top of page

Why U.S. Rulers Don't Fear

Nuclear WWIII with Russia

October 23, 2016

[Also read "The U.S. Armed the Soviet Union During the Cold War"]

[Note: This article was written in 2016 when it was Russia that was being made the bogeyman enemy. Later, in 2020 during the Trump administration, it was China instead that was the #1 bogeyman enemy. Now in 2021 during the Biden administration Russia is again the latest target, along with China. The fact that these are bogeyman enemies having nothing to do with any real threat to ordinary Americans or the (bogus concept of) our "national interest" is even admitted by a big shot upper class journalist as I discuss further here.]

The United States government has escalated the Cold War against Russia: demonizing Putin as the new Hitler, imposing sanctions on Russian leaders, implementing aggressive NATO military expansion to Russia's border including installing an anti-ballistic missile "defense" that is actually a key component of an offensive nuclear strike, and threatening to impose a no-fly zone in Syria that would entail shooting down Russian aircraft. Many people have been warning that this American escalation of hostility against Russia alarmingly increases the likelihood of a U.S. war with Russia that would become a thermonuclear WWIII.

Others say that the risk of thermonuclear war is not really anything to worry about because both U.S. and Russian leaders know that a nuclear war would result in Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.)--the annihilation of both nations (not to mention possibly the end of the human race)--and therefore they won't let nuclear war break out (i.e., "Move along, nothing to see here.")

Some Russia experts living in the United States, in contrast, have warned [ ] that Russia has the nuclear capability of killing virtually the entire American population and that:

"If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States
will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead."

Russia's nuclear retaliatory ability is described in "How Russia is preparing for WWIII" [ ], in which the author writes of one Russian missile:

"Take the Kalibr cruise-missile recently seen in the war in Syria. Did you know that it can be shot from a typical commerical container, like the ones you will find on trucks, trains or ships? Check out this excellent video [ at ] which explains this.

"Just remember that the Kalibr has a range of anywhere between 50km to 4000km and that it can carry a nuclear warhead. How hard would it be for Russia to deploy these cruise missiles right off the US coast in regular container ships? Or just keep a few containers in Cuba or Venezuela? This is a system which is so undetectable that the Russians could deploy it off the coast of Australia to hit the NSA station in Alice Springs if they wanted, and nobody would even see it coming.

"The reality is that the notion that the US could trigger a war against Russia (or China for that matter) and not suffer the consequences on the US mainland is absolutely ridiculous."

How, then, can one explain presumably rational (even if evil) people such as President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton engaging in warmongering against Russia that has no actual justification in International Law, when this warmongering might very well lead to thermonuclear war with Russia?


I think I know the explanation. It is provided by the following two articles, each of which is by the same two co-authors.

In 2006 Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (whose honorary chairman was, until he died, David Rockefeller) had an article titled "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy" by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press [ ]. The authors subsequently defended and elaborated on their 2006 article in a 2013 article in Strategic Studies Quarterly [ ] titled, "The New Era of Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Conflict." Because it is more recent, I'll quote only from the 2013 article. The authors write:

"First, technological innovation has dramatically improved the ability of states to launch “counterforce” attacks—that is, military strikes aimed at disarming an adversary by destroying its nuclear weapons.

"Perhaps most surprising, pairing highly accurate delivery systems with nuclear weapons permits target strategies that would create virtually no radioactive fallout, hence, vastly reduced fatalities. For nuclear analysts weaned on two seeming truths of the Cold War era—that nuclear arsenals reliably deter attacks via the threat of retaliation, and that nuclear weapons use is tantamount to mass slaughter—the implications of the counterforce revolution should be jarring.

"Most Cold War strategists—many of whom are still active in the nuclear analytical community today—came to instinctively associate nuclear weapons with stalemate and nuclear use with Armageddon. But nuclear weapons—like virtually all other weapons—have changed dramatically over the past four decades. Modern guidance systems permit nuclear planners to achieve “probabilities of damage” against hardened nuclear targets that were unheard of during the Cold War. And heightened accuracy also permits nontraditional targeting strategies that would further increase the effectiveness of counterforce strikes and greatly reduce casualties."


Clearly the Russia experts cited above strongly disagree with the authors of the Foreign Affairs and Strategic Studies Quarterly articles. I do not claim to know who is right.

But what I believe is not nearly as important as what the American ruling class and its agents, President Obama and Secretary of State [and likely soon-to-be President] Clinton believe. They apparently believe that the Foreign Affairs and Strategic Studies Quarterly articles are essentially correct--that a U.S. nuclear first strike against Russia will not lead to the mass slaughter of Americans (or even of Russians) since "technological innovation" now allows the U.S. to "accurately" destroy (remember Donald Rumsfeld's "surgical strikes" in Iraq?) Russia's nuclear weapons with "virtually no radioactive fallout" and "vastly reduced fatalities."

This is why it is not unreasonable or far-fetched to worry that the American ruling class is deliberately aiming to get into a WWIII with Russia (and possibly its ally, China.)

But what is the U.S. ruling class trying to achieve?


One of the main U.S. foreign policy strategists is Zbigniew Brzezinski. David Rockefeller made Brzezinski the Executive Director of the Trilateral Commission, which is the sister to the Council on Foreign Relations for the U.S., Europe and Japan, when the two of them co-founded it in 1973. In his 2016 article, "Toward a Global Realignment," [ ] Brzezinski says:

"Russia’s own future depends on its ability to become a major and influential nation-state that is part of a unifying Europe."

About Europe, Brzezinski says in the same article:

"The fourth verity is that Europe is not now and is not likely to become a global power. But it can play a constructive role in taking the lead in regard to transnational threats to global wellbeing and even human survival. Additionally, Europe is politically and culturally aligned with and supportive of core U.S. interests in the Middle East, and European steadfastness within NATO is essential to an eventually constructive resolution of the Russia-Ukraine crisis."

In other words, in the new world order Europe shall remain under the economic and political hegemony of the United States ruling class, and Russia shall be a part of Europe. And since the Russian leaders today are not cooperating with this "Global Realignment" then some military force is called for; hence the warmongering.


I believe there is an even deeper reason for U.S. warmongering. The ruling elites of the world (people such as the Rockefellers and their ilk) know that a world at war is one that makes it possible for them to control people and make people accept inequality and oppression (such as being taxed to enrich the owners of the companies that sell military weapons to governments, of which the Rockefellers are top on the list) that they would otherwise not tolerate. "You must obey your leaders in this time of war when we must all unite against the foreign enemy" is a time-proven way to enforce obedience. The bogeyman enemy changes over the decades, but the need for an enemy and a war mentality is constant. If there is no handy enemy, then one must be invented, as discussed by Dave Stratman in his "Inventing the Enemy."

There is, thus, always a need (by the ruling elite) for an enemy and a war or credible threat of war. This is the primary strategy of social control--how the haves control the have-nots. This is why international bankers such as the Rockefellers have often funded both sides of past wars (including WWII, by the way, as discussed at and ): they didn't care so much which side won the war; they simply needed there to be a war. The merely secondary strategic question is, "Who shall the enemy be?" and "What can we gain by winning a war against it?" It is these secondary questions that people such as Zbigniew Brzezinski address.

As long as the haves are in control, and not the have-nots, we're going to have wars. I only hope the next war doesn't kill us all before we remove the ruling plutocracy from power! Ideas about how we can remove the rich from power are at .

bottom of page