Guest Post by Jeff Thomas
For eight years, NATO has backed puppet rulers in Ukraine, funded attacks on Donbass, repeatedly violated the Minsk Treaties, outlawed the speaking of Russian in the Luhansk and Donetsk Republics, and has destroyed democratic opposition and free media in Ukraine, leaving it a one-party government, essentially owned and financed by the US and administrated by US operatives.
Not much subtlety there.
Yet, somehow, the US has managed to convince the people of the US and other Western countries that Russia is the bad boy, is out of control and must be stopped.
In spite of all the above, Russia remained stoic and sought continually to keep a lid on the situation. It did, however, state firmly that the “red line” would be if Ukraine were to go nuclear, becoming a direct threat to Moscow. That would not be tolerated.
Surely, this was a sober heads-up to any sensible country that the one thing that must not happen would be for Ukraine to go nuclear. After all, once that Pandora’s Box was opened, the last barrier to possible nuclear war would be crossed.
For eight years, Russia had been goaded again and again by the West, yet they did not take the bait. Then, in February of 2022, at the annual Munich Security Conference, the President of Ukraine announced his intent to make Ukraine a nuclear country.
Five days later, Russia invaded Ukraine. Immediately, the US propaganda arm went into operation, and for months, even as Ukraine was consistently losing the war, at every turn, the Western media renewed its claims that the war was turning; that Russia was faltering, and the heroes of Ukraine were beating back the Great Bear.
But all the above is old news. Why, at this juncture, should we be reviewing it?
Well, its continued significance is that NATO (or the US – they are virtually interchangeable at this point) has, from the beginning, behaved recklessly with the prospect of nuclear conflict.
Are they mad? Or are they so foolish as to think that they have some sort of “edge” in a nuclear conflict? Or do they see this as a game of one-upmanship in which the only important concern is which antagonist has the greater bluster?
We can only speculate as to the answer to this quandary. But, setting this aside, we should be questioning, a) what is the likelihood that the West would be so foolhardy as to actually push the button and, b) what would the outcome look like?
As to the first question, considering that it’s now becoming increasingly evident that the West have been misrepresenting the progress of the war; that the trained Azov forces are spent and replacements cannot be trained fast enough to go against the experienced Russian forces, the US is going to have to come up with another plan… and it will need to be something dramatic.
At this point, the one card they have not played is the nuke card.
They’ve claimed that the Russians have been either firing on or causing explosions in the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant that they have held for some time. In essence, they’re being accused of bombing themselves in a facility that has long-since been taken.
At this point, not many listeners are buying this explanation. So, what do they have left in their toolbox?
I’ve long felt that, as an end-run, what the West might do would rely on an old favourite technique – a false flag attack. Create a narrative and videos of an attack on, say, Kiev by Russia with a small nuclear warhead. Then announce that the warhead had been fired, killing hundreds of thousands. Then let loose the pre-prepared media blitz and invoke Article 5, justifying nuclear warfare.
It just might turn the tide of sympathy. But it would also open a door that could not once again be closed.
For decades, both Russia and the US have had large numbers of nukes aimed at each other, with a system of timed releases. Once the first button is pushed, interrupting the progression is difficult.
So, as to that second question – “What would a nuclear war look like?” there are many studies, but the most illustrative one I’m familiar with was produced by Princeton.
https://sgs.princeton.edu/the-lab/plan-a
It begins with a random single release in Eastern Europe and demonstrates the sizes and numbers of nuclear warheads, along with the release patterns.
It shows the trajectories and, in addition, shows diameters representing the degree of devastation by each missile.
The smaller nukes would cover all of Europe, leaving very little intact. Then the larger transatlantic nukes would take over – the state-of-the-art Sarmat missiles. Sarmat has the capacity to elude anti-missile defense systems. It travels at five times the speed of sound, weighs more than 200 tonnes and each one has multiple breakaway warheads.
The West has nothing like it.
So, what would the outcome be?
Well, each major US city would be targeted with multiple ICBMs, each big enough to destroy it. Most of the US would be carpeted with other ICBMs. The US would be destroyed within a few hours. An estimated 90 million people would be killed initially.
Those at ground zero would be vapourised. Those on the periphery of a bomb could escape if they were to get to concrete shelter very quickly. They would then need to remain sealed up for weeks, if not longer, until the majority of fallout had settled. It would be a gamble as to when exiting the building would be safe.
The northern border of the US would be destroyed, taking in Canadian border cities, such as Vancouver and Toronto. The southern border, with Mexico, would also go.
Next would be the movement of fallout.
As the video shows, those who live in or near a direct target would have no hope, but as can be seen, there are locations outside the US that are not targeted at all. Those locations that have no strategic advantage would not be targeted. So, if you were located in, say, Jamaica, you would not be hit, but, just as importantly, the Caribbean weather system – the trade winds – would carry any northern fallout away from you, as would the Gulf Stream.
Better still, the world is separated at the Equator by two weather systems that do not mix. Fallout in the north will be unlikely to travel to the south.
If you’re located in South America, there are very few likely targets. It’s unknown whether, say, Rio de Janeiro or Buenos Aires would be targets, but if not, South America may be the best place to be in the Western Hemisphere.
If anything, Europe and the Middle East would fare worse than North America.
Finally, there is the question of nuclear winter. No one can know whether this would last months or years and whether it would be localized or global.
Nuclear war is not a certainly, yet the West has been dangerously rattling sabres as though they are invincible and only others can be destroyed. This is quite false.
We cannot be certain that nuclear war will be undertaken, but if so, it will be quick. There will be no time to create an escape plan. You must already be in a location that you deem to be as safe as possible.
Editor’s Note: The US government is overextending itself by interfering in every corner of the globe. It’s all financed by massive amounts of money printing. However, the next financial crisis could end the whole charade soon.
The truth is, we’re on the cusp of a global economic crisis that could eclipse anything we’ve seen before. That’s exactly why New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released a guide that explains what could come next and what you can do about it.. Click here to download the PDF now.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Small tactical nukes could take out Kiev and the West would not retaliate in kind.
Disagree. The “neocon” jews/Israel are holding the world hostage: if they don’t get what they want in the Ukulele war – which is for Russia to capitulate, Putin/hardliners to be removed from power, and the green light to retake Khazaria for their very own – they will destroy everything.
Always nice to see some cool heads prevail.
The Road depicted it quite nicely.
Hated it.
It’s represents well what the world would be like after nuclear war.
You’re a fool if you think it’s going to be action packed Mad Max.
Is it wrong to watch every major world “leader” sitting in Westminster cathedral today and fantasize about a tactical nuclear “reset?”
Putin could have taken out the Davos crowd earlier this year…….
Great opportunity lost.
“Putin could have taken out the Davos crowd …”
Would You take out your closest friends?
The most likely nuclear war event is a cabal false flag using some of the uranium held back in the sale to Russia in the Uranium One deal and used to fabricate a weapon and then blame on Putin. Targets are likely in Ukraine or in the Black Sea.
Syria was a likely avenue for this nonsense but it appears Trump shut this down.
I’m just waiting for that fatfuk nigger General to show us some yellow-cake.
No, the most likely nuclear events are either Russia going all-out “kill” mode after a serious bioweapon attack on their country, or the US out of a “nothing else we can do to militarily turn this around” weakness pushing the button after for example a carrier group is sunk.
(Keep in mind Russia still has one sinking free, after the US sunk their Moskva.)
I don’t buy this nuclear hysteria. It would make piles of earth uninhabitable for thousands of years and poison the water supply. Why would the elites risk resources they need? It’s fear mongering. Worst case scenario there’s a dirty bomb or some reactor gets the Chernobyl treatment.
I think the best they ever did was glorified dirty bombs with conventional explosives, but if I am wrong it changes nothing.
VP George Herbert Walker Bush speculated publicly about winning a nuclear war > 40 years ago – and that was when both the US and Russia had more total throw weight. Remember, this was a guy who’d previously headed the CIA. Don’t assume that people are logical. Also, both sides were animated by fear of nuclear war back then. The fact that that fear has abated arguably increases the risk of nuclear war happening. There’s not enough fear of it these days.
Umm, the earth is now uninhabitable. What about all the nuclear testing? Does the fallout not matter if its a test and not done in anger?? Vaids is covering up Raids. Nuclear proliferation and pollution is a serious problem. Ask yourself this “if the elites/dynasties know their populations are doomed, do we help them? Tell them? Or fuck them around?” Then ask would they perhaps load our software (souls) and sell them off…….
I liked the WAR GAMES version better… it had cool names for all the different gambits and scenarios. These pikers at Princeton could only imagine two of this crazy-long list. Higher education ain’t what it used to be.
Nice simulation. Reminds me of the movie War Games. But it is really out of date. They don’t think that china won’t get involved??
From a nuclear exchange point of view, China (still) doesn’t matter.
No one wins.
https://www.nuclearwarmap.com/map01.html