Zerohedge
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk:
Questioning “mutual assured destruction,” Charles Kupperman called nuclear conflict “in large part a physics problem.”
Incoming National Security Advisor, Charles Kupperman, made the claim Nuclear War With USSR Was Winnable.
He made those statements in the 1980s. I do not know his views today, but let’s review what he said then.
President Donald Trump’s acting national security adviser, former Reagan administration official Charles Kupperman, made an extraordinary and controversial claim in the early 1980s: nuclear conflict with the USSR was winnable and that “nuclear war is a destructive thing but still in large part a physics problem.”
Kupperman, appointed to his new post on Tuesday after Trump fired his John Bolton from the job, argued it was possible to win a nuclear war “in the classical sense,” and that the notion of total destruction stemming from such a superpower conflict was inaccurate. He said that in a scenario in which 20 million people died in the U.S. as opposed to 150 million, the nation could then emerge as the stronger side and prevail in its objectives.
His argument was that with enough planning and civil defense measures, such as “a certain layer of dirt and some reinforced construction materials,” the effects of a nuclear war could be limited and that U.S. would be able to fairly quickly rebuild itself after an all-out conflict with the then-Soviet Union.
At the time, Kupperman was executive director of President Ronald Reagan’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament. He made the comments during an interview with Robert Scheer for the journalist’s 1982 book, “With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War.”
The National Security Council did not immediately respond to questions on whether Kupperman, 68, still holds the same views of nuclear conflict as he did in the early 1980s. Kupperman’s seemingly cavalier attitude toward the potential death of millions of people was criticized at the time both by Democratic politicians and arms control experts.
The article posts excerpts so let’s look at a couple of precise statements.
Kupperman Statements
- If the objective in a war is to try to destroy as many Soviet civilians and as many American civilians as is feasible, and the casualty levels approached 150 million on each side, then it’s going to be tough to say you have a surviving nation after that. But depending on how the nuclear war is fought, it could mean the difference between 150 casualties and 20 million casualties. I think that is a significant difference, and if the country loses 20 million people, you may have a chance of surviving after that.
- I think it is possible to win, in the classical sense. It means that it is clear after the war that one side is stronger than the other side, the weaker side is going to accede to the demands of the stronger side.
Winning in the Classical Sense
We lost 20 million, they lost 150 million.
Let’s call that “winning in the “classical sense”.
It’s precisely how one “wins” trade wars, but on a much larger scale.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
He forget to take into account Americans’ propensity to resort to cannibalism and then invoke the twinky deficit defense. That would add another 50 to 100 million to the death toll.
The USA will never start any nuke war because the oligarchs that own the USA won’t allow their wealth and power to be threatened. These oligarchs are worldwide wealthy and depend on the entire planet for their incomes, including the USA. Furthermore, even if the USA did threaten nuclear war, that is what will trigger the domestic implosion of the USA into civil war because We The People won’t permit it. If civil war is necessary to do that, it’ll happen. It does happen in John Michael Greer’s 2015 novel “Twilight’s Last Gleaming”. Learn how this civil war might start… Read more »
Another one of those ‘How I Learned to Love the Bomb’ moments from the Strangelove Creed
I’m surprised he didn’t claim he’d figured out a clever way that the 20 million would all be Europeans.
If all jews we should consider.
Maybe just the politicians, casino operators and hollywood hoi polloi. I like most of the composers, writers and artists.
Suggested reading: ‘The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner’ by Daniel Ellsberg
An excerpt:
“The total death count from our own attacks, in the estimates supplied by the Joint Staff, was in the neighborhood of 600 million dead, almost entirely civilians. The greater part inflicted in a day or two, the rest over six months.” (MORE)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/confessions-of-a-nuclear-war-planner/article37509859/
“No other insider with high-level access has written so candidly of the nuclear strategy of the late Eisenhower and early Kennedy years, and nothing has fundamentally changed since that era.”
Same sh*it, different day.
I was certified in radiological civil defense in 83…..save yourself the pain of a very slow death….face the fire. At least 5 years of nuke winter makes survival of humans unlikely and only those that form gangs and local militias . That evangelical and Zionist lust to the end times is not God’s work.
I’ve previously said that in any future nuclear confrontation, the survivors will envy the dead.
Agreed and I’ve previously said that I hope I’m at ground zero.
Pure insanity. Who would have thought that there was a worse choice than John Bolton? Another person with dual citizenship.
History is littered with the ruins of empires that thought that final, fateful war was ‘winnable’.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Hear, hear!
Civil Defense expert (now deceased) Cresson H. Kearny made this point back when the American and Russian arsenals were far larger.
Unfortunately, nuclear war being winnable also means it’s losable. It’s vital that America maintain strong counter strike capabilities as well as, naturally, first strike.
Counter strike strategy is in the Russians’ blood. There used to be a brand of cigarettes back in Soviet times called ‘Udarniy Otvet’ (counter-strike).. Just sayin’
Best not to play nuke games with the Russkies. Push come to shove, they don’t mess around.
Maintaining counter strike capabilities and maintaining sanity are two important factors for the US. I tend to worry more about the latter.
Might as well stop worrying. That horse bolted the barn long ago.
‘No rational human being can talk of a nuclear war’ – Imran Khan
Guess it’s time to add another category to America’s deficit. Rational humans.
But Kupperman is supposed to be temporary. Trump is to make his announcement of a pick this week. It would not surprise me if it were Kupperman, but it would be another nail in the coffin of Trump’s chances of proving he has an ounce of brains if he did go with him as national security advisor.
Obviously the Bonehead problem in Washington goes a lot deeper than previously thought.
You know, a nuclear war could EASILY kill a hundred million people. How could he even begin to imagine taking that kind of risk. Voicing such an opinion should qualify him for a good stint in a mental institution. Trump veers toward the lunatics with unerring regularity.
There will be no winners in a nuclear war, only losers.
These people are doing some seriously bad $hit to think that a nuclear war is survivable .Personally I would want to be the first one to go ,the ones that happen to survive would wish they had not.