Meet the New Holocaust Missile and Armageddon Submarine
Meet the New Holocaust Missile and Armageddon Submarine
Names Like Minuteman, Peacekeeper, and Sentinel Are Diabolically Dishonest
Ever think about names of U.S. weapons of war? Rarely are those names honest. I do applaud the relative honesty of Predator and Reaper drones, because those names capture the often predatory nature of U.S. foreign policy and the grim reaperish means that are often employed in its execution. Most names are not so suggestive. For example, U.S. fighter planes carry noble names like Eagle, Fighting Falcon, or Raptor. Nuclear bombers are an interesting case since they can carry thermonuclear bombs and missiles to kill hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people. So we have the B-52 Stratofortress (a great 1950s-era name), the B-1 Lancer, the B-2 Spirit, and the new B-21 Raider (the name has historical echoes to the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in 1942).
Shouldn’t these bombers carry names like Megadeath or Mass Murder?
Think too of nuclear missiles. The Air Force’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) have had names like Titan, Minuteman, Peacekeeper, and now the new Sentinel. But since these missiles carry warheads that could easily kill millions, wouldn’t a more honest name be The Holocaust ICBM? For that’s what these missiles promise: a nuclear holocaust.
Consider too the Navy’s Ohio-class nuclear missile-firing submarines (SSBN) with their Trident missiles. (Trident—gotta hand it to the Navy.) Just one submarine can carry 20 Trident II missiles, each with up to eight warheads, each warhead being roughly equivalent to six Hiroshima bombs. Again, roughly speaking, each of these submarines carries an arsenal equivalent to one thousand Hiroshima bombs. And the U.S. has fourteen of these submarines.
Instead of the Ohio-class of submarines, shouldn’t they be called the Armageddon-class? Or the Apocalypse-class? The Genocide-class?
With a bit more honesty, perhaps it wouldn’t be so easy to sell these horrific weapons to Congress and the American people. Then again, when the bottom line is higher budgets for the Pentagon and more jobs for Congressional districts, I guess America will buy most anything. Even Holocaust missiles and Armageddon submarines. And for upwards of $2 trillion over the next 30 years as well.
If they don’t bust the budget, perhaps they’ll destroy the world.
I just heard (Alex Christoforou) that the UK will be shipping depleted uranium shells to Ukraine. So, radioactive waste distributed in Eastern Ukraine, since the Zelensky regime likely won't retake it. Will genuine nukes be far behind?
So the U.S. has the capability to obliterate about 14,000 Hiroshimas, just on its current submarine fleet. This doesn't include all the land-based ICBMs, nor the Bomber-dispatched warheads, etc.
Once there was at least sane leadership in the U.S., which agreed with Russia on at least limiting the total destructive power of their arsenals. Talks begat limitations that began ratcheting down those arsenals, and the ABM and INF treaties succeeded.
But the neocons, who have subsequently taken over the power centers of U.S. foreign policy, aren't particularly rational and the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from those treaties.
The ABM treaty was a key piece, for Anti-Ballistic Missile systems by nature upended a nuclear state's reliance on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) - the deterrent ability represented by the other's state's ability to retaliate. MAD effectively removed any state's incentive for a first strike. ABMs could theoretically neutralize (or at least significantly reduce) a retaliatory strike; and both sides understood that and agreed to their ban.
George W. Bush, no doubt under advice of Donald Rumsfeld, unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the ABM. It wasn't long before the U.S. Patriot ABM system was deployed to Poland and other places ringing Russia. As some have pointed out, the problem with ABMs isn't limited to their ability to constrain any retaliatory strike. They are platforms which can easily be adapted to offensive use as well. In any case, Trump, similarly led by Mike Pompeo, withdrew from the INF as well.
What is any state left to make of these developments, and of Obama's assent (after he'd won the Nobel Peace Prize, no less!) to commit another Trillion dollars to modernizing the U.S. nuclear strike potential? And of the U.S. push to expand a hostile military alliance around the nation so targeted?
Would it be too much to hope for that a citizenry will awaken to this lunacy in time to stand up with others and say, loudly, "NO MORE!" ? Because, based on the results of the last twenty years or so of elections, I don't have much hope that any political leadership will show such enlightenment.