NEOCON

A neoconservative (colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a "conservative" but who actually favors big government, globalism, interventionism, perpetual war, police state, gun control, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. 

The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. 

A neocon is a RINO Backer, and like RINOs does not accept most of the important principles in the Republican Party platform. 

Neocons do not participate in the March for Life, nor stand up for traditional marriage, advocate other conservative social values, or emphasize putting America first. 

Neocons support attacking and even overthrowing foreign governments, despite how that often results in more persecution of Christians. 

Some neocons (like Dick Cheney) have profited immensely from the military-industrial complex and their pro-war positions. Many neocons are globalists and support the War on Sovereignty.

-Conservapedia

The Trump Administration, led by American neocons believe that they can wage “limited” nuclear, chemical and biological war without consequence.

We argue here that that idea is preposterous.

There will always be a response, and depending on the target nation, a host of responses. It is foolish to expect no response, or a “measured response”. Indeed, history tells us how absolutely ridiculous this belief is.

Today, China is dealing with the COVID-19 biological weapons attack by America on their CNY 2020 holiday. They have finished dealing with a CIA / NED sponsored “color revolution” in Hong Kong, and have just experienced a collapse of their BRI center at the Beirut Lebanon Port due to a mighty explosion (that has the hallmarks of a 6kT nuclear warhead). America has declared war on all Chinese technology, all Chinese trade, all international relationships, and all Chinese people. The anti-China propaganda effort is astounding in it’s size, magnitude, and pure visceral hate…

The COVID-19 biological attack is just the latest of at least six previous biological warfare actions by the Trump Administration, starting in 2017. Each time getting more and more aggressive. The sixth was the most brazen, with the use of drones to spray / fog swine flu viruses all over widely separate and remote pig farms.

I mean, you can’t get more ballsy than that!

The United States has done everything, and I do mean everything, short of launching nuclear ICBM’s at Chinese cities….

To assume that China will “let it roll of their shoulders” is a serious miscalculation. China has been making plans on how to deal with this situation, and has been working with Russia on military preparations. China will respond to all this, on their terms. At their pace. In their way.

And maybe they already have…

But…

And this is what this post is all about. We all need to consider the harsh reality that a nation that is willing to use biological warfare to achieve their goals will not have any problem with using nuclear weapons as well.

The following is a reprint of an article titled “The Myth of Moderate Nuclear War” by Brian Cloughley on Global Research, written on March 04, 2020 for the Strategic Culture Foundation. It was edited as necessary to fit this venue. All credit to the authors.

The Myth of Moderate Nuclear War

There are many influential supporters of nuclear war, and some of these contend that the use of ‘low-yield’ and/or short-range weapons is practicable without the possibility of escalation to all-out Armageddon.

"Ah. We can use "moderate" and "reasonable" nuclear weapons. It would never escalate into a full-fledged armageddon."

In a way their argument is comparable to that of the band of starry-eyed optimists who thought, apparently seriously, that there could be such a beast as a ‘moderate rebel’.

In October 2013 the Washington Post reported that…

“The CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train opposition  fighters in Syria amid concern that moderate, US-backed militias are  rapidly losing ground in the country’s civil war,” 

…and the US Congress gave approval to then President Barack Obama’s plan for training and arming moderate Syrian rebels to fight against Islamic State extremists.

The belief that there could be any grouping of insurgents that could be described as “moderate rebels” is bizarre and it would be fascinating to know how Washington’s planners classify such people.

What's a "moderate rebel"?

Someone who drinks tea with their pinky up? A person who listens to Indie Rock, and spreads organic Avocado on their whole-wheat toast, or perhaps someone who advocates "humane" techniques of torture.

"Moderate". What a nice, pleasant sounding term for a murderer. 

It obviously didn’t dawn on them that any person who uses weapons illegally in a rebellion could not be defined as being moderate.

And how moderate is moderate?

Perhaps a moderate rebel could be equipped with US weapons that kill only extremists? Or are they allowed to kill only five children a month? The entire notion was absurd, and predictably the scheme collapsed, after expenditure of vast amounts of US taxpayers’ money.

A “Moderate” war

The leading publications of neoconservatives since the 1970s have been Commentary, The Public Interest (founded by Daniel Bell and Irving Kristol) and The Weekly Standard. Many Washington think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project For New American Century (PNAC), Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and Henry Jackson Society are now dominated by neoconservatives.

-Conservapedia

• Weekly Standard: An Inconvenient Truth About China
• Trump’s China Trade War Is Just the Beginning
• Trump Will Win America’s Trade War with China
• How China Was ‘Lost’

And even vaster amounts of money are being spent on developing and producing what might be classed as moderate nuclear weapons.

Moderate nuclear weapons, in that they don’t have the zillion-bang punch of most of its existing 4,000 plus warheads have.

It is apparently widely believed in Washington that if a nuclear weapon is (comparatively) small, then it’s less dangerous than a big nuclear weapon.

Well…

Maybe they are right. Look what happened in the Beirut Port Bombing in August 2020.

• Massive explosions in Beirut leave dozens dead and more …
• Beirut explosion: Massive blast at port rocks Lebanese capital
• Beirut explosion: 300,000 homeless, 135 dead and food …

And maybe this is exactly what the NEOCONS have been talking about all along…

• Updated: Israel hits Beirut with nuclear missile, Trump …

And we know that this kind of event has been EXACTLY what the Trump NEOCONS have been arguing towards. Because, in January 2019 the Guardian reported that

“the Trump administration has argued the development of a  low-yield weapon would make nuclear war less likely, by giving the US a  more flexible deterrent. 

It would counter any enemy (particularly  Russian) perception that the US would balk at using its own fearsome arsenal in response to a limited nuclear attack because its missiles were all in the hundreds of kilotons range and ‘too big to use’, because they would cause untold civilian casualties.”

Small nukes as a way to limit civilian deaths…

In fact, the nuclear war envisaged in that scenario would be a global catastrophe — as would all nuclear wars, because there’s no way, no means whatever, of limiting escalation.

Once a nuclear weapon has exploded and killed people, the nuclear-armed nation to which these people belonged is going to take massive action.

There is no alternative, because no government is just going to sit there and try to start talking with an enemy that has taken the ultimate leap in warfare.

It is fashionable to consider the use of low-yield nuclear weapons without consequence.

It is widely imagined — by many nuclear planners in the sub-continent, for example — that use of a tactical, a battlefield-deployed, nuclear weapon will in some fashion persuade the opponent (India or Pakistan) that there is no need to employ higher-capability weapons. Or, in other words, longer range missiles delivering massive warheads.

All retaliation would be measured, tit for tat.

These people think that the other side will evaluate the situation calmly and dispassionately and come to the conclusion that at most it should itself reply with a similar weapon.

Calmly.

Dispassionately.

But such a scenario supposes that there is good intelligence about the effects of the weapon that has exploded, most probably within the opponent’s sovereign territory.

This is verging on the impossible.

War is ugly and complex

War is confusing in the extreme, and tactical planning can be extremely complex. But there is no precedent for nuclear war, and nobody — nobody — knows for certain what reactions will be to such a situation in or near any nation.

The US 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (authorized by Trump as his NEOCON advisors Mike Pompeo and John Bolton) stated that low-yield weapons …

...“help ensure that potential adversaries perceive  no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear  employment less likely”. 

But do the possible opponents of the United States agree with that? How could they do so?

The reaction by any nuclear-armed state to what is confirmed as a nuclear attack will have to be swift.

But the neocons disagree, the threat of global conflagration will still exist.

The USA can launch small nuclear weapons, and reasonably expect no retaliation. 

...

That is because it would need to be a "measured" response.
And if the attacked nation does not have low-yeld weapons, then they would refrain from using larger weapons. Instead, they would rely on their conventional arsenal.

...

Right?

It cannot be guaranteed, for example, that the first attack will not represent a series.

It will, by definition, be decisive, because the world will then be a tiny step from doomsday. The US nuclear review is optimistic that “flexibility” will by some means limit a nuclear exchange, or even persuade the nuked-nation that there should be no riposte, which is an intriguing hypothesis.

As pointed out by Lawfare,

“the review calls for modification to ‘a small number of existing  submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) warheads’ to provide a  low-yield option."

It also calls for further exploration of low-yield options, arguing that expanding these options will …

‘help ensure that potential  adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear  escalation, making nuclear employment less likely.’ 

This is intended to address the argument that adversaries might think the United States, out of concern for collateral damage, would hesitate to employ a high-yield nuclear weapon in response to a ‘lower level’ conflict, in which an adversary used a low-yield nuclear device.

The review argues that expanding low-yield options is ‘important for the preservation of credible deterrence,’ especially when it comes to smaller-scale regional conflicts.”

“Credible deterrence” is a favorite catch-phrase of the believers in limited nuclear war, but its credibility is suspect.

Former US defense secretary William Perry said last year that he wasn’t so much worried about the vast number of warheads in the world as he was by open proposals that these weapons are “usable”.

It’s right back to the Cold War and he emphasizes that…

“The  belief that there might be tactical advantage using nuclear weapons –  which I haven’t heard being openly discussed in the United States or in  Russia for a good many years...

... is happening now in those countries...

... which  I think is extremely distressing.” 

But the perturbing thing is that while it is certainly being discussed in Moscow, it’s doctrine in Washington.

America is now ready to use nuclear weapons to achieve it’s goals

In late February US Defense Secretary Esper was reported as having taken part in a…

“classified military drill in which Russia and the United States traded nuclear strikes.” 

The Pentagon stated that …

“The scenario included a European contingency where you’re conducting a  war with Russia and Russia decides to use a low-yield, limited nuclear weapon against a site on NATO territory.” 

The US response was to fire back with what was called a “limited response.”

First of all, the notion that Russia would take the first step to nuclear war is completely baseless, and there is no evidence that this could ever be contemplated.

But ever if it were to be so, it cannot be imagined for an instant that Washington would indulge in moderate nuclear warfare in riposte. These self-justifying war-games are dangerous. And they bring Armageddon ever closer.

Today 2020

So, let’s perform a quick recap…

• The United States under President Trump is staffed with neocons.
• The United States is currently fighting eight wars plus a hybrid war with China.
• The United States has fielded “small” nuclear weapons.
• The United States has been using biological germ warfare against China.
• The President of the United States argues in favor of limited, surgical use of nuclear weapons to accomplish his objectives.

No matter what the United States does, China is still plugging away. It is still building things, trading things, and growing.

There will come a point in time where the neocons will feel that it is “now or never” to finally and completely suppress China.

…

LISTEN TO ME.

I have some points that I want to make perfectly clear.

• The Chinese and the Russians will know before hand what is going to happen. They have intel.
• If it is plausible that an event will happen on either Chinese or Russian land, they WILL strike first.
• The response will NOT be with “moderate” and “friendly” tactical weapons.
• It will be the unleashing of unholy terror.

America has NEVER experienced losing a war. It has NEVER been the vanquished people. Americans have no idea what it would be like to lose in a war…

So with this in mind, let’s look at what happened after Hitler killed himself in Germany, the nation surrendered to the Allies, and Victorious Russian troops flowed into Germany in 1945…

The Rape of Germany

When Berlin fell to the Soviets it is rumored that Stalin gave the Soviet Soldiers permission to do what ever they wanted for the first 3 days. At the end of that 3 days you would be hard pressed to find a single German woman who had not been raped at least once by the Soviet Soldiers.

Almost 100 percent of women between the ages of 8 and 80 were raped — repeatedly — some as many as 60 to 70 times.

Estimates are around 2,000,000 women were raped in Germany, 100,000 in Berlin. These estimates are based in part on the number of requested abortions that climbed markedly after the Russians arrived.

Female deaths in connection with the rapes in Germany, overall, are estimated at 240,000

War historians have described it as the “greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history”, and have concluded that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone.

Civilians from occupied countries and even Russian women rescued from work camps were at risk and Stalin gave his silent assent to this mayhem.

Stalin said people should

“…understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle”.

On another occasion, when told that Red Army soldiers sexually maltreated German refugees, he reportedly said:

"We lecture our soldiers too much; let them have their initiative."

The smart women didn’t resist or found an officer to bed. Officers tended to be more civilized and would protect their “women” from the rampaging enlisted men.

Magda Wieland, a 24-year-old actress, was dragged from a cupboard in her apartment just off the Kurfürstendamm. A very young soldier from central Asia hauled her out. He was so excited at the prospect of a beautiful young blonde that he ejaculated prematurely. By sign language, she offered herself to him as a girlfriend if he would protect her from other Russian soldiers, but he went off to boast to his comrades and another soldier raped her. Ellen Goetz, a Jewish friend of Magda’s, was also raped. When other Germans tried to explain to the Russians that she was Jewish and had been persecuted, they received the retort:

“Frau ist Frau.”

Women soon learned to disappear during the “hunting hours” of the evening. Young daughters were hidden in storage lofts for days on end. Mothers emerged into the street to fetch water only in the early morning when Soviet soldiers were sleeping off the alcohol from the night before. Sometimes the greatest danger came from one mother giving away the hiding place of other girls in a desperate bid to save her own daughter. Older Berliners still remember the screams every night. It was impossible not to hear them because all the windows had been blown in.

According to a former Russian army officer:

“We were young, strong, and four years without women. So we tried to catch German women and … Ten men raped one girl. There were not enough women; the entire population run from the Soviet Army. So we had to take young, twelve or thirteen year-old. If she cried, we put something into her mouth. We thought it was fun. Now I can not understand how I did it. A boy from a good family… But that was me."

A woman telephone operator from the Russian Army recalled that:

“When we occupied every town, we had first three days for looting and … [rapes]. That was unofficial of course. But after three days one could be court-martialed for doing this. … I remember one raped German woman laying naked, with hand grenade between her legs. Now I feel shame, but I did not feel shame back then… Do you think it was easy to forgive [the Germans]? We hated to see their clean undamaged white houses. With roses. I wanted them to suffer. I wanted to see their tears. … Decades had to pass until I started feeling pity for them.”

Abortions were the preferred choice of rape victims, and many died as a consequence of internal injuries after being brutally violated, untreated sexually transmitted diseases due to a lack of medicine, badly performed abortions, and suicides, particularly for traumatized victims who had been raped many times.

In addition, many children died in post-war Germany as a result of widespread starvation, scarce supplies, and diseases such as typhus and diphtheria. The infant mortality in Berlin reached up to 90 percent.

German historian Miriam Gebhardt …

“believes that members of the US military raped as many as 190,000 German women by the time West Germany regained sovereignty in 1955, with most of the assaults taking place in the months immediately following the US invasion of Nazi Germany. "

The author bases her claims in large part on reports kept by Bavarian priests in the summer of 1945.

Conclusion

War is a terrible, terrible thing.

The idea that the NEOCONS in America in Washington DC are in favor of it, by any means possible should send a shiver down the spines of anyone reading Metallicaman. How can I spell this out to you? If America gets involved in a kinetic “hot” war with another major power, it will not survive.

The chances are high that it will end up becoming a vanquished nation in a ruined world, and the rest of the world will expect Holy Hell from the survivors inside America. It will not be pretty or pleasant.

To avoid the coming conflict that the neoconservatives’ pursuit of American hegemony is bringing, the Russians have relied on fact-based, truth-based diplomacy. However, neocon Washington relies on lies and propaganda and has many more and much louder voices. Consequently, it is Washington’s lies, not Russia’s truth, that most of the Western sheeple believe.

In other words, Russia was misled by believing that the West respects and abides by the values that it professes. In fact, these “Western values” are merely a cover for the unbridled evil of which the West consists.

The Western peoples are so dimwitted that they have not yet understood that the “war on terror” is, in fact, a war to create terror that can be exported to Muslim areas of Russia and China in order to destabilize the two countries that serve as a check on Washington’s unilateral, hegemonic power.

The problem for the neocon unilateralists is that Russia and China—although misinformed by their “experts” educated abroad in the neoliberal tradition, people who are de facto agents of Washington without even knowing it—are powerful military powers, both nuclear and conventional. Unless Russia and China are content to be Washington’s vassal states, for the neoconservatives, who control Washington and, thereby, the West, to press these two powerful countries so hard can only lead to war. 

As Washington is not a match for Russia and China in conventional warfare, the war will be nuclear, and the result will be the end of life on Earth.

-Paul Craig Roberts

Or, more likely, the end of life as we have known it to be, on earth.

Do you want more?

Do you want to see similar posts?

I hope that you found this post curious. Please take care. You can view other similar posts in my SHTF Index, here…

SHTF Articles

Articles & Links

You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

Please kindly help me out in this effort. There is a lot of effort that goes into this disclosure. I could use all the financial support that anyone could provide. Thank you.