All the Evidence Points to World War

international | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis

Saturday September 07, 2019 15:39

by Peter McLoughlin

The pattern of history points to another global, catastrophic conflict*. For a third time in a hundred years imperial government are about to plunge us into total war: this time nuclear war, for the old reason – power.

Power, manifested as interest, has been present in every conflict of the past – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics - everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above concepts, that is the cause of war.

The lust for power eventually brings every empire to the war it seeks to avoid: total defeat. But leaders and their advisors delude themselves into thinking that fateful war can be avoided, limited in scale or even won.

This has particular relevance today, with much talk of ‘a new Cold War’, and the dangerous mind set it will have the same outcome as the first one. Other terms from that era are being bandied about, such as ‘deterrence’ and ‘nuclear arms race’. Deterrence can only work if it can prevent the scenarios where Mutual Assured Destruction might have to be resorted to. It is becoming increasingly difficult to prevent such situations – Syria, Iran, South China Sea, Ukraine, the Baltic, Moldova to name a few potential flash points, any of which could trigger events leading to world war. We will soon face the scenario where (unlike the Cuban missile crisis or Euro missile crisis) one protagonist will not be able to step back from the brink, stumbling into a crisis they cannot de-escalate. All that is left is Deterrence’s fall-back position – annihilation. The nuclear powers will delude themselves that the outcome of this crisis will be like in 1991: ending without destruction. There’s a difference, the Cold War was the peace, a post-world war environment; we are now in a pre-world war environment.

Nuclear war will happen because governments convince themselves it won’t: it will be prevented because peace-makers convince themselves it will. That is the paradox. Only by accepting its inevitability is there any chance of stopping it; at that, the chances are negligible if they exist at all. Personally, I don’t think they do, but accept others have a more positive outlook. I admire them. But a problem denied can never be solved (however big or small it is). To save the planet, reverse climate change, make a better and just life for all will not be achieved if we walk blindly into a third world war.

*I can’t make statements without providing evidence. My arguments are explored in greater detail on my website, an essay Patterns and Power and a FREE book, Never Forget the Ghosts of History. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

save preference

Comments (3 of 3)

Cuba missile crisis near castrophere

by T

Sat Sep 07, 2019 21:43

What many people do not realize is that during the Cuban missile crisis when the US had imposed a naval blockade on Cuba is that when the stand off was at it's most intense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff consisting of the head of the Navy, head of the Army, head of the Air Force, head of the CIA and others insisted that Kennedy launch a pre-emptive strike on Cuba. And when he did not and instead negotiated his way out of the crisis they were as mad as hell with him. They wanted a nuclear war and they were unanimous about it.

It was well known then that the military felt they should have a nuclear war with the USSR and wipe them out.

What the Joint Chiefs of Staff were unaware of is that field commanders in Cuba who were in charge of nuclear artillery weapons had already been granted clearance to use the weapons if attacked. These had a range of 15 miles or so and would have easily wiped out some of the deployed aircraft carriers in the area.

There is without doubt that had they attacked there would have been a full scale nuclear war, because practically every available plane (i.e B-52s) capable of carrying nuclear weapons were already in the air and armed -on both sides.

So what people do not realize the fate of humanity on that fateful down was narrowed down to just one person and it was Kennedy. Had he NOT gone against the advice of the Joint Chief of Staffs, we can safely say that vast majority of people reading this would be alive. Only for the humanity and intelligence of Kennedy, hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons would have gone off and it would have been followed by a nuclear winter which probably would have ended human life as we know it on Earth.

Today we still have the same mentality.

BTW, within a year Kennedy was dead and it is very likely he was killed by the CIA/Military for his betrayal and cowardice as they would see it, during the crisis.

before you give Kennedy all the credit for saving the world, remember it was his lot who started the escalation.

by Bolton's moustache

Sat Sep 14, 2019 01:00

The missiles in Cuba were just a response to US missiles being stationed in Turkey
rather than a unilateral provocation by the USSR.

The US (i.e. Kennedy) quietly agreed to remove them in return for Kruschev standing down in Cuba.

All Kennedy did is try to fix something the US government were responsible for breaking in the first place.

And Kennedy was on so many drugs and painkillers at the time of the negotiations
that we are all really lucky to be alive frankly!!

Kruschev gets far too little credit for his part in the de escalation in my opinion.

Between who? (between which alliances)

by Mike Novack

Sat Oct 05, 2019 22:44

We might have war, and war that went nuclear. For example, war could break out between India and Pakistan and both of them have nukes. But horrible as that would be, not a world war. A world war is a war between alliances, many countries on each side. Discussing the Cuba Missile Crisis simply points out how different the geopolitical situation then vs now when there isn't even a cold war.

BTW, it will probably take longer before historians consider this, but in my opinion, the "Cold War" WAS determined by nuclear, just not nuclear war. Consider the situation were the outcomes at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island reversed. Instead of the Soviet Union losing the northern Ukraine, the US had lost eastern PA, NJ, southeastern NY, some of MD, Delaware, etc.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

All the Evidence Points to World War

Comments (3 of 3)