[ad_1]
A former CIA officer and nuclear weapons expert told successive US and British leaders, including President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Boris Johnson, that “nuclear war can never be won and should never be fought.” Believe in beliefs and build a great strategic advantage over the West in Russia and China.
“This is one of the most dangerous moments we have ever faced in the nuclear missile era,” Peter Vincent Pry, director of the Homeland Security Task Force, told The Epoch Times.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and some of President Vladimir Putin’s militant remarks have revived the ghosts of a nuclear war that could wipe out humanity.
A white paper was published earlier this month (pdf) The UK government recommended making a public information movie “Protect and Survive” seriesCreated in the 1970s — to prepare the people for the possibility of a nuclear war.
In response to the white paper, Tobias Ellwood, a member of the UK Department of Defense Selection Committee, said: .. “
Mr Ply said the Soviet Union had collapsed because it couldn’t keep up with U.S. military spending, but too many U.S. and British political leaders in the 1990s, and even after the rise of Putin’s power in 2000. But the threat of nuclear war is a thing of the past, even while Russia is rebuilding and China is building up large-scale nuclear weapons, reducing military spending.
“Easy to be deceived” West swallows official Russian and Chinese figures
Officially China is spending $ 293 billion Compared to the $ 800 billion that the Pentagon spends, its troops and Russia spend only $ 66 billion a year, but in reality, China has more than the US spending, and Russia has it. Western politicians believed it, saying it was “easy to be fooled” by significantly underestimating the amount spent.
He said Russia and China outperformed the West by 10 to 1 with tactical nuclear weapons, adding that “their nuclear missiles are all brand new, but ours are 30 years old.”
However Tim RipleyThe Epoch Times, a defense analyst and author of “Little Green Men: The Inside Story of Russia’s New Military Force,” said: Are we at the same level of danger now? Probably not. “
Ripley said: “There were many rhetoric, but the deployment of nuclear weapons has not yet been seen in practice. For all rhetoric coming out of Russia, their nuclear and submarines spend a very long time in the port. I am. “
But he said the Ukrainian conflict posed a great risk of a nuclear accident.
Ripley said: “Sure, there are Russian nuclear weapons at air force bases and ports near Ukraine, and Ukraine has attacked some of them with missiles, so there is a possibility of an accident. Not necessarily Hiroshima, but certainly nuclear pollution. Is causing. “
So are political leaders ready for a nuclear war, and do they understand the complex nuances of military strategy?
UK policy of “policy of deliberate ambiguity”
The United Kingdom has long maintained a policy of “policy of deliberate ambiguity” when it comes to nuclear weapons.
The alternative is a “no first strike” policy, which means that Britain will only launch nuclear weapons if it receives a nuclear attack.
Dominic Cummings, a former government adviser who became one of the critics of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said I recently wrote about this..
“COVID has shown how leaders may encounter disasters because they hold meetings based on big assumptions that leaders have never actually studied or asked questions.” Said.
Mr Cummings also said he began asking government officials about Russia’s nuclear strategy in 2020, but said that “it cannot be easily and publicly discussed.”
Pry said Britain seemed unprepared and Johnson agreed with Cummings that his militant rhetoric against Ukraine should be curbed.
In 1991, when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against allied forces during the Kuwaiti War, Britain threatened Iraq with the United States as a “nuclear weapon”, and the Ukrainian conflict was a specific scenario for Britain. Said that he increased the possibility of. May launch nuclear missiles in Russia.
“If Ukraine goes out of control and there are British troops in Poland and Estonia, that is an example of a potential threat. Russians make British troops nuclear weapons in Estonia, and we make their troops nuclear weapons in Ukraine. If so, what happens next? Will they turn one of our carriers into a nuclear weapon off the coast of Poland? If one side turns the other territory into a nuclear weapon, that is the end of the world. ” Said Ripley.
But he recognizes that both Russia and NATO are aware of the “escalating dilemma,” and both sides hope that the conflict in Ukraine will develop into a broader war, not to mention the nuclear fire. Said not.
“Russia and China believe they can win the nuclear war.”
The snooping is not so certain. He states: “Russia and China believe they can win. [a nuclear war].. We brainwashed ourselves that you can’t win a nuclear war … but they when you dig into their military doctrine, when you see their movement, when you see their posture I don’t believe it isn’t. That’s what you trust, not what they say. “
According to Pry, Russia believes that the latest supersonic nuclear missiles can destroy the silos of US intercontinental ballistic missiles and ultimately defeat the West in a nuclear war.
He pointed out the hundreds of deep underground shelters Russia has for its military and political elite and said they carried out. 2016 nuclear attack training This included protection for 40 million people.
Cummings also came up with the idea of building an underground bunker. “Given the inevitability of a future pandemic and the cumulative probability of weapons of mass destruction, [weapons of mass destruction] If attacks are expanding over time (without dramatic political change), do we need to invest in a new civil defense structure? For example, do we need to encourage the construction of shelters that can be doubled with off-the-grid energy and recycled air for pandemics and nuclear attacks?“”
Ripley said Sweden, Finland and Switzerland built bunker as part of their normal housing program during the Cold War, but it is “surprisingly expensive” for Britain to undertake such a project.
Political resistance to renewal of nuclear weapons
While Russia and China are investing in a new generation of nuclear weapons, NATO politicians are struggling to convince voters of the need to renew their weapons.
In 1980, shortly after the BBC revealed the existence of the “Protection and Survival” movie, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s government announced plans to build a new independent nuclear deterrent, Trident, to replace the submarine-launching system Polaris. did. Since 1968.
Trident went into operation in 1994, but Ripley said: Currently, the Royal Navy is replacing Vanguard-class nuclear submarines with newer classes of dreadnought submarines, but will continue to use Trident missiles. “
A new submarine under construction in Barrow-in-Furness in northern England is reported to cost £ 31 billion ($ 38 billion), and many Labor lawmakers, including former leader Jeremy Corbyn, opposed the construction. .. ..
Mr. Pry said the submarines may be new, but the Trident missiles they use are “antiques,” but there was no political desire to update them.
He said the people of Britain and the United States had forgotten the lessons of the Cold War.
Ply said: If we can get away from the war with these great powers long enough, and we can deter them long enough, I think they will collapse because their system is based on lies. .. They have a misunderstanding of how the economy works and a misunderstanding of humanity. “
A Pentagon spokesperson said in an email statement to The Epoch Times: Of life. “
follow
Chris Summers is a UK-based journalist with a particular interest in crime, police and law, covering stories from a wide range of countries.
[ad_2]