"Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies."
“Well, boys, I reckon this is it – nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies.”

While we have all been distracted by non-issues like who should use which bathroom, the world has been brought to the brink of WWIII by our intrepid peace prize winning president.

NATO has installed missile defense systems across Eastern Europe, ostensibly to protect Europe from missile launches from rogue nations. The site in Romania appears to be capable of launching Tomahawk nuclear cruise missiles. Though US officials deny that any such missiles are present, they have not yet denied that the site is capable of launching nuclear warheads. Russia has declared NATO to be in violation of the 1987 ban on medium range missile installations, which was meant to give the Cold War superpowers some breathing room. It does not matter if the missiles are actually present, however, if the Russians have reason to believe that the site could be used to launch a preemptive strike.

A high speed medium range nuclear missile reaches its target in only minutes, which makes a retaliatory strike much more likely should we have a repeat of the 1983 incident in which a false alarm almost lead to all out nuclear war. Although modern Russian ICBMs are so fast and maneuverable they would likely defeat any missile defense grid, Russia considers themselves to be the only realistic nuclear threat to Europe, and the purpose of the “defense grid” to be offensive in nature. The NATO story of providing defense against an Iranian nuke is hard to believe, given the recent deal negotiated with Iran and the limited range of their missiles. Iran is a threat to Israel, who have their own defense grid, but not to Europe. Pakistan has had nukes since the 70’s, but has never used them, even against their nemesis and next door neighbor, India. What recent development could justify violating a Cold War treaty?

While western media has characterized the attitude of the Russians as “conspiracy theory”, an endless propaganda campaign against “rogue nations” that pose no realistic threat to US interests has also been waged. North Korea is a joke, and they know it. Kim Jung Un’s missile and nuclear tests raise eyebrows, but are always carefully designed to ruffle feathers, not provoke a retaliation or preemptive strike. Personally, I doubt that China would defend North Korea if the United States responded to a legitimate threat. Iran has been sanctioned by the United States for decades now, which only harms the people and not the government, and fosters anti-American sentiment. In fact, the actions of the US have propped up the government, and allowed them to blame the US for literally everything wrong with their country. Opening up trade with Iran would likely lead to a relationship similar to what we now have with China, where tensions remain between governments but have dissolved between citizens engaging in trade.

Speaking of China…

China has been expanding its military presence in the South China sea, continuing to construct artificial islands and claim new territory. The United States, in response, has sent military vessels into areas claimed by the Chinese. Both nations claim to be simply ensuring the security of shipping routes through the area, which their economies rely on. Of course, given the common interest of China and the United States in maintaining the ongoing trade between EACH OTHER, this is completely insane. What motive would either have to disrupt the trade routes? This military posturing is clearly motivated by ulterior motives on both sides.

The Arab nations have sided with China in the dispute over the South China sea. I would speculate that this may be motivated by an interest in trading oil on the yuan rather than the dollar, though given the decreasing strength of the yuan against the dollar this theory may not hold water. It could be a response to the endless American wars, or simply an endorsement of what they view as peaceful negotiation rather than militarism. The Philippians, Vietnam, and other interests more directly affected by trade routes through the Pacific are quickly drawing sides. Obama made a recent trip to Vietnam where he expressed interest in ending the ban on weapons sales to Vietnam and offered military aid in an effort to draw them into the American camp. The infamous TPP will certainly also be used as a tool for leveraging military and economic support for American supremacy in the Pacific.

China and the US both have military interests in the Pacific separate from the economic interests of their population. Nobody in the US, China, or Russia wants war, except our governments. The political complications and entanglements between the three global superpowers could easily boil over and lead to a total world conflagration. At this point, it appears that a single spark could set the whole thing off, much like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand launched WWI. In the modern age of nuclear weapons, we are talking about the end of civilization, and perhaps all life on Earth. All sides are in need of a serious ego check, but particularly our own government, which has only escalated an already tense situation.


By Ross Ticknor