Well, we’re finally right now there: stocks are officially trading off nuclear war head lines.
Times ago, as part of his closely-watched speech, Vladimir Putin appeared to talk down the likelihood of a nuclear attack in Ukraine:
- *PUTIN: NO POLITICS, MILITARY REASON IN NUKE STRIKE IN UKRAINE
Which, however , is more compared to can be said about the ALL OF US.
As Bloomberg just reported , the Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy rejects limits on using nuclear weapons long championed simply by arms control advocates (and, in the not too distant past, by Later on Bide) citing burgeoning risks from Russia and Cina.
“ By the 2030s the United States will certainly, for the first time in its history face two major nuclear power as strategic competitors and potential adversaries, ” the Defense Division said in the long-awaited document issued Thursday. In response, the US will “ maintain a very high bar for nuclear employment” with no ruling out using the weaponry in retaliation to a non-nuclear strategic threat to the homeland, US forces abroad or even allies.
In yet another stark change for the senile occupant of the White House basement, in the 2020 presidential campaign Biden had pledged to declare that the US nuclear arsenal should be used simply to deter or retaliate against a nuclear attack, a position blessed simply by progressive Democrats and reviled by defense hawks. But , like with every other position kept by the pathological liar who else even trumps Trump within the untruth department, this one just been reversed as well as “ the threat environment has changed dramatically since then” and the Pentagon strategy had been forged in cooperation with the flip-flopping White House.
In a stunning move that should – or even rather “ should” – spark outrage among the alleged progressives but will best case scenario prompt some very sternly rolled away letters, the nuclear statement that’s part of the broader strategy said the Biden administration reviewed its nuclear policy and concluded that “ No First Use” and “ Sole Purpose” procedures “ would result in an unacceptable level of risk because of the range of non-nuclear abilities being developed and fielded by competitors that could instill strategic-level damage” to the ALL OF US and allies.
The nuclear strategy document doesn’t spell out what non-nuclear threats could produce a ALL OF US nuclear response, but current threats consist of hypersonic weapons possessed simply by Russia and China that the US doesn’t yet have a proven defense.
It does spell out, however , in the strongest terms, what would happen to a different nuclear power, North Korea, if it launched a nuclear attack on the US, South Korea or Japan. That will action “ will result in the finish of that regime, ” this says. US nuclear weaponry continue to play a role in removing North Korean attacks.
So , the brilliant neocon minds at the rear of the report concluded, it is better to instill the fear of a disproportionate nuclear retaliation, therefore making an outright nuclear attack far more likely (if the US will nuke you anyway, may as well go all out).
In the record, which was framed well before the invasion, the Pentagon says Russia continues to “ brandish its nuclear weaponry in support of its revisionist security policy” while its contemporary arsenal is expected to develop further. In other words, the Pentagon knew what Putin might do even before he achieved it and that defined the spectacular revision in US nuclear posture. Almost as if the Pentagon directed the entire series of events…
Meanwhile, The far east remains the US’s “ most consequential strategic competitor for coming decades, ” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in the letter presenting the new protection strategy. He cited China’s “ increasingly coercive activities to reshape the Indo-Pacific region and the international program to fit its authoritarian choices, ” even as it rapidly modernizes and expands its military. The far east wants to have at least 1, 000 deliverable nuclear warheads by the end of the decade, the nuclear technique document says, saying it might use them for “ coercive purposes, including military provocations against US allies plus partners in the region. ”
The nuclear strategy affirmed modernization applications including the ongoing replacement of the aging US air-sea-land nuclear triad. Among them are the Navy’s Columbia-class nuclear ICBM submarine, the ground-based Minuteman III ICBM replacement, the new air-launched Long-Range Standoff Weapon and F-35 fighter jets for Europe carrying nuclear weapons.
The evaluation confirmed previous reports the Pentagon will retire the particular B83-1 gravity bomb plus cancel the Sea-Launched Cruise trip Missile program. But the evaluation endorses a controversial Trump-era naval weapon, the low-yield W76-2 submarine-launched nuclear warhead, which is described as providing “ an important means to deter limited nuclear use. ”
The broader technique report also offered gently worded criticism of main US weapons programs, which often run years behind programs and billions of dollars more than initial budgets.
“ Our present system is too slow and too focused on acquiring systems not designed to address the most essential challenges we now face, ” the Pentagon said. It called for a lot more “ open systems that may rapidly incorporate cutting-edge technology” while reducing problems of “ obsolescence” and high costs.
The particular Pentagon strategy documents had been sent to Congress in categorized form in March so they were considered during congressional approval of the fiscal 2023 defense budget.
* * *
So how to business all of this? Well, the initial instinct now that nuclear war headlines are being lobbed around is it may be time to sell… but as Art Cashin so insightfully put it a while ago , “ Never bet on the end of the world, because it only happens once. ”
Now thanks to the Biden admin, that “ once in a lifetime” event is that much closer to taking place.