“Harry Truman never ordered the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. He just didn’t do anything to stop it.” — Joseph Cirincione of the Quincy Institute. Plans for the bombing were well underway by the time Truman assumed the presidency in April 1945. Truman appeared to have been surprised by the rapid second attack on Nagasaki and only intervened after learning a third strike was planned. A hand–written directive went to General Leslie Groves, ordering him to stand down unless he had “express authority from the President,” notes the general’s biographer, Robert Norris.
The two nuclear tests were inserted into a string of fire bombings as stealthy justification of nuclear terror. The United States at that moment was already in an aggressive posture with the testing and use of atomic weapons. The “nuclear tests” aggressively postured the United States towards the Soviet Union, which was now fighting the Japanese in Manchuria. America was now on course toward military supremacy with a hot new weapon of mass destruction at full throttle nuclear aggressive posture.
“God created war so that Americans would learn geography.” — Mark Twain
With the secrecy stemming from the development of the atomic bomb after the two tests on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weaponry had already become the deadly germ of future problems. The secrecy and fear led to the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act in 1947. This was the establishment of the National Security state built around nuclear weapon hegemony. Though scientists involved knew the danger of radioactive fallout from detonating these weapons, there were propaganda campaigns to downplay their harmful effects. Americans and the world were already under the spell of these toxic weapons.
Within 5 years of Hiroshima & Nagasaki nuclear tests, the Soviet Union developed and tested a nuclear weapon. The Soviets, within a year of detonating their nuclear device, were taking an immediate aggressive posture by arming the North Koreans. The sustained aggressive postures birthed the Korean conflict; which in hindsight is looking more like a continuation of World War II. The nuclear arms race was on for better or for worse. It was the British Empire’s eminent successor versus communism. The fear, distrust and hatred all encapsulated in the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. Two fronts; one in Europe; One is Asia. We, the people, had unwittingly allowed our government to leverage nuclear weapons as a means to have world nuclear domination. Considering the aggressive posturing by both militaries of the United States and the Soviet Union, the Korean conflict became the first proxy conflict leveraged with nuclear weapons. The Armistice was signed in Korea after Joseph Stalin died and the aggressive posture relaxed on both sides albeit temporarily.
There was extensive nuclear testing by both the Soviet Union and the United States during the 1950s. Militarism had gained a firm hand within both countries. Fear reigned in both nations militaries. War planning surrounding nuclear weapons sparked debate on how the military should posture the forces in Europe. Nuclear War planning using strategic bombers dominated the posturing. Soviet Union’s clients in eastern Europe were the frontline of both aggressive nuclear postures. Militarism was entrenching itself in both cold war adversaries. The creation of NATO added more aggression during this time. Developing and testing nukes to wage total war became the Eisenhower administration’s nuclear posture. Nuclear weapons were terrorizing not only those who would bear the brutality of launching such terrible devices of mass destruction, they were instilling fear and terror in the citizens of America, Europe, the Soviet Union and Asian–Pacific theaters. Nuclear testing was conducted under the Protectorate of American military interests in the Pacific.
The possession and deployment of nuclear weapons had harmful and destructive effects on the health and safety of people exposed to deadly radioactive fallout. The government always has been secretive and not accountable at any time in this stage of the nuclear age for fear of being sued. As Militarism took bolder steps in the late 1950s into the 1960s with Intercontinental ballistic missiles and intermediate range delivery systems. Above ground nuclear test were the norm from late 1940’s to 1963 with the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
War games were needed just to keep the other side ‘honest’. The only response that could deter a massive first strike would be a huge retaliatory 2nd strike. The aggressive posturing was creating a nervousness in the evolving strategy. By the early 1960’s it was becoming more apparent that huge mega tonnage nuclear bombs were not necessary, but making the weapons smaller to fit onto Intermediate range and intercontinental ballistic missiles was the driver of this strategy fueling the arms race in full aggressive posture. The words of General Douglas MacArthur in July of 1961 describe the first 16 years of the ‘nuclear age’:
“Global War has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides … No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now, only the germ of double suicide.”
(1961–1981)
Since day 1 of the Nuclear Age the Military had established an aggressive posture.
Nuclear posture evolved with a shared doctrine of mutually assured destruction and the shift from massive to smaller and more accurate long range delivery systems. As a result of an aggressive posture, the two nuclear superpowers were now postured to maintain mutually assured destruction deterrence. The Cuban Missile crisis in October of 1962 was the Bear and the Eagle standing chest to chest in full aggressive posture and it appeared nuclear war was likely.
The government and We, the People, were spared nuclear holocaust with some last minute diplomacy brought about by conscientious objection to Armageddon within the chain of command. This averted nuclear war during the Cuban crisis. Soviet intermediate range missiles were removed from Cuba and Intermediate range missiles of NATO were removed from Turkey. The nuclear posture remained aggressive. It should be noted that both leaders of their nations were removed from power within 13 months of the crisis. It was a non–violent transition in the Soviet Union. Nikita Khruschev was replaced by 2 individuals. In the United States, John Kennedy was assassinated.
When Harry Truman opined in December 1963, that the CIA had become a de facto branch of government, it earned him a visit from Secretary of State and now full Psychopath, John Foster Dulles, the architect of secrecy. Power and control was now shifting with rapidity, towards the emerging security state. It did little to relax the aggressive postures of each side’s militaristic empires. The numbers of nuclear weapons increased in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Full scale aggressive nuclear posture existed during this period. Détente was preached in the 2 major theaters of the cold war as war games continued to test the adversary’s delivery and response capabilities.
Proxy war was waged against an ideological enemy in Vietnam as an expression of the aggressive nuclear posture. During the Vietnam War there was little accountability in the Pentagon. During and near the end of the Vietnam War, Nuclear weapons use was considered by President Nixon and National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger. Just as the Military did after losing the peace with the use of nukes at the end of WWII, Militarism persevered with another non–nuclear bombing campaign and finally had to let Vietnam fall. Waging war without any accountability succeeded in Vietnam from a militaristic perspective. It was a war fought under the shadow of an aggressive nuclear posture. Militarism adjusted from the setback. It continued the war for nuclear supremacy with the Soviet Union. However, democracy was the de facto loser of the war. In hindsight, the Vietnam war triggered the shadow effect of an aggressive nuclear posture. The enabled militarism was under the umbrella of an aggressive nuclear posture.
By the late 1970’s détente and deterrence had not prevented proxy war and the American embassy had been taken over in Tehran Iran. The Soviet Union flexed its nuclear aggressive posture with an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
“Deterrence serves the ends of evil as well as those of noble intent. It holds guilty the innocent as well as the culpable. It is a gamble no mortal should pretend to make. It invokes death on a scale rivaling the power of the Creator.” — General George Lee Butler
(1981–1991)
Nuclear aggressive posture waxed during the tense moments of the 1980’s under détente. This time, in the European theatre, Nuclear weapons on Intermediate range delivery systems, were deployed by both Nuclear powers. Mounting calls for nuclear arms control became wide spread. However, the nuclear posture was aggressive as Reagan amped up the rhetoric against the Soviet Union and its ability to keep up with the manufacture, deployment and advanced delivery systems of nuclear weapons and the possible abandonment of détente and the option of a decapitating first strike upon the adversary. The Soviets were hedging on a repeat of the Cuban Missile crisis to hopefully get strategic arms talks started.
In November of 1983, the war game “Able Archer” was conducted in Europe simulating a mock nuclear war in Eastern Europe. Nuclear war was averted only by scaling down the exercise after it escalated to overt Brinkmanship. Because the battleground was Europe, there were calls for nuclear arms reduction.
In 1989 the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear weapons Alliance (IALANA) declared the use or threat of nuclear weapons a crime against humanity.
“There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages.” — Mark Twain
The Cold War was a war of attrition. Testing nuclear delivery capabilities had effects on military personnel involved with these exercises. With the regime change in the Soviet Union, the era of openness made an effort and honest call for nuclear arms reduction. Militaristic spending prevailed to melt down the iron curtain and coexist with its adversary, Russia. Strategic stability with nuclear weapons was attained in part by the voluntary surrendering of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Republics to the new Russian Federation. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty helped reduce the size of the nuclear arsenals. As the Soviet empire downsized, the new leadership helped reduce the Russian nuclear posturing. In the United States, General George Lee Butler, Commander of the Strategic Command, recommended vast reduction of nuclear weapons, and a relaxing of the nuclear posture.
“We cannot at once keep sacred the miracle of existence and hold sacrosanct the capacity to destroy it … It is time to reassert the primacy of individual conscience, the voice of reason and the rightful interests of humanity.”
General Butler had recommended to President George H.W. Bush to shrink the Nuclear War Plan by 75% by decreasing targets from 12,500 to 3,000; to place Strategic bombers off of nuclear alert for the first time in 30 years. He also recommended to accelerate the retirement of all systems designed to be terminated in present and future arms control agreements and it did happen. The Nuclear Posture became less aggressive for a short while.
(1992–2021) Robust Militarism
General George Lee Butler, first Commander of Stratcom:
“Nuclear deterrence was and remains a slippery intellectual construct that translates very poorly into the real world of spontaneous crises, inexplicable motivations, incomplete intelligence and fragile human relationships.”
With the “new world order” the American military declared victory. However, an aggressive nuclear posture was exposed as NATO expansion in Eastern Europe and NATO military conquest in the former Yugoslavia after its demise. The Wolfowitz Doctrine was enunciated in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense for public policy under US president George H W Bush. It can be summed up in a single sentence: “We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” That mechanism was NATO.
Militarism first tested depleted uranium weapons in the first Gulf war against Iraq. Which was militarism’s bold new push to have a robust nuclear posture toward the rest of the world. The fear became that rogue state actors could attain a nuclear weapon. Like militarism clasping defeat out of the jaws of victory at the end of WWII, militarism now moved on to weed out those potential state actors and terrorists who may dare procure a nuclear weapon or to thwart states in obtaining a nuclear weapon and using it clandestinely.
The first Pentagon sanctioned Nuclear Posture Review set up during the Clinton administration with Les Aspin, the Defense Secretary, was a strategic plan to re–target the nuclear arsenal “post cold war”. War games to test each other’s capabilities were still continuing between NATO and Russian capabilities in Europe and on the Korean Peninsula with North & South Korean forces along with the United States in aggressive nuclear posture. The aggressive posturing to bully a rogue state such as North Korea led the regime in Pyongyang eventually to seek its own nuclear weapons program in 2002. There was no Peace dividend for Americans after the cold war ended. America’s nuclear posture became the justification for hyper–militarism.
General Lee Butler, believed in 1994 that the U.S. was already frittering away its good will and deterrence:
“Sadly, the Cold War lives on in the minds of men who cannot let go the fears, the beliefs, the enmities of the Nuclear Age. They cling to deterrence, clutch its tattered promise to their breast, shake it wistfully at bygone adversaries and balefully at new or imagined ones. They are gripped still by its awful willingness not simply to tempt the apocalypse but prepare its way.”
The turn of the century had Americans more divided politically. And if one would ask how did this all happen? The answer would be ‘militarism’. Gun violence had grown and began traumatizing the population and making people feel less secure. The contentious election of 2000 brought the 2nd George Bush to the office of President. Before a NPR could be started, George Bush considered reducing the nuclear arsenal even more than his father had reduced the numbers of nukes. Together with his new friend, Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation, talked about having additional reductions of nuclear weapons in June of 2001. When terrorists, with the aid of one or more foreign intelligence services, hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into buildings shocking and awing the entire world in September of 2001, whatever posture relaxation was snuffed by this heinous act of war. American nuclear posture, wounded and unable to seize the good will and sympathy of the world, became more fearful and aggressive. It was a triggering moment.
Militarism seized the day. Instead of diplomacy and high quality police work, a “regime change war” is what the posture was dictating. If any nation wanted to stop us from invading Afghanistan, America had the nuclear upper hand to fend them off. Aggressive nuclear posture post 9-11! It was called the Global War on Terrorism, but in a very real sense, It was robust militarism; even to the extreme of invading overtly 2 sovereign nations and failing to achieve any objective other than regime change and a descent into wars of counter–insurgency abroad and at home. All of this militarism was under the umbrella of an aggressive nuclear posture.
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.” — Mark Twain
It became apparent that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq and nation–building was a mere perception of actual democratic institutions being imbedded within the invaded nation. Those in positions of non–accountability in the Pentagon were now seeking ways to deploy cyber weaponry, robotic aerial drones to spread more terror and more war. Militarism, under a strong nuclear posture, was developing and employing these new weapons systems. In evaluating this posture, it mirrored the terror that nuclear weapons exploited ever since they were built, tested and deployed at the dawn of the Nuclear Age.
To recruit politicians and those in positions of responsibility into the scheme of security, or more accurately, the scam of security, militarism offered money, even taxpayer money, as well as weapons manufacturing lobbying funds to lure a Barack Obama to participate in kill the bad guy, Osama bin Laden operation, who was living in Pakistan. Militarism was now openly hijacking succeeding Presidents and paying off many members of congress to maintain its “strategic posture” in the world.
In addition to the big payoff, the nuclear industry was polluting the political process. The nation was in a state of uncertainty as to what was happening to itself when it elected Donald Trump to the role of Commander–in–Chief. Nuclear weapons, the nuclear posture, and even the core elements of oligarchic fascism were empowered. The chain of command was damaged by having an unstable, and in the eyes of many observers, a narcissistic, fraudulent business mogul as commander in Chief.
However, Militarism did not waste much time to have Trump feel the controls of wielding power by making him launch a cruise missile from a ship to a “terrorist” target in Syria. The Big Bertha Bomb detonated in Afghanistan near the end of that military intervention was under the auspices of an aggressive nuclear posture and may well have been a test of a new bunker busting fuze–activated tactical nuclear bomb.
The two interventionist wars were not meeting strategic objectives, but the beast sure as hell shocked and awed the other side. It was becoming more obvious to many observers that these imperial wars were not solving any problems, but exacerbating an internal problem that was in auto pilot mode under the auspices of an aggressive nuclear posture.
Post Traumatic Stress and Moral Injury among troops returning from these militaristic adventures increased in direct proportion to the arrogance of the nuclear posture after 9-11-01 and increased in intensity after the Iraq intervention. By 2016 the counter–insurgency wars that militarism was fighting abroad were mirrored in the violence, fear and aggression permeating itself into the greater society. Distrust of the government amongst veterans, which once was a trickling rivulet, was now gushing river upon Veterans of every war since World War II, Cold War included. All of this was under an aggressive nuclear posture.
The moral wound affecting veterans was now a concern amongst the troops and fast becoming an issue among the population. The brainwashing, blame and division when militarism helped elect Donald Trump in 2016 became enabled. General McMaster, a former National Security Advisor, charged the military Chiefs of Staff to be prepared to fight a nuclear war on all fronts, including against North Korea, Iran, China and Russia at the same time. This security state, brought on by nuclear weapons, was not providing the safety and security we the people need. Deterrence appeared to be failing.
“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.” — Mark Twain
It was robust militarism choking whatever democracy was being practiced on Capitol Hill. The swamp gas fog of war had settled in. Civility was being pinched by political demagoguery within the halls of We the People. What was suspected was confirmed, when General Mattis, the First of the Defense Chiefs under Trump, notified the commanders in the field that any orders from the White house to start an aggression with nuclear weapons would need to go through the Secretary of Defense or respond to a possible nuclear attack to go through the Defense secretary and not the Commander–In–Chief.
The President was taken out of the Chain of Command. Trump was an unstable wild card. The aggressiveness of the nuclear posture increased. Trump attempted to make peace with his North Korean counterpart. He failed because the real policy was dictated by the weapons industry, the Pentagon and State Department operatives of the Pentagon.
The 2018 NPR reflected the narcissism of the Commander in Chief, Secretary of Defense, and the entire corporate defense industry. The full scale aggressive nuclear posture was corrupting a foreign policy which was by 2018, had the government nearly completely overhauled by militarism. The counter insurgency wars abroad were in their own fog of war from this militarism.
China has been slowly asserting itself as an economic, political, and military rival. China’s nuclear posture is a minimum number of nukes on ground launchers, strategic bombers, and in submarines on state of the art delivery systems to deter or retaliate after an initial attack against its sovereignty. China has long been an observer of the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union and in recent years, Russia. China's nuclear posture is not near as aggressive as the United States or Russia. Like Russia, the nuclear posture is: “We will not be bullied by brazen militarism.”
As the mental health of the nation continues to be affected adversely from the de facto take over of the nation by the weapons industry and militarism, there is less accountability in the Pentagon. This non–accountability is like an addiction. It is a very corrupting viral infection of the entire defense apparatus.
The SARS Covid–2 virus came on the world in late 2019. Among the many things it exposed was the dysfunction within government, the emerging Oligarchy and the demise of Democracy. Our divisions became more acute. There were too many lies and not enough truth. The Veterans Health Administration recently came up with the number of 65,000 veterans who committed suicide between 2010 and 2020. A world wide network of military bases and stations comprise the “fraudulent American empire.” Veterans were urging Trump to pull–out of forever wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. This militarism caused virus fast became a pandemic and it produced a strong variant.
The nuclear posture remained hyper because militarism was not letting go. The nation is politically weak and morally defeated by the 20 years forever war. A simmering flash point in Ukraine boiled up in 2014 as NATO positioned itself to expand with a low–level proxy war in Ukraine. There is a clear danger both Russia and NATO could be on hair–trigger alert indicative of strong aggressive posturing on both sides.
Presently war games are nearly a routine as Russia’s and China’s militaries are pushing back against fraudulent American “interests” in their back yard. The American military had high approval ratings right on up even during Trump. More people “trusted” the military even though the “forever wars” had not achieved strategic objectives, Americans didn’t degrade the troops, but militarism wasn’t stealthy anymore. Militarism, along with nuclear weapons and nuclear war, were taboo topics to talk about. Yet all of this militarism was stirring up mistrust of government policy. Militarism itself, like cancer, was eating away at the Executive, Representative and the Judicial branches of government. In December of 2020 after Trump was defeated in the election, Cyber attacks, most likely by nuclear state sponsored players conducted the Solar Winds attack on government institutions. This was all under the umbrella of an aggressive nuclear posture. On January 6, 2020 Insurrectionists stormed the Capitol building at Trump’s instigation. America’s institutions were now visibly under assault.
It was during this time of transition that militarism, gasping for breath, asserted itself and lobbied the new congress for more nuclear weapons money in January 2021. The new President was sworn in.
Since President Biden came to office the Insurrection did not end. The President made an effort to scale back America’s war in Afghanistan. General Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has admitted Strategic Failure in the Afghanistan occupation. What has been alarmingly noticeable since the end of the Trump reign of chaos and destruction is the accelerator of the muscle machine seems to be stuck on full throttle. No one in the chain of command has given the order to scale back the nuclear posture.
The President indicated that he wanted less reliance on nuclear weapons in America’s defense strategy. This non–action by strategists in the Pentagon is militarism in action. The aggressive posturing is not being adjusted, increasing fears of war in both the entire Asian Theatre and the European Theatre in Ukraine, the Baltic states, and the Far East in Korea and Taiwan. This posture exposes a fraudulent fog of war foreign policy.
One of the reasons for this independent nuclear posture review is to expose how militarism, under the auspices of nuclear deterrence, is a failed business model for security, especially for a free people. Will Militarism self–destruct and take the nation down with it? The key is to recognize the illegality of nuclear weapons. They are a crime against humanity. They are immoral. Nuclear weapons enable corruption and militarism. Nuclear deterrence is a scam that has long out&ndashlived any reason for having nuclear weapons in the first place.
We the People, then urge the President to unite the nation by living up to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear weapons and begin the work of diplomacy and begin work on abolishing these evil devices of terror. If we do turn back from the brink of national suicide it will be by being the leader in voluntary abolition of nuclear weapons.
General Lee Butler in March 1999 after his retirement:
“Nuclear weapons are the enemy of humanity. Indeed, they’re not weapons at all. They’re some species of biological time bombs whose effects transcend time and space, poisoning the earth and its inhabitants for generations to come.”
Could these biological time bombs General Lee Butler mentioned, be the virus the military will not tell us about? Is it not time to purge the nazi–like militarism within our own nation?
Here is a list of recommendations this Nuclear Posture Review be implemented:
1) Total relaxation of the nuclear posture.
2) Immediate Bilateral talks between Russia and the United States. These talks on Nuclear Disarmament shall serve towards the goal of Total elimination of each parties nuclear weapons arsenal.
3) An immediate Cease–Fire and stand-down of all United States and NATO military operations around the world.
4) We the People will be Judge and final authority in any further agreement the parties agree to in regard to Peace and Nuclear Weapons Disarmament.
5) A Declaration of Peace towards all the peoples and governments of the world including those once deemed enemy or terrorist.
6) Acknowledgement at Command level, of the Illegality and Immorality of Nuclear Weapons.
7) Agree to cooperate with the gang of nuclear weapons states on environmental emergencies such as Fukushima Japan and with toxic nuclear waste burial within the United States, Russia and the former Soviet Republics.
8)The immediate resignation of all Generals who have supported Seditionist activities and warned media of Civil War, or refuse to abide by the protocol of the Nuclear Stand Down.
9) Respect the Non–Proliferation Treaty by signing the Treaty Prohibiting the storage, use of, and sharing of nuclear weapons.
10) Immediate conversion of the Pentagon to a VA Hospital for the Criminally Insane.
Stratcom will become Peace Command to conduct strategic relaxation of such posture of Nuclear forces and compliance with TPNW.
“By what authority do succeeding generations of leaders in the nuclear weapons states usurp the power to dictate the odds of continued life on our planet? Most urgently, why does such breathtaking audacity persist at a moment when we should stand trembling in the face of our folly and united in our commitment to abolish its most deadly manifestation?”