer perhaps you will tell me what is wrong with the 2014 TV doco I have just seen “The Missing Evidence” which explains the explosions in the twin towers as caused by molten aluminium coming into contact with the water of the buildings’ fire ptotection system.

    Well, I haven’t seen the specific TV doco you mention and have no particular desire to waste an hour or two of my life watching it. Moreover, as usual, you don’t even provide a link, in case I did want to waste my time. (Typical fucknuckle behavior from you that we are accustomed to.)

    However, just offhand, the biggest problem with the whole explanation is that it doesn’t explain the third building, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane.

    Of course, the other big problem with it is that no massive steel framed skyscraper of these characteristics has ever imploded in this way EXCEPT as the result of a controlled demolition. All of these explanations involve something happening that has never happened except on that special day, before or since. The older term for this would be “miracle”. Basically, a documentary like this is claiming that a miracle occurred — but then they have to wrap that up in some pseudo-science and hand-waving.

    Anyway, as for being a “truther”, I assume that this means that I do not believe the official story. My position on that is well known. The official story is about as possible as any story that involves pigs flying.

    If you do believe the official story, could you please tell me what, in your opinion, is the strongest evidence available that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by a bearded religious fanatic in faroff Afghanistan? I know I asked you (an many other similar fucknuckles) this question before and you declined to answer. But you have had some months to think about it.

    So I would be interested in your answer. If you decline to answer, as I assume you will, then at least I documented for the several hundredth time that people refuse to answer this question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    My response will be in several discrete parts. I note that you characterise the TV doco I referred to as containing pseudo science without your having bothered to find out what it says! Not a good start for the credibility of someone who, despite repeated demonstrations of incompetence seems to wish portray himself as a persuader.

    1. My recollection of events and controversies connected to the twin towers attack was refreshed recently by a long conversation with a very experienced British TV documentary producer who is preparing for a program about 9/11 which I recall as being centred on the Saudi connection. He is dismissive of standard truther theories which have been disproven as the WTC 7 red herring has been. More on that below.

    2. I didn't provide a link because I watched on a channel available to me as a subscriber to Australia's Foxtel which would not be a iseful link to 99+% of foreigners. But I provided the information which 10 seconds of intelligent Googling could have used to bring up at least a summary and more detailed identification of the program, as I have just proved. I make no inference as to whether your neglect reflects on your intelligence, laziness or merely lack of real interest in pursuimg truth once you have uttered your opinion.

    3. As to your excessively restricted and oddly off centre question referring to a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan I note that "orchestrated" is a careless and irrelevant word and I doubt that it or its equivalent appears in any important official document. I accept that Al Qaeda was for some years before and after 2001 by far the most significant and dangerous, though somewhat flexibly structured, of Muslim terrorist organisations which regarded America as the great enemy and that Osama bin Laden was at least part time executive chairman and the inspirer of a lot of its planning and attacks. What precise connection he had with any of the highjackers who were recruited to make coordinated attacks, and whether he may have had a mate amongst slighted members of the Saudi Royals who may hsve helped with the flying school fees I don't know or regard as important. Do you and if so why? Any more than it greatly affects the story if Mossad had learned of the plot and chose not to disclose it.

    4. Your repetition of the old saw about such steelframed buildings never having come down like that without a controlled explosion is, to put it politely, obtuse since you were being asked to consider a documentary which dealt with that problem and had simply chosen to ignore it.

    5. I have previously described the essence of another very convincing documentary (also easily findable I have no doubt) which dealt with all the WTC 7 furphies. Something very hot and probably butning from the initial impacts on WTC 1 and/or 2 ignited fires in WTC 7 and film of that burning all day in an empty building was shown. While it took less than an hour for heat to weaken the core structures of buildings 1 and 2 where the fire resistant cladding may have been dislodged or been demolished by the molten aluminium explosions the fire in WTC 7 took all day to weaken the core framework from which the cladding had not been removed.

    6. Most damning of the judgment of any believer in WTC 7's collapse as being proof of conspiracy and cover up is that it just doesn't make sense. Even plotters to crash into the WTC (remembering that they could hardly have expected to bring them down) woulf pay s little more respect to Ockham's Razor and decide the job was difficult enough without having to organise for a minor WTC building to come down ss well, especially as no one would fail to notice that it hadn't been plowed into by a fuel laden aircraft.

    7. Finally there is what your reply confirms about you and also suggests. No one who uses the insulting language you do while delivering magisterial judgments has ever held a responsible, let alone important, position or one un which he successfully persuaded people of anything. It precludes successful practice of the law or any other learned profession - though not perhaps some temporary editing work or untenured assistant professorship at a minor liberal arts college. It wreaks of the indulged though not all that bright only son who is able to continue as brought up as apple of her eye by the modest inheritance he received from his mother. You really don't have a clue do you as to how your gratuitous and crude rudeness and grandiosity of opinionating paints the picture of you as a pathetic creature? (And don't bother to flatter yourself into thinking you should compete. As they say, when in a whole stop digging, you've given more than enough evidence of your inadequacies already).

  84. There’s obviously still a widely shared, hopelessly sentimental attitude to JFK. He was loathsome both as a man and as a president. He was the man who launched the Vietnam war, for heaven’s sake. He was the man whose recklessness – entirely for domestic political advantage – nearly provoked nuclear war. Those of you who worship him should at least read

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/?single_page=true

    Read More
  85. @Priss Factor
    "They refused to believe it for good reason. Oswald was just a patsy."

    Patsy of whom?

    "In any case, whether Oswald killed Kennedy or not is a factual question, not a left/right ideological issue."

    But it became an issue due to ideology. Leftists refused to believe that a leftist killed Kennedy.

    “They refused to believe it for good reason. Oswald was just a patsy.”

    Patsy of whom?

    You know, what is strange about this is that, if you asked, for example, which countries were at war with one another in WW2, people would surely just tell you to get lost, go get educated a bit and then come back to this forum, right? Yet you (and plenty of others) feel that you can pose this kind of utterly idiotic question, flaunt your utter ignorance like this, and there is no stigma attached to this whatsoever.

    It even goes beyond that. People flaunt their ignorance about certain topics — like JFK and 9/11 — and it’s like a badge of pride for them: “I’m no ‘conspiracy theorist’.” Well, fine, whatever, but the fact remains that there is a vast literature on the JFK assassination. One commenter mentioned the excellent Douglass book, but that is just one example.

    But it became an issue due to ideology. Leftists refused to believe that a leftist killed Kennedy.

    Sorry, this is pathetic, ignorant nonsense. NO, it did not become an issue due to “ideology”. The reason why people generally, informed people I mean, do not believe that Oswald killed Kennedy is because they looked at the available evidence and decided that Oswald did not kill Kennedy.

    This is a factual question. It has nothing to do with where one is on some sort of left-right spectrum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Didn't Gerald Posner prove that the bullets came from Oswald's gun?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYw0BZCB-Wg

    What makes me suspicious is Ruby killing Oswald.

    I think the Mob panicked and feared Oswald would blab about it. So, it had Ruby take out Oswald.

    There were certainly groups that hated Kennedy and even grumbled about 'doing something'.
    But it was just talk. Oswald, a self-made 'agent' like Travis Bickle, decided to play and infiltrate all groups. He joined with Marxists, rightists, Cubans, the Mob, etc. In his mind, he was like a super-agent playing everyone against everyone. But no one was impressed. They told him to get lost.
    So, to prove his worth, he did the Big Thing. He proved himself by walking the walk while others only talked the talk.

    The Mob had no contract out on Kennedy, but it knew Oswald had rubbed shoulders with some mob members. They feared Oswald would blab and say crazy things. Better to have him rubbed out.

    If there were just one dominant conspiracy theory, I would consider it. But there are theories that implicate EVERYONE.
    CIA, FBI, PENTAGON, KGB, JOHNSON, GOP, DALLAS, MAFIA, CUBANS, CASTRO, LARRY HAGMAN, NEW ORLEANS FRUITCAKE, WHITE HOUSE DOG, ETC.

    I find it incredible that so many were involved and no one blabbed.

    Maybe the anti-conspiracy people willfully undermined the conspiracy theorizing by encouraging more of it. With so many different versions, it led to conspiracy fatigue and confusion.

    Roger Stone says Johnson did it. Johnson was a sleazy guy but having the audacity to plot the assassination of a president?

    If there was a conspiracy, it would have been small and tight.

    But people like Oliver Stone say everyone was involved. All those people involved and no one blew the whistle?

    So, who dun it? I say Oswald. But given all the media and government lies, I suppose anything is possible. But that isn't good enough to prove conspiracy. Look how close to Reagan came to being shot and killed. Shit happens.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xichkLr14Vg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFvNGb7bk30

  86. @edNels


    Some of my more recent informantion about JFK, was the reading of William Douglas's book. He brought some new stuff about it. Including the part about how Kennedy was really deeply mortified about what his cheifs were planing and talking openly about in the first strike sense.

    One thing that I don't exactly know for sure was in that book, but, so anyways, here is the thing that above or bellow at Revulski's comment, calling Oswald a ''commie'' and just a ''patsy''.

    Now I'm not prepared to retrieve the exact source for this, but my recollection has it, that Oswald, a US Marine, had previously worked SIGINT on the U2 project, (Gary Powers was a pilot who was captured in USSR back in those times,) The spy plane was part of a huge involved technology, and Oswald no less was part of it. Later Oswald ''defected to the USSR, where he met his wife, but he didn't stay there, he redefected back to US, (unheard of...!) and resumed clandestined activities in CIA, where he was ''sheepdiped'' to appear to be a ''Leftist ''supporting Castro. Which would be useful as a to fabricat a Castro instigation story, about who killed JFK.

    So anyways, Douglas's book is good, but, I don't know where I got the details about Oswald, but there may be a few things about him that aren't generally known.

    I bet Ruvulski's been watching Roger Rabbit reruns again. That's what my BSD says.

    One thing that I don’t exactly know for sure was in that book, but, so anyways, here is the thing that above or bellow at Revulski’s comment, calling Oswald a ”commie” and just a ”patsy”.

    An analysis of the available facts seems to suggest that Oswald was not real “commie” but was just pretending to be one as part of his cover.

    BUT, given that Oswald was just a patsy, it hardly matters whether he was a real commie or not. It would matter if Oswald really had killed JFK.

    Similarly, Mohammed Atta and the rest of the 19 misfits they claim did 9/11 may or may not have been devout Muslims. Probably they weren’t, but again, given that they didn’t do shit, that their only role in the story is as patsies, it hardly matters whether they were really religious or not.

    All of these things, whether Oswald was a commie or not, or whether the alleged 9/11 hijackers were religious — these are just red herrings. A total waste of time. I hope you do agree, but if you don’t, then just think about it and you will almost certainly come round to seeing that I am right.

    Read More
  87. @Priss Factor
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuP6KbIsNK4

    Am not the first to note that appointing a General ‘Breedlove’ Supreme Military Commandant of NATO falls into the ‘couldn’t make it up’ category.

    All of the main players are great in Strangelove, but Sellers playing both Strangelove and the polite and confused RAF officer was a tour de force.

    Haven’t seen it lately, think he
    showed up as another minor character, too. If not, that was intended at one stage, from reading on the making of the film.

    Strangelove the character is very prescient, not just because of Breedlove, but because Sellers played him in a way very similar to the real-life Kissinger, except for Kissinger not being in a wheelchair.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    He played Strangelove, the RAF officer, Lionel Mandrake, and POTUS. POTUS, one Merkin Muffley, he played as a weak-willed nitwit. You seem to be mixing Mandrake and Muffley in your memory. Mandrake was certainly very polite, but he was not especially confused. He understood the situation he was in very quickly and did his best to con Gen Turgidson into calling off the unauthorized mission or into giving him, Mandrake, the information necessary for Mandrake to call it off. Mandrake was smart, confident, brave, and selfless. Comedically, he was Turgidson's straight man. Sellers wasn't all that good a straight man---the straight man is not really supposed to steal the scenes the way Sellers did. It worked though. Those are some of the funniest scenes in the movie.
  88. @academic gossip
    There have been a lot of FOIA disclosures about this in the years since Galbraith's article, including what purports to be a censored form of the Net Evaluation Subcommitte (NSA nuclear war scenario analysis group) annual report discussed at the July 20, 1961 meeting.

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb480/

    has a lot of background and links to the released versions of the annual NESc reports.

    The uncensored portion of the (purported) report discussed in 1961 states at the very beginning that the topic of that year's analysis was a Soviet surprise attack on the USA in late 1963, not the reverse. Casualty estimates are enormous for USSR, USA and China. Up to half the US population is predicted to die within a year, and overall, "damage and destruction was of such magnitude that the survival of the nation was in jeopardy".

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb480/docs/doc%207A%201961.pdf

    McGeorge Bundy's memo of the same meeting disputes some of Unz' speculations about the connection to civil defense drills (apparently others had already drawn similar conclusions to Unz in published articles in the 1960's, and Bundy was addressing those):

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb480/docs/doc%207D%20Bundy%20memo%20on%20NSC%20meeting.pdf

    Bundy lists 43 people at the NSC meeting, including Rostow, nuclear hawk Lemay, JFK and LBJ, but also well known scientists (Seaborg, Wiesner) and a journalist (Edward R Murrow, for USIA). This and the FOIA disclosures narrow the possibilities for a successful 55-year coverup of a US intention to conduct a first strike in 1963. It is possible that at a discussion based on such a report, that given the destruction predicted, the idea of a first strike would be considered. That indeed seems to be what happened:

    The Burris memo quoted by Galbraith says that "the assumption of this year's study was a surprise attack in late 1963 ", not specifying which side launched the attack. The phrase they use as the basis of speculation that a US attack was meant is this: "the President asked if there had ever been made an assessment of damage results to the U.S.S.R which would be incurred by a preemptive attack". However, the answer to JFK's question, that these studies had been made and General Lemnitzer would bring them over to the White House, implies that they were not part of the scenario analysis discussed at the July 20 meeting of the National Security Council.

    So the evidence all seems to indicate that the discussion was of a USSR first strike, with devastating consequences, and JFK raised the obvious question based on that assessment, of what the opposite scenario, a surprise pre-emptive strike by the USA, would look like. This could have, but apparently did not, led to a first-strike policy and action plan formulated at a later date. As far as the meeting is concerned there is no indication that this was the point.

    There have been a lot of FOIA disclosures about this in the years since Galbraith’s article, including what purports to be a censored form of the Net Evaluation Subcommitte (NSA nuclear war scenario analysis group) annual report discussed at the July 20, 1961 meeting.

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb480/

    has a lot of background and links to the released versions of the annual NESc reports.

    The uncensored portion of the (purported) report discussed in 1961 states at the very beginning that the topic of that year’s analysis was a Soviet surprise attack on the USA in late 1963, not the reverse.

    That’s very interesting about the relatively recent release in censored form of supposed documents related to the NSC meeting in question.

    However, I’ll admit I find that reconstruction very puzzling. One very obvious point made by Galbraith is that America obviously had far more operational ICBMs than the Soviet Union during that entire period, certainly into 1963, and the Soviet bomber fleet was also relatively weak. Under such circumstances, how is it even *theoretically* possible for the Soviets to launch an effective first strike (so long as the retaliatory ICBMs are reasonably dispersed)? That was long before the MIRV era.

    It just seems odd that a government committee including lots of smart, well-educated people could put a lot of time and effort into analyzing a theoretically-impossible attack scenario.

    As I’ve said, I don’t have the expertise to properly evaluate these purported documents from the early 1960s, apparently released within the last couple of years or so, but I find the scenario mystifying.

    Anyway, all these nuclear war scenarios from a half-century ago obviously have no relevance today, and the main point of my article was regarding the two decades of total MSM silence on this important issue, which does have massive current relevance.

    Read More
  89. @edNels


    JFK was in combat and injured when PT109 sank. He also lost his big brother Joe Jr. over Germany when his special operation aircraft loaded full of explosives, exploded, prematurely.

    Not too many of todays ''chicken hawks'' have any distinction, I won't mention the one that is sort of an exception, he's nuts, (and a lair!).

    Usually the combat veterans are much less trigger happy, and I believe JFK was seriously working to avoid nuclear war, indeed worked diligently on the test ban with Kruschev on the back channels.
    But however Kennedy was surrounded by hawks, that is for sure.

    President Kennedy was surrounded by hawks, with very few exceptions.

    But he consistently rejected the hawkish advice of both his military experts and his own cabinet to choose instead the steps leading away from war in every crisis after April of 1961. (Authorizing the pre-planned Bay of Pigs invasion was a serious mistake, as Kennedy readily admitted.)

    Every major foreign policy crisis/decision from then on had JFK on his own against his own administration, from Laos and Berlin in 1961, to the crucial decision in November of 1961 NOT to send US combat troops to help South Vietnam, to Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963, to his October 1963 DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION to withdraw all American forces from Vietnam by 1965, regardless of the battlefield situation.

    Professor James Blight is probably the pre-eminent authority on this history. His documentary “Virtual JFK” is well worth watching.

    Mr. Unz, you are right to be shocked by the silence of the media gatekeepers on Galbraith’s
    important article. And you are right to be shocked by the insanity of the plans for a nuclear first-strike that were presented to President Kennedy in the summer of 1961.

    But I think you’ve underestimated President Kennedy’s resistance and revulsion to such plans.

    And a line from the third paragraph of Galbraith’s 1994 article, “some high Air Force and CIA apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963″ is mighty intriguing . . .

    That some high-ranking officers believed that a window of “first-strike” opportunity existed in late 1963 and would close permanently by 1964, and that such a window could be opened with a “triggering event” is a fact. (See the NSC meeting minutes of September 12, 1963 for the official assumptions about first-strike possibilities from 1964-1968.)

    Whether such beliefs were connected to the later events in Dallas is not yet provable beyond doubt.

    Mr. Unz, there is more to this, and I hope you keep digging and writing.

    Read More
  90. @Kiza
    I would like to make a comment on the new meaning of the word defense in its military sense. This in relation to Anti Ballistic Missile Defense, one of the most misleading terms in recent history. I consider the discussion of this word aligned with the topic of this article.

    Two AMBD missile sites, one in Poland and one in Romania, are the enablers of just such First Strike, the planning of which this article describes. By enabling the First Strike, they are truly offensive military sites. On top of this, they can easily contain offensive nuclear missiles, because without a close inspection it's impossible to distinguish them (this was a Putin's discussion point).

    When establishing these offensive military sites, the US Government was counting on the selfishness of the US public to easily convince them of their defensiveness. They never really expected for Russia to buy the propaganda fluff, although it would have been nice to get some defensive rethorical reaction which could be easily turned into another "Russian aggression". It is such an inconvenience that Putin and Lavrov are so careful and skilful with words that nothing useful eventuated (remember translation of Ahmadinejad).

    Therefore, ABMD is just the last instalment in the US Military Industrial Propaganda Complex saga of successfully turning the word defense on its head. Some experts call it the blurring of lines between offense and defense, but I believe that it is a language play. Defense, meaning protection of own people and property from attack has been turned into protection of the US interests anywhere on the planet. If the US interest is to launch the First Nuclear Strike on Russia, then ABMD is the defense of such interest, plan or intention.

    This special new meaning of the word is sipping through into other English speaking countries. Defense has become the defense of the Anglo-Zionist ownership of the planet. I use this sentence as mental inoculation whenever I hold my nose and consume the MSM to get an update on regime's intentions. The MSM mention the word - I apply the translation.

    Putin echoes your comment. So let’s give a shout out to Obama- Clinton for putting us on a path of near term nuclear war led by first strike capacity.

    Read More
  91. Hello Mr. Unz,

    Thanks always for running a very free site.

    I was not fabricating the RAND Corp. mini-encyclopaedia I referred to, and you guessed may have existed, I read the whole part on ‘winning nuclear war’, which was an entire volume, others were on other realms of warfare.

    I would swear in front of a court that I read it. Tried to track down the title, but they seem to want to present themselves as a kind of benevolent club now.

    Perhaps what I read is still classified.

    Aside from the casually discussed death tolls, the ideas about triage, maintaining control and morale in the aftermath ranged from the horrible to the darkly comical.

    You are welcome to contact me at the e-mail address I use here, but all I would have to add is where I read the volume.

    I am no fantasist. It seems that I am the only Unz reader to have actually read one of the documents you posited as likely. Since the one I read was part of a five-volume (pretty sure five, too long ago to be sure) encyclopaedia, it was very real, surely they (RAND Corp.). must have published monographs on the same lines, but what I read was a comprehensive volume.

    Read More
  92. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “They refused to believe it for good reason. Oswald was just a patsy.”

    Patsy of whom?
     
    You know, what is strange about this is that, if you asked, for example, which countries were at war with one another in WW2, people would surely just tell you to get lost, go get educated a bit and then come back to this forum, right? Yet you (and plenty of others) feel that you can pose this kind of utterly idiotic question, flaunt your utter ignorance like this, and there is no stigma attached to this whatsoever.

    It even goes beyond that. People flaunt their ignorance about certain topics -- like JFK and 9/11 -- and it's like a badge of pride for them: "I'm no 'conspiracy theorist'." Well, fine, whatever, but the fact remains that there is a vast literature on the JFK assassination. One commenter mentioned the excellent Douglass book, but that is just one example.

    But it became an issue due to ideology. Leftists refused to believe that a leftist killed Kennedy.
     
    Sorry, this is pathetic, ignorant nonsense. NO, it did not become an issue due to "ideology". The reason why people generally, informed people I mean, do not believe that Oswald killed Kennedy is because they looked at the available evidence and decided that Oswald did not kill Kennedy.

    This is a factual question. It has nothing to do with where one is on some sort of left-right spectrum.

    Didn’t Gerald Posner prove that the bullets came from Oswald’s gun?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYw0BZCB-Wg

    What makes me suspicious is Ruby killing Oswald.

    I think the Mob panicked and feared Oswald would blab about it. So, it had Ruby take out Oswald.

    There were certainly groups that hated Kennedy and even grumbled about ‘doing something’.
    But it was just talk. Oswald, a self-made ‘agent’ like Travis Bickle, decided to play and infiltrate all groups. He joined with Marxists, rightists, Cubans, the Mob, etc. In his mind, he was like a super-agent playing everyone against everyone. But no one was impressed. They told him to get lost.
    So, to prove his worth, he did the Big Thing. He proved himself by walking the walk while others only talked the talk.

    The Mob had no contract out on Kennedy, but it knew Oswald had rubbed shoulders with some mob members. They feared Oswald would blab and say crazy things. Better to have him rubbed out.

    If there were just one dominant conspiracy theory, I would consider it. But there are theories that implicate EVERYONE.
    CIA, FBI, PENTAGON, KGB, JOHNSON, GOP, DALLAS, MAFIA, CUBANS, CASTRO, LARRY HAGMAN, NEW ORLEANS FRUITCAKE, WHITE HOUSE DOG, ETC.

    I find it incredible that so many were involved and no one blabbed.

    Maybe the anti-conspiracy people willfully undermined the conspiracy theorizing by encouraging more of it. With so many different versions, it led to conspiracy fatigue and confusion.

    Roger Stone says Johnson did it. Johnson was a sleazy guy but having the audacity to plot the assassination of a president?

    If there was a conspiracy, it would have been small and tight.

    But people like Oliver Stone say everyone was involved. All those people involved and no one blew the whistle?

    So, who dun it? I say Oswald. But given all the media and government lies, I suppose anything is possible. But that isn’t good enough to prove conspiracy. Look how close to Reagan came to being shot and killed. Shit happens.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xichkLr14Vg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFvNGb7bk30

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Well lets see he was taking on the Federal Reserve ordering the printing of millions in Federal notes,he was gunning for the C.I.A. saying he wished he could break it into a hundred different pieces,he had been invited to Moscow which he had accepted going in Feb. after his re-election,as he said "I'm going to put the cold war to bed for there are no reasons that two different ideologies can't exist in the same world" and of course he was withdrawing American troops from Nam,within a year not an American would have remained and Lol you think Oswald the patsy did it and of course all those records over a million so I read are sealed until 2029 which in itself should tell you something,from everything I have read on the subject the following agencies were involved his Secret Service JC'S who hated him the C.I.A. which also hated him the bankers at the Fed. elements of the F.B.I. in the cover up.BUT TO EACH HIS OWN I PRESUME.!!
  93. @Lot
    Related point, I am skeptical of all the conspiracies RKU and others promote because I see that elites in America are quite capable of getting want they want without secret plotting. They got us into a war of choice with Iraq with little consequence to them other than big profits from higher oil prices and defense contracts. And they are now destroying the middle class and the environment by importing a permanent third-world underclass.

    Notice that there was nothing really damaging to them in the 50,000+ HRC and DNC e-mail release. Sure, a few were embarrassing, but they could do everything they do with complete transparency, and still do what they want. HRC just does not need to work in secret.

    What it comes down to is that by working in the system you can have a nice cozy upper middle class life, or maybe even get rich. Oppose the system and you get steamrolled into nothing. And the steamrolling is not only not in secret, but often very public.

    The best that public spirited people who do not want to be martyrs can do is work within the system and try to change it.

    “…here was nothing really damaging to them in the 50,000+ HRC and DNC e-mail release.”
    Lets look at some of Clinton’s email to get the idea of why the trillions of the US taxpayers money have been wasted in the Middle East:
    Clinton in her own words: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
    Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015
    The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad…
    The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.”

    She talks like a mafia boss. Did she pick this tone from her Israel-first donors?

    Read More
  94. @Che Guava
    Am not the first to note that appointing a General 'Breedlove' Supreme Military Commandant of NATO falls into the 'couldn't make it up' category.

    All of the main players are great in Strangelove, but Sellers playing both Strangelove and the polite and confused RAF officer was a tour de force.

    Haven't seen it lately, think he
    showed up as another minor character, too. If not, that was intended at one stage, from reading on the making of the film.

    Strangelove the character is very prescient, not just because of Breedlove, but because Sellers played him in a way very similar to the real-life Kissinger, except for Kissinger not being in a wheelchair.

    He played Strangelove, the RAF officer, Lionel Mandrake, and POTUS. POTUS, one Merkin Muffley, he played as a weak-willed nitwit. You seem to be mixing Mandrake and Muffley in your memory. Mandrake was certainly very polite, but he was not especially confused. He understood the situation he was in very quickly and did his best to con Gen Turgidson into calling off the unauthorized mission or into giving him, Mandrake, the information necessary for Mandrake to call it off. Mandrake was smart, confident, brave, and selfless. Comedically, he was Turgidson’s straight man. Sellers wasn’t all that good a straight man—the straight man is not really supposed to steal the scenes the way Sellers did. It worked though. Those are some of the funniest scenes in the movie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Thank you, Bill,

    It has been so long since I watched it that I had forgotten the turn as Merkin Muffley, in itself a delightful play on words, rather applicable to Hillary Clinton.

    I recall Mandrake's actions as you do, I am not stupid, but I think my initial characterisaion is accurate, in Sellers' playing of the character.

    I love his doubie performance in the original movie of Lolita, within the plot, but on first seeing it, I never worked it out, on first viewing, it was only later (after having read the book).

    Remake was crap.

    Even his first effort with Blake Edwards, The Party, the closing half-hour is pretty dreadful, but Sellers is pure comic genius in the first hour.

    The biopic about him, twelve or so years ago, was insufferable (saw it at the cinema), why so rude and negative, he was clearly a very brilliant performer, who cares about his private vanities?

    Being There, what a wonderful swansong, and a brilliant performance.

    Again, thanks Bill, must watch Strangelove again.

    ... but Breedlove is the thing of the now!

    Cheers!
  95. Good article. Kennedy wasn’t the first president to contemplate nuclear war-fighting (Truman actually did it, and Eisenhower offered the French government atomic weapons to use in Viet Nam) but Kennedy was perhaps the keenest nuclear war-fighter.

    On two occasions – Berlin and Cuba – he threatened to use nuclear weapons. His distaste for the Joint Chiefs’ SIOP plan seems to have been that it was unweildy: an all-or-nothing approach. JFK repeatedly asked the Chiefs to come up with strategies for limited nuclear war. Fortunately they seemed incapable of doing this; and his successor, whatever his vices, was far more aware of the danger involved in such reckless behaviour.

    Subsequent presidents – Nixon and Carter among them – have also threatened the use of atomic bombs to solve regional issues. But we are approaching a particularly dangerous juncture, with Obama’s trillion-dollar nuclear build-up, and Ms. Clinton’s earnest desire to go to war.

    Read More
  96. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Kiza
    I would like to make a comment on the new meaning of the word defense in its military sense. This in relation to Anti Ballistic Missile Defense, one of the most misleading terms in recent history. I consider the discussion of this word aligned with the topic of this article.

    Two AMBD missile sites, one in Poland and one in Romania, are the enablers of just such First Strike, the planning of which this article describes. By enabling the First Strike, they are truly offensive military sites. On top of this, they can easily contain offensive nuclear missiles, because without a close inspection it's impossible to distinguish them (this was a Putin's discussion point).

    When establishing these offensive military sites, the US Government was counting on the selfishness of the US public to easily convince them of their defensiveness. They never really expected for Russia to buy the propaganda fluff, although it would have been nice to get some defensive rethorical reaction which could be easily turned into another "Russian aggression". It is such an inconvenience that Putin and Lavrov are so careful and skilful with words that nothing useful eventuated (remember translation of Ahmadinejad).

    Therefore, ABMD is just the last instalment in the US Military Industrial Propaganda Complex saga of successfully turning the word defense on its head. Some experts call it the blurring of lines between offense and defense, but I believe that it is a language play. Defense, meaning protection of own people and property from attack has been turned into protection of the US interests anywhere on the planet. If the US interest is to launch the First Nuclear Strike on Russia, then ABMD is the defense of such interest, plan or intention.

    This special new meaning of the word is sipping through into other English speaking countries. Defense has become the defense of the Anglo-Zionist ownership of the planet. I use this sentence as mental inoculation whenever I hold my nose and consume the MSM to get an update on regime's intentions. The MSM mention the word - I apply the translation.

    It is such an inconvenience that Putin and Lavrov are so careful and skilful with words that nothing useful eventuated (remember translation of Ahmadinejad).

    How many US presidential candidates speak Russian or Chinese? How many can belt out a competent ”Blueberry Hill”?

    He lets his translators do their job, (smart!), and holds his cards, smart, he understands English, better than the doofus he’s lookin’ at.

    Two AMBD missile sites, one in Poland and one in Romania, are the enablers of just such First Strike,

    Would placing missiles 90 miles off Russian border be anything like the Cuban Missile Crises, of long ago? Well what about a ”first Strike” on a first strike provocation, provocation?

    Fundimentally Watson: there’s a lot of bad paper out there, War is the answer, and the question might be: “How do you make the next war doable?” Maybe it could be contained into the Eurasian area by making it all about little border issues, and try to ”fool ‘em” into not using their submarines… sheesh, not going full Ballistic.

    Surmise: by making some kind of ”Limited Nuclear war” which would be huge, but not the Big Kahuna! Got to figure out how to do that, cause war is needed.

    Can you really ever trust a Neauvo Riche multi millionaire murdering old crone, (and that whole semi sentient class ) to not go for one last laugh, one hella fun last …Blast, or I duno (Thelma & Loise moment)?

    Read More
  97. Prof. James Galbraith has now provided me the following note, clarifying his own views on the issues in question:

    For the benefit of readers who may not have time to consult the source materials, let me just state that I am convinced, from all the evidence I’ve seen as well as my father’s personal knowledge of Kennedy, that he would have *never* considered accepting the nuclear strike plan presented to him in July of 1961 — or any other, later plan, such as those discussed in Fred Kaplan’s article.

    The best evidence, from Rusk’s memoir (which we cite), my conversation with Rostow, and other sources, is that Kennedy was angered by the Net Evaluation. For him, the nuclear problem was how to control these weapons and to prevent their use — not how best to use them. A good confirmation on this point appeared, much later than our article, in Daniel Ellsberg’s excellent memoir, Secrets.

    I’m convinced as well that this was the prime concern also of Lyndon Johnson when he became president, and of Robert McNamara throughout his tenure as Defense Secretary. Johnson alludes to it in the opening pages of his memoir, and Rostow confirmed to me, in personal conversations during our long time together in Texas, that to prevent any situation from arising — in Vietnam especially — that might force the use of nuclear weapons was a first consideration throughout LBJ’s presidency.

    That the leading Air Force generals held a different view is no secret. And we agree, of course, on the importance of the question. Nuclear control remains a serious concern to this day. Those seeking a good exposition can view Daniel Ellsberg’s talk to the annual dinner of Economists for Peace and Security in January, 2016, at http://www.epsusa.org.

    Read More
  98. @Jonathan Revusky

    If you are a truther as I infer perhaps you will tell me what is wrong with the 2014 TV doco I have just seen “The Missing Evidence” which explains the explosions in the twin towers as caused by molten aluminium coming into contact with the water of the buildings’ fire ptotection system.
     
    Well, I haven't seen the specific TV doco you mention and have no particular desire to waste an hour or two of my life watching it. Moreover, as usual, you don't even provide a link, in case I did want to waste my time. (Typical fucknuckle behavior from you that we are accustomed to.)

    However, just offhand, the biggest problem with the whole explanation is that it doesn't explain the third building, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane.

    Of course, the other big problem with it is that no massive steel framed skyscraper of these characteristics has ever imploded in this way EXCEPT as the result of a controlled demolition. All of these explanations involve something happening that has never happened except on that special day, before or since. The older term for this would be "miracle". Basically, a documentary like this is claiming that a miracle occurred -- but then they have to wrap that up in some pseudo-science and hand-waving.

    Anyway, as for being a "truther", I assume that this means that I do not believe the official story. My position on that is well known. The official story is about as possible as any story that involves pigs flying.

    If you do believe the official story, could you please tell me what, in your opinion, is the strongest evidence available that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by a bearded religious fanatic in faroff Afghanistan? I know I asked you (an many other similar fucknuckles) this question before and you declined to answer. But you have had some months to think about it.

    So I would be interested in your answer. If you decline to answer, as I assume you will, then at least I documented for the several hundredth time that people refuse to answer this question.

    My response will be in several discrete parts. I note that you characterise the TV doco I referred to as containing pseudo science without your having bothered to find out what it says! Not a good start for the credibility of someone who, despite repeated demonstrations of incompetence seems to wish portray himself as a persuader.

    1. My recollection of events and controversies connected to the twin towers attack was refreshed recently by a long conversation with a very experienced British TV documentary producer who is preparing for a program about 9/11 which I recall as being centred on the Saudi connection. He is dismissive of standard truther theories which have been disproven as the WTC 7 red herring has been. More on that below.

    2. I didn’t provide a link because I watched on a channel available to me as a subscriber to Australia’s Foxtel which would not be a iseful link to 99+% of foreigners. But I provided the information which 10 seconds of intelligent Googling could have used to bring up at least a summary and more detailed identification of the program, as I have just proved. I make no inference as to whether your neglect reflects on your intelligence, laziness or merely lack of real interest in pursuimg truth once you have uttered your opinion.

    3. As to your excessively restricted and oddly off centre question referring to a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan I note that “orchestrated” is a careless and irrelevant word and I doubt that it or its equivalent appears in any important official document. I accept that Al Qaeda was for some years before and after 2001 by far the most significant and dangerous, though somewhat flexibly structured, of Muslim terrorist organisations which regarded America as the great enemy and that Osama bin Laden was at least part time executive chairman and the inspirer of a lot of its planning and attacks. What precise connection he had with any of the highjackers who were recruited to make coordinated attacks, and whether he may have had a mate amongst slighted members of the Saudi Royals who may hsve helped with the flying school fees I don’t know or regard as important. Do you and if so why? Any more than it greatly affects the story if Mossad had learned of the plot and chose not to disclose it.

    4. Your repetition of the old saw about such steelframed buildings never having come down like that without a controlled explosion is, to put it politely, obtuse since you were being asked to consider a documentary which dealt with that problem and had simply chosen to ignore it.

    5. I have previously described the essence of another very convincing documentary (also easily findable I have no doubt) which dealt with all the WTC 7 furphies. Something very hot and probably butning from the initial impacts on WTC 1 and/or 2 ignited fires in WTC 7 and film of that burning all day in an empty building was shown. While it took less than an hour for heat to weaken the core structures of buildings 1 and 2 where the fire resistant cladding may have been dislodged or been demolished by the molten aluminium explosions the fire in WTC 7 took all day to weaken the core framework from which the cladding had not been removed.

    6. Most damning of the judgment of any believer in WTC 7′s collapse as being proof of conspiracy and cover up is that it just doesn’t make sense. Even plotters to crash into the WTC (remembering that they could hardly have expected to bring them down) woulf pay s little more respect to Ockham’s Razor and decide the job was difficult enough without having to organise for a minor WTC building to come down ss well, especially as no one would fail to notice that it hadn’t been plowed into by a fuel laden aircraft.

    7. Finally there is what your reply confirms about you and also suggests. No one who uses the insulting language you do while delivering magisterial judgments has ever held a responsible, let alone important, position or one un which he successfully persuaded people of anything. It precludes successful practice of the law or any other learned profession – though not perhaps some temporary editing work or untenured assistant professorship at a minor liberal arts college. It wreaks of the indulged though not all that bright only son who is able to continue as brought up as apple of her eye by the modest inheritance he received from his mother. You really don’t have a clue do you as to how your gratuitous and crude rudeness and grandiosity of opinionating paints the picture of you as a pathetic creature? (And don’t bother to flatter yourself into thinking you should compete. As they say, when in a whole stop digging, you’ve given more than enough evidence of your inadequacies already).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Building 7 was "pulled" which is the technical term for controlled demolition. Silverstein even used it in the video where he explains what happened. He was the insured owner of the complex.
    Building 7 was the control center of the whole operation. And was destroyed when its purpose ended.
    It also , as an added benefit, housed the archives of Enron. That was convenient.
    I do hold an extremely high position in....... So I will refrain from insulting your obvious lack of knowledge and consequently your poor cognitive skills. Truther....I kinda like that. Sucker on the other hand.....
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    My response will be in several discrete parts.
     
    Okay, I guess I will respond to your 7 numbered points just as a sort of public service. If you respond with any more of your typical Wizard bullshit, that does not even contain any attempt at a logical or factual argument, I probably will not deign to respond further.

    1. My recollection of events and controversies connected to the twin towers attack was refreshed recently by a long conversation with a very experienced British TV documentary producer who is preparing for a program about 9/11 which I recall as being centred on the Saudi connection. He is dismissive of standard truther theories which have been disproven as the WTC 7 red herring has been. More on that below.
     

    In other words, "I have a friend who has a big dick.... uhhh, therefore I also have a big dick.... uhh, therefore I win the argument."

    Look, you're not making any argument whatsoever. You say: "He is is dismissive of standard truther theories..."

    So he's "dismissive". Fine. You have to explain WHY.

    You're supposed to produce some sort of argument. But no, it's like "I´ve got a big-shot friend who believes X."


    which have been disproven as the WTC 7 red herring has been
     
    HOW were they "disproven"? Formulate an argument!

    Regardless, I didn't ask you disprove anything any so-called "Truther" says anyway. I specifically asked you what the strongest available proof was of the official U.S. govt story. Do you have any?

    2. I didn’t provide a link because I watched on a channel available to me as a subscriber to Australia’s Foxtel which would not be a iseful link to 99+% of foreigners. But I provided the information which 10 seconds of intelligent Googling could have used to bring up at least a summary and more detailed identification of the program, as I have just proved. I make no inference as to whether your neglect reflects on your intelligence, laziness or merely lack of real interest in pursuimg truth once you have uttered your opinion.
     

    Fine, your failure to provide any link is proof of MY laziness. You request my opinion on a documentary film and provide no link, and my failure to go searching for what you referred to says something about me. But the key point is that you are asked for proof and provide none. Then the problem is that I am the lazy person because I don't go searching for the proof that you are supposed to provide.

    The last time we interacted, I provided you a link to a fake ISIS beheading video. Rather than actually look at it, you started arguing on a priori grounds that the video is genuine.

    Anyway, I requested proof of the Osama Bin Laden story -- on the basis of which a war was launched and probably hundreds of thousands of people ended up dead. The above does not comprise any such proof.

    3. As to your excessively restricted and oddly off centre question referring to a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan I note that “orchestrated” is a careless and irrelevant word
     

    Well, as Steve Martin was wont to say: "Well, excuuuuuuuuse me!" You have no proof of the Osama Bin Laden story so you're just nitpicking about words, right?

    I accept that Al Qaeda was for some years before and after 2001 by far the most significant and dangerous, though somewhat flexibly structured, of Muslim terrorist organisations which regarded America as the great enemy and that Osama bin Laden was at least part time executive chairman and the inspirer of a lot of its planning and attacks.
     

    Well, the above really gets to the heart of what an idiotic shit eater you are. You just have zero concept of narrative and how a narrative is prefigured. Obviously, in the period running up to the event, the Mockingbird controlled MSM was going on and on about Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and what a threat they were. Of course! They were establishing the story in the public's mind.

    The rest of your verbiage in point 3 is just "beg the question fallacy" nonsense. You repeat the story as proof of the story. No, the story cannot be proof of the story. You were asked for proof and provided none.

    4. Your repetition of the old saw about such steelframed buildings never having come down like that without a controlled explosion is, to put it politely, obtuse since you were being asked to consider a documentary which dealt with that problem and had simply chosen to ignore it.
     

    My repetition of the old saw that pigs don't fly is "obtuse" and it is presumptuous of me to say that pigs cannot fly when I didn't watch the flying pigs documentary that you linked. (NOT.)

    The fact remains that the only way to get a steel-framed skyscraper to implode in a nearly perfectly symmetrical manner is by hiring experts to execute a controlled demolition. This is a very simple point to understand and I have never heard any refutation of this.

    5. I have previously described the essence of another very convincing documentary (also easily findable I have no doubt) which dealt with all the WTC 7 furphies.
     

    Easily findable, yet you provide no link, which is further proof, no doubt, of how lazy I am.

    Regardless, just waving your hands and saying that some documentary exists and provides a convincing argument and not even providing a link to the documentary -- you are not providing any proof.

    6. Most damning of the judgment of any believer in WTC 7′s collapse as being proof of conspiracy and cover up is that it just doesn’t make sense.>
     

    Ah, this argument... it didn't "make sense" to blow up WTC7 in a controlled demolition, therefore they did not do it.

    It would not have made any sense for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. Therefore they didn't. Except they did. And whoever was behind the 9/11 psy op blew up WTC 7 in a controlled demolition. It's on film.

    Anyway, this "argument" of yours provides no proof of the Bin Laden/Al Qaeda story either.

    7. Finally there is what your reply confirms about you and also suggests. No one who uses the insulting language you do while delivering magisterial judgments has ever held a responsible, let alone important, position or one un which he successfully persuaded people of anything.
     

    Go fuck yourself, you pathetic shit eater.

    Anyway, I have asked you and your fellow shit eaters what the proof is of this story, Osama Bin Laden... Al Qaeda... and none of you ever provide any sort of argument that withstands the proverbial laugh test.

    Either provide some proof or recognize that a war was launched and hundreds of thousands of people were killed and/or disfigured -- all based on some cock and bull story, for which there is not the slightest of bit of real proof.

    , @Bugg
    9/11 Truthers fail to account for planes loaded with highly-flammable jet fuel crashing into a huge office complex filled with also highly-flammable paper, plaster, pressed and treated wood, plastic furniture and materials, is going to burn at a high temperature. And 7 WTC had another component, which is a basement with heating oil. If there was a "controlled demolition" that would mean somebody planted explosives inside an office complex which had almost 100K visitors and employees enter it every week, and do so under the noses of NYPD, the FBI, the PAPD, the office of NY state governor and numerous other governmental agencies who had offices on site. These morons have eaten too much thermite paint.
  99. @Winston Smith
    Yup !

    They had planned these continuously since the '40's.

    See "To Win a Nuclear War".

    Hillary was NEVER an anti-war Radical in the'60'5 nor hated the military in the White House in the'90's."

    Indeed without her the wars of the '90's against Jugoslavia, Somalia and Ruanda may not have taken place.

    “war…against Ruanda (sic)” *What on earth are you talking about?!?*

    Read More
  100. @Priss Factor
    Didn't Gerald Posner prove that the bullets came from Oswald's gun?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYw0BZCB-Wg

    What makes me suspicious is Ruby killing Oswald.

    I think the Mob panicked and feared Oswald would blab about it. So, it had Ruby take out Oswald.

    There were certainly groups that hated Kennedy and even grumbled about 'doing something'.
    But it was just talk. Oswald, a self-made 'agent' like Travis Bickle, decided to play and infiltrate all groups. He joined with Marxists, rightists, Cubans, the Mob, etc. In his mind, he was like a super-agent playing everyone against everyone. But no one was impressed. They told him to get lost.
    So, to prove his worth, he did the Big Thing. He proved himself by walking the walk while others only talked the talk.

    The Mob had no contract out on Kennedy, but it knew Oswald had rubbed shoulders with some mob members. They feared Oswald would blab and say crazy things. Better to have him rubbed out.

    If there were just one dominant conspiracy theory, I would consider it. But there are theories that implicate EVERYONE.
    CIA, FBI, PENTAGON, KGB, JOHNSON, GOP, DALLAS, MAFIA, CUBANS, CASTRO, LARRY HAGMAN, NEW ORLEANS FRUITCAKE, WHITE HOUSE DOG, ETC.

    I find it incredible that so many were involved and no one blabbed.

    Maybe the anti-conspiracy people willfully undermined the conspiracy theorizing by encouraging more of it. With so many different versions, it led to conspiracy fatigue and confusion.

    Roger Stone says Johnson did it. Johnson was a sleazy guy but having the audacity to plot the assassination of a president?

    If there was a conspiracy, it would have been small and tight.

    But people like Oliver Stone say everyone was involved. All those people involved and no one blew the whistle?

    So, who dun it? I say Oswald. But given all the media and government lies, I suppose anything is possible. But that isn't good enough to prove conspiracy. Look how close to Reagan came to being shot and killed. Shit happens.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xichkLr14Vg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFvNGb7bk30

    Well lets see he was taking on the Federal Reserve ordering the printing of millions in Federal notes,he was gunning for the C.I.A. saying he wished he could break it into a hundred different pieces,he had been invited to Moscow which he had accepted going in Feb. after his re-election,as he said “I’m going to put the cold war to bed for there are no reasons that two different ideologies can’t exist in the same world” and of course he was withdrawing American troops from Nam,within a year not an American would have remained and Lol you think Oswald the patsy did it and of course all those records over a million so I read are sealed until 2029 which in itself should tell you something,from everything I have read on the subject the following agencies were involved his Secret Service JC’S who hated him the C.I.A. which also hated him the bankers at the Fed. elements of the F.B.I. in the cover up.BUT TO EACH HIS OWN I PRESUME.!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Watch this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBR0x9Kr2LU

    Here's the problem. Everyone is implicated.

    Roger Stone says LBJ did it.

    Another guy blames Allen Dulles.

    And other theorists blame others.

    It's like everyone has a pet theory.

    A conspiracy small enough can succeed.

    A conspiracy that involves EVERYONE cannot.

    You imply that all the anti-Kennedy forces came together to carry it out.

    What are the chances of so many conspiring to kill the president? I mean we are talking cold-blooded murder of the president.

    Lincoln was killed by a small tight conspiracy.

    Kennedy theorists try to tie everyone together.

    Now, when we look at Iraq War and the anti-Trump crusade, it is apparent that there can be a vast power-elite-collusion in government, media, various agencies, and etc to spread lies and destroy a nation or an individual.

    But the idea of all those people going along with the cold-blooded killing of a president seems far-fetched.

    If Kennedy was done in by a conspiracy, it had to have been rogue elements. A very tight operation.

  101. Ron,

    since you have real-time communication ability with Galbraith, does he have any response to the now-online Net Evaluation Subcommittee material from that meeting that I linked above?

    Galbraith seems to still be assuming that his article from 20 years ago is correct in suggesting that Kennedy was “presented with a nuclear [first] strike plan” on July 20, 1961 even though the meeting documents, if genuine, appear to directly contradict that, and also indicate that his interpretation of the Burris memo (the basis of the first-strike claim) was off-base. The quotations from Dean Rusk et al in his article are also consistent with the straightforward reading of the FOIA document disclosures as showing that the meeting was about a USSR first strike, and then Kennedy (and possibly others) raised the question of what a US first strike would look like. That is very different from “Kennedy was presented with a nuclear strike plan”.

    As to your point that

    “It just seems odd that a government committee including lots of smart, well-educated people could put a lot of time and effort into analyzing a theoretically-impossible attack scenario.”,

    To those charged with the defense of the country, analysis of a USSR first strike is of obvious importance for many reasons, some of which are apparent from the published parts of the report. It is the worst case scenario, therefore of interest; mapping it out led to a better understanding of weaknesses in the US preparations and response system; and nothing is “theoretically impossible”. A coup could have installed new leaders in Moscow who might not have gotten the memo about what is and is not theoretically impossible for them.

    Re: the MSM silence, there was nothing scandalous for them to be silent about if the meeting was about a USSR first strike, and this appears to be the case on present evidence. Again, I would like to hear Galbraith address that directly with reference to the NukeVault online PDF files.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Actually, after getting his note, I directed him to your very interesting and well-informed reference to those declassified documents supporting the "USSR first strike" interpretation of the meeting, strongly suggesting that he take a look, and he said he would try to do so.

    I would still argue that the notion of a pre-MIRVed first strike by a small number of ICBMs upon a much large number of (reasonably dispersed) ICBMs is a logical impossibility, but fully grant that important government committees sometimes do spend their time on that sort of thing.

    However, when I took a quick look at the links you'd provided, most of the documents seem to have only been declassified in the last few years, and the long analysis was published in 2014. Unless something similar had been available previously, I think that the TAP interpretation of the Burris Memo would have been enormously more plausible. So although in hindsight, it might very well be there was no discussion of plans for a US first strike and hence "no story," for two decades the evidence seemed more on the other side, and a huge potential story was totally ignored by the MSM. That last point was the central argument of my own article, and unless there was strong documentary evidence on the other side in 1993 or 1994, I think it still stands.
  102. @academic gossip
    Ron,

    since you have real-time communication ability with Galbraith, does he have any response to the now-online Net Evaluation Subcommittee material from that meeting that I linked above?

    Galbraith seems to still be assuming that his article from 20 years ago is correct in suggesting that Kennedy was "presented with a nuclear [first] strike plan" on July 20, 1961 even though the meeting documents, if genuine, appear to directly contradict that, and also indicate that his interpretation of the Burris memo (the basis of the first-strike claim) was off-base. The quotations from Dean Rusk et al in his article are also consistent with the straightforward reading of the FOIA document disclosures as showing that the meeting was about a USSR first strike, and then Kennedy (and possibly others) raised the question of what a US first strike would look like. That is very different from "Kennedy was presented with a nuclear strike plan".

    As to your point that

    "It just seems odd that a government committee including lots of smart, well-educated people could put a lot of time and effort into analyzing a theoretically-impossible attack scenario.",

    To those charged with the defense of the country, analysis of a USSR first strike is of obvious importance for many reasons, some of which are apparent from the published parts of the report. It is the worst case scenario, therefore of interest; mapping it out led to a better understanding of weaknesses in the US preparations and response system; and nothing is "theoretically impossible". A coup could have installed new leaders in Moscow who might not have gotten the memo about what is and is not theoretically impossible for them.

    Re: the MSM silence, there was nothing scandalous for them to be silent about if the meeting was about a USSR first strike, and this appears to be the case on present evidence. Again, I would like to hear Galbraith address that directly with reference to the NukeVault online PDF files.

    Actually, after getting his note, I directed him to your very interesting and well-informed reference to those declassified documents supporting the “USSR first strike” interpretation of the meeting, strongly suggesting that he take a look, and he said he would try to do so.

    I would still argue that the notion of a pre-MIRVed first strike by a small number of ICBMs upon a much large number of (reasonably dispersed) ICBMs is a logical impossibility, but fully grant that important government committees sometimes do spend their time on that sort of thing.

    However, when I took a quick look at the links you’d provided, most of the documents seem to have only been declassified in the last few years, and the long analysis was published in 2014. Unless something similar had been available previously, I think that the TAP interpretation of the Burris Memo would have been enormously more plausible. So although in hindsight, it might very well be there was no discussion of plans for a US first strike and hence “no story,” for two decades the evidence seemed more on the other side, and a huge potential story was totally ignored by the MSM. That last point was the central argument of my own article, and unless there was strong documentary evidence on the other side in 1993 or 1994, I think it still stands.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    ...that this story did not appear in the MSM, as well as the fact, that you think this - at least in hindsight - was an omisson. - Well, it would have appeared to be an omission for those who did not know then, what we seem to know now - had they known about it.
    On the other hand, there could well have been people, who already knew, what we seem to know now. - Insiders with good connections to the MSM, who told them not to worry about the reliability of the American Government - the world was already excited enough and in no short supply of informations, which could possibly stirr more of this unwanted fear and excitement.

    ...and there's a hard, there's a hard, there's a haarrd - : there's a hard rrain, gonna

    PS - I think it's perfectly reasonable, to dive deep into stories like yours. Espicially if done in such a cautious way it's - almost throughout, I'd say, - done on this blog, and not least by you.

    Jonathan Franzen in Purity was the last time, I've read something about nuclear arms, that won me over.
    Franzen's story about a nuclear warhead as party device is on a much smaller scale, though, but nevertheless...

    Interesting: Even Dylan (in the above quoted song) and Franzen - talk about the threats of nuclear weapons - a n d the media, at the same time, just like you do.
    Funny: In the case of Dylan, the interpretaion of the media-part might be something, that appeared - in hindsight.
    - It would be interesting to find out from when on exactly the pellets of poison/ flooding the waters were understood as criticizing the media. I've read, that Dylan says, this happened right away. But I hesitate to trust him in this occasion.

    , @academic gossip

    first strike by a small number of ICBMs upon a much large number of (reasonably dispersed) ICBMs is a logical impossibility,
     
    Even if the only logical possibility for a first strike were more ICBMs destroying fewer ICBM's, this does not undermine the point (which is supported by all evidence presented so far), that the purpose of the July 20, 1961 meeting was to discuss a report on the nature and consequences of a USSR first strike. Not to present Kennedy with a plan for a US first strike.

    The report had been commissioned and written earlier based on older estimates of Soviet nuclear capability. The question of a missile gap was in flux at the time the report was developed, and was not settled (to a point where US supremacy in ICBM numbers become the likeliest assumption) until later.

    The declassified Net Evaluation Subcommittee report for 1961 (item 45a, see NukeVault link in my earlier comment) says that it used the 1960 National Intelligence Estimate, and that "in the last few weeks new estimates of Soviet forces have been published ... most significant change is a downward revision in the number of missiles on launchers". The 1961 National Intelligence Estimate was published September 21 and estimated "[USSR] force level in mid-1963 will approximate 75-125 operational ICBM launchers." The main factor in this new estimate seems to have been the Discoverer (Corona) spy satellites, especially the two flights in June 16 and July 7 of 1961, that did occur "a few weeks" before the July 20 meeting.

    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch5.htm#195 explains:

    "Kennedy ... appointed a deputy defense secretary, Roswell Gilpatric, who believed strongly that [missile] gap was real. On taking office in January 1961, Gilpatric and ... McNamara ... spent several days personally studying Discoverer photographs.

    Air Force held the view that Moscow was building large numbers of well-camouflaged missile sites. McNamara and Gilpatric, however, preferred the view of Army intelligence: that the Soviet ICBM, designated R-7, was very large and unwieldy and could move only by rail or military road. Discoverer satellites had taken photos along the Soviet Union's railroads and principal highways-and had found no missile launchers. In February, at an off-the-record press conference, ... McNamara replied that "there were no signs of a Soviet crash effort to build ICBMs." ... newspapers blossomed with the word that no such gap existed, and Kennedy himself had to step in, declaring that it was too early to draw such conclusions.

    Then in June and July, Discoverers 25 and 26 flew with nearly complete success. While they were only the third and fourth missions to return photos having intelligence value, together these four flights covered more than half of the regions suitable for ICBM deployment. Within this vast area, photo analysts found no more than two new and previously unsuspected ICBM bases. .... it [became] possible to eliminate a number of "suspect" launch sites and to give a clear and definitive estimate of Moscow's ICBM strength."

    The other two intelligence-generating Discoverer missions were on 18 Aug 1960 and 7 Dec 1960. The second, and maybe also the first, was too late to impact the specification of the topic for 1961's NESC report.

    The other source of hard evidence on USSR launcher numbers was U-2 surveillance.
    As of May 1960 when Gary Powers' U-2 reconnaissance flight was shot down, the missile gap was considered an unresolved question, the resolution of which had become the main purpose of the U-2 flights. There were 23 flights before Powers, covering 15 percent of USSR territory.
    U-2 flights did not resume until October 1960, again too late to change the topic of the 1961 NESC analysis.

    It is unclear how much of the U-2 data would have been made available for the analysis. Eisenhower treated the existence of U-2 flights over Russia as extremely sensitive information revealed only to an inner circle. Certainly it was in the interest of the leaders of the nuclear defense establishment to maintain the impression that a missile gap existed. It is not clear that the analysts at NESc writing the annual report would have been informed of U2-based intelligence when the report was to be presented to over 40 people at the National Security Council meeting (43 were on the list and Bundy wrote that the number used to be larger than that in earlier years), including civilians and one former journalist (Murrow).

    What about human intelligence? "The CIA had not a single spy case officer in the Soviet Union
    in those days. It was long after Gary Powers was shot down before they got the first one in the
    Soviet Union". (And skepticism of the earlier "bomber gap" had come from a CIA economic analysis of bomber production capability, not spying. For both items, see
    https://www.jfklibrary.org/~/media/assets/Education%20and%20Public%20Programs/Forum%20Transcripts/2011/2011%2009%2026%2050th%20Anniversary%20of%20the%20Missile%20Gap%20Controversy.pdf )

    Whether there was a missile gap was not a settled question within the US defense establishment as late as September 1961, according to Kaplan's article:

    "At the [Sept 20, 1961] meeting nobody addressed these questions. According to the minutes, General [Thomas] Power [head of Strategic Air Command] spent most of the time claiming that the Soviets had hidden away "many times more" missiles than the CIA's spy photos had indicated—a point that Lemnitzer and Taylor disputed."

    Gen. Curtis Lemay, who was present at the July 20 meeting with JFK, had expressed similar doubts earlier about the U-2 reconnaissance data:

    "LeMay argued that the large stocks of missiles were in the areas not photographed by the U-2s, and arguments broke out over the Soviet factory capability in an effort to estimate their production rate."

    The official US position on this issue did not harden until late 1961. To solve the Berlin Crisis, the US notified the USSR (and the world) that it did not believe in a missile gap. From Kaplan's article:

    "Finally Kennedy decided to send his own message to Khrushchev—a warning. On October 21, on Kennedy's orders, Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric gave a speech in Hot Springs, Virginia, that let everyone know for the first time—and let Khrushchev know we knew—that there was no missile gap. He revealed how many nuclear weapons we had, emphasized that the arsenal would be second to none even after a Soviet attack, and said, "The Iron Curtain is not so impenetrable as to force us to accept at face value the Kremlin's boasts."

    The NASA.gov history is very informative and makes it clear that the Air Force / SAC idea of hidden missiles was not entirely wrong; the Russian strategy was to hold ICBMs at hidden bases unknown to the Americans, but that was no longer practicable after the advent of spy satellites.

    Unless Galbraith has some fundamentally new information that he did not reveal earlier, there seems to be "no story" here.

  103. @cthulhu
    Nuclear policy is an important thread through Richard Rhodes' brilliant Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. It is very clear that from the beginning, SAC under Curtis LeMay planned for a first strike on the Soviet Union. However, one would expect that; it was part of their job. What you're describing sounds to me along the lines of plans that should be made for completeness, not really as an expected viable option.

    More worrying to me was the documented behavior of Thomas Power, LeMay's successor as head of SAC, during the Cuban missile crisis. Power went outside of his legitimate authority several times in apparent attempts to provoke the Soviets, such as broadcasting inflammatory messages in the clear, and flying bombers closer to Soviet airspace than normal. According to Rhodes, Power was considered mentally unstable by some officers under his command.

    I agree that it would be useful for all of us to understand and have ready access to how our government officials thought and planned during the first decades of the Cold War. Rhodes had access to Soviet archives as well for his book, although apparently those sources have been withdrawn in the Putin era. Superpower confrontation looks like much less of a concern than back then, but nuclear policy is still one of the most important elements of our country's defense strategy.

    As far as the military dreaming up first strike or retaliate strikes does not bother me How ever when George Bush jr the United States president in a public speech claimed the right to strike 1st against anyone they felt like . This is where it became plain to me the United States had given up all hope of traveling the high moral ground . I thought this was a incredible stupid announcement . I had already noticed NATO was no different than the NAZi’s in Yugoslavia by initiating false flag attacks and reporting exaggerated lie after lie in their propaganda . So if some country such as Russia should finally consider they have might have a better chance to win if they bombed first . They just beat us with our own plan .

    Read More
  104. A nice paper on the US presstitutes:
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/16/americas-journalistic-hypocrites/
    “The view of terrorism is selective… Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. “allies” in the Persian Gulf have aided and abetted terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, in the war against the largely secular government of Syria. That support for violent subversion followed the U.S. media’s demonization of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”
    A special attention for a too-obviously whoring Kristof:
    “Note the selectivity of Kristof’s moral outrage. He doesn’t call for a U.S. invasion of Israel/Palestine to protect the Palestinians from Israel’s periodic “mowing the grass” operations. Nor does he suggest bombing the Saudi airfields to prevent the kingdom’s continued bombing of Yemenis. And, he doesn’t protest the U.S.-instigated slaughter in Iraq where hundreds of thousands of people perished, nor does he cite the seemingly endless U.S. war in Afghanistan.
    Like many other mainstream pundits, Kristof tailors his humanitarianism to the cause of U.S. global dominance. After all, how long do you think Kristof would last as a well-paid [presstitute] columnist if he advocated a “no-fly zone” inside Israel or a military intervention against Saudi Arabia?”

    Read More
  105. @Ron Unz
    Actually, after getting his note, I directed him to your very interesting and well-informed reference to those declassified documents supporting the "USSR first strike" interpretation of the meeting, strongly suggesting that he take a look, and he said he would try to do so.

    I would still argue that the notion of a pre-MIRVed first strike by a small number of ICBMs upon a much large number of (reasonably dispersed) ICBMs is a logical impossibility, but fully grant that important government committees sometimes do spend their time on that sort of thing.

    However, when I took a quick look at the links you'd provided, most of the documents seem to have only been declassified in the last few years, and the long analysis was published in 2014. Unless something similar had been available previously, I think that the TAP interpretation of the Burris Memo would have been enormously more plausible. So although in hindsight, it might very well be there was no discussion of plans for a US first strike and hence "no story," for two decades the evidence seemed more on the other side, and a huge potential story was totally ignored by the MSM. That last point was the central argument of my own article, and unless there was strong documentary evidence on the other side in 1993 or 1994, I think it still stands.

    …that this story did not appear in the MSM, as well as the fact, that you think this – at least in hindsight – was an omisson. – Well, it would have appeared to be an omission for those who did not know then, what we seem to know now – had they known about it.
    On the other hand, there could well have been people, who already knew, what we seem to know now. – Insiders with good connections to the MSM, who told them not to worry about the reliability of the American Government – the world was already excited enough and in no short supply of informations, which could possibly stirr more of this unwanted fear and excitement.

    …and there’s a hard, there’s a hard, there’s a haarrd – : there’s a hard rrain, gonna

    PS – I think it’s perfectly reasonable, to dive deep into stories like yours. Espicially if done in such a cautious way it’s – almost throughout, I’d say, – done on this blog, and not least by you.

    Jonathan Franzen in Purity was the last time, I’ve read something about nuclear arms, that won me over.
    Franzen’s story about a nuclear warhead as party device is on a much smaller scale, though, but nevertheless…

    Interesting: Even Dylan (in the above quoted song) and Franzen – talk about the threats of nuclear weapons – a n d the media, at the same time, just like you do.
    Funny: In the case of Dylan, the interpretaion of the media-part might be something, that appeared – in hindsight.
    - It would be interesting to find out from when on exactly the pellets of poison/ flooding the waters were understood as criticizing the media. I’ve read, that Dylan says, this happened right away. But I hesitate to trust him in this occasion.

    Read More
  106. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @bluedog
    Well lets see he was taking on the Federal Reserve ordering the printing of millions in Federal notes,he was gunning for the C.I.A. saying he wished he could break it into a hundred different pieces,he had been invited to Moscow which he had accepted going in Feb. after his re-election,as he said "I'm going to put the cold war to bed for there are no reasons that two different ideologies can't exist in the same world" and of course he was withdrawing American troops from Nam,within a year not an American would have remained and Lol you think Oswald the patsy did it and of course all those records over a million so I read are sealed until 2029 which in itself should tell you something,from everything I have read on the subject the following agencies were involved his Secret Service JC'S who hated him the C.I.A. which also hated him the bankers at the Fed. elements of the F.B.I. in the cover up.BUT TO EACH HIS OWN I PRESUME.!!

    Watch this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBR0x9Kr2LU

    Here’s the problem. Everyone is implicated.

    Roger Stone says LBJ did it.

    Another guy blames Allen Dulles.

    And other theorists blame others.

    It’s like everyone has a pet theory.

    A conspiracy small enough can succeed.

    A conspiracy that involves EVERYONE cannot.

    You imply that all the anti-Kennedy forces came together to carry it out.

    What are the chances of so many conspiring to kill the president? I mean we are talking cold-blooded murder of the president.

    Lincoln was killed by a small tight conspiracy.

    Kennedy theorists try to tie everyone together.

    Now, when we look at Iraq War and the anti-Trump crusade, it is apparent that there can be a vast power-elite-collusion in government, media, various agencies, and etc to spread lies and destroy a nation or an individual.

    But the idea of all those people going along with the cold-blooded killing of a president seems far-fetched.

    If Kennedy was done in by a conspiracy, it had to have been rogue elements. A very tight operation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Watch this video...What are the chances of so many conspiring to kill the president? I mean we are talking cold-blooded murder of the president.
     
    Well, maybe I'll watch the video when I have a little time...

    But my guess is that the informational content of a book is something like 100x that of a video. Perhaps a video is a useful summary or teaser, but that's about it.

    I've noticed that a certain commenter called "Anonymny" seems to have cluttered up this thread with a huge number of comments, many of them containing videos and nearly all of them totally vacuous and often ignorant.

    Although I read only a tiny slice of the comment-threads on this website, I've noticed that "Anonymny" seems to produce such a tremendous outpouring of commentary, I'd assume that he/she spends nearly every waking hour writing extremely long-winded comments on websites, most of them off-topic, random, ignorant, insulting, rhetorical, and often vacuous, though admittedly sometimes amusing. Actually that's wrong---maybe a few hours each week are spent watching old movies, especially THE GODFATHER.

    Given the enormous volume of comments, I wonder whether "Anonymny" has ever read a single book...
  107. MIRVs don’t really have much to do with a first strike. they were developed because the priesthood came to believe (based on sound analysis) that the high yield weapons in the US arsenal were actually not that effective because most of the yield would just go up in the air. To best destroy a given area, it’s better to hit it with (say) 6-12 300-500 kt warheads than one 1o or 20 mt warhead. (For a while, US ICBMs had 9 MT warheads, while we deployed gravity bombs as large as 25 mt).

    There is an idea that MIRVs can better defeat ABM rockets, which may be true, but nobody ever developed a system good enough to defeat hundreds or thousands, so that issue is moot.

    However, the problem with MIRVs is that they make an ICBM a more tempting first strike target. If you can take out 10-12 warheads in one missile, rather than 1:1, you will be more tempted to try, so the theory goes. This is the ostensible reason why the US abandoned MIRVs (for land based) even after the very expensive development of the MX.

    Anyway, the real guarantor of the peace is the SLBM. Once you have that, you have a more or less certain second strike capability, and once you have that, you make a first strike (on you) much less likely. There was a very brief period in the early ’60s when we had that and the Russian didn’t. I would not be surprised of some Air Force general said “Hey, let’s grab this opportunity while we can!” (Actually, the Russians developed it first, but the technology was very bad, and ours were on operational patrol for several before they deployed a reliable combination of SSBN and SLBM.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    MIRVs don’t really have much to do with a first strike.
     
    Well, perhaps I'm missing something. But suppose Country A has 20 non-MIRVed ICBMs and Country B has 50 reasonably dispersed ICBMs. Isn't it logically impossible for A to launch an effective first strike against B since at most only 20 ICBMs would be destroyed in the attack and the remainder could retaliate by destroying A's cities? But if the ICBMs were MIRVed, then depending upon the dispersal separation, perhaps A might be able to destroy all the B warheads in a first strike.

    The point is that during the period in question, no warheads were MIRVed and America had vastly more ICBMs than Russia, so while an American first strike might succeed, the converse was a logical impossibility. Isn't that the case?
    , @Kiza
    You appear to have been associated with US strategic nuclear weapons because you understand MIRVs (a distant equivalent of conventional carpet bombing). However, your conclusion that some mad airforce general may have considered utilising the US nuclear advantage is a dangerously wrong perception you acquired somewhere along the way in your career. The value of Ron's consideration with this article is that it disputes that, I would call it, a stupid US perception that the political level in the US has always been against the use of nuclear weapons, whilst it was only the "mad generals" such as Curtis Le May who advocated their use.

    This is a dangerous misconception for quite obvious reasons: because it is the US voters who may have a small chance of pulling the political leadership back - by not voting for the mad haters such as Hillary.
  108. @manton
    MIRVs don't really have much to do with a first strike. they were developed because the priesthood came to believe (based on sound analysis) that the high yield weapons in the US arsenal were actually not that effective because most of the yield would just go up in the air. To best destroy a given area, it's better to hit it with (say) 6-12 300-500 kt warheads than one 1o or 20 mt warhead. (For a while, US ICBMs had 9 MT warheads, while we deployed gravity bombs as large as 25 mt).

    There is an idea that MIRVs can better defeat ABM rockets, which may be true, but nobody ever developed a system good enough to defeat hundreds or thousands, so that issue is moot.

    However, the problem with MIRVs is that they make an ICBM a more tempting first strike target. If you can take out 10-12 warheads in one missile, rather than 1:1, you will be more tempted to try, so the theory goes. This is the ostensible reason why the US abandoned MIRVs (for land based) even after the very expensive development of the MX.

    Anyway, the real guarantor of the peace is the SLBM. Once you have that, you have a more or less certain second strike capability, and once you have that, you make a first strike (on you) much less likely. There was a very brief period in the early '60s when we had that and the Russian didn't. I would not be surprised of some Air Force general said "Hey, let's grab this opportunity while we can!" (Actually, the Russians developed it first, but the technology was very bad, and ours were on operational patrol for several before they deployed a reliable combination of SSBN and SLBM.)

    MIRVs don’t really have much to do with a first strike.

    Well, perhaps I’m missing something. But suppose Country A has 20 non-MIRVed ICBMs and Country B has 50 reasonably dispersed ICBMs. Isn’t it logically impossible for A to launch an effective first strike against B since at most only 20 ICBMs would be destroyed in the attack and the remainder could retaliate by destroying A’s cities? But if the ICBMs were MIRVed, then depending upon the dispersal separation, perhaps A might be able to destroy all the B warheads in a first strike.

    The point is that during the period in question, no warheads were MIRVed and America had vastly more ICBMs than Russia, so while an American first strike might succeed, the converse was a logical impossibility. Isn’t that the case?

    Read More
    • Replies: @manton
    Yes, one of the things you're missing is that the overwhelming number of weapons in both arsenals in those days were in the form of air-dropped bombs. Neither side had nearly enough missiles to destroy the other with missiles alone. Then you have the problem of reliability (both on launch and accuracy at the other end). So the nuclear force was a still a bomber force. The USAF had a ginormous number of bombers for just this purpose. It was expected that many of them would get shredded by Soviet air defenses, but sheer numbers would overwhelm the Russians' ability to counter. The Russian strategy was basically the same.

    MIRVs are not that helpful in destroying missiles in silos because they are not accurate enough and because the "spread" of one squadron's silos will be dispersed enough that one launcher's MIRVs won't be able to spread out far enough to get them all. MIRVs are designed to blanket a large city or industrial area with (say) 10 300 kt warheads, so 3 mt total. This is much more destructive than (say) one 9 mt W-53 atop a Titan II. Think of it like this. You can fill a big balloon full of 9 liters of paint and drop it on a poster. It will make a big splash but not cover more than half the poster. Or you can drop 10 small balloons with only 300 ml of paint each in a strategic pattern, and be sure of covering almost the entire board.
  109. You, the US citizens, are discussing why the media did not pick up the story of the planning for the First Strike. But the Soviets did not need to read the US media or even to have spies inside the US administration to know that such concrete strategic plans existed. Instead, every time the US would create a military technology power gap, that is upped the game of nuclear brinkmanship, the USSR would work feverishly to close the gap and its window of “opportunity”. As someone said long ago – Soviets and US were from the same cultural milieu and understood each other fairly well. I think that the Soviets would have been much less surprised that real First Strike plan(s) existed, if they did not already know that they existed. We should consider the Soviet thinking when placing the nuclear missiles in Cuba, why? Would it not make sense that this was in response to a perceived US nuclear advantage (which this Kennedy First Strike plan considered exploiting), not an offensive move then a defensive one?

    Putting the whole Cold War nuclear confrontation into perspective, from the Soviet side it was a constant catch up game, constant closing of the window which would give too much time to the US President to consider the possibility of the First Strike. After all, this time period was when the development of the game theory was initiated.

    Did Soviets have a First Strike plan? Probably yes, but their plans would have had much costlier “win” outcomes because USSR never had a nuclear advantage over US. This could, perhaps, support the notion that USSR was less than a willing participant in the nuclear race.

    But the timing of the issue Ron raised is just perfect, considering that after a several decade long match in nuclear power, the US is embarking on opening up a new nuclear gap and a new window of “opportunity” for the First Strike. A cool trillion on dial-the-yield miniaturised nukes and ABMD are just two of the new gap-opening defense=offense technologies.

    Will it ever dawn on the average US citizen Joe that neither USSR nor Russia were ever a threat to US then only vice versa. And the US thinking has not evolved to any better over the years. It is either same old, same old (Cold War) or even worse (Clintonism).

    Read More
  110. @Priss Factor
    Watch this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBR0x9Kr2LU

    Here's the problem. Everyone is implicated.

    Roger Stone says LBJ did it.

    Another guy blames Allen Dulles.

    And other theorists blame others.

    It's like everyone has a pet theory.

    A conspiracy small enough can succeed.

    A conspiracy that involves EVERYONE cannot.

    You imply that all the anti-Kennedy forces came together to carry it out.

    What are the chances of so many conspiring to kill the president? I mean we are talking cold-blooded murder of the president.

    Lincoln was killed by a small tight conspiracy.

    Kennedy theorists try to tie everyone together.

    Now, when we look at Iraq War and the anti-Trump crusade, it is apparent that there can be a vast power-elite-collusion in government, media, various agencies, and etc to spread lies and destroy a nation or an individual.

    But the idea of all those people going along with the cold-blooded killing of a president seems far-fetched.

    If Kennedy was done in by a conspiracy, it had to have been rogue elements. A very tight operation.

    Watch this video…What are the chances of so many conspiring to kill the president? I mean we are talking cold-blooded murder of the president.

    Well, maybe I’ll watch the video when I have a little time…

    But my guess is that the informational content of a book is something like 100x that of a video. Perhaps a video is a useful summary or teaser, but that’s about it.

    I’ve noticed that a certain commenter called “Anonymny” seems to have cluttered up this thread with a huge number of comments, many of them containing videos and nearly all of them totally vacuous and often ignorant.

    Although I read only a tiny slice of the comment-threads on this website, I’ve noticed that “Anonymny” seems to produce such a tremendous outpouring of commentary, I’d assume that he/she spends nearly every waking hour writing extremely long-winded comments on websites, most of them off-topic, random, ignorant, insulting, rhetorical, and often vacuous, though admittedly sometimes amusing. Actually that’s wrong—maybe a few hours each week are spent watching old movies, especially THE GODFATHER.

    Given the enormous volume of comments, I wonder whether “Anonymny” has ever read a single book…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Given the enormous volume of comments, I wonder whether “Anonymny” has ever read a single book…"

    I read THE GODFATHER.

    Not as good as FORTUNATE PILGRIM but lots of fun. But movie is better.

    But SICILIAN the novel is much better than the movie by Cimino.

    We are not supposed to read anymore. Books are for geeks.

    Cinema is the art of the 20th century. Unfortunately, youtube is the art of the 21st century.

    Everything you need to learn and know is in the movies.

    Movies are like Tony Montana when he says "I always speak the truth... even when I lie."

    Movies always tell the truth... even when they lie. You just have to know how to 'read' it.

    Bookies? That's for losers.

    Why read THE FOUNTAINHEAD when you can watch it as a movie, esp with Cooper and Neal burning up the screen?

  111. @manton
    MIRVs don't really have much to do with a first strike. they were developed because the priesthood came to believe (based on sound analysis) that the high yield weapons in the US arsenal were actually not that effective because most of the yield would just go up in the air. To best destroy a given area, it's better to hit it with (say) 6-12 300-500 kt warheads than one 1o or 20 mt warhead. (For a while, US ICBMs had 9 MT warheads, while we deployed gravity bombs as large as 25 mt).

    There is an idea that MIRVs can better defeat ABM rockets, which may be true, but nobody ever developed a system good enough to defeat hundreds or thousands, so that issue is moot.

    However, the problem with MIRVs is that they make an ICBM a more tempting first strike target. If you can take out 10-12 warheads in one missile, rather than 1:1, you will be more tempted to try, so the theory goes. This is the ostensible reason why the US abandoned MIRVs (for land based) even after the very expensive development of the MX.

    Anyway, the real guarantor of the peace is the SLBM. Once you have that, you have a more or less certain second strike capability, and once you have that, you make a first strike (on you) much less likely. There was a very brief period in the early '60s when we had that and the Russian didn't. I would not be surprised of some Air Force general said "Hey, let's grab this opportunity while we can!" (Actually, the Russians developed it first, but the technology was very bad, and ours were on operational patrol for several before they deployed a reliable combination of SSBN and SLBM.)

    You appear to have been associated with US strategic nuclear weapons because you understand MIRVs (a distant equivalent of conventional carpet bombing). However, your conclusion that some mad airforce general may have considered utilising the US nuclear advantage is a dangerously wrong perception you acquired somewhere along the way in your career. The value of Ron’s consideration with this article is that it disputes that, I would call it, a stupid US perception that the political level in the US has always been against the use of nuclear weapons, whilst it was only the “mad generals” such as Curtis Le May who advocated their use.

    This is a dangerous misconception for quite obvious reasons: because it is the US voters who may have a small chance of pulling the political leadership back – by not voting for the mad haters such as Hillary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    This is a dangerous misconception for quite obvious reasons: because it is the US voters who may have a small chance of pulling the political leadership back – by not voting for the mad haters such as Hillary.
     
    Well, perhaps America is far past the point of half-measures...

    From what I've read, countries in Europe during the Middle Ages that were suffering from sufficiently bad misrule might occasionally offer their throne to a foreign monarch, hoping that he might clean up the terrible mess.

    So perhaps a delegation of American notables should travel to Moscow offering the American crown to Putin, allowing him to establish himself as Vladimir I of a newly-born Dual Monarchy (or Co-Dominion in Jerry Pournelle's SF). He seems to have done a pretty solid job with Russia, and having faced the dreadful Yeltsin Aftermath, he'd at least have a bit of experience in handling our vastly more serious problems.

    If he brought along a few hundred experienced KGB agents, they could help him round up and liquidate all the "bad people" who currently infest our unfortunate country...though considering the enormous size of that task, perhaps a couple of KGB divisions would be more appropriate...
  112. @Wizard of Oz
    My response will be in several discrete parts. I note that you characterise the TV doco I referred to as containing pseudo science without your having bothered to find out what it says! Not a good start for the credibility of someone who, despite repeated demonstrations of incompetence seems to wish portray himself as a persuader.

    1. My recollection of events and controversies connected to the twin towers attack was refreshed recently by a long conversation with a very experienced British TV documentary producer who is preparing for a program about 9/11 which I recall as being centred on the Saudi connection. He is dismissive of standard truther theories which have been disproven as the WTC 7 red herring has been. More on that below.

    2. I didn't provide a link because I watched on a channel available to me as a subscriber to Australia's Foxtel which would not be a iseful link to 99+% of foreigners. But I provided the information which 10 seconds of intelligent Googling could have used to bring up at least a summary and more detailed identification of the program, as I have just proved. I make no inference as to whether your neglect reflects on your intelligence, laziness or merely lack of real interest in pursuimg truth once you have uttered your opinion.

    3. As to your excessively restricted and oddly off centre question referring to a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan I note that "orchestrated" is a careless and irrelevant word and I doubt that it or its equivalent appears in any important official document. I accept that Al Qaeda was for some years before and after 2001 by far the most significant and dangerous, though somewhat flexibly structured, of Muslim terrorist organisations which regarded America as the great enemy and that Osama bin Laden was at least part time executive chairman and the inspirer of a lot of its planning and attacks. What precise connection he had with any of the highjackers who were recruited to make coordinated attacks, and whether he may have had a mate amongst slighted members of the Saudi Royals who may hsve helped with the flying school fees I don't know or regard as important. Do you and if so why? Any more than it greatly affects the story if Mossad had learned of the plot and chose not to disclose it.

    4. Your repetition of the old saw about such steelframed buildings never having come down like that without a controlled explosion is, to put it politely, obtuse since you were being asked to consider a documentary which dealt with that problem and had simply chosen to ignore it.

    5. I have previously described the essence of another very convincing documentary (also easily findable I have no doubt) which dealt with all the WTC 7 furphies. Something very hot and probably butning from the initial impacts on WTC 1 and/or 2 ignited fires in WTC 7 and film of that burning all day in an empty building was shown. While it took less than an hour for heat to weaken the core structures of buildings 1 and 2 where the fire resistant cladding may have been dislodged or been demolished by the molten aluminium explosions the fire in WTC 7 took all day to weaken the core framework from which the cladding had not been removed.

    6. Most damning of the judgment of any believer in WTC 7's collapse as being proof of conspiracy and cover up is that it just doesn't make sense. Even plotters to crash into the WTC (remembering that they could hardly have expected to bring them down) woulf pay s little more respect to Ockham's Razor and decide the job was difficult enough without having to organise for a minor WTC building to come down ss well, especially as no one would fail to notice that it hadn't been plowed into by a fuel laden aircraft.

    7. Finally there is what your reply confirms about you and also suggests. No one who uses the insulting language you do while delivering magisterial judgments has ever held a responsible, let alone important, position or one un which he successfully persuaded people of anything. It precludes successful practice of the law or any other learned profession - though not perhaps some temporary editing work or untenured assistant professorship at a minor liberal arts college. It wreaks of the indulged though not all that bright only son who is able to continue as brought up as apple of her eye by the modest inheritance he received from his mother. You really don't have a clue do you as to how your gratuitous and crude rudeness and grandiosity of opinionating paints the picture of you as a pathetic creature? (And don't bother to flatter yourself into thinking you should compete. As they say, when in a whole stop digging, you've given more than enough evidence of your inadequacies already).

    Building 7 was “pulled” which is the technical term for controlled demolition. Silverstein even used it in the video where he explains what happened. He was the insured owner of the complex.
    Building 7 was the control center of the whole operation. And was destroyed when its purpose ended.
    It also , as an added benefit, housed the archives of Enron. That was convenient.
    I do hold an extremely high position in……. So I will refrain from insulting your obvious lack of knowledge and consequently your poor cognitive skills. Truther….I kinda like that. Sucker on the other hand…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    The funniest thing about guys like you & Revusky is the way you adopt this de haut en bas attitude whenever addressing those who assume that the conventional wisdom on, say, the Kennedy Assassination, or 9/11, is more or less true.

    "I will refrain from insulting your obvious lack of knowledge and consequently your poor cognitive skills..." &c - you know, that sort of thing. (Revusky, of course, would add some obscenity-laced invective.)

    I mean, when you're arguing from a position of strength, you might be able to get away with that. But you're not arguing from a position of strength. You're arguing from a position of weakness. Practically everybody is either ignoring you or laughing at you.

    Just from the point of view of rhetorical effectiveness, why not consider the opposite approach? A modest approach?

    Start by saying something like this: "Well, probably I'm wrong, and maybe I'm crazy - but isn't it strange that..."

    ...followed by a dispassionate discussion of the physics of building 7, or whatever.

    Why not give it a try?
  113. @Kiza
    You appear to have been associated with US strategic nuclear weapons because you understand MIRVs (a distant equivalent of conventional carpet bombing). However, your conclusion that some mad airforce general may have considered utilising the US nuclear advantage is a dangerously wrong perception you acquired somewhere along the way in your career. The value of Ron's consideration with this article is that it disputes that, I would call it, a stupid US perception that the political level in the US has always been against the use of nuclear weapons, whilst it was only the "mad generals" such as Curtis Le May who advocated their use.

    This is a dangerous misconception for quite obvious reasons: because it is the US voters who may have a small chance of pulling the political leadership back - by not voting for the mad haters such as Hillary.

    This is a dangerous misconception for quite obvious reasons: because it is the US voters who may have a small chance of pulling the political leadership back – by not voting for the mad haters such as Hillary.

    Well, perhaps America is far past the point of half-measures…

    From what I’ve read, countries in Europe during the Middle Ages that were suffering from sufficiently bad misrule might occasionally offer their throne to a foreign monarch, hoping that he might clean up the terrible mess.

    So perhaps a delegation of American notables should travel to Moscow offering the American crown to Putin, allowing him to establish himself as Vladimir I of a newly-born Dual Monarchy (or Co-Dominion in Jerry Pournelle’s SF). He seems to have done a pretty solid job with Russia, and having faced the dreadful Yeltsin Aftermath, he’d at least have a bit of experience in handling our vastly more serious problems.

    If he brought along a few hundred experienced KGB agents, they could help him round up and liquidate all the “bad people” who currently infest our unfortunate country…though considering the enormous size of that task, perhaps a couple of KGB divisions would be more appropriate…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {...who currently infest our unfortunate country…}

    Well said Mr. Unz: it is an infestation.
    , @Kiza
    Hello Ron, I have heard this fascinating version of how Putin came to power, one of at least four different versions. I discussed it before with Israel Shamir. I give this story credibility only because Putin shows unexplicable deference to Yeltsin, for example he gave him a very impressive state funeral with a speech, even built him a museum.

    The story is that Yeltsin was under almost complete control of his wife who was Jewish and the member of the Russian Zioliberal clique. BTW, apparently this Russan "elite" was well plugged in into US Ziocons. Among other things, the Zioliberals (apparently both mother and daughter) fed him an endless supply of vodka whilst using him as a frontman. Apparently, when sober Yeltsin was aware of what was going on and, after he got too ill to continue, as a final counter-act (almost revenge) he selected this unknown former KGB officer Vladimir Putin. It appears that the Russian Zioliberals either underestimated the young politician (a nobody), maybe hubris was at work, or maybe they could not do much against Yeltsin's persnal appointment. The rest is history - the Russian Zioliberals got their behinds kicked after Putin introduced the Russia First rule (so similar to what Trump is promising). Putin most successfully managed to make the distinction between the Jews and the Zioliberals. He is a friend of Jews and an enemy of Ziocon/Zioliberals. He is not even against the mega-rich Jewish oligarchs as long as they show respect for the country in which they acquired wealth. It is law versus lawlessness of the kind that US has been experiencing more and more (The Clinton Law).

    My understanding is that this is the kind of Putin you would like to have as a President/boss/dictator if necessary. Someone who would be skilful enough to repeat the same hattrick but on a much bigger scale and complexity, which is the US. Can Trump be the Putin of US? There are huge differences between two men. Trump looks less of a Putin then Putin, whilst the US situation requires more of a Putin than Putin is.

    I do not know, but I like to dream that a Western Putin crawls out from somewhere and starts making the necessary changes to save US and the World from US.
  114. @Ron Unz

    MIRVs don’t really have much to do with a first strike.
     
    Well, perhaps I'm missing something. But suppose Country A has 20 non-MIRVed ICBMs and Country B has 50 reasonably dispersed ICBMs. Isn't it logically impossible for A to launch an effective first strike against B since at most only 20 ICBMs would be destroyed in the attack and the remainder could retaliate by destroying A's cities? But if the ICBMs were MIRVed, then depending upon the dispersal separation, perhaps A might be able to destroy all the B warheads in a first strike.

    The point is that during the period in question, no warheads were MIRVed and America had vastly more ICBMs than Russia, so while an American first strike might succeed, the converse was a logical impossibility. Isn't that the case?

    Yes, one of the things you’re missing is that the overwhelming number of weapons in both arsenals in those days were in the form of air-dropped bombs. Neither side had nearly enough missiles to destroy the other with missiles alone. Then you have the problem of reliability (both on launch and accuracy at the other end). So the nuclear force was a still a bomber force. The USAF had a ginormous number of bombers for just this purpose. It was expected that many of them would get shredded by Soviet air defenses, but sheer numbers would overwhelm the Russians’ ability to counter. The Russian strategy was basically the same.

    MIRVs are not that helpful in destroying missiles in silos because they are not accurate enough and because the “spread” of one squadron’s silos will be dispersed enough that one launcher’s MIRVs won’t be able to spread out far enough to get them all. MIRVs are designed to blanket a large city or industrial area with (say) 10 300 kt warheads, so 3 mt total. This is much more destructive than (say) one 9 mt W-53 atop a Titan II. Think of it like this. You can fill a big balloon full of 9 liters of paint and drop it on a poster. It will make a big splash but not cover more than half the poster. Or you can drop 10 small balloons with only 300 ml of paint each in a strategic pattern, and be sure of covering almost the entire board.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Yes, one of the things you’re missing is that the overwhelming number of weapons in both arsenals in those days were in the form of air-dropped bombs.
     
    Well, I think the argument made in the long Kaplan article was that the Soviet bomber fleet was judged largely ineffective in penetrating American airspace, especially after an American first strike had destroyed many of its airfields, and American air defenses were on top alert. Only the Soviet ICBMs were certain to get through, and there were merely a handful of them at that point, easy to destroy on the ground.

    Meanwhile, America's huge number of ICBMs could have easily survived a Soviet first strike and could have inflicted maximal damage in retaliation.

    I hadn't been aware of the targeting limitations of MIRVed warheads, but anyway they didn't exist in that era.
  115. I worry about a lot of things, including Hillary’s hair trigger. I don’t worry that she or any other current leader is going to get us into a nuclear war.

    But LeMay and some others talked seriously about it in the 50s and 60s. Lemnitzer for instance was willing to go that route with the Russian over Cuba but JFK said “no.” So it’s not a slag on the generals. Some of them believed this. Others did not. The point is that, thank God, in all cases in which it was seriously contemplated, the political leadership said “no.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    You keep insisting on this exclusively US widly-held missperception that a few generals are crazy about nukes whilst the politicians are (almost) all doves. Did a general or a President decide to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan? Do you consider the Russians so naive or even stupid to believe that the US political leadership is not prepared to use the First Strike if an opportunity opens up or if US creates a new one? The weaker the US becomes economically and militarily, the more likely is the First Strike by it on Russia and/or China. It was the US which developed the nuclear weapons first and kept getting ahead of USSR every couple of years, how can you claim the US nuclear forces were for defense? And so on.

    To cut this silly discussion short, you may convince yourself whatever you feel like, but personally I am sure that if Hillary wins Putin will be keeping his hand much closer to the proverbial launch button then if Trump wins. Maybe Putin's perception is something we need to worry about more than our own.
  116. @manton
    Yes, one of the things you're missing is that the overwhelming number of weapons in both arsenals in those days were in the form of air-dropped bombs. Neither side had nearly enough missiles to destroy the other with missiles alone. Then you have the problem of reliability (both on launch and accuracy at the other end). So the nuclear force was a still a bomber force. The USAF had a ginormous number of bombers for just this purpose. It was expected that many of them would get shredded by Soviet air defenses, but sheer numbers would overwhelm the Russians' ability to counter. The Russian strategy was basically the same.

    MIRVs are not that helpful in destroying missiles in silos because they are not accurate enough and because the "spread" of one squadron's silos will be dispersed enough that one launcher's MIRVs won't be able to spread out far enough to get them all. MIRVs are designed to blanket a large city or industrial area with (say) 10 300 kt warheads, so 3 mt total. This is much more destructive than (say) one 9 mt W-53 atop a Titan II. Think of it like this. You can fill a big balloon full of 9 liters of paint and drop it on a poster. It will make a big splash but not cover more than half the poster. Or you can drop 10 small balloons with only 300 ml of paint each in a strategic pattern, and be sure of covering almost the entire board.

    Yes, one of the things you’re missing is that the overwhelming number of weapons in both arsenals in those days were in the form of air-dropped bombs.

    Well, I think the argument made in the long Kaplan article was that the Soviet bomber fleet was judged largely ineffective in penetrating American airspace, especially after an American first strike had destroyed many of its airfields, and American air defenses were on top alert. Only the Soviet ICBMs were certain to get through, and there were merely a handful of them at that point, easy to destroy on the ground.

    Meanwhile, America’s huge number of ICBMs could have easily survived a Soviet first strike and could have inflicted maximal damage in retaliation.

    I hadn’t been aware of the targeting limitations of MIRVed warheads, but anyway they didn’t exist in that era.

    Read More
  117. @Ron Unz

    This is a dangerous misconception for quite obvious reasons: because it is the US voters who may have a small chance of pulling the political leadership back – by not voting for the mad haters such as Hillary.
     
    Well, perhaps America is far past the point of half-measures...

    From what I've read, countries in Europe during the Middle Ages that were suffering from sufficiently bad misrule might occasionally offer their throne to a foreign monarch, hoping that he might clean up the terrible mess.

    So perhaps a delegation of American notables should travel to Moscow offering the American crown to Putin, allowing him to establish himself as Vladimir I of a newly-born Dual Monarchy (or Co-Dominion in Jerry Pournelle's SF). He seems to have done a pretty solid job with Russia, and having faced the dreadful Yeltsin Aftermath, he'd at least have a bit of experience in handling our vastly more serious problems.

    If he brought along a few hundred experienced KGB agents, they could help him round up and liquidate all the "bad people" who currently infest our unfortunate country...though considering the enormous size of that task, perhaps a couple of KGB divisions would be more appropriate...

    {…who currently infest our unfortunate country…}

    Well said Mr. Unz: it is an infestation.

    Read More
  118. ICBMs are not that easy to destroy on the ground, and certainly not back then, when the ICBMs that would have been targeting them were extremely inaccurate. You can try with bombers, which are much more accurate, but the early warning system will see them coming for hours and there are many chances to shoot them down.

    Early ICBMs were ideal “counter value” weapons because who cares if you miss your intended ground zero by two miles? With a warhead in the megatons, it hardly matters. However, you have to hit an ICBM silo almost on the nose to have any chance of taking it out.

    There were two theories about how to protect ICBMs. (Well, four, but only two turned out to make any sense.) One was, move them around. The second was, harden the silos. To speak very broadly, the US opted for #1, the Soviets for #2. Now, there is no way to test this without nuking a silo. But the US eventually came to believe that we had hardened our Minuteman III silos to such a degree that only a direct hit had a chance of taking one out. In the JFK administration, there was absolutely no chance of such a direct hit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    That's quite interesting---like I said, this isn't my area of expertise.

    But given the supposed difficulty Soviets would have had in penetrating our air defenses, and the huge number of our counter-value ICBMs, I just can't see how a Soviet first strike would have been possible.

    Meanwhile, the Soviets had only a handful of counter-value ICBMs, so if we destroyed those plus many of their planes and our air defenses blocked the rest, an American first strike might have at least been reasonably possible.

    I'm just going by the Kaplan analysis, based on those declassified documents.
  119. @manton
    ICBMs are not that easy to destroy on the ground, and certainly not back then, when the ICBMs that would have been targeting them were extremely inaccurate. You can try with bombers, which are much more accurate, but the early warning system will see them coming for hours and there are many chances to shoot them down.

    Early ICBMs were ideal "counter value" weapons because who cares if you miss your intended ground zero by two miles? With a warhead in the megatons, it hardly matters. However, you have to hit an ICBM silo almost on the nose to have any chance of taking it out.

    There were two theories about how to protect ICBMs. (Well, four, but only two turned out to make any sense.) One was, move them around. The second was, harden the silos. To speak very broadly, the US opted for #1, the Soviets for #2. Now, there is no way to test this without nuking a silo. But the US eventually came to believe that we had hardened our Minuteman III silos to such a degree that only a direct hit had a chance of taking one out. In the JFK administration, there was absolutely no chance of such a direct hit.

    That’s quite interesting—like I said, this isn’t my area of expertise.

    But given the supposed difficulty Soviets would have had in penetrating our air defenses, and the huge number of our counter-value ICBMs, I just can’t see how a Soviet first strike would have been possible.

    Meanwhile, the Soviets had only a handful of counter-value ICBMs, so if we destroyed those plus many of their planes and our air defenses blocked the rest, an American first strike might have at least been reasonably possible.

    I’m just going by the Kaplan analysis, based on those declassified documents.

    Read More
  120. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Ron Unz

    Watch this video...What are the chances of so many conspiring to kill the president? I mean we are talking cold-blooded murder of the president.
     
    Well, maybe I'll watch the video when I have a little time...

    But my guess is that the informational content of a book is something like 100x that of a video. Perhaps a video is a useful summary or teaser, but that's about it.

    I've noticed that a certain commenter called "Anonymny" seems to have cluttered up this thread with a huge number of comments, many of them containing videos and nearly all of them totally vacuous and often ignorant.

    Although I read only a tiny slice of the comment-threads on this website, I've noticed that "Anonymny" seems to produce such a tremendous outpouring of commentary, I'd assume that he/she spends nearly every waking hour writing extremely long-winded comments on websites, most of them off-topic, random, ignorant, insulting, rhetorical, and often vacuous, though admittedly sometimes amusing. Actually that's wrong---maybe a few hours each week are spent watching old movies, especially THE GODFATHER.

    Given the enormous volume of comments, I wonder whether "Anonymny" has ever read a single book...

    “Given the enormous volume of comments, I wonder whether “Anonymny” has ever read a single book…”

    I read THE GODFATHER.

    Not as good as FORTUNATE PILGRIM but lots of fun. But movie is better.

    But SICILIAN the novel is much better than the movie by Cimino.

    We are not supposed to read anymore. Books are for geeks.

    Cinema is the art of the 20th century. Unfortunately, youtube is the art of the 21st century.

    Everything you need to learn and know is in the movies.

    Movies are like Tony Montana when he says “I always speak the truth… even when I lie.”

    Movies always tell the truth… even when they lie. You just have to know how to ‘read’ it.

    Bookies? That’s for losers.

    Why read THE FOUNTAINHEAD when you can watch it as a movie, esp with Cooper and Neal burning up the screen?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Everything you need to learn and know is in the movies.
     
    Good grief, stop trolling already.

    Man, you belong in a battery commercial alongside the energizer bunny.
  121. @Ron Unz

    This is a dangerous misconception for quite obvious reasons: because it is the US voters who may have a small chance of pulling the political leadership back – by not voting for the mad haters such as Hillary.
     
    Well, perhaps America is far past the point of half-measures...

    From what I've read, countries in Europe during the Middle Ages that were suffering from sufficiently bad misrule might occasionally offer their throne to a foreign monarch, hoping that he might clean up the terrible mess.

    So perhaps a delegation of American notables should travel to Moscow offering the American crown to Putin, allowing him to establish himself as Vladimir I of a newly-born Dual Monarchy (or Co-Dominion in Jerry Pournelle's SF). He seems to have done a pretty solid job with Russia, and having faced the dreadful Yeltsin Aftermath, he'd at least have a bit of experience in handling our vastly more serious problems.

    If he brought along a few hundred experienced KGB agents, they could help him round up and liquidate all the "bad people" who currently infest our unfortunate country...though considering the enormous size of that task, perhaps a couple of KGB divisions would be more appropriate...

    Hello Ron, I have heard this fascinating version of how Putin came to power, one of at least four different versions. I discussed it before with Israel Shamir. I give this story credibility only because Putin shows unexplicable deference to Yeltsin, for example he gave him a very impressive state funeral with a speech, even built him a museum.

    The story is that Yeltsin was under almost complete control of his wife who was Jewish and the member of the Russian Zioliberal clique. BTW, apparently this Russan “elite” was well plugged in into US Ziocons. Among other things, the Zioliberals (apparently both mother and daughter) fed him an endless supply of vodka whilst using him as a frontman. Apparently, when sober Yeltsin was aware of what was going on and, after he got too ill to continue, as a final counter-act (almost revenge) he selected this unknown former KGB officer Vladimir Putin. It appears that the Russian Zioliberals either underestimated the young politician (a nobody), maybe hubris was at work, or maybe they could not do much against Yeltsin’s persnal appointment. The rest is history – the Russian Zioliberals got their behinds kicked after Putin introduced the Russia First rule (so similar to what Trump is promising). Putin most successfully managed to make the distinction between the Jews and the Zioliberals. He is a friend of Jews and an enemy of Ziocon/Zioliberals. He is not even against the mega-rich Jewish oligarchs as long as they show respect for the country in which they acquired wealth. It is law versus lawlessness of the kind that US has been experiencing more and more (The Clinton Law).

    My understanding is that this is the kind of Putin you would like to have as a President/boss/dictator if necessary. Someone who would be skilful enough to repeat the same hattrick but on a much bigger scale and complexity, which is the US. Can Trump be the Putin of US? There are huge differences between two men. Trump looks less of a Putin then Putin, whilst the US situation requires more of a Putin than Putin is.

    I do not know, but I like to dream that a Western Putin crawls out from somewhere and starts making the necessary changes to save US and the World from US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    "Can Trump be the Putin of US? There are huge differences between two men. Trump looks less of a Putin then Putin, whilst the US situation requires more of a Putin than Putin is."

    Well put.
  122. @manton
    I worry about a lot of things, including Hillary's hair trigger. I don't worry that she or any other current leader is going to get us into a nuclear war.

    But LeMay and some others talked seriously about it in the 50s and 60s. Lemnitzer for instance was willing to go that route with the Russian over Cuba but JFK said "no." So it's not a slag on the generals. Some of them believed this. Others did not. The point is that, thank God, in all cases in which it was seriously contemplated, the political leadership said "no."

    You keep insisting on this exclusively US widly-held missperception that a few generals are crazy about nukes whilst the politicians are (almost) all doves. Did a general or a President decide to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan? Do you consider the Russians so naive or even stupid to believe that the US political leadership is not prepared to use the First Strike if an opportunity opens up or if US creates a new one? The weaker the US becomes economically and militarily, the more likely is the First Strike by it on Russia and/or China. It was the US which developed the nuclear weapons first and kept getting ahead of USSR every couple of years, how can you claim the US nuclear forces were for defense? And so on.

    To cut this silly discussion short, you may convince yourself whatever you feel like, but personally I am sure that if Hillary wins Putin will be keeping his hand much closer to the proverbial launch button then if Trump wins. Maybe Putin’s perception is something we need to worry about more than our own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manton
    It's not crazy generals v. dove politicians, necessarily. Though I don't think that's entirely unfair either. The generals were not necessarily crazy. They just saw things from a different point of view.

    Now, it is a fact, however, that in the first ~20 years or so of the nuclear age, the generals--or some generals--were much more likely to advocate nuclear use than the pols. You cite Truman dropping two. You leave out some key points. For instance, the military's view was that, since these were weapons, and weapons are weapons, timing and target selection and so on ought to be left to the discretion of the field commanders. Truman said "no." This caused a row which required Gen. Marshall to issue an order which said that no A-bomb was ever to be used without express authorization from the President, including his approval of the timing and the target. The military had to swallow that but they didn't like it. That became the basis for US command and control: only the President can ever authorize nuclear use, no matter how few or how small.

    The military was ready to bomb more targets after Nagasaki, but Truman said "no." The military also included in the Japan invasion plans nuclear use to "soften" up landing areas. Now, I think this would not have happened, because those plans were drawn up before we had sufficient appreciation for radiation, etc. However, it shows that the military was willing to use a-bombs as tactical weapons even then.

    There are many instances of generals being more willing to use the weapons than the pols. I don't know of any of the reverse. Some have tried to paint Trump's questions as a sign that he is a dangerous nuclear loon but I don't believe that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask what are the scenarios that the US might use nukes and to ask what are the reasons not to. The fact is, these old arguments rarely get restated any more so people just take the end answer for granted without knowing the argument or the logic. I think it's to Trump's credit that he asked. All the pearl-clutchers shocked by the question should get over it and answer--assuming they even know the answer.
  123. @Wizard of Oz
    My response will be in several discrete parts. I note that you characterise the TV doco I referred to as containing pseudo science without your having bothered to find out what it says! Not a good start for the credibility of someone who, despite repeated demonstrations of incompetence seems to wish portray himself as a persuader.

    1. My recollection of events and controversies connected to the twin towers attack was refreshed recently by a long conversation with a very experienced British TV documentary producer who is preparing for a program about 9/11 which I recall as being centred on the Saudi connection. He is dismissive of standard truther theories which have been disproven as the WTC 7 red herring has been. More on that below.

    2. I didn't provide a link because I watched on a channel available to me as a subscriber to Australia's Foxtel which would not be a iseful link to 99+% of foreigners. But I provided the information which 10 seconds of intelligent Googling could have used to bring up at least a summary and more detailed identification of the program, as I have just proved. I make no inference as to whether your neglect reflects on your intelligence, laziness or merely lack of real interest in pursuimg truth once you have uttered your opinion.

    3. As to your excessively restricted and oddly off centre question referring to a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan I note that "orchestrated" is a careless and irrelevant word and I doubt that it or its equivalent appears in any important official document. I accept that Al Qaeda was for some years before and after 2001 by far the most significant and dangerous, though somewhat flexibly structured, of Muslim terrorist organisations which regarded America as the great enemy and that Osama bin Laden was at least part time executive chairman and the inspirer of a lot of its planning and attacks. What precise connection he had with any of the highjackers who were recruited to make coordinated attacks, and whether he may have had a mate amongst slighted members of the Saudi Royals who may hsve helped with the flying school fees I don't know or regard as important. Do you and if so why? Any more than it greatly affects the story if Mossad had learned of the plot and chose not to disclose it.

    4. Your repetition of the old saw about such steelframed buildings never having come down like that without a controlled explosion is, to put it politely, obtuse since you were being asked to consider a documentary which dealt with that problem and had simply chosen to ignore it.

    5. I have previously described the essence of another very convincing documentary (also easily findable I have no doubt) which dealt with all the WTC 7 furphies. Something very hot and probably butning from the initial impacts on WTC 1 and/or 2 ignited fires in WTC 7 and film of that burning all day in an empty building was shown. While it took less than an hour for heat to weaken the core structures of buildings 1 and 2 where the fire resistant cladding may have been dislodged or been demolished by the molten aluminium explosions the fire in WTC 7 took all day to weaken the core framework from which the cladding had not been removed.

    6. Most damning of the judgment of any believer in WTC 7's collapse as being proof of conspiracy and cover up is that it just doesn't make sense. Even plotters to crash into the WTC (remembering that they could hardly have expected to bring them down) woulf pay s little more respect to Ockham's Razor and decide the job was difficult enough without having to organise for a minor WTC building to come down ss well, especially as no one would fail to notice that it hadn't been plowed into by a fuel laden aircraft.

    7. Finally there is what your reply confirms about you and also suggests. No one who uses the insulting language you do while delivering magisterial judgments has ever held a responsible, let alone important, position or one un which he successfully persuaded people of anything. It precludes successful practice of the law or any other learned profession - though not perhaps some temporary editing work or untenured assistant professorship at a minor liberal arts college. It wreaks of the indulged though not all that bright only son who is able to continue as brought up as apple of her eye by the modest inheritance he received from his mother. You really don't have a clue do you as to how your gratuitous and crude rudeness and grandiosity of opinionating paints the picture of you as a pathetic creature? (And don't bother to flatter yourself into thinking you should compete. As they say, when in a whole stop digging, you've given more than enough evidence of your inadequacies already).

    My response will be in several discrete parts.

    Okay, I guess I will respond to your 7 numbered points just as a sort of public service. If you respond with any more of your typical Wizard bullshit, that does not even contain any attempt at a logical or factual argument, I probably will not deign to respond further.

    [MORE]

    1. My recollection of events and controversies connected to the twin towers attack was refreshed recently by a long conversation with a very experienced British TV documentary producer who is preparing for a program about 9/11 which I recall as being centred on the Saudi connection. He is dismissive of standard truther theories which have been disproven as the WTC 7 red herring has been. More on that below.

    In other words, “I have a friend who has a big dick…. uhhh, therefore I also have a big dick…. uhh, therefore I win the argument.”

    Look, you’re not making any argument whatsoever. You say: “He is is dismissive of standard truther theories…”

    So he’s “dismissive”. Fine. You have to explain WHY.

    You’re supposed to produce some sort of argument. But no, it’s like “I´ve got a big-shot friend who believes X.”

    which have been disproven as the WTC 7 red herring has been

    HOW were they “disproven”? Formulate an argument!

    Regardless, I didn’t ask you disprove anything any so-called “Truther” says anyway. I specifically asked you what the strongest available proof was of the official U.S. govt story. Do you have any?

    2. I didn’t provide a link because I watched on a channel available to me as a subscriber to Australia’s Foxtel which would not be a iseful link to 99+% of foreigners. But I provided the information which 10 seconds of intelligent Googling could have used to bring up at least a summary and more detailed identification of the program, as I have just proved. I make no inference as to whether your neglect reflects on your intelligence, laziness or merely lack of real interest in pursuimg truth once you have uttered your opinion.

    Fine, your failure to provide any link is proof of MY laziness. You request my opinion on a documentary film and provide no link, and my failure to go searching for what you referred to says something about me. But the key point is that you are asked for proof and provide none. Then the problem is that I am the lazy person because I don’t go searching for the proof that you are supposed to provide.

    The last time we interacted, I provided you a link to a fake ISIS beheading video. Rather than actually look at it, you started arguing on a priori grounds that the video is genuine.

    Anyway, I requested proof of the Osama Bin Laden story — on the basis of which a war was launched and probably hundreds of thousands of people ended up dead. The above does not comprise any such proof.

    3. As to your excessively restricted and oddly off centre question referring to a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan I note that “orchestrated” is a careless and irrelevant word

    Well, as Steve Martin was wont to say: “Well, excuuuuuuuuse me!” You have no proof of the Osama Bin Laden story so you’re just nitpicking about words, right?

    I accept that Al Qaeda was for some years before and after 2001 by far the most significant and dangerous, though somewhat flexibly structured, of Muslim terrorist organisations which regarded America as the great enemy and that Osama bin Laden was at least part time executive chairman and the inspirer of a lot of its planning and attacks.

    Well, the above really gets to the heart of what an idiotic shit eater you are. You just have zero concept of narrative and how a narrative is prefigured. Obviously, in the period running up to the event, the Mockingbird controlled MSM was going on and on about Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and what a threat they were. Of course! They were establishing the story in the public’s mind.

    The rest of your verbiage in point 3 is just “beg the question fallacy” nonsense. You repeat the story as proof of the story. No, the story cannot be proof of the story. You were asked for proof and provided none.

    4. Your repetition of the old saw about such steelframed buildings never having come down like that without a controlled explosion is, to put it politely, obtuse since you were being asked to consider a documentary which dealt with that problem and had simply chosen to ignore it.

    My repetition of the old saw that pigs don’t fly is “obtuse” and it is presumptuous of me to say that pigs cannot fly when I didn’t watch the flying pigs documentary that you linked. (NOT.)

    The fact remains that the only way to get a steel-framed skyscraper to implode in a nearly perfectly symmetrical manner is by hiring experts to execute a controlled demolition. This is a very simple point to understand and I have never heard any refutation of this.

    5. I have previously described the essence of another very convincing documentary (also easily findable I have no doubt) which dealt with all the WTC 7 furphies.

    Easily findable, yet you provide no link, which is further proof, no doubt, of how lazy I am.

    Regardless, just waving your hands and saying that some documentary exists and provides a convincing argument and not even providing a link to the documentary — you are not providing any proof.

    6. Most damning of the judgment of any believer in WTC 7′s collapse as being proof of conspiracy and cover up is that it just doesn’t make sense.>

    Ah, this argument… it didn’t “make sense” to blow up WTC7 in a controlled demolition, therefore they did not do it.

    It would not have made any sense for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. Therefore they didn’t. Except they did. And whoever was behind the 9/11 psy op blew up WTC 7 in a controlled demolition. It’s on film.

    Anyway, this “argument” of yours provides no proof of the Bin Laden/Al Qaeda story either.

    7. Finally there is what your reply confirms about you and also suggests. No one who uses the insulting language you do while delivering magisterial judgments has ever held a responsible, let alone important, position or one un which he successfully persuaded people of anything.

    Go fuck yourself, you pathetic shit eater.

    Anyway, I have asked you and your fellow shit eaters what the proof is of this story, Osama Bin Laden… Al Qaeda… and none of you ever provide any sort of argument that withstands the proverbial laugh test.

    Either provide some proof or recognize that a war was launched and hundreds of thousands of people were killed and/or disfigured — all based on some cock and bull story, for which there is not the slightest of bit of real proof.

    Read More
  124. @Priss Factor
    "Given the enormous volume of comments, I wonder whether “Anonymny” has ever read a single book…"

    I read THE GODFATHER.

    Not as good as FORTUNATE PILGRIM but lots of fun. But movie is better.

    But SICILIAN the novel is much better than the movie by Cimino.

    We are not supposed to read anymore. Books are for geeks.

    Cinema is the art of the 20th century. Unfortunately, youtube is the art of the 21st century.

    Everything you need to learn and know is in the movies.

    Movies are like Tony Montana when he says "I always speak the truth... even when I lie."

    Movies always tell the truth... even when they lie. You just have to know how to 'read' it.

    Bookies? That's for losers.

    Why read THE FOUNTAINHEAD when you can watch it as a movie, esp with Cooper and Neal burning up the screen?

    Everything you need to learn and know is in the movies.

    Good grief, stop trolling already.

    Man, you belong in a battery commercial alongside the energizer bunny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Aint trolling.

    Yeah, I said "Everything you need to learn and know is in the movies" tongue-in-cheek, but that describes our world.
    It's like what Gore Vidal said. We went from a literary culture to a movie culture.

    https://youtu.be/NLyvszhFAC4?t=4m34s

    Ever watch how the news always refer to movies but almost never to anything else.

    After Ted Koppel left Nightline and a new batch of folks took over, they would often begin a news story by relating it to a movie(even really stupid ones). They almost never mentioned books or literature for comparison.

    Siskel & Ebert won out over Simon in the culture war.

    Well, if you can't beat em, join em.

    Besides, there's something about movies that seem more communal and shared than books that are read alone and quietly. In the library, you are supposed to be silent to keep the silence. In the theater, you are supposed to be silent to surrender to the booming sound.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky9-eIlHzAE

    Remember Fulghum's "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten".

    Kindergarten should be replaced by 'movies'.

    "you belong in a battery commercial alongside the energizer bunny"

    I may seem like commenting a lot but that's because this is about the ONLY site where I comment since I'm banned from most sites.

    Unz the mad scientist lets the nutters run free, so we end up here.

    Now, you may be a smart, well-read, elitist, and fancy guy who went good schools and know the 'right kind of people', the better kind.
    You may look down on prole dumbasses like myself who aint got no fancy book-learning and fine diction and good manners and such. But we is what we is, and all folks got some points to make and truths to says. Slats Grobniks of the world need to say their say too.

    You want to run us out of town. And let me tell you why. We regular folks ruined one of your most valuable narratives. For many years you had the narrative under control. You spent hundreds of millions of dollars. You were gonna make it the biggest and only star in the universe. And then we come along with our olive oil voice and guinea charm, and the narrative takes a hit. It crumbled and made you look ridiculous. And a man in your position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous.
  125. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Everything you need to learn and know is in the movies.
     
    Good grief, stop trolling already.

    Man, you belong in a battery commercial alongside the energizer bunny.

    Aint trolling.

    Yeah, I said “Everything you need to learn and know is in the movies” tongue-in-cheek, but that describes our world.
    It’s like what Gore Vidal said. We went from a literary culture to a movie culture.

    https://youtu.be/NLyvszhFAC4?t=4m34s

    Ever watch how the news always refer to movies but almost never to anything else.

    After Ted Koppel left Nightline and a new batch of folks took over, they would often begin a news story by relating it to a movie(even really stupid ones). They almost never mentioned books or literature for comparison.

    Siskel & Ebert won out over Simon in the culture war.

    [MORE]

    Well, if you can’t beat em, join em.

    Besides, there’s something about movies that seem more communal and shared than books that are read alone and quietly. In the library, you are supposed to be silent to keep the silence. In the theater, you are supposed to be silent to surrender to the booming sound.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky9-eIlHzAE

    Remember Fulghum’s “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten”.

    Kindergarten should be replaced by ‘movies’.

    “you belong in a battery commercial alongside the energizer bunny”

    I may seem like commenting a lot but that’s because this is about the ONLY site where I comment since I’m banned from most sites.

    Unz the mad scientist lets the nutters run free, so we end up here.

    Now, you may be a smart, well-read, elitist, and fancy guy who went good schools and know the ‘right kind of people’, the better kind.
    You may look down on prole dumbasses like myself who aint got no fancy book-learning and fine diction and good manners and such. But we is what we is, and all folks got some points to make and truths to says. Slats Grobniks of the world need to say their say too.

    You want to run us out of town. And let me tell you why. We regular folks ruined one of your most valuable narratives. For many years you had the narrative under control. You spent hundreds of millions of dollars. You were gonna make it the biggest and only star in the universe. And then we come along with our olive oil voice and guinea charm, and the narrative takes a hit. It crumbled and made you look ridiculous. And a man in your position can’t afford to be made to look ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    "...prole dumbasses like myself who aint got no fancy book-learning and fine diction and good manners and such."

    As if. My bet is that you've read at least two of these three cover to cover:

    1 Ulysses
    2 Swann's Way
    3 Inferno
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Now, you may be a smart, well-read, elitist, and fancy guy who went good schools and know the ‘right kind of people’, the better kind.
    You may look down on prole dumbasses like myself who aint got no fancy book-learning and fine diction and good manners and such.
     
    Well, what you're doing is completely projecting your own obsessions on other people -- well, me in this case, because you're ostensibly replying to me.

    The fact is that I don't give a damn what schools anybody went to or what their level of formal education is. And I do not believe that I have ever said anything that would lead anybody to conclude that I think that way at all.

    Actually, quite the contrary. At this point, I've written a series of articles for the Unz Review, in which a central theme is the concept of "High IQ Idiots", i.e. overeducated idiots, which is very much an ANTI-elitist sort of concept.

    Well, the problem is that, rather than replying to ME, you are replying to some stereotyped construct you have created in your own mind -- some sort of elitist know-it-all, who is not me at all. Well, to put it bluntly, you are basically talking to yourself!

    If you actually want to add some value, maybe you should expend a bit more effort figuring out who you are actually talking to, and talk to that person, rather than some stereotyped character you have constructed in your own mind, because frankly, that is rather masturbatory.
  126. @Wizard of Oz
    My response will be in several discrete parts. I note that you characterise the TV doco I referred to as containing pseudo science without your having bothered to find out what it says! Not a good start for the credibility of someone who, despite repeated demonstrations of incompetence seems to wish portray himself as a persuader.

    1. My recollection of events and controversies connected to the twin towers attack was refreshed recently by a long conversation with a very experienced British TV documentary producer who is preparing for a program about 9/11 which I recall as being centred on the Saudi connection. He is dismissive of standard truther theories which have been disproven as the WTC 7 red herring has been. More on that below.

    2. I didn't provide a link because I watched on a channel available to me as a subscriber to Australia's Foxtel which would not be a iseful link to 99+% of foreigners. But I provided the information which 10 seconds of intelligent Googling could have used to bring up at least a summary and more detailed identification of the program, as I have just proved. I make no inference as to whether your neglect reflects on your intelligence, laziness or merely lack of real interest in pursuimg truth once you have uttered your opinion.

    3. As to your excessively restricted and oddly off centre question referring to a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan I note that "orchestrated" is a careless and irrelevant word and I doubt that it or its equivalent appears in any important official document. I accept that Al Qaeda was for some years before and after 2001 by far the most significant and dangerous, though somewhat flexibly structured, of Muslim terrorist organisations which regarded America as the great enemy and that Osama bin Laden was at least part time executive chairman and the inspirer of a lot of its planning and attacks. What precise connection he had with any of the highjackers who were recruited to make coordinated attacks, and whether he may have had a mate amongst slighted members of the Saudi Royals who may hsve helped with the flying school fees I don't know or regard as important. Do you and if so why? Any more than it greatly affects the story if Mossad had learned of the plot and chose not to disclose it.

    4. Your repetition of the old saw about such steelframed buildings never having come down like that without a controlled explosion is, to put it politely, obtuse since you were being asked to consider a documentary which dealt with that problem and had simply chosen to ignore it.

    5. I have previously described the essence of another very convincing documentary (also easily findable I have no doubt) which dealt with all the WTC 7 furphies. Something very hot and probably butning from the initial impacts on WTC 1 and/or 2 ignited fires in WTC 7 and film of that burning all day in an empty building was shown. While it took less than an hour for heat to weaken the core structures of buildings 1 and 2 where the fire resistant cladding may have been dislodged or been demolished by the molten aluminium explosions the fire in WTC 7 took all day to weaken the core framework from which the cladding had not been removed.

    6. Most damning of the judgment of any believer in WTC 7's collapse as being proof of conspiracy and cover up is that it just doesn't make sense. Even plotters to crash into the WTC (remembering that they could hardly have expected to bring them down) woulf pay s little more respect to Ockham's Razor and decide the job was difficult enough without having to organise for a minor WTC building to come down ss well, especially as no one would fail to notice that it hadn't been plowed into by a fuel laden aircraft.

    7. Finally there is what your reply confirms about you and also suggests. No one who uses the insulting language you do while delivering magisterial judgments has ever held a responsible, let alone important, position or one un which he successfully persuaded people of anything. It precludes successful practice of the law or any other learned profession - though not perhaps some temporary editing work or untenured assistant professorship at a minor liberal arts college. It wreaks of the indulged though not all that bright only son who is able to continue as brought up as apple of her eye by the modest inheritance he received from his mother. You really don't have a clue do you as to how your gratuitous and crude rudeness and grandiosity of opinionating paints the picture of you as a pathetic creature? (And don't bother to flatter yourself into thinking you should compete. As they say, when in a whole stop digging, you've given more than enough evidence of your inadequacies already).

    9/11 Truthers fail to account for planes loaded with highly-flammable jet fuel crashing into a huge office complex filled with also highly-flammable paper, plaster, pressed and treated wood, plastic furniture and materials, is going to burn at a high temperature. And 7 WTC had another component, which is a basement with heating oil. If there was a “controlled demolition” that would mean somebody planted explosives inside an office complex which had almost 100K visitors and employees enter it every week, and do so under the noses of NYPD, the FBI, the PAPD, the office of NY state governor and numerous other governmental agencies who had offices on site. These morons have eaten too much thermite paint.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    If there was a “controlled demolition” that would mean somebody planted explosives inside an office complex which had almost 100K visitors and employees enter it every week, and do so under the noses of NYPD, the FBI, the PAPD, the office of NY state governor and numerous other governmental agencies who had offices on site.
     
    It's much easier when you own the buildings ... and when those buildings are known to contain asbestos: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it#Control_of_World_Trade_Center_Complex
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    9/11 Truthers fail to account for planes loaded with highly-flammable jet fuel crashing into a huge office complex filled with also highly-flammable paper, plaster, pressed and treated wood, plastic furniture and materials, is going to burn at a high temperature.
     
    With all this talk of "paper, plaster... wood... furniture..", you're basically saying that an office fire can cause a steel-framed skyscraper to implode. Except this simply never happens. It is only claimed to have happened on a single day in all of history, 9/11/2001.

    Not only can a freely burning office fire NOT cause a steel framed high-rise building to collapse, even if it could, it would never produce something perfectly symmetrical that is visually identical to an engineered demolition. For example, the 40-odd core steel columns in building 7, even if they could all be heated up to some point where they fail, they would not be heated up uniformly in such a way that they would all fail at precisely the same instant!

    This kind of symmetrical straight-down collapse of the building has to be engineered by demolition specialists and powerful explosives are used. IT cannot result from an office fire. What the official story is claiming happened is utterly physically impossible and this is basically an open secret. Everybody who cares to know this knows it

    If you don't know this at this point, in 2016, it is simply because you do not want to know it.
  127. @Kiza
    You keep insisting on this exclusively US widly-held missperception that a few generals are crazy about nukes whilst the politicians are (almost) all doves. Did a general or a President decide to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan? Do you consider the Russians so naive or even stupid to believe that the US political leadership is not prepared to use the First Strike if an opportunity opens up or if US creates a new one? The weaker the US becomes economically and militarily, the more likely is the First Strike by it on Russia and/or China. It was the US which developed the nuclear weapons first and kept getting ahead of USSR every couple of years, how can you claim the US nuclear forces were for defense? And so on.

    To cut this silly discussion short, you may convince yourself whatever you feel like, but personally I am sure that if Hillary wins Putin will be keeping his hand much closer to the proverbial launch button then if Trump wins. Maybe Putin's perception is something we need to worry about more than our own.

    It’s not crazy generals v. dove politicians, necessarily. Though I don’t think that’s entirely unfair either. The generals were not necessarily crazy. They just saw things from a different point of view.

    Now, it is a fact, however, that in the first ~20 years or so of the nuclear age, the generals–or some generals–were much more likely to advocate nuclear use than the pols. You cite Truman dropping two. You leave out some key points. For instance, the military’s view was that, since these were weapons, and weapons are weapons, timing and target selection and so on ought to be left to the discretion of the field commanders. Truman said “no.” This caused a row which required Gen. Marshall to issue an order which said that no A-bomb was ever to be used without express authorization from the President, including his approval of the timing and the target. The military had to swallow that but they didn’t like it. That became the basis for US command and control: only the President can ever authorize nuclear use, no matter how few or how small.

    The military was ready to bomb more targets after Nagasaki, but Truman said “no.” The military also included in the Japan invasion plans nuclear use to “soften” up landing areas. Now, I think this would not have happened, because those plans were drawn up before we had sufficient appreciation for radiation, etc. However, it shows that the military was willing to use a-bombs as tactical weapons even then.

    There are many instances of generals being more willing to use the weapons than the pols. I don’t know of any of the reverse. Some have tried to paint Trump’s questions as a sign that he is a dangerous nuclear loon but I don’t believe that. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask what are the scenarios that the US might use nukes and to ask what are the reasons not to. The fact is, these old arguments rarely get restated any more so people just take the end answer for granted without knowing the argument or the logic. I think it’s to Trump’s credit that he asked. All the pearl-clutchers shocked by the question should get over it and answer–assuming they even know the answer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    You would want someone like Trump to think about the impression he makes on the public if he talks about nukes in a way that could be - at least : c o u l d be understood as frivolous - or lighthearted - or even - - aggressive.

    I'd assume, that's the point, no?

  128. Nice and informed comment, except that to my knowledge in August 1945 the US had only three nuclear bombs, two of which have been dropped. It was after the Japan’s unconditional capitulation that the US continued producing more bombs, by which time it was too late to use them against Japan.

    Read More
  129. The US had dozens of Fat Boy assemblies, minus the cores, which were being milled from Pu from the Hanford site. As fast as Hanford could make Pu, we could make bombs. It was just a matter of dropping the core into the already completed bomb assembly.

    Actually, as of Aug 9 (Nagasaki), the US had NO operational bombs in theater, but one more was expected within the week, and they would keep rolling in after that.

    Read More
  130. @Montefrío
    Hilaire Belloc's 1918 classic The Free Press is prescient in an era when six media conglomerates control mass market information dissemination. These conglomerates are in turn controlled by the controllers of finance who have inflated money to an extent that any meaningful media competition is for all practical purposes impossible to mount. The complacent, brainwashed citizenry that allows government to grow unchecked and thus allows for dangerous delusions of grandeur by those in power will eventually suffer the consequences, perhaps catastrophic consequences, as this essay on a too-little-publicized historical horror illustrates.

    Agreed. Belloc should be required reading for anyone interested in how the world really works.

    Read More
  131. @manton
    It's not crazy generals v. dove politicians, necessarily. Though I don't think that's entirely unfair either. The generals were not necessarily crazy. They just saw things from a different point of view.

    Now, it is a fact, however, that in the first ~20 years or so of the nuclear age, the generals--or some generals--were much more likely to advocate nuclear use than the pols. You cite Truman dropping two. You leave out some key points. For instance, the military's view was that, since these were weapons, and weapons are weapons, timing and target selection and so on ought to be left to the discretion of the field commanders. Truman said "no." This caused a row which required Gen. Marshall to issue an order which said that no A-bomb was ever to be used without express authorization from the President, including his approval of the timing and the target. The military had to swallow that but they didn't like it. That became the basis for US command and control: only the President can ever authorize nuclear use, no matter how few or how small.

    The military was ready to bomb more targets after Nagasaki, but Truman said "no." The military also included in the Japan invasion plans nuclear use to "soften" up landing areas. Now, I think this would not have happened, because those plans were drawn up before we had sufficient appreciation for radiation, etc. However, it shows that the military was willing to use a-bombs as tactical weapons even then.

    There are many instances of generals being more willing to use the weapons than the pols. I don't know of any of the reverse. Some have tried to paint Trump's questions as a sign that he is a dangerous nuclear loon but I don't believe that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask what are the scenarios that the US might use nukes and to ask what are the reasons not to. The fact is, these old arguments rarely get restated any more so people just take the end answer for granted without knowing the argument or the logic. I think it's to Trump's credit that he asked. All the pearl-clutchers shocked by the question should get over it and answer--assuming they even know the answer.

    You would want someone like Trump to think about the impression he makes on the public if he talks about nukes in a way that could be – at least : c o u l d be understood as frivolous – or lighthearted – or even – - aggressive.

    I’d assume, that’s the point, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    You would want someone like Trump to think about the impression he makes on the public if he talks about nukes in a way that could be – at least : c o u l d be understood as frivolous – or lighthearted – or even – - aggressive.
     
    Like the "assassination" story, this is very likely another dubious assertion being made about Trump with no real evidence. The main source on this was Joe Scarborough (a Hillary-booster) who works for MS-NBC (a pro-Democratic television station sometimes jokingly referred to as MS-DNC) and refuses to name his original source:

    Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said on the air Wednesday, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee.
     
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html

    The Trump campaign, for what it's worth, denies the story. Without knowing more about the context of the statement--assuming it was ever made--it would impossible to understand what Trump meant.

    , @manton
    His alleged remarks were not said in public but in private. They were "reported" by Michael Hayden, who was not there, but who claims to have talked to someone who was there. Scarborough didn't report it but Hayden said it on his show.
  132. @Dieter Kief
    You would want someone like Trump to think about the impression he makes on the public if he talks about nukes in a way that could be - at least : c o u l d be understood as frivolous - or lighthearted - or even - - aggressive.

    I'd assume, that's the point, no?

    You would want someone like Trump to think about the impression he makes on the public if he talks about nukes in a way that could be – at least : c o u l d be understood as frivolous – or lighthearted – or even – – aggressive.

    Like the “assassination” story, this is very likely another dubious assertion being made about Trump with no real evidence. The main source on this was Joe Scarborough (a Hillary-booster) who works for MS-NBC (a pro-Democratic television station sometimes jokingly referred to as MS-DNC) and refuses to name his original source:

    Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can’t use nuclear weapons, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said on the air Wednesday, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html

    The Trump campaign, for what it’s worth, denies the story. Without knowing more about the context of the statement–assuming it was ever made–it would impossible to understand what Trump meant.

    Read More
  133. @Ron Unz
    Actually, after getting his note, I directed him to your very interesting and well-informed reference to those declassified documents supporting the "USSR first strike" interpretation of the meeting, strongly suggesting that he take a look, and he said he would try to do so.

    I would still argue that the notion of a pre-MIRVed first strike by a small number of ICBMs upon a much large number of (reasonably dispersed) ICBMs is a logical impossibility, but fully grant that important government committees sometimes do spend their time on that sort of thing.

    However, when I took a quick look at the links you'd provided, most of the documents seem to have only been declassified in the last few years, and the long analysis was published in 2014. Unless something similar had been available previously, I think that the TAP interpretation of the Burris Memo would have been enormously more plausible. So although in hindsight, it might very well be there was no discussion of plans for a US first strike and hence "no story," for two decades the evidence seemed more on the other side, and a huge potential story was totally ignored by the MSM. That last point was the central argument of my own article, and unless there was strong documentary evidence on the other side in 1993 or 1994, I think it still stands.

    first strike by a small number of ICBMs upon a much large number of (reasonably dispersed) ICBMs is a logical impossibility,

    Even if the only logical possibility for a first strike were more ICBMs destroying fewer ICBM’s, this does not undermine the point (which is supported by all evidence presented so far), that the purpose of the July 20, 1961 meeting was to discuss a report on the nature and consequences of a USSR first strike. Not to present Kennedy with a plan for a US first strike.

    The report had been commissioned and written earlier based on older estimates of Soviet nuclear capability. The question of a missile gap was in flux at the time the report was developed, and was not settled (to a point where US supremacy in ICBM numbers become the likeliest assumption) until later.

    The declassified Net Evaluation Subcommittee report for 1961 (item 45a, see NukeVault link in my earlier comment) says that it used the 1960 National Intelligence Estimate, and that “in the last few weeks new estimates of Soviet forces have been published … most significant change is a downward revision in the number of missiles on launchers”. The 1961 National Intelligence Estimate was published September 21 and estimated “[USSR] force level in mid-1963 will approximate 75-125 operational ICBM launchers.” The main factor in this new estimate seems to have been the Discoverer (Corona) spy satellites, especially the two flights in June 16 and July 7 of 1961, that did occur “a few weeks” before the July 20 meeting.

    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch5.htm#195 explains:

    “Kennedy … appointed a deputy defense secretary, Roswell Gilpatric, who believed strongly that [missile] gap was real. On taking office in January 1961, Gilpatric and … McNamara … spent several days personally studying Discoverer photographs.

    Air Force held the view that Moscow was building large numbers of well-camouflaged missile sites. McNamara and Gilpatric, however, preferred the view of Army intelligence: that the Soviet ICBM, designated R-7, was very large and unwieldy and could move only by rail or military road. Discoverer satellites had taken photos along the Soviet Union’s railroads and principal highways-and had found no missile launchers. In February, at an off-the-record press conference, … McNamara replied that “there were no signs of a Soviet crash effort to build ICBMs.” … newspapers blossomed with the word that no such gap existed, and Kennedy himself had to step in, declaring that it was too early to draw such conclusions.

    Then in June and July, Discoverers 25 and 26 flew with nearly complete success. While they were only the third and fourth missions to return photos having intelligence value, together these four flights covered more than half of the regions suitable for ICBM deployment. Within this vast area, photo analysts found no more than two new and previously unsuspected ICBM bases. …. it [became] possible to eliminate a number of “suspect” launch sites and to give a clear and definitive estimate of Moscow’s ICBM strength.”

    The other two intelligence-generating Discoverer missions were on 18 Aug 1960 and 7 Dec 1960. The second, and maybe also the first, was too late to impact the specification of the topic for 1961′s NESC report.

    The other source of hard evidence on USSR launcher numbers was U-2 surveillance.
    As of May 1960 when Gary Powers’ U-2 reconnaissance flight was shot down, the missile gap was considered an unresolved question, the resolution of which had become the main purpose of the U-2 flights. There were 23 flights before Powers, covering 15 percent of USSR territory.
    U-2 flights did not resume until October 1960, again too late to change the topic of the 1961 NESC analysis.

    It is unclear how much of the U-2 data would have been made available for the analysis. Eisenhower treated the existence of U-2 flights over Russia as extremely sensitive information revealed only to an inner circle. Certainly it was in the interest of the leaders of the nuclear defense establishment to maintain the impression that a missile gap existed. It is not clear that the analysts at NESc writing the annual report would have been informed of U2-based intelligence when the report was to be presented to over 40 people at the National Security Council meeting (43 were on the list and Bundy wrote that the number used to be larger than that in earlier years), including civilians and one former journalist (Murrow).

    What about human intelligence? “The CIA had not a single spy case officer in the Soviet Union
    in those days. It was long after Gary Powers was shot down before they got the first one in the
    Soviet Union”. (And skepticism of the earlier “bomber gap” had come from a CIA economic analysis of bomber production capability, not spying. For both items, see
    https://www.jfklibrary.org/~/media/assets/Education%20and%20Public%20Programs/Forum%20Transcripts/2011/2011%2009%2026%2050th%20Anniversary%20of%20the%20Missile%20Gap%20Controversy.pdf )

    Whether there was a missile gap was not a settled question within the US defense establishment as late as September 1961, according to Kaplan’s article:

    “At the [Sept 20, 1961] meeting nobody addressed these questions. According to the minutes, General [Thomas] Power [head of Strategic Air Command] spent most of the time claiming that the Soviets had hidden away “many times more” missiles than the CIA’s spy photos had indicated—a point that Lemnitzer and Taylor disputed.”

    Gen. Curtis Lemay, who was present at the July 20 meeting with JFK, had expressed similar doubts earlier about the U-2 reconnaissance data:

    “LeMay argued that the large stocks of missiles were in the areas not photographed by the U-2s, and arguments broke out over the Soviet factory capability in an effort to estimate their production rate.”

    The official US position on this issue did not harden until late 1961. To solve the Berlin Crisis, the US notified the USSR (and the world) that it did not believe in a missile gap. From Kaplan’s article:

    “Finally Kennedy decided to send his own message to Khrushchev—a warning. On October 21, on Kennedy’s orders, Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric gave a speech in Hot Springs, Virginia, that let everyone know for the first time—and let Khrushchev know we knew—that there was no missile gap. He revealed how many nuclear weapons we had, emphasized that the arsenal would be second to none even after a Soviet attack, and said, “The Iron Curtain is not so impenetrable as to force us to accept at face value the Kremlin’s boasts.”

    The NASA.gov history is very informative and makes it clear that the Air Force / SAC idea of hidden missiles was not entirely wrong; the Russian strategy was to hold ICBMs at hidden bases unknown to the Americans, but that was no longer practicable after the advent of spy satellites.

    Unless Galbraith has some fundamentally new information that he did not reveal earlier, there seems to be “no story” here.

    Read More
  134. @Bugg
    9/11 Truthers fail to account for planes loaded with highly-flammable jet fuel crashing into a huge office complex filled with also highly-flammable paper, plaster, pressed and treated wood, plastic furniture and materials, is going to burn at a high temperature. And 7 WTC had another component, which is a basement with heating oil. If there was a "controlled demolition" that would mean somebody planted explosives inside an office complex which had almost 100K visitors and employees enter it every week, and do so under the noses of NYPD, the FBI, the PAPD, the office of NY state governor and numerous other governmental agencies who had offices on site. These morons have eaten too much thermite paint.

    If there was a “controlled demolition” that would mean somebody planted explosives inside an office complex which had almost 100K visitors and employees enter it every week, and do so under the noses of NYPD, the FBI, the PAPD, the office of NY state governor and numerous other governmental agencies who had offices on site.

    It’s much easier when you own the buildings … and when those buildings are known to contain asbestos: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it#Control_of_World_Trade_Center_Complex

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bugg
    Problem with that is Silverstein had to fight tooth and nail by suing his insurance company to get them to pay up.So his motivation in terms of dollars was the chance to sue his insurance company, to say nothing of losing several years' rent receipts? Further the WTC was for a very long time a white elephant, largely dependent on rent from government agencies; so Silverstein jeopardized that to roll the dice on an iffy lawsuit that took years to resolve? He may be a jerk, but he isn't an idiot.

    There is footage featured in may of the History/Discovery type docs of one of the chief engineers of the WTC who himself perished on 9/11 explaining the Towers were built strong enough to sustain an airliner strike. But again what was not accounted for was 2 huge sources of jet fuel burning the very flammable contents.

  135. That’s a lot to read for a nothing burger. I read a couple graphs, smelled nothing burger, skimmed a couple more ‘graphs, smelled nothing burger, scrolled past the rest.

    Was there any beef in there? Somebody got a quote? I hate reading a long piece, only to get no burger, so I hope someone lets me know if I’m wrong.

    That said, yes, they plan a lot in the military. If they were doing their jobs, they planned how to mount an insurgency against a successful Soviet invasion. OMG, they planned on losing a war to the Soviets! News at 11!

    Again, apologies if I’m wrong about this. The stench of nothing burger was really strong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    "...apologies if I’m wrong about this."

    No, you're right. nothing burger pretty much sums it up.

    It's amusing to see Kiza accusing of you of being a Hasbara troll (147).
  136. “Usually the combat veterans are much less trigger happy, and I believe JFK was seriously working to avoid nuclear war, indeed worked diligently on the test ban with Kruschev on the back channels.”

    This is true of some veterans. But ‘usually’? I don’t know.

    Mussolini and Hitler were wounded in war, but they became war hawks.

    A big reason for much of the violence in Dixie in the wake of the War of Northern Aggression was all the combat vets returning home. Historically, combat vets take less shit from their rulers, and are much more willing to use violence to curb their excesses.

    Read More
  137. @Dieter Kief
    You would want someone like Trump to think about the impression he makes on the public if he talks about nukes in a way that could be - at least : c o u l d be understood as frivolous - or lighthearted - or even - - aggressive.

    I'd assume, that's the point, no?

    His alleged remarks were not said in public but in private. They were “reported” by Michael Hayden, who was not there, but who claims to have talked to someone who was there. Scarborough didn’t report it but Hayden said it on his show.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Agreed upon: Alleged remarks had been made in private.

    Now a) The remarks were not like reported. - Was it a trap then?

    b) If it was something like a trap: Wouldn't that show, that Trump wasn't very cautious selecting the people with whom he talked about this subject - which is world news now?

    After all -
    Is it wise, that Trump now does not to talk about this subject in public? - I tend to think: Yes.


    Plus - I've seen on video what Trump said about the second-amendment-people and I'd say: That was clearly over the top. - Could just have slipped out of his mouth. Normal reaction was to apologize. - Shouldn't he apologize?

  138. Ron,

    As further evidence I would like to direct your, and Galbraith’s, attention to the discussion at pages 32-33 of the Kaplan et al symposium transcript (link above, the one from the JFK library). A discussion between two of the assembled experts mentions two downward revisions to the “missile gap” estimates in 1961, one in September (the National Intelligence Estimate of Sept 21 that, they say, took back the missile gap) and one in June.

    It’s not specified exactly what happened when in June, but this could be (and sounds like it is) the revised estimate that in the NESC report is said to have been a few weeks old. There was a June estimate familiar to at least two of the experts at the symposium, and judging from their remarks it was a lot more conditional than the one in September 21. Expert #2 (Prados) says that the June estimate was “not much of a change” and that some of the upper limits of the ICBM launcher estimates in the June report were consistent with the earlier “missile gap” estimates.

    So: overall, the credibility of a USSR first strike was weakening over time, but it is not clear if the idea of a “missile gap” was invalidated by the time of the July 20, 1961 meeting with President Kennedy, never mind a year earlier when the analysis was commissioned or at whatever earlier time in June or July the report was written. Even if the only issue were the relative number of ICBMs or launchers, there does not need to be a missile gap in order for a USSR first strike to make sense numerically. The Russians could (up to a point) have had fewer nukes and still in theory been able to leave the USA in a weaker position than the USSR after the retaliatory strike. The calculus is also affected by the fact that the US counterattack strategy, SIOP, included full-scale nuclear attacks on Eastern Europe and China, which would use up some of the American ICBMs on targets of less concern to the Soviet Union.

    From the comments at the symposium, the revised estimate in 1961 came later than the June 3 meeting of Kennedy and Khruschev in Vienna. The Corona satellite Discoverer 25 was launched on June 16 and recovered June 18, so if that was the reason for the revision, it would have been at the end of the month. Of course the two experts might be saying June for an event in July (which by that date would surely have been based on photos from at least one of the spy satellites), but they both remember it as June with relatively specific memories of the contents of the report.

    Another point is that if the NESC report were commissioned at a time when people did believe in a missile gap, the exact same missile-counting argument that you and Galbraith made also says that it would not have made sense for the USA to conduct a first strike. To the extent people believed in a missile gap, this makes it even less plausible that NESC, which was expressly set up to study Soviet attacks on the USA, would have been requested to prepare a plan for a US first strike.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    You and other academic mercenaires can wax lyrical about the US defensiveness during the Cold War 1.0, but every half brained monkey knows that the US nuclear force triad was always an offensive tool for global domination. It does not matter if the strategic plan Ron describes here was the plan for the First Strike or not, there were other such plans. Would US spend godzillions of dollars on nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles and then not have a strategic plan for their first use? What kind of an irresponsible POTUS would go into office without ordering a plan for the First Strike? The only thing that ever prevented one of such First Strike plans from being implemented has been the percentage, that is how much of a payback would US receive. Whilst the Presidents were deliberating, the Soviet Union would close the gap. In a nutshell, that is the whole history of the First Cold War. I suggest you read the latest article by Peter Lee on this zine.

    Now, regarding the Cold War 2.0, Russia should install its ABMD sites in Cuba and near the Bering Strait, to defend itself from the Iranian, Martian or some other missiles.
    , @Ron Unz

    As further evidence I would like to direct your, and Galbraith’s, attention to the discussion at pages 32-33 of the Kaplan et al symposium transcript (link above, the one from the JFK library).
     
    Well, as I mentioned above, I'm perfectly willing to concede that in hindsight the NSC discussion was very likely regarding a Soviet first strike, though perhaps Galbraith will still dispute the case if he decides to participate in this discussion.

    But as I mentioned above, isn't all of this based on government documents declassified long, long after the original Galbraith article was published? I'd argue that without those documents, there seemed to be overwhelming evidence that the discussion was regarding an American first strike, which is the more natural interpretation of the Burris Memo, especially based on the actual disproportionality of ICBMs at the time. After all, such expert critics as Burr/Rosenberg claimed the discussion was a Soviet first strike, but were unable to cite any evidence in support of their position. And the title of the much later 2001 Kaplan article was "JFK's First-Strike Plan."

    Suppose evidence suddenly appears of a massive story, which is inexplicably ignored by our entire MSM. Then, fifteen or twenty years later, additional evidence appears demonstrating that the first story was incorrect. Does that excuse the behavior of the MSM? Not in my opinion.

    Remember, the title of my piece began with "American Pravda" and the actual topic was our unreliable MSM, rather than what long-dead officials had discussed at a secret meeting in 1961.
  139. @academic gossip
    Ron,

    As further evidence I would like to direct your, and Galbraith's, attention to the discussion at pages 32-33 of the Kaplan et al symposium transcript (link above, the one from the JFK library). A discussion between two of the assembled experts mentions two downward revisions to the "missile gap" estimates in 1961, one in September (the National Intelligence Estimate of Sept 21 that, they say, took back the missile gap) and one in June.

    It's not specified exactly what happened when in June, but this could be (and sounds like it is) the revised estimate that in the NESC report is said to have been a few weeks old. There was a June estimate familiar to at least two of the experts at the symposium, and judging from their remarks it was a lot more conditional than the one in September 21. Expert #2 (Prados) says that the June estimate was "not much of a change" and that some of the upper limits of the ICBM launcher estimates in the June report were consistent with the earlier "missile gap" estimates.

    So: overall, the credibility of a USSR first strike was weakening over time, but it is not clear if the idea of a "missile gap" was invalidated by the time of the July 20, 1961 meeting with President Kennedy, never mind a year earlier when the analysis was commissioned or at whatever earlier time in June or July the report was written. Even if the only issue were the relative number of ICBMs or launchers, there does not need to be a missile gap in order for a USSR first strike to make sense numerically. The Russians could (up to a point) have had fewer nukes and still in theory been able to leave the USA in a weaker position than the USSR after the retaliatory strike. The calculus is also affected by the fact that the US counterattack strategy, SIOP, included full-scale nuclear attacks on Eastern Europe and China, which would use up some of the American ICBMs on targets of less concern to the Soviet Union.

    From the comments at the symposium, the revised estimate in 1961 came later than the June 3 meeting of Kennedy and Khruschev in Vienna. The Corona satellite Discoverer 25 was launched on June 16 and recovered June 18, so if that was the reason for the revision, it would have been at the end of the month. Of course the two experts might be saying June for an event in July (which by that date would surely have been based on photos from at least one of the spy satellites), but they both remember it as June with relatively specific memories of the contents of the report.

    Another point is that if the NESC report were commissioned at a time when people did believe in a missile gap, the exact same missile-counting argument that you and Galbraith made also says that it would not have made sense for the USA to conduct a first strike. To the extent people believed in a missile gap, this makes it even less plausible that NESC, which was expressly set up to study Soviet attacks on the USA, would have been requested to prepare a plan for a US first strike.

    You and other academic mercenaires can wax lyrical about the US defensiveness during the Cold War 1.0, but every half brained monkey knows that the US nuclear force triad was always an offensive tool for global domination. It does not matter if the strategic plan Ron describes here was the plan for the First Strike or not, there were other such plans. Would US spend godzillions of dollars on nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles and then not have a strategic plan for their first use? What kind of an irresponsible POTUS would go into office without ordering a plan for the First Strike? The only thing that ever prevented one of such First Strike plans from being implemented has been the percentage, that is how much of a payback would US receive. Whilst the Presidents were deliberating, the Soviet Union would close the gap. In a nutshell, that is the whole history of the First Cold War. I suggest you read the latest article by Peter Lee on this zine.

    Now, regarding the Cold War 2.0, Russia should install its ABMD sites in Cuba and near the Bering Strait, to defend itself from the Iranian, Martian or some other missiles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "...Russia should install its ABMD sites in Cuba and near the Bering Strait, to defend itself from the Iranian, Martian or some other missiles."
    Great idea. The neocons would finally learn a thing or two about world geography.
  140. @unit472
    You raise the key issue, the unreliability of ICBMS of the era and the travel time for manned bombers to reach their targets. I have no doubt military planners theorized about 'First Strike' scenarios and even developed operational plans to conduct one but, even today, the logistical problems of carrying one out are daunting.

    No nation has ever salvo launched dozens of its ICBMS much less a hundred or more. It's too expensive and could be misinterpreted even if pre-announced as a training exercise. Look at the difficulty space agencies still have in successfully launching a satellite ( and nuclear warhead is nothing but a suborbital satellite). Teams of technicians carefully monitor the launch vehicle and will postpone the launch if conditions are not ideal and yet failures still occur! Attempting to launch hundreds of missiles that have been sitting in inventory for months or even years and not have a significant number of launch and or guidance failures would be miraculous yet a 'first strike' requires such a scenario to be 'successful'. Weather alone would make some ICBM locales non operational. Thunderstorms over a missile or airbase would rule out using those launch vehicles yet the targets they are intended to strike might be absolutely necessary to hit in the first wave of strikes.

    The idea that either Russia or the US could send 100s of ICBMs in a perfectly synchronized wave of annihilation, evaluate the success of the strikes, and send a secondary wave in to mop up any misses isn't a rational war plan. A 'first strike' can only really mean attacking population centers and hoping that would destroy the military chain of command and render the enemy nations 2nd strike potential impotent.

    No nation has ever salvo launched dozens of its ICBMS much less a hundred or more.

    that’s not correct. on 06.08.1991 the SSBN K-407 “Novomoskovsk” (project 667 “Delfin”, or “Delta in NATO classification) salvo-fired its full complement of 16 “Sineva” ICBMs from a submerged position. you can easily find it on Youtube, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHChZHzUUbg. All missiles launched and hit the planned targets successfully.

    Read More
  141. coming from the Russian side, I’m slightly surprised that this is treated like a revelation of some sort. in the USSR it was self-understanding that the Americans were eagerly waiting for a chance to a nuclear first-strike with no or little risk to themselves, and the whole doctrine was built on making the counter-strike lethal enough in any situation (be it nuclear or conventional, as in the late 40s and early 50s, when the USSR did not yet have a significant nuclear arsenal, but a complete superiority in regular troops and armor in Europe). a discussion of a Soviet first strike would be just ludicrous, people would consider you a dangerous lunatic, at best.

    there’s ample evidence for even earlier plans of a nuclear first-strike by the US/UK, see operations Dropshot and Unthinkable, well-documented even on English-language Wikipedia. so is the SIOP plan which is talked about here – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan

    Read More
  142. @academic gossip
    Ron,

    As further evidence I would like to direct your, and Galbraith's, attention to the discussion at pages 32-33 of the Kaplan et al symposium transcript (link above, the one from the JFK library). A discussion between two of the assembled experts mentions two downward revisions to the "missile gap" estimates in 1961, one in September (the National Intelligence Estimate of Sept 21 that, they say, took back the missile gap) and one in June.

    It's not specified exactly what happened when in June, but this could be (and sounds like it is) the revised estimate that in the NESC report is said to have been a few weeks old. There was a June estimate familiar to at least two of the experts at the symposium, and judging from their remarks it was a lot more conditional than the one in September 21. Expert #2 (Prados) says that the June estimate was "not much of a change" and that some of the upper limits of the ICBM launcher estimates in the June report were consistent with the earlier "missile gap" estimates.

    So: overall, the credibility of a USSR first strike was weakening over time, but it is not clear if the idea of a "missile gap" was invalidated by the time of the July 20, 1961 meeting with President Kennedy, never mind a year earlier when the analysis was commissioned or at whatever earlier time in June or July the report was written. Even if the only issue were the relative number of ICBMs or launchers, there does not need to be a missile gap in order for a USSR first strike to make sense numerically. The Russians could (up to a point) have had fewer nukes and still in theory been able to leave the USA in a weaker position than the USSR after the retaliatory strike. The calculus is also affected by the fact that the US counterattack strategy, SIOP, included full-scale nuclear attacks on Eastern Europe and China, which would use up some of the American ICBMs on targets of less concern to the Soviet Union.

    From the comments at the symposium, the revised estimate in 1961 came later than the June 3 meeting of Kennedy and Khruschev in Vienna. The Corona satellite Discoverer 25 was launched on June 16 and recovered June 18, so if that was the reason for the revision, it would have been at the end of the month. Of course the two experts might be saying June for an event in July (which by that date would surely have been based on photos from at least one of the spy satellites), but they both remember it as June with relatively specific memories of the contents of the report.

    Another point is that if the NESC report were commissioned at a time when people did believe in a missile gap, the exact same missile-counting argument that you and Galbraith made also says that it would not have made sense for the USA to conduct a first strike. To the extent people believed in a missile gap, this makes it even less plausible that NESC, which was expressly set up to study Soviet attacks on the USA, would have been requested to prepare a plan for a US first strike.

    As further evidence I would like to direct your, and Galbraith’s, attention to the discussion at pages 32-33 of the Kaplan et al symposium transcript (link above, the one from the JFK library).

    Well, as I mentioned above, I’m perfectly willing to concede that in hindsight the NSC discussion was very likely regarding a Soviet first strike, though perhaps Galbraith will still dispute the case if he decides to participate in this discussion.

    But as I mentioned above, isn’t all of this based on government documents declassified long, long after the original Galbraith article was published? I’d argue that without those documents, there seemed to be overwhelming evidence that the discussion was regarding an American first strike, which is the more natural interpretation of the Burris Memo, especially based on the actual disproportionality of ICBMs at the time. After all, such expert critics as Burr/Rosenberg claimed the discussion was a Soviet first strike, but were unable to cite any evidence in support of their position. And the title of the much later 2001 Kaplan article was “JFK’s First-Strike Plan.”

    Suppose evidence suddenly appears of a massive story, which is inexplicably ignored by our entire MSM. Then, fifteen or twenty years later, additional evidence appears demonstrating that the first story was incorrect. Does that excuse the behavior of the MSM? Not in my opinion.

    Remember, the title of my piece began with “American Pravda” and the actual topic was our unreliable MSM, rather than what long-dead officials had discussed at a secret meeting in 1961.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Suppose evidence suddenly appears of a massive story, which is inexplicably ignored by our entire MSM. Then, fifteen or twenty years later, additional evidence appears demonstrating that the first story was incorrect. Does that excuse the behavior of the MSM? Not in my opinion.
     
    Mr. Unz -

    - your impressive article is a) counter-factual and
    b) it consists mainly of inductive conclusions.

    There's always the social and personal perspective being at paly between a set of facts and the right interpretation of it.
    In other words: To be right, your American Pravda article would have to include the perspective of media professionals from the time of 1960 ff.

    To make an American Pravda case true, you'd have to find out, what the media-professionals 1960ff. who had the information you think they had, thought about it. And you'd have to make sure, they didn't know more then, than you think they knew now.
    As long as you haven't conquered this territory, or as long as no important MSM person speaks out - a lot of them still could, i'd guess, your story can not be more than an interesting hypothesis about a catastrophy, that did - thank the heavens above - not occur.

    , @academic gossip

    there seemed to be overwhelming evidence that the [July 20, 1961 White House] discussion was regarding an American first strike, which is the more natural interpretation of the Burris Memo,
     
    The more natural interpretation is a USSR first strike and this is clear from the memo.
    When Kennedy asked about damage to the USSR from a pre-emptive attack and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said he could dig up that information from other studies, that seems to indicate very clearly that the report discussed at the meeting was not about a pre-emptive attack on the USSR. See my comment 83 above quoting the words from the report.

    After all, such expert critics as Burr/Rosenberg claimed the discussion was a Soviet first strike, but were unable to cite any evidence in support of their position.
     
    Burr/Rosenberg's evidence included the same observation I have made about the memo, that the Q&A involving Kennedy and General Lemnitzer makes it clear that the report discussed at the meeting could not have been about a US first strike. Had the meeting been about a US first strike, any report on that would have estimated the damage to the USSR. Burris' memo says that such estimates were not available during the meeting.

    Galbraith and Purcell did not respond to this point in the exchange of letters to TAP. The likely reason is that they had no rebuttal to make. You have not answered this point either other than to declare that Burr and Rosenberg were "unable to cite any evidence". Well, this is part of the evidence that they did cite. Unless you have some explanation of how the Kennedy/Lemnitzer exchange could have gone the way that Burris wrote, in a meeting to discuss a report on a US first strike, the memo itself indicates that the most plausible interpretation is that the subject of the meeting was to discuss the net result of a USSR first strike.

    especially based on the actual disproportionality of ICBMs at the time.
     
    Anyone in the MSM in 1961 would have remembered the recent history of the "missile gap" issue and understood that at the time the report was commissioned, and to some extent at the time of the meeting, the proportionality of ICBMs was an open question. It was not really settled until September 1961, as explained in my earlier comments.

    And the title of the much later 2001 Kaplan article was “JFK’s First-Strike Plan.”
     
    Kaplan talks about a different report not related to the July 20 meeting, the Kaysen/Rowen "limited first strike" plan in connection with the Berlin crisis. The Kaysen plan was reported on in books (such as Kaplan 1983) and television programs (a PBS series in 1989) with due attention to it being a first-strike. PBS openvault has video of many interviews with Kaysen, McNamara and others. Very interesting stuff and they ask everyone about the idea of a US first strike, in connection with the Kaysen plan. I have not seen the broadcast program to know how much of it talked about the first strike plan, but such a plan lacks the sensational characteristics Galbraith assigned to the July 20 meeting.

    The secret meeting in 1961 was in fact leaked to some of the press and was written up in Look magazine in November of that year (see the NukeVault site). This is what led to McGeorge Bundy's memo to LBJ about the meeting, also archived at that site. From Bundy's memo, it does sound like the article talks about a US first strike, or the memo would have addressed that.

    The lack of further attention by MSM may have to do with the fact that some sources contacted about a meeting that was really about a USSR first strike would have refuted the speculation that it was about a US first strike. Probably at least some of those present were alive in 1993 and willing to talk off the record.
  143. The Soviet or Russian First Nuclear Strike on US belongs to that special Westen Public Discourse Category to which Humanitarian Bombing also belongs. This Category is for US brains only, a normalized deviance (a must read article: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/15/us-war-crimes-or-normalized-deviance/), ofense is the best defense, anything repeated long enough becomes the “truth” and so on.

    But it is quite illustrative that one of the most vocal proponents of the defensive role of the US nuclear weapons is a Hasbara troll with a nick Svigor. It suggests that again the usual suspects are behind the US nuclear domination sold to US domestics as “defense”.

    Read More
  144. @Jonathan Revusky
    It seems to me that they couldn't have just attacked the USSR with no pretext whatsoever. They must have also been preparing some sort of false flag event that would have justified the war for the American public.

    With the "Global War on Terror", there was 9/11 of course. Similarly, they surely would have had to be preparing some major psy op to make it seem like the attack was justified.

    Or something minor for that matter…like the assassination of archduke Ferdinand that got WW I rolling.

    Read More
  145. @Bill
    He played Strangelove, the RAF officer, Lionel Mandrake, and POTUS. POTUS, one Merkin Muffley, he played as a weak-willed nitwit. You seem to be mixing Mandrake and Muffley in your memory. Mandrake was certainly very polite, but he was not especially confused. He understood the situation he was in very quickly and did his best to con Gen Turgidson into calling off the unauthorized mission or into giving him, Mandrake, the information necessary for Mandrake to call it off. Mandrake was smart, confident, brave, and selfless. Comedically, he was Turgidson's straight man. Sellers wasn't all that good a straight man---the straight man is not really supposed to steal the scenes the way Sellers did. It worked though. Those are some of the funniest scenes in the movie.

    Thank you, Bill,

    It has been so long since I watched it that I had forgotten the turn as Merkin Muffley, in itself a delightful play on words, rather applicable to Hillary Clinton.

    I recall Mandrake’s actions as you do, I am not stupid, but I think my initial characterisaion is accurate, in Sellers’ playing of the character.

    I love his doubie performance in the original movie of Lolita, within the plot, but on first seeing it, I never worked it out, on first viewing, it was only later (after having read the book).

    Remake was crap.

    Even his first effort with Blake Edwards, The Party, the closing half-hour is pretty dreadful, but Sellers is pure comic genius in the first hour.

    The biopic about him, twelve or so years ago, was insufferable (saw it at the cinema), why so rude and negative, he was clearly a very brilliant performer, who cares about his private vanities?

    Being There, what a wonderful swansong, and a brilliant performance.

    Again, thanks Bill, must watch Strangelove again.

    … but Breedlove is the thing of the now!

    Cheers!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Yeah, Being There is amazing. My college roommate introduced me to that film. I hadn't seen it because it sounded stupid to me. He had to twist my arm. But, as you say, it was brilliant work.
  146. @manton
    His alleged remarks were not said in public but in private. They were "reported" by Michael Hayden, who was not there, but who claims to have talked to someone who was there. Scarborough didn't report it but Hayden said it on his show.

    Agreed upon: Alleged remarks had been made in private.

    Now a) The remarks were not like reported. – Was it a trap then?

    b) If it was something like a trap: Wouldn’t that show, that Trump wasn’t very cautious selecting the people with whom he talked about this subject – which is world news now?

    After all -
    Is it wise, that Trump now does not to talk about this subject in public? – I tend to think: Yes.

    Plus – I’ve seen on video what Trump said about the second-amendment-people and I’d say: That was clearly over the top. – Could just have slipped out of his mouth. Normal reaction was to apologize. – Shouldn’t he apologize?

    Read More
  147. @Ron Unz

    As further evidence I would like to direct your, and Galbraith’s, attention to the discussion at pages 32-33 of the Kaplan et al symposium transcript (link above, the one from the JFK library).
     
    Well, as I mentioned above, I'm perfectly willing to concede that in hindsight the NSC discussion was very likely regarding a Soviet first strike, though perhaps Galbraith will still dispute the case if he decides to participate in this discussion.

    But as I mentioned above, isn't all of this based on government documents declassified long, long after the original Galbraith article was published? I'd argue that without those documents, there seemed to be overwhelming evidence that the discussion was regarding an American first strike, which is the more natural interpretation of the Burris Memo, especially based on the actual disproportionality of ICBMs at the time. After all, such expert critics as Burr/Rosenberg claimed the discussion was a Soviet first strike, but were unable to cite any evidence in support of their position. And the title of the much later 2001 Kaplan article was "JFK's First-Strike Plan."

    Suppose evidence suddenly appears of a massive story, which is inexplicably ignored by our entire MSM. Then, fifteen or twenty years later, additional evidence appears demonstrating that the first story was incorrect. Does that excuse the behavior of the MSM? Not in my opinion.

    Remember, the title of my piece began with "American Pravda" and the actual topic was our unreliable MSM, rather than what long-dead officials had discussed at a secret meeting in 1961.

    Suppose evidence suddenly appears of a massive story, which is inexplicably ignored by our entire MSM. Then, fifteen or twenty years later, additional evidence appears demonstrating that the first story was incorrect. Does that excuse the behavior of the MSM? Not in my opinion.

    Mr. Unz -

    – your impressive article is a) counter-factual and
    b) it consists mainly of inductive conclusions.

    There’s always the social and personal perspective being at paly between a set of facts and the right interpretation of it.
    In other words: To be right, your American Pravda article would have to include the perspective of media professionals from the time of 1960 ff.

    To make an American Pravda case true, you’d have to find out, what the media-professionals 1960ff. who had the information you think they had, thought about it. And you’d have to make sure, they didn’t know more then, than you think they knew now.
    As long as you haven’t conquered this territory, or as long as no important MSM person speaks out – a lot of them still could, i’d guess, your story can not be more than an interesting hypothesis about a catastrophy, that did – thank the heavens above – not occur.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    To make an American Pravda case true, you’d have to find out, what the media-professionals 1960ff. who had the information you think they had, thought about it.
     
    Sorry, perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. Obviously, the American media had no access to the details of the 1961 NSC meeting at that time or for decades afterward, so they cannot possibly be criticized for failing to report the events.

    However, this had changed by 1993, after the declassification of the seemingly-shocking Burris Memo and its analysis in the Galbraith article, followed by the very weak Burr/Rosenberg rebuttals. From that point forward, I would argue that the MSM silence is quite damning.

    I suppose it's possible that the entire MSM had illegal access to the other documents later declassified in 2013, or descriptions of them, but this seems implausible without further evidence. It is perfectly possible that MSM journalists were quietly told by present or former government officials that "secret documents would prove that there's no big story," but surely those officials would have said exactly the same thing even if it weren't true. Or don't you believe that government officials might sometimes, err, "lie", to mainstream journalists in order to shape their coverage?

    If you haven't already done so, you might want to read my original American Pravda article, which discusses these sorts of issues at considerable length:

    http://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/
  148. @Seamus Padraig

    If there was a “controlled demolition” that would mean somebody planted explosives inside an office complex which had almost 100K visitors and employees enter it every week, and do so under the noses of NYPD, the FBI, the PAPD, the office of NY state governor and numerous other governmental agencies who had offices on site.
     
    It's much easier when you own the buildings ... and when those buildings are known to contain asbestos: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it#Control_of_World_Trade_Center_Complex

    Problem with that is Silverstein had to fight tooth and nail by suing his insurance company to get them to pay up.So his motivation in terms of dollars was the chance to sue his insurance company, to say nothing of losing several years’ rent receipts? Further the WTC was for a very long time a white elephant, largely dependent on rent from government agencies; so Silverstein jeopardized that to roll the dice on an iffy lawsuit that took years to resolve? He may be a jerk, but he isn’t an idiot.

    There is footage featured in may of the History/Discovery type docs of one of the chief engineers of the WTC who himself perished on 9/11 explaining the Towers were built strong enough to sustain an airliner strike. But again what was not accounted for was 2 huge sources of jet fuel burning the very flammable contents.

    Read More
  149. @Dieter Kief

    Suppose evidence suddenly appears of a massive story, which is inexplicably ignored by our entire MSM. Then, fifteen or twenty years later, additional evidence appears demonstrating that the first story was incorrect. Does that excuse the behavior of the MSM? Not in my opinion.
     
    Mr. Unz -

    - your impressive article is a) counter-factual and
    b) it consists mainly of inductive conclusions.

    There's always the social and personal perspective being at paly between a set of facts and the right interpretation of it.
    In other words: To be right, your American Pravda article would have to include the perspective of media professionals from the time of 1960 ff.

    To make an American Pravda case true, you'd have to find out, what the media-professionals 1960ff. who had the information you think they had, thought about it. And you'd have to make sure, they didn't know more then, than you think they knew now.
    As long as you haven't conquered this territory, or as long as no important MSM person speaks out - a lot of them still could, i'd guess, your story can not be more than an interesting hypothesis about a catastrophy, that did - thank the heavens above - not occur.

    To make an American Pravda case true, you’d have to find out, what the media-professionals 1960ff. who had the information you think they had, thought about it.

    Sorry, perhaps I wasn’t sufficiently clear. Obviously, the American media had no access to the details of the 1961 NSC meeting at that time or for decades afterward, so they cannot possibly be criticized for failing to report the events.

    However, this had changed by 1993, after the declassification of the seemingly-shocking Burris Memo and its analysis in the Galbraith article, followed by the very weak Burr/Rosenberg rebuttals. From that point forward, I would argue that the MSM silence is quite damning.

    I suppose it’s possible that the entire MSM had illegal access to the other documents later declassified in 2013, or descriptions of them, but this seems implausible without further evidence. It is perfectly possible that MSM journalists were quietly told by present or former government officials that “secret documents would prove that there’s no big story,” but surely those officials would have said exactly the same thing even if it weren’t true. Or don’t you believe that government officials might sometimes, err, “lie”, to mainstream journalists in order to shape their coverage?

    If you haven’t already done so, you might want to read my original American Pravda article, which discusses these sorts of issues at considerable length:

    http://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    I suppose it’s possible that the entire MSM had illegal access to the other documents later declassified in 2013, or descriptions of them, but this seems implausible without further evidence.
     
    That's why I wrote, your article is an impressive hypothesis. To see this changed, we'd be in need of further evidence: That's what you say, and that's what I've said about your text.

    Let me add this aspect -I've learned this from the German master-writer Martin Walser: As long as you are in the realm of counter-factual thoughts about things in the past, that have turned out good, and as long as you do so in a situation, that is full of angst anyway: You're definitely in short supply of public resonance. - To put it in the Fabulous Furry Freak-Brothers way, if you don't mind: Such counter-factual historical stuff is just too far out. - For - - hm hm - - (almost) erverbody.
    This said, I can happily continue in the name of the hardly visible unhappy rest, so to speak. And I'd like to end on a positive note, since I started from one as well:

    Let me put it this way: I'd be very interested indeed if someone of the MSM would speak out about the questions you posed in your article.

    My almost completely irrelevant hypothesis: As I've already said in my first comment on your article - : - I would expect MSM-persons to argue like this: 1) We t r u s t e d in our presidents and their inner circle. 2) We were told by sources close to power, that there were no real plans being made for a first-strike. 3) The whole thing was over, and we didn't want to stirr up national mistrust in our institutions in a case, that has factually been solved, simply because no first strike took place!


    A freak-thought, that fits in nowhere: What conclusions would one have to draw about the American mentality and the American society too, if my hypotheses turned out to be right: That there was no pravda-public sphere, but a functioning public sphere in US-America? That not everything in this public shpere is completely and irresponsibly and up to a point where it's flatout destructive and socially dysfunctional, commercialized?

    What about Jonathan Franzen's Purity-Thesis (I've mentioned the novel Purity in my first post already): That it's not necessarily good, to expose anything to the public. That this very idea is uncautious or: No good idea anymore, as soon as you've managed to grow up and and are lucky enough to develop a sane character (I'm referreing to Erich Fromm's Sane Society at this point).

    This leads me to the outscirts of enlightenment: That you should treat this idea with utter delicacy, because there's always the risk - to continue in the same metaphor, out of which the idea of the enlightenment arose: To end up blinded - by the light. I'd guess, that's correct: You could.

    I know this all is now definitely very far out and maybe quite a bit romantic. And I know, that there's only one thing worse than a world without romantics - one ruled by them...

    PS - Incorrect references, that might have occured in my former posts, are completely up to me. I've read your article.

  150. @Kiza
    Hello Ron, I have heard this fascinating version of how Putin came to power, one of at least four different versions. I discussed it before with Israel Shamir. I give this story credibility only because Putin shows unexplicable deference to Yeltsin, for example he gave him a very impressive state funeral with a speech, even built him a museum.

    The story is that Yeltsin was under almost complete control of his wife who was Jewish and the member of the Russian Zioliberal clique. BTW, apparently this Russan "elite" was well plugged in into US Ziocons. Among other things, the Zioliberals (apparently both mother and daughter) fed him an endless supply of vodka whilst using him as a frontman. Apparently, when sober Yeltsin was aware of what was going on and, after he got too ill to continue, as a final counter-act (almost revenge) he selected this unknown former KGB officer Vladimir Putin. It appears that the Russian Zioliberals either underestimated the young politician (a nobody), maybe hubris was at work, or maybe they could not do much against Yeltsin's persnal appointment. The rest is history - the Russian Zioliberals got their behinds kicked after Putin introduced the Russia First rule (so similar to what Trump is promising). Putin most successfully managed to make the distinction between the Jews and the Zioliberals. He is a friend of Jews and an enemy of Ziocon/Zioliberals. He is not even against the mega-rich Jewish oligarchs as long as they show respect for the country in which they acquired wealth. It is law versus lawlessness of the kind that US has been experiencing more and more (The Clinton Law).

    My understanding is that this is the kind of Putin you would like to have as a President/boss/dictator if necessary. Someone who would be skilful enough to repeat the same hattrick but on a much bigger scale and complexity, which is the US. Can Trump be the Putin of US? There are huge differences between two men. Trump looks less of a Putin then Putin, whilst the US situation requires more of a Putin than Putin is.

    I do not know, but I like to dream that a Western Putin crawls out from somewhere and starts making the necessary changes to save US and the World from US.

    “Can Trump be the Putin of US? There are huge differences between two men. Trump looks less of a Putin then Putin, whilst the US situation requires more of a Putin than Putin is.”

    Well put.

    Read More
  151. @Svigor
    That's a lot to read for a nothing burger. I read a couple graphs, smelled nothing burger, skimmed a couple more 'graphs, smelled nothing burger, scrolled past the rest.

    Was there any beef in there? Somebody got a quote? I hate reading a long piece, only to get no burger, so I hope someone lets me know if I'm wrong.

    That said, yes, they plan a lot in the military. If they were doing their jobs, they planned how to mount an insurgency against a successful Soviet invasion. OMG, they planned on losing a war to the Soviets! News at 11!

    Again, apologies if I'm wrong about this. The stench of nothing burger was really strong.

    “…apologies if I’m wrong about this.”

    No, you’re right. nothing burger pretty much sums it up.

    It’s amusing to see Kiza accusing of you of being a Hasbara troll (147).

    Read More
  152. @Ron Unz

    To make an American Pravda case true, you’d have to find out, what the media-professionals 1960ff. who had the information you think they had, thought about it.
     
    Sorry, perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. Obviously, the American media had no access to the details of the 1961 NSC meeting at that time or for decades afterward, so they cannot possibly be criticized for failing to report the events.

    However, this had changed by 1993, after the declassification of the seemingly-shocking Burris Memo and its analysis in the Galbraith article, followed by the very weak Burr/Rosenberg rebuttals. From that point forward, I would argue that the MSM silence is quite damning.

    I suppose it's possible that the entire MSM had illegal access to the other documents later declassified in 2013, or descriptions of them, but this seems implausible without further evidence. It is perfectly possible that MSM journalists were quietly told by present or former government officials that "secret documents would prove that there's no big story," but surely those officials would have said exactly the same thing even if it weren't true. Or don't you believe that government officials might sometimes, err, "lie", to mainstream journalists in order to shape their coverage?

    If you haven't already done so, you might want to read my original American Pravda article, which discusses these sorts of issues at considerable length:

    http://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/

    I suppose it’s possible that the entire MSM had illegal access to the other documents later declassified in 2013, or descriptions of them, but this seems implausible without further evidence.

    That’s why I wrote, your article is an impressive hypothesis. To see this changed, we’d be in need of further evidence: That’s what you say, and that’s what I’ve said about your text.

    Let me add this aspect -I’ve learned this from the German master-writer Martin Walser: As long as you are in the realm of counter-factual thoughts about things in the past, that have turned out good, and as long as you do so in a situation, that is full of angst anyway: You’re definitely in short supply of public resonance. – To put it in the Fabulous Furry Freak-Brothers way, if you don’t mind: Such counter-factual historical stuff is just too far out. – For – - hm hm – - (almost) erverbody.
    This said, I can happily continue in the name of the hardly visible unhappy rest, so to speak. And I’d like to end on a positive note, since I started from one as well:

    Let me put it this way: I’d be very interested indeed if someone of the MSM would speak out about the questions you posed in your article.

    My almost completely irrelevant hypothesis: As I’ve already said in my first comment on your article – : – I would expect MSM-persons to argue like this: 1) We t r u s t e d in our presidents and their inner circle. 2) We were told by sources close to power, that there were no real plans being made for a first-strike. 3) The whole thing was over, and we didn’t want to stirr up national mistrust in our institutions in a case, that has factually been solved, simply because no first strike took place!

    A freak-thought, that fits in nowhere: What conclusions would one have to draw about the American mentality and the American society too, if my hypotheses turned out to be right: That there was no pravda-public sphere, but a functioning public sphere in US-America? That not everything in this public shpere is completely and irresponsibly and up to a point where it’s flatout destructive and socially dysfunctional, commercialized?

    What about Jonathan Franzen’s Purity-Thesis (I’ve mentioned the novel Purity in my first post already): That it’s not necessarily good, to expose anything to the public. That this very idea is uncautious or: No good idea anymore, as soon as you’ve managed to grow up and and are lucky enough to develop a sane character (I’m referreing to Erich Fromm’s Sane Society at this point).

    This leads me to the outscirts of enlightenment: That you should treat this idea with utter delicacy, because there’s always the risk – to continue in the same metaphor, out of which the idea of the enlightenment arose: To end up blinded – by the light. I’d guess, that’s correct: You could.

    I know this all is now definitely very far out and maybe quite a bit romantic. And I know, that there’s only one thing worse than a world without romantics – one ruled by them…

    PS – Incorrect references, that might have occured in my former posts, are completely up to me. I’ve read your article.

    Read More
  153. @Truth
    Building 7 was "pulled" which is the technical term for controlled demolition. Silverstein even used it in the video where he explains what happened. He was the insured owner of the complex.
    Building 7 was the control center of the whole operation. And was destroyed when its purpose ended.
    It also , as an added benefit, housed the archives of Enron. That was convenient.
    I do hold an extremely high position in....... So I will refrain from insulting your obvious lack of knowledge and consequently your poor cognitive skills. Truther....I kinda like that. Sucker on the other hand.....

    The funniest thing about guys like you & Revusky is the way you adopt this de haut en bas attitude whenever addressing those who assume that the conventional wisdom on, say, the Kennedy Assassination, or 9/11, is more or less true.

    “I will refrain from insulting your obvious lack of knowledge and consequently your poor cognitive skills…” &c – you know, that sort of thing. (Revusky, of course, would add some obscenity-laced invective.)

    I mean, when you’re arguing from a position of strength, you might be able to get away with that. But you’re not arguing from a position of strength. You’re arguing from a position of weakness. Practically everybody is either ignoring you or laughing at you.

    Just from the point of view of rhetorical effectiveness, why not consider the opposite approach? A modest approach?

    Start by saying something like this: “Well, probably I’m wrong, and maybe I’m crazy – but isn’t it strange that…”

    …followed by a dispassionate discussion of the physics of building 7, or whatever.

    Why not give it a try?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Hi, Kermit. What you say is kind of fascinating...

    The funniest thing about guys like you & Revusky is the way you adopt this de haut en bas attitude
     
    Hmm, I guess the implicit idea is that I should treat you as my intellectual equal. Another way of expressing this is that I don't even pretend to respect you. And, yes, that is quite correct.

    But there is a history here. The first time we interacted, you called me a liar, because I stated that these various murky incidents in France, such as Charlie Hebdo, were false flags. Presumably, for you, the official story is so self-evidently true that anybody who says it isn't must be consciously lying. Thus, you called me a liar -- not "mistaken", you said I was lying.

    I answered you by posing the obvious question: what is the proof of the official story?

    You answered me by pointing to the wikipedia page that outlines the official story. In other words, the official story is proof of the official story. Seemingly, you never heard of the "beg the question" fallacy. I pointed this out to you and you never conceded the point and just walked away. That was here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/battling-the-matrix-and-freeing-oneself-from-the-roger-rabbit-mental-world/#comment-1334721

    Well, you did provide an "answer" of sorts, claiming that you had posted a link to the official story because I should know what the official story was! As if I didn't know!!!??? However, I had not requested a link repeating the official story. I wanted to know what the proof of the official story was and you never provided any.

    I later asked you in a separate discussion whether you had any proof of these things and pointed out that you had walked away from the discussion and you answered me as follows: "I got bored." That was here:

    http://www.unz.com/proberts/sandy-hook-puzzles/#comment-1348665

    It was just simply too "boring" to back up what you were saying with any factual or logical argument, so you just walked away.

    Of course, you were lying your ass off. Everybody who was not born yesterday knows that you walked away from the conversation because you had no response. I had requested proof of the official story and you had none. But like the little punk you are, you would not concede that. You answered: "I got bored."

    Now, you are representing that, after this kind of record on your part of absolutely infantile, insolent, moronic behavior, I am supposed to treat you as an equal. I guess, out of political correctness, I'm not supposed to point out what a little obnoxious lying punk you are.

    Well, no dice, Kermit. I don't owe you any respect. Respect is earned and you have done nothing to earn my respect. Quite the contrary.

    whenever addressing those who assume that the conventional wisdom on, say, the Kennedy Assassination, or 9/11, is more or less true.
     
    Well, the problem is that when a person simply "assumes" that the official story on a deep event such as JFK or 9/11 is true, he is basically affixing an "I AM AN IDIOT" sign on himself.

    So, you adopt this stance that the official story on these things is true, and if somebody asks you the proof, you say "it's too boring" and then you think you can whine that somebody like me, I don't treat you as my intellectual equal.

    Well, that's your problem and you'll have to get over it, I guess.

    Anyway, the basic problem with you is that you are shit eater. They throw whatever bullshit in your general direction and you eagerly eat it up. Yum yum. It's very mentally unhygienic.

    I mean, when you’re arguing from a position of strength, you might be able to get away with that. But you’re not arguing from a position of strength.
     
    Well, the above sentence shows how delusional people like you are. I'm actually arguing from a position of towering strength. At this point, I have written several articles totaling 26,000 words on this site. Many people hate what I wrote. Yet hardly anybody has even attempted to write any sort of rebuttal. 26,000 words and you and the rest of the shit eaters have nothing to sink your teeth into.

    You yourself gave it some sort of try, you showed up under the first artcle, calling me a liar, and I simply asked you what the proof of the official story on Charlie Hebdo etc. was and it was just totally obvious that you could not produce anything. You simply pointed me to the wikipedia page which repeated the story!

    Well, yeah, sure, you and the other mangeurs de merde could write a devastating rebuttal. Sure you could, but you don't, because it would be just too boring. Quel ennui!
  154. The US started the whole thing when Eisenhower began moves to give the Germans Nato nukes , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Force

    JFK proposed the same thing and Khrushchev completely overreacted and that was the point when US , not accepting that the Russians had genuine concerns, thought a first strike needed to be a option so the US pres could go ahead with his insane ideas. It was DeGaulle who put paid to the Germans getting nukes in the MLF. Don’t blame the military.

    The US never said it ruled out first use. It probably has a (highly secret) contingency plan for a nuclear strike on Britain, because it might come in handy one day..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The US never said it ruled out first use. It probably has a (highly secret) contingency plan for a nuclear strike on Britain, because it might come in handy one day..
     
    Why Britain? Because it's one of the world's nuclear powers? Or do you have a specific reason in mind for why Britain?
  155. @Priss Factor
    Aint trolling.

    Yeah, I said "Everything you need to learn and know is in the movies" tongue-in-cheek, but that describes our world.
    It's like what Gore Vidal said. We went from a literary culture to a movie culture.

    https://youtu.be/NLyvszhFAC4?t=4m34s

    Ever watch how the news always refer to movies but almost never to anything else.

    After Ted Koppel left Nightline and a new batch of folks took over, they would often begin a news story by relating it to a movie(even really stupid ones). They almost never mentioned books or literature for comparison.

    Siskel & Ebert won out over Simon in the culture war.

    Well, if you can't beat em, join em.

    Besides, there's something about movies that seem more communal and shared than books that are read alone and quietly. In the library, you are supposed to be silent to keep the silence. In the theater, you are supposed to be silent to surrender to the booming sound.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky9-eIlHzAE

    Remember Fulghum's "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten".

    Kindergarten should be replaced by 'movies'.

    "you belong in a battery commercial alongside the energizer bunny"

    I may seem like commenting a lot but that's because this is about the ONLY site where I comment since I'm banned from most sites.

    Unz the mad scientist lets the nutters run free, so we end up here.

    Now, you may be a smart, well-read, elitist, and fancy guy who went good schools and know the 'right kind of people', the better kind.
    You may look down on prole dumbasses like myself who aint got no fancy book-learning and fine diction and good manners and such. But we is what we is, and all folks got some points to make and truths to says. Slats Grobniks of the world need to say their say too.

    You want to run us out of town. And let me tell you why. We regular folks ruined one of your most valuable narratives. For many years you had the narrative under control. You spent hundreds of millions of dollars. You were gonna make it the biggest and only star in the universe. And then we come along with our olive oil voice and guinea charm, and the narrative takes a hit. It crumbled and made you look ridiculous. And a man in your position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous.

    “…prole dumbasses like myself who aint got no fancy book-learning and fine diction and good manners and such.”

    As if. My bet is that you’ve read at least two of these three cover to cover:

    1 Ulysses
    2 Swann’s Way
    3 Inferno

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    No way. I saw the Joseph Strick version of ULYSSES but turned it off when there was no Greek on a boat. I know there's a Volker Schlondorff's film version of Swann's Way, but I don't like him as director even though Tin Drum was sort of fun; never read the book.
    But TIME REGAINED by Raul Ruiz is a great great film. I watched it four times in theater. I almost wanted to read the book but lasted just a few pages because it's too long.
    Never read Dante. But Towering Inferno is a pretty good movie, especially the scene when Steve McQueen grabs onto the fireman who slips off the elevator.

    I really am an unlearned member of hoi polloi. And all my life, people done look down on me. Ivy League folks see folks like myself as morons and ignorami. I knowed from a young age that there are two kinds of people in this world. Those who got fancy learning and those who watch movies. Actually, there are three kinds. Book folks, movie folks, and TV folks. Book folks think they know so much because they have word-snobbery. TV folks got no taste and they are the true morons with no taste. They get into Star Trek. Their heroes are Capt. Kirk and Gorn. They think Breaking Bad is a great work of art. They watch LOST, a fatso running around on an island.

    What kills me is how tasteless the book folks can be sometimes. Jonah Goldberg thinks Breaking Bad, aka Breaking Bald Head, is some great work of art, truly profound stuff.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359223/breaking-bad-breaks-through-jonah-goldberg

    Walter Russell Mead can't stop referring to Game of Thrones, a TV show about a dwarf with a crown.

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2011/08/08/the-game-of-thrones-returns/

    Francis Fukyomama thinks THE WIRE is some great work of art.

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2012/08/10/down-to-the-wire/

    Now, these folks are book folks. They got some fancy learning from fine colleges whereas I went to hoi polloi school. They read more books in a single month than I will in my lifetime.
    But they got NO taste.

    Fukoyama is considered 'conservative', but he thinks THE WIRE is so great because it has a black homo or Homogro as a hero. He's into homomania like the rest. Hey, there is a homo black guy and he's a good guy because being homo makes you good and noble. Gimme a break. Homogros are some of the craziest loonies around. They are like thuggery + bitchasshoness.

    But not all Book folks are like that. Some refuse to watch TV. I think Susan Sontag got rid of her TV, and some of them forbid their kids from watching TV except for PBS stuff. Book folks certainly are smart and knowledgeable. They are high IQ and got fancy learning. But they are like the people at the end of FAHRENHEIT 451 by Trufffaut which is better than the book. They confuse world with ideas and figures and details. Reality is more than that.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCaLf7fA07w

    Even though the fire captain is the villain in the story, he's not entirely wrong. Books are unhealthy in some ways. They take us away from reality. Philosophers all say the same thing: 'my explanation of why shit happens is right'. I mean academia is filled with book folks, and they are the ones who gave us communism, PC, totalitarianism, homomania, imperialism, globalism, Wall Street derivatives, micro-aggressions, and etc. It's like the strange thing about Orwell's 1984 is that it was created by intellectuals like Winston Smith. When asked if he would DO ANYTHING to end the Big Brother system, Smith says yes. But then, that's why the Big Brother system came into place in the first place. The intellectual will TO DO ANYTHING to create a just world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgZ4Z82m7t4

    As for TV folks, they are totally lost in fantasy.

    But then, there is the Goldilocks middle, the movie folks, and these are the sanest(even when they are crazy). There is a sense of common culture in movies. In contrast, book folks tend to get lost in their own solitary universe of theories and figures.

    Anyway, because movies are expensive productions, a lot of work go into them to make them just right.
    In contrast, cheapie TV shows go on forever, so they are packed with trivia, fillers, and nonsense. Also, nowadays, it's impossible to see any TV show without coming across some ad featuring homo 'dads' who bugger each in the ass and feed their 'child' Campbell soup. Yuck. No TV for me. I saw some Olympics the last time around, and I saw so many homo 'family' ads that I refuse to watch any Rio stuff. No homo propaganda for me.

    I knowed from a young age that there are folks many times smarter. And these high IQ folks who went to fancy schools gonna look down us hoi polloi as dummies. It's just a Natural Prejudice. Smart fancy-learned folks look down on common folks such as myself who got learning in public schools and Time-Life history books and PBS documentaries because we never done had the opportunity to get fancy learning and get high scores on SAT and go to top schools and look down on dummies. No sir. I knowed from a young age. It's like my pa said, "wow, you sure is dumb." Also, I went to school with fair amount of Diversity until 6th grade. Negro kids never did homework and their knowledge was 'what you watch last night'. On the telly of course. Yr after yr, there were fewer white kids in my school cuz they left. Asian kids were leaving too. In my last yr at the public school, the class was like 70% black. And my 6th grade teacher, a Negro who looked like Fiddler on Roots called Mr. Harris. He dressed well, but he wasn't exactly Professor Kingsfield. For science, I recall him defining 'matter'. "Mattuh is anything you can touch. Like dis here table. (He puts his hand on it.) You see, it is mattuh." So, I thought the scientific definition of 'matter' was 'stuff you can touch'. Most times, though, he wasn't teaching but eating his corned beef sandwich and dozing off. For history, he had a peculiar way of teaching. He didn't lecture anything. Instead, he gave us a bunch of sentences in a book and made us look for those sentences. We just had to find where the sentences were and give the page numbers, and that was history. But the old fool got sick(he had a bad heart) and we had a white Libby-dib pregnant white woman as a sub for half a year. Kids get out of control with a sub, but Negroes and a white female pregnant sub? Sheeeeesh!!!
    All hell broke loose. I mean we weren't learning much to begin with, but at least there was order in the class cuz Mr. Harris could get pretty mean and angry. If some black kid got out of line, he would cuss, "Zachary, GET YOUR ASS BACK IN HERE BEFORE I WHUP IT!!!!" Negroes understand that kind of talk. But this white woman... she had no idea what to do. Black girls were asking stuff like "why you sleep with your man?"

    And education degenerated into black girls yapping about celebrities and pop music. And boys flipping through comic books looking for funny creatures and saying 'this yo mama'. A Filipino became top dog in this by pointing to an whole army of monsters and saying, 'this yo whole generation'. And then, the Viet kids arrived all of a sudden due to Boat People crisis. Some kid was named U-tan, and kids called him Orang-Utan. Another kids was named Joo but it was spelled Chieu, which read as Chew, and every time some half-breed Injun chewed gum, he would say to Joo or Chieu, "Look, I'm Chew-chew chewing gum". Chew eventually figured we were all making fun of him, so he got to saying 'Your mama bolo.' We all wondered what 'bolo' meant. For all we knew, he was that muscle man in ENTER THE DRAGON. One day, we went to a Vietnamese-American bilingual teacher and asked, 'what does bolo mean?' and he got angry and asked, "What? Who say such?" And we said "Chew said, 'your mama bolo'." And he went over to Chew and slapped him upside his head old school. And he yelled to us, "Bolo no good. It mean shit." I can go on and on. I will never forgot my last yr in that public school even though I try to.

    So, you see, by the time I went to a suburban school in 7th school with smart Jews, asians, and white kids, I was woefully behind, and they looked down on me as dumbass, and I never done learned how to read and write well.

    But then, there are the movies, and that taught me stuff.
  156. No, you’re right. nothing burger pretty much sums it up.

    Thanks. Sometimes I just don’t feel like wading through, y’know?

    Read More
  157. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sean
    The US started the whole thing when Eisenhower began moves to give the Germans Nato nukes , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Force

    JFK proposed the same thing and Khrushchev completely overreacted and that was the point when US , not accepting that the Russians had genuine concerns, thought a first strike needed to be a option so the US pres could go ahead with his insane ideas. It was DeGaulle who put paid to the Germans getting nukes in the MLF. Don't blame the military.


    The US never said it ruled out first use. It probably has a (highly secret) contingency plan for a nuclear strike on Britain, because it might come in handy one day..

    The US never said it ruled out first use. It probably has a (highly secret) contingency plan for a nuclear strike on Britain, because it might come in handy one day..

    Why Britain? Because it’s one of the world’s nuclear powers? Or do you have a specific reason in mind for why Britain?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Britain, Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, Japan, ..........

    Maybe even Canada. Maybe especially Canada. Mexico. Pakistan. India. Indonesia ....
  158. @Anonymous

    The US never said it ruled out first use. It probably has a (highly secret) contingency plan for a nuclear strike on Britain, because it might come in handy one day..
     
    Why Britain? Because it's one of the world's nuclear powers? Or do you have a specific reason in mind for why Britain?

    Britain, Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, Japan, ……….

    Maybe even Canada. Maybe especially Canada. Mexico. Pakistan. India. Indonesia ….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I did mention half-brained monkeys, I did not mention BSers.
  159. @dearieme
    Britain, Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, Japan, ..........

    Maybe even Canada. Maybe especially Canada. Mexico. Pakistan. India. Indonesia ....

    I did mention half-brained monkeys, I did not mention BSers.

    Read More
  160. @Priss Factor
    Aint trolling.

    Yeah, I said "Everything you need to learn and know is in the movies" tongue-in-cheek, but that describes our world.
    It's like what Gore Vidal said. We went from a literary culture to a movie culture.

    https://youtu.be/NLyvszhFAC4?t=4m34s

    Ever watch how the news always refer to movies but almost never to anything else.

    After Ted Koppel left Nightline and a new batch of folks took over, they would often begin a news story by relating it to a movie(even really stupid ones). They almost never mentioned books or literature for comparison.

    Siskel & Ebert won out over Simon in the culture war.

    Well, if you can't beat em, join em.

    Besides, there's something about movies that seem more communal and shared than books that are read alone and quietly. In the library, you are supposed to be silent to keep the silence. In the theater, you are supposed to be silent to surrender to the booming sound.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky9-eIlHzAE

    Remember Fulghum's "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten".

    Kindergarten should be replaced by 'movies'.

    "you belong in a battery commercial alongside the energizer bunny"

    I may seem like commenting a lot but that's because this is about the ONLY site where I comment since I'm banned from most sites.

    Unz the mad scientist lets the nutters run free, so we end up here.

    Now, you may be a smart, well-read, elitist, and fancy guy who went good schools and know the 'right kind of people', the better kind.
    You may look down on prole dumbasses like myself who aint got no fancy book-learning and fine diction and good manners and such. But we is what we is, and all folks got some points to make and truths to says. Slats Grobniks of the world need to say their say too.

    You want to run us out of town. And let me tell you why. We regular folks ruined one of your most valuable narratives. For many years you had the narrative under control. You spent hundreds of millions of dollars. You were gonna make it the biggest and only star in the universe. And then we come along with our olive oil voice and guinea charm, and the narrative takes a hit. It crumbled and made you look ridiculous. And a man in your position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous.

    Now, you may be a smart, well-read, elitist, and fancy guy who went good schools and know the ‘right kind of people’, the better kind.
    You may look down on prole dumbasses like myself who aint got no fancy book-learning and fine diction and good manners and such.

    Well, what you’re doing is completely projecting your own obsessions on other people — well, me in this case, because you’re ostensibly replying to me.

    The fact is that I don’t give a damn what schools anybody went to or what their level of formal education is. And I do not believe that I have ever said anything that would lead anybody to conclude that I think that way at all.

    Actually, quite the contrary. At this point, I’ve written a series of articles for the Unz Review, in which a central theme is the concept of “High IQ Idiots”, i.e. overeducated idiots, which is very much an ANTI-elitist sort of concept.

    Well, the problem is that, rather than replying to ME, you are replying to some stereotyped construct you have created in your own mind — some sort of elitist know-it-all, who is not me at all. Well, to put it bluntly, you are basically talking to yourself!

    If you actually want to add some value, maybe you should expend a bit more effort figuring out who you are actually talking to, and talk to that person, rather than some stereotyped character you have constructed in your own mind, because frankly, that is rather masturbatory.

    Read More
  161. @vinteuil
    The funniest thing about guys like you & Revusky is the way you adopt this de haut en bas attitude whenever addressing those who assume that the conventional wisdom on, say, the Kennedy Assassination, or 9/11, is more or less true.

    "I will refrain from insulting your obvious lack of knowledge and consequently your poor cognitive skills..." &c - you know, that sort of thing. (Revusky, of course, would add some obscenity-laced invective.)

    I mean, when you're arguing from a position of strength, you might be able to get away with that. But you're not arguing from a position of strength. You're arguing from a position of weakness. Practically everybody is either ignoring you or laughing at you.

    Just from the point of view of rhetorical effectiveness, why not consider the opposite approach? A modest approach?

    Start by saying something like this: "Well, probably I'm wrong, and maybe I'm crazy - but isn't it strange that..."

    ...followed by a dispassionate discussion of the physics of building 7, or whatever.

    Why not give it a try?

    Hi, Kermit. What you say is kind of fascinating…

    The funniest thing about guys like you & Revusky is the way you adopt this de haut en bas attitude

    Hmm, I guess the implicit idea is that I should treat you as my intellectual equal. Another way of expressing this is that I don’t even pretend to respect you. And, yes, that is quite correct.

    But there is a history here. The first time we interacted, you called me a liar, because I stated that these various murky incidents in France, such as Charlie Hebdo, were false flags. Presumably, for you, the official story is so self-evidently true that anybody who says it isn’t must be consciously lying. Thus, you called me a liar — not “mistaken”, you said I was lying.

    I answered you by posing the obvious question: what is the proof of the official story?

    You answered me by pointing to the wikipedia page that outlines the official story. In other words, the official story is proof of the official story. Seemingly, you never heard of the “beg the question” fallacy. I pointed this out to you and you never conceded the point and just walked away. That was here: