FROM PRINCIPLES TO PREVENT NUCLEAR WAR to the US RAPA THREAT

FROM PRINCIPLES TO PREVENT NUCLEAR WAR to the US RAPA THREAT

Hugo Adan, August 27, 2014

http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/

Principles that prevented nuclear war disaster so far:

1- Agreements bilateral & multi-lateral among super-power nations.  The most famous bilateral was The Prevention of Nuclear War Agreement created in 1973  to reduce the danger of nuclear war between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The agreement was signed in Washington, D.C. on June 22, 1973 during a relative period of détente. The United States and the U.S.S.R. agreed to reduce the threat of a nuclear war and establish a policy to restrain hostility. Such agreement contained in Chapter IV the niches to sabotage the deal. It was said there that “Nothing in this Agreement shall affect or impair: A- the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense as envisaged by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations”; that is, the right of big corporation to continue building WMD. B- “the provisions of the Charter of the UN, including those relating to the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, (that was a rhetoric endorsement of peace, meaning: a false flag of peace: more talks about peace hides real preparation for the next war);and , C-  “the obligations undertaken by either Party towards its allies or other countries in treaties, agreements, and other appropriate documents”. So NATO, the greatest manufacturer of war was legitimized.This failed deal was signed in  June 22, 1973 Entered into force June 22, 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_the_Prevention_of_Nuclear_War

2- That one was follow by the multilateral agreement called Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_the_Prevention_of_Nuclear_War This agreement basically covers two main areas: A- general conduct of both countries toward each other and toward third countries regarding the avoidance of nuclear war. In this respect it is a bilateral agreement with multilateral implications. Today we do not care for 3^rd world countries, or simply their representation in the UN is manipulated or bribed by the empire. B- “The Parties agreed that in a situation in which the two great nuclear countries find themselves in a risk of nuclear confrontation, “they are committed to consult with each other in order to avoid this risk.” This principle was never respected by both sides.

3- Deterrence theory was the military strategy used during the Cold War with regard to the use of nuclear weapons. This became the biggest scum in international relations because it allow the super porwe countries to use to use its military might against another powerful adversary or potential enemy to use its power by a surprise attack (they called right to 1^st strike) to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started but intended to compete with the forces of the empire allies. Case in point: Iran vs. Israel. According to Thomas Schelling’s (1966) this theory can no longer be defined as the science of military strategy. Instead, it is simply the art of coercion, of intimidation and blackmail deterrence imposed on non-allies countries. This principle was broken first by European countries and later by developing countries like Israel, India, China, Pakistan, Brasil etc. So, the theoretical principles of deterrence never prevented the problem of of nuclear weapons proliferation. In a January 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal, veteran cold-war policy makers Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry, George Shultz, and Sam Nunn admitted the failure of this policy and said “"Nuclear deterrence is a far less persuasive strategic response to a world of potential regional nuclear arms races and nuclear terrorism than it was to the cold war"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory . The hidden principle in nuclear deterrence was the threat of retaliation and possibly mutually assured destruction (MAD)

4- The principle of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION (MAD) is the hidden principle used for nuclear deterrence today. It is grounded on the promise of retaliation if a super-power country is attacked with nuclear weapons. “A successful nuclear deterrent requires that a country preserve its ability to retaliate, either by responding before its own weapons are destroyed or by ensuring a second strike with total desrtruction capability”. Case in point: just hours after the US announced the project RAPA (The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA): A Direct Path to Nuclear War with Russia a plane “from China” –it was said so by West press- fly over the US air space and it was not shut down by the air force. Why? it was speculated that it wasn’t shut down because it may carry nuclear weapons, if shot down it could have create a chain reaction explosion  of American nuclear silos.  We have reached the point of MAD so far. The principle of  mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. This  theory of deterrence is really a mutual threat of using strong weapons against an enemy, it prevents the nuke owners to use their weapons. This strategy goes hand on hand with the principle of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction  

5- The principle of NASH EQUILIBRIUM .  In game theory, the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy.  If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing strategies while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium. Stated simply, Amy and Will are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Will's decision, and Will is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision. Likewise, a group of players are in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others in the game. More simple even: if both players coordinate their decision, a state of equilibrium is built, but if they don’t as happen with the US RAPA, then this could lead to nuclear devastation. Encircling Russia and China with nuclear missile installation is breaking the equilibrium and the retaliation response made obsolete and ridicule the type of military supremacist policy we exhibit with RAPA; it also makes obsolete most talks and agreement on nuclear deterrence.

6- RAPA "The Russian Aggression Prevention Act" (RAPA): A Direct Path to Nuclear War with Russia” http://www.opednews.com/articles/Guest-Article-by-Steven-St-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-Corker-Bob_Nuclear-Attack_Nuclear-Weapons_Nuclear_insanity-140823-95.html According to Steven Starr, August 22, 2014, the "Russian Aggression Prevention Act," introduced to Congress by U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), will set the US on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia in Ukraine.

Any US-Russian war is likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the US nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat, both have many thousands of nuclear weapons ready for instant use, and both rely upon Counterforce military doctrine that tasks their military, in the event of war, to preemptively destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy.

RAPA provides de facto NATO membership for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova via RAPA

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act, or RAPA, "Provides major non-NATO ally status for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova for purposes of the transfer or possible transfer of defense articles or defense services." Major non-NATO ally status would for practical purposes give NATO membership to these nations, as it would allow the US to move large amounts of military equipment and forces to them without the need for approval of other NATO member states. Thus RAPA would effectively bypass long-standing German opposition to the US request to make Ukraine and Georgia part of NATO.
--------- 
RELATED ARTICLES
The Total Collapse — World War III guaranteed
--------- 
The Ongoing Danger of Nuclear War - LA Progressive
--------- 
The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA): A Direct Path to Nuclear War with Russia
-------- 
Senators Who Are Risking Nuclear War – LewRockwell.com
-------- 
weapons and war « nuclear-news
-------- 
NORTH AMERICA « nuclear-news

=====