Saturday, June 22, 2019

Trump Doctrine: Low Yield

 I think the Mideast should have another Dead Sea area in Iran
and I have the fire and brimstone.

As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.

For those who have not paid attention to this blog in Stephen Miller stepping out of the shadow of Jared Kushner in the necessary progression of Trump foreign policy becoming the Trump Doctrine, in President Donald Trump having his Harry Truman growth in having learned to "love atomic warfare", the Pentagon has published a working paper on using nuclear weapons.

NUCLEAR weapons could still create "decisive results" and break stalemates during a war, Pentagon top brass have claimed.
The ominous new document - since deleted -  is called 'Nuclear Operations' and suggests military chiefs could once again use the weapons of mass destruction to "restore strategic stability."

The Lame Cherry does not in the least place the responsibility on this issue on Donald Trump, as this blog has long advocated the Cherry Doctrine of in kind retaliation of "nukes for nukes" in United States policy. Iran being tailor made for this situation of the Trump Doctrine, in Iran has nuclear weapons, and in order to neutralize Iranian nuclear production, the United States should deploy bunker buster nuclear bombs, for the reason of sending a diplomatic message as Harry Truman did in bombing Japan, to keep the Soviet Union from invading the Japanese homeland.

Nuclear pollution is a military doctrine, and nothing is more suited to ending nuclear and biological production than making a production site radioactive, so an enemy state will not attempt a rebuild.

The US is even developing a low-yield ballistic missile which some fear is a move towards using nukes in future wars.
The new weapon - the W76-2 -  is a modification of the existing Trident warhead but with a much smaller blast range.
The thinking is that, as the smaller W76-2 is likely to less devastating consequences, it is more likely to be used in anger.
The White House has insisted the precision 'low-field' nukes will be a true deterrent, however.

Tactical nuclear deployment is cost effective. A conventional war costs America  one trillion dollars, but a select nuclear salvo costs an enemy a trillion dollars while America gains victory for a few million dollars. A nuclear pock mark polluting an enemy state is a global reminder to not play with nuclear weapons.

The key in this is to strike before an enemy state in  terrorism or pre deployment has weapons on location in the United States. In this, Donald Trump has kept his finger on the trigger too long.

The Pentagon document quotes the cold war theorist Herman Kahn as saying: “My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained.”
Kahn was a controversial figure who once argued a nuclear war could be “winnable” and is reported to have provided some inspiration for Stanley Kubrick’s film Dr Strangelove.
The  top level document was taken down from the Pentagon online site after just a week and is now only available through a restricted access electronic library.

Nuclear war is indeed winnable, providing that Donald Trump had in economic policy had provided Americans the resources to build and stock their own disaster shelters. This he did not accomplish, so the survivors in a nuclear war would be those in the hinterland rural Conservative areas.

This though is a war fighting doctrine, and not a deterrent. This is Trump's Big Stick as he stomps around like a bull in a China shop. Gone are the Theodore Roosevelt doctrine of walking softly and carrying the big stick.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.
He said it “is very much conceived as a war-fighting doctrine – not simply a deterrence doctrine, and that is unsettling”.

 In the schematics of war games, the big picture is how deployment of nuclear weapons is viewed. Would nuking Iranian nukes, with Iran responding with nuking Jew York City be acceptable?  The public in the short term with a wailing Nancy Pelosi and 2020 democrats would lament otherwise, but in that trillion dollar damage, would the message of the pawn of Jew York be a sacrifice which would so heighten the Russians and Chinese to fear, that they would not be aggressive, knowing America pulled the trigger and would pull it more readily on them. In effect, this scenario might save  the world from a nuclear war in a mass exchange.  The probabilities would relate to that as fire and brimstone smouldering in Iran is on  the wind charts of Russia and China,  reminding them of the dead zone they both coveted and is no longer a prize, as it would be impossible to deploy Russian and Chinese troops into Iran as they would desert.

This blog as the last nuclear war expert in the field has been warning of this progression for the past years, and now rich people who should have been donating are finding their kryptonite stock portfolios are not going to  keep them safe from what is already United States doctrine. It is a matter of short time before Donald Trump puts his John Hancock on it.

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Mosaad Leaks: Donald Trump to bomb Iran

It will just be a little nuclear bomb in Iran
and then you can have a go at the Jews in New York.

Nuff Said