The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy
For almost half a century, the world’s most powerful nuclear states have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union had grown so large and sophisticated that neither country could entirely destroy the other’s retaliatory force by launching first, even with a surprise attack. Starting a nuclear war was therefore tantamount to committing suicide.
During the Cold War, many scholars and policy analysts believed that MAD made the world relatively stable and peaceful because it induced great caution in international politics, discouraged the use of nuclear threats to resolve disputes, and generally restrained the superpowers’ behavior. (Revealingly, the last intense nuclear standoff, the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, occurred at the dawn of the era of MAD.) Because of the nuclear stalemate, the optimists argued, the era of intentional great-power wars had ended. Critics of MAD, however, argued that it prevented not great-power war but the rolling back of the power and influence of a dangerously expansionist and totalitarian Soviet Union. From that perspective, MAD prolonged the life of an evil empire.
This debate may now seem like ancient history, but it is actually more relevant than ever — because the age of MAD is nearing an end. Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States’ nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia’s arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China’s nuclear forces. Unless Washington’s policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China — and the rest of the world — will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come….
Neocons Think They Can Win a Nuclear War with Russia
Russia Prepares for an “Expected U.S. Nuclear Attack”
Declassified Documents Reveal Pentagon’s 1950s Planned Nuclear Holocaust: “Systemic Destruction” and Annihilation of Prague, Warsaw, Budapest, Moscow, Beijing, …. More than 1000 Cities.
In his groundbreaking (and bestselling) 1988 book, The Shadows of Power, author and researcher James Perloff meticulously documents the origins, aims and influence of The Council on Foreign Relations and its members. Today Perloff joins us to discuss the CFR, its acknowledged goal of preparing the American public for a new world order, and how it is working to accomplish that goal through the control ofAmerica’s foreign policy apparatus.
The Shadows of Power (information)
The Shadows of Power (purchase)
The Shadows of Power (presentation)
Truth Is A Lonely Warrior
While the health effects of breastfeeding get plenty of attention, you’re less likely to hear about some of the interactions between breastfeeding and psychological development.
That’s why I was so excited to learn about the research of psychologist Dr. Darcia Narvaez at the University of Notre Dame. She is Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Collaborative for Ethical Education. She is co-author, most recently, of Evolution, Early Experience, and Human Development and has written on breastfeeding for Psychology Today.
To learn more about Dr. Narvaez’s research on the relationship between breastfeeding and moral development, I asked her these questions: …
Is it obscene that anyone has to argue for the rights of children to have access to their mothers? When medicine pushes for fundamental alterations to something that has worked beautifully for millennia, the burden of proof should be on medicine, not nature.
Children ranged in age from 2 to 18. Adjusting for age, children who were not breastfed at all were two and half times more likely to have developed Autism or an ASD. Because formula with DHA/ARA was only available starting in 2002, examinations for ASDs and formula use were limited to children aged 2 to 4; however, even with this limited time range, the authors found that children who had used formula without DHA/ARA supplementation were nearly four and a half times more likely to have developed an ASD. Compared to the exclusive breastfeeding group, the use of formula with DHA/ARA supplementation was associated with a nearly three-fold increase in ASDs while the use of formula without DHA/ARA supplementation was associated with a nearly 13-fold increase in ASDs. This research came after years of no one following up on other research that found that compared to matched controls, children diagnosed with Autism were three times more likely to have been weaned within a week of birth. And again, we have gone years with nothing that has followed up on this research (published, to date, that I could find; a point that angers me as it seems like the odds ratios here are high enough to warrant some discussion or further research). …
She obviously doesn’t understand “syence”. Odds ratios are outmoded. The question is who benefits and who loses and whether one group is more powerful than the other. And imagine the embarrassment if the AMA had to admit that their autistic compulsions re: hyper-vaccination plus their lack of support for something as simple as breastfeeding has created this epidemic.