Or does he? Economist Tom Palley has an interesting piece up at his site of the same name. Subtitled; Economics for Democratic and Open Societies. I did not post all of it as Tom Palley raises the question early on in his commentary. When does Russia Putin finally says “enough is enough” as they are pushed back by Ukraine? If the news is correct in reporting, Ukraine may have Russia on the ropes in its latest attack. Ukraine’s Hiroshima moment is drawing closer (the consequences of Neocon madness) In August 1945, the US atom bombed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, nuclear weapons have never been used in conflict. That may soon change as Ukraine faces the increasing likelihood of a Hiroshima moment. Conditions in
Topics:
Angry Bear considers the following as important: Global Violence, politics, US/Global Economics
This could be interesting, too:
Angry Bear writes A Sense of Privilege
Bill Haskell writes Chief Justice John Roberts Almost Had Me Fooled
Bill Haskell writes Arizona State Senator got a Speeding Ticket. It does not Make Her a Martyr
Angry Bear writes Riding the Northern Explorer or How to Run a Passenger Railroad.
Or does he?
Economist Tom Palley has an interesting piece up at his site of the same name. Subtitled; Economics for Democratic and Open Societies. I did not post all of it as Tom Palley raises the question early on in his commentary. When does Russia Putin finally says “enough is enough” as they are pushed back by Ukraine? If the news is correct in reporting, Ukraine may have Russia on the ropes in its latest attack.
Ukraine’s Hiroshima moment is drawing closer (the consequences of Neocon madness)
In August 1945, the US atom bombed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, nuclear weapons have never been used in conflict. That may soon change as Ukraine faces the increasing likelihood of a Hiroshima moment.
Conditions in Ukraine increasingly give Russia military and geopolitical cause to use tactical nuclear weapons. Though Russia will use them, the US and NATO are deeply implicated in the process. They are in the grip of Neocon madness which casually dismisses potentially catastrophic consequences and blocks all off-ramps.
Lessons from Hiroshima and Nagasaki
One way to understand the current moment is via the history of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Those attacks also had military and geopolitical motivations. The former is widely recognized: the latter is not.
According to standard history, in August 1945, Japan was de facto defeated and had signaled willingness to “conditionally” surrender. However, the US wanted “unconditional” surrender. It also estimated conquest of Japan might cost a million US casualties. Consequently, it elected to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thereby achieving unconditional surrender without such casualties.
The geopolitical motivation concerned the Soviet Union. It had declared war on Japan the day after the Hiroshima attack, and the US feared it would conquer Japan’s lightly defended north. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs prevented that by abruptly ending the war. They also sent the Soviet Union a chilling message about US power.
The Ukraine parallel
The Ukraine war has spawned a logic which echoes 1945. The military parallel is clear.
Russia wants to bring the war to an acceptable close. Even after it has conquered the Donbass oblasts, it will confront continued attacks from long-range weaponry provided by the US and its NATO junior partners. The resulting loss of Russian lives and damage will be unacceptable. Tactical nuclear weapons can surgically end the conflict, with Ukraine compelled to accept the outcome or face further destruction.
The geopolitical parallel is also clear. In 1945, the US sent a message to the Soviet Union. In Ukraine, tactical nuclear weapons will send a message to the US that continuing its strategy of incremental conflict escalation risks full-blown nuclear war.
~~~~~~~
Economist Tom Palley blames Neocons for the acceleration of hostilities in the US and Azov extremists in Ukraine for being in control. The other part being made is Biden’s strengthening of the US nuclear deterrent ability. Maybe perceived as threatening actions by the US.
President Biden Revises Nuclear Strategy In Secret? New Jersey Digest
President Joe Biden announced a significant shift in the United States’ nuclear deterrence strategy on Tuesday, responding to escalating threats from China, Russia, and North Korea. The updated posture aims to strengthen national security and address concerns over the growing influence of these nations on global stability.
Biden’s new strategy emphasizes modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, enhancing missile defense systems, and expanding military cooperation with allies. The administration cited the increasing capabilities of China and Russia in particular as key drivers for the revision. Biden underscored the need for a robust deterrent to prevent potential conflicts and ensure global peace.
China responded with strong objections to the U.S. strategy, expressing “serious concern” and warning against actions that could destabilize the region. The Chinese government criticized the U.S. for what it sees as a confrontational approach, urging dialogue instead of military escalation.
Russia, already at odds with the U.S. over various geopolitical issues, is expected to react similarly and resulting in the further straining of relations between the two nations. North Korea, known for its unpredictable behavior, may also increase its provocative actions in response to the U.S. shift.
The revised strategy marks a departure from previous U.S. policies, reflecting the Biden administration’s assessment of a more complex and dangerous global security environment. While the move aims to deter aggression, it also raises the stakes in an already tense international landscape.
Thoughts . . .