Nukes in Europe? What an awful thought!


The present US presidential campaign process is just awful.  The Borgist  MSM clearly have the idea that they can shape public perception to force outcomes that they prefer.  At times their efforts reach levels of absurdities that are truly "impressive"

A couple of nights ago Bully Badger Chris Matthews raged on against Donald Trump (another ass) for an hour in a staccato stream of questions doubtless intended to elicit some sort of politically embarrassing response that could then become the meme in yet another MSM attempt to destroy Trump.

This succeeded.  He managed to get Trump to say several things that could be repeated over and over until they become psychological "truth" for the masses.  He tricked Trump into saying that if abortion were a crime, then women who voluntarily aborted  should be punished.   Once trump accepted that idea then Matthews and all the other gleeful press creeps commenced the endless repetition of the meme that Trump wants to imprison women who have abortions.  This will damage Trump's position with flyover country white women as it was intended to do.

This journalistic malpractice was even more fully developed in Bully Badger Chris Matthews' enticements over the issue of nuclear weapons.  He managed to back Trump into  a corner in which Trump said that he would not wish to use nuclear weapons in Europe but would not "take any capabilities off the table."  Oh my God!  Trump wants to introduce nuclear weapons to Europe!  Who but a madman would want to do such a thing?

Well, pilgrims,  throughout the Cold War it was anticipated that in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion across the line between NATO and the WP, NATO's conventional forces would fight as long as they could against WP invasion and then if defeat became inevitable, the response to break the assault would be – wait for it – NUCLEAR WEAPONS.  The USSR understood that to be the case.

To make this capability real, US nuclear weapons were stored under secured US only custody far and wide across the countries of the NATO alliance.  Nuclear artillery shells, air-delivered nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons mounted on ballistic weapons were ever present, ready for use in large numbers. 

The Pershing II ballistic missile was one such weapons system.  It was brought into Europe to counter the introduction of the Soviet SS-20, an equivalent system. 

Bully Boy Matthews knows all this.  He knows that the use of nuclear weapons in extremis has long been anticipated and a matter of accomplished combined policy and planning in NATO.

Matthews is merely, and contemptibly, seeking to misinform the public.  For him the political process is just a game in which his huge but fragile ego is at risk.  pl

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Nukes in Europe? What an awful thought!

  1. 505th PIR says:

    Most, and I mean a huge percentage of high school students the past 15 years or so do not and have not known what the Cold War was. It is therefore no leap of faith to believe that facts and assertions can be created and foisted on an ever expanding generation of voters. This misuse of information is by no means neutral or benign. Hence the exchange with Trump.

  2. doug says:

    Wasn’t this well known US policy generally? Heck, I even remember first use was policy in the event it was necessary to prevent the ME from being overrun by the Soviets during the, Gasp!, Carter administration.

  3. turcopolier says:

    I thought it was well known, but… pl

  4. Old Microbiologist says:

    I recall that part of the reason for the reunification of Germany was the open secret that was not actually known by the Germans. I recall that the annual war games simulation run normally without Germans present (Warrior Prep Center) was conducted with the Germans in attendance for the first time in 1989. Of course, in the simulation, the Soviet forces invaded en masse and the US response was a nuclear wall of fire straight down the German border. This horrified the Germans so much it provoked a serious effort towards reunification. I don’t know the veracity of this but it was related to me by a reliable source. And I tend to believe it. I don’t think the Germans ever really understood how little the US cared for them at the time. Maybe that has changed but I doubt it.
    I had earlier in the year completed my qualification as a PSYOPS officer in 1989 for my ASI. For my final project I developed a PSYOP operation against the German population with reunification as the end goal. I got a high grade on this project but was told by the reviewers that it was completely improbable. Yet, this is more or less what happened in real life.
    I also recall reading recently there are/were something like 200 nuclear bombs at Incirlik. Who do people think these are based in Turkey to target? Iran, Russia, or both? With the recent evacuation of all dependents from Southern Turkey including Incirlik, I wonder if the weapons have been moved back to Western Europe?

  5. oofda says:

    True, but I think Trump did more damage to his campaign with a previous comment saying that he would be “open to Japan or the ROK getting nuclear weapons.” That was against U.S. policy since the beginning of the nuclear age and was a stunning admission. I don’t think he has ‘clarified’ that, either.
    And ‘introduce nuclear weapons to Europe?’- We still have them there and according to some reports, the ones stored in Belgium are in danger due to poor security at Kleine Brogel. Most Americans don’t realize that we have them stored also in Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey and Italy as well under NATO nuclear weapons sharing.

  6. rakesh wahi says:

    trump should have known about the role of nuclear weapons in Europe by this stage.

  7. Laura says:

    Of course you are right, Colonel, but wasn’t the Matthews question–obnoxious as he is–referring to Trump’s ISIS stance? I understand using tactical nukes against an invading land/air force of Soviet Russia but how do nukes even work in a European city against a cell of terrorists? Even in Syria or Iraq? In your professional opinion, are they useful against that sort of an enemy?

  8. Edward says:

    I think the press has always manipulated the elections. They are having a hard time this time getting traction with the public. They can’t figure out an approach that works against Trump and instead are desperately trying to use these phony “gotcha” attacks. For Sanders they have a news blackout.
    In any case the “gotcha” attack above is a bit ironic because Trump has raised the question of whether NATO is still needed. This is a position more sympathetic to people that want to reduce nuclear weapons in Europe.

  9. turcopolier says:

    I am not aware that trump has a stance regarding use of nuclear weapons against IS. IMO the question was an obvious case of “gothcha” and referred to ANY use of nuclear weapons in Europe. The part about cities is silly. I am surprised that you asked that. pl

  10. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Eisenhower administration.
    Iranian army had been supplied with cannons that could use nuclear munitions. 150mm. – if I am not mistaken.

  11. turcopolier says:

    I disagree. The press has never been so powerful and purposeful as now. pl

  12. turcopolier says:

    Probably 155mm but I do not think the warheads were positioned in Iran. In all instances the warheads remained in US custody. pl

  13. YT says:

    Most high school students (frankly) don’t know sh*t from Shinola/ or their own a$$ from a hole in the ground.
    They don’t read nuthin’ of worth ‘cept their school curricula.
    I’ve been speaking to some uni kids the past couple of years & they’ve been a disappointment when it comes to intelligent conversation.
    A tunnel-vision Weltanschauung due to the cr*p they “study” assiduously for hours without end during & after class in addition to iPhone game addiction.

  14. Walter R. Moore says:

    The public has interpreted the exchange to mean Trump would not rule out the use of nukes AGAINST the UK.
    I thought the Mirror article (and others) made for hilarious reading.

  15. steve says:

    ” He tricked Trump into saying that if abortion were a crime, then women who voluntarily aborted should be punished.”
    Let me respectfully disagree with this. The wife and I have worked with our local high school debate team for many years. We have chaperoned, coached, cooked and judged. Have gone with the team to the Catholic Forensic League National Finals multiple times. This was not a trick question. I would have been embarrassed if any of our kids could not field that question, and give a much, much better answer. What you saw here was an ill-prepared candidate botching an easily anticipated, simple, softball question. Now, I think you can make the case that maybe Matthews sensed Trump really didn’t know much on this topic, so he made sure to ask him an easy question that Trump would get wrong because Trump couldn’t admit he had never thought about this topic or prepared for it. However, I think that is a problem mostly because Trump just isn’t prepared. On the NATO issue, I agree.

  16. turcopolier says:

    I am quite good at debate and I recognize the art of provocation intended to elicit a stupid response. pl

  17. turcopolier says:

    Yes, but that is not the simple meme that the MSM has seized on. pl

  18. different clue says:

    Matthews will remain effective as long as any office-seekers and/or fame-seekers feel they need to reach his audience of millions. And that will continue until an office-seeker or office-holder or fame-seeker can achieve all his/her goals without ever once appearing on Matthews’s show. If such a person can succeed while staying off Matthews’s show, that might be the first crack in the dam. Others might be emboldened to boycott Matthews’s show.
    And if enough such people discovered they did not need the Great Matthews anymore, they could then play a stealth-sabotage game with his show. They could all agree to come on his show, and then just sit there smiling vacuously and saying nothing. They would be creating “dead air” which the Great Matthews might be forced to explain to his employers.

  19. Kooshy says:

    I agree with colonel, IMO every election has got more intense on forming the public opinion (vote0 on the direction that Borg prefers, and it is getting worst. IMO it is becoming choking and they are well on their way to choke the nation.

  20. Matthew says:

    Col: It’s pretty clear to me that the “switch” has been turned and all the media coverage of Trump going forward will be negative.
    The country and the RNC will be damaged by a fractious, brokered convention. No matter. The media, an assorted collection of very self-interested people, would be “damaged” by a quick end to the both the delegate contests in both parties. Who would watch their shows for the next four months?

  21. Dubhaltach says:

    In reply to Babak Makkinejad 01 April 2016 at 02:13 PM
    I had heard that but always assumed it was somewhat fantastical because (so far as I know) the American government consistently has tried to keep nuclear weaponry out of the hands of those who did not already have it.
    I am open to correction on this but it seems to me that the Eisenhower administration would be particularly assiduous in this and that this would include delivery methods.
    How stable was the Pahlevi dynasty’s grip on power at that time?
    Also – technical question to those who know far more than I on this topic had nuclear munitions been sufficiently miniturised by that time that they could be delivered using a 150mm shell designed for the purpose?

  22. turcopolier says:

    Any US nuke warheads intended for NATO (or non-NATO ally) use in wartime remained in US hands until presidential release for them was given.
    These weapons were built to be easily rendered safe by the US custodial detachment. As for delivery means, an artillery piece or an airplane is only that until this kind of thing is made the ammunition. pl

  23. Allen Thomson says:

    Also and as I heard it, Livermore had designed a 1-kt bomb that would fit in a 5-inch (125-ish mm) naval artillery shell by the early 1970s. They were somewhat miffed that the Navy wasn’t interested.

  24. KHarbaugh says:

    You should also recall the “neutron bomb”,
    whose purpose was to maximize radiation, which would kill people,
    while minimizing blast, thus preserving the structures of Western Europe.
    This was recognized in popular culture in the 1980s,
    when GE CEO Jack Welch was dubbed “neutron Jack” for his practice of buying companies, firing their employees, while keeping the buildings.
    As to US Army planning during the Cold War,
    I was privileged to be on the GS (General Staff) of HQUSASA (in its DCSR&D) during the 1970s,
    and I can tell you that its commanders were mightily worried about the nuclear threat posed by the FROGs and SCUDs which would have supported an invasion of Western Germany by the tank armies of the GSFG.
    Planning for how to manage a nuclear battlefield in Western Europe was only prudent.
    It is not true that, at the HQUSASA level,
    that the USSR initiating a nuclear war in Europe was discounted.
    They were making every effort to counter such a threat.

  25. turcopolier says:

    “It is not true that, at the HQUSASA level, that the USSR initiating a nuclear war in Europe was discounted. They were making every effort to counter such a threat” Yes, prudent planning would require you to consider that possibility but it was anticipated that the soviets would begin with a massive conventional attack, i.e., hundreds of thousands of men and thousands of armored vehicles. Why? Because they were thought to want to capture Western Europe as little damaged as possible and to that end would have wanted to see if the Germans would surrender rather than let NATO devastate their country with nukes. pl

  26. Jack says:

    While it may be true that our youth know nothing, let’s not lose sight of the fact that its the Boomers that brought us to the mess we are in.

  27. turcopolier says:

    What is/was “HQUSASA?” pl

  28. Brunswick says:

    Mathew’s show averaged 126,000 viewers in the last quarter of 2015.
    More people read Russia Today than watch Chris Mathews.

  29. BrotherJoe says:

    I suspect that Japan already has nuclear weapons of their own making. They may be in a disassembled state so as to allow deniability but be capable of being assembled within hours.

  30. steve says:

    Thank you Colonel. I’m not a fan of Trump, but I’ve wanted to throw a shoe at the TV everytime this subject comes up–Chuck Todd was just on repeating the same lines.
    Lord, how many nuclear weapons do we have presently targeted at Russia? Hey, surprise pundits, Russia is in Europe. And we still have tactical nukes there as far as I know which aren’t anticipated to be used in . . . . Ecuador.
    Trump is vague on the use of nuclear weapons in the mideast? Isn’t strategic ambiguity part of US policy? And, too, let’s not forget “bomb, bomb Iran” as well as the thinly veiled threat by Obama/Hillary that “all options are on the table”.
    I don’t necessarily endorse many of Trump’s views, but I also don’t endorse similar strategic policy by Obama/Hillary and most of their predecessors.
    But what I really get steamed about is that there is no critique at all of that similar establishment policy–only misleading criticism of Trump. What manipulative hypocrites the MSM are.

  31. scott s. says:

    I was ordered to the Tomahawk missile program office not long after the INF Treaty required all the GLCMs in Europe to be deactivated/removed. Though this didn’t impact what was at sea (and the Mediterranean can be considered “part of Europe”).

  32. turcopolier says:

    The Pershing warheads were removed from the missiles and made into aerial bombs many of which were sent to Europe. pl

  33. Fred says:

    Which public is that, the UK public? Would that be the pro-Brexit public or the pro-Europe public?

  34. Fred says:

    It appears the big (news) bombs always get dropped on a Friday. The latest being the State Department dropping its internal investigation of Hilary’s violation of law in handling secret information.

  35. turcopolier says:

    “The FBI communicated to us that we should follow our standard practice, which is to put our internal review on hold while there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation ,” State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters.
    “The internal review is on hold, pending completion of the FBI’s work,” she added.” We’ll reassess next steps after the FBI’s work is complete.” Reuters pl

  36. Cold War Zoomie says:

    Scott S mentioned the GLCMs. I was stationed in the UK when they were at Molesworth and Greenham Common. They weren’t there for very long.

  37. Procopius says:

    I don’t know much about the youth of today, but I’m pretty sure when I graduated from high school I didn’t know shit from shinola. I learned more about current affairs after I joined the Air Force, because then it was relevant. In high school you don’t get tested on current affairs, so you don’t waste valuable homework time keeping up with them.

  38. tag-team says:

    A friend of mine won the first price with his art concept in 1987 suggesting simplified: a Berlin wall of ice, in which case it would melt. The concept was then exhibited in the Check Point Charly Museum.
    “First Prize Project Berlin Ice Wall Mitigation,” Exhibition Intl Urban Design Competition, Mythos Berlin GmbH, Museum at Checkpoint Charlie Berlin, Germany 1987”
    Had you written your highly graded psychop plan earlier, I would now of course need to check, if he was a willing tool in your larger designs. And ultimately if that landed him professorships in the US longterm, and not his work.
    following you into the wide universe of possibilities: In this case sure not one that had to be propagated via psychop.

  39. Procopius says:

    I thought the 155mm was a standard part of Divisional Artillery support. Not sure if it was Brigade Artillery, too, or not. After WWI fortifications were not used so much, so we didn’t need the bigger artillery pieces. The Germans bypassed the Maginot Line, instead of pounding the forts to pieces like they did in Belgium in WWI. I also have a vague memory that at one point we had standard artillery pieces in 175mm and 240mm, but those would probably have been abandoned as missiles became more accurate.

  40. turcopolier says:

    “standard artillery pieces in 175mm and 240mm” Both were present in Corps level support batteries in VN, usually with two of each inside a defended bermed up perimeter alongside an airfield for re-supply. the battery defense included 4o mm “dusters,” quad .50 cal M-2 on mobile mounts and 20 mm Gatling guns. pl

  41. It’s April Fool’s Day — so might I ask, is it true the Pershing IIs were dipped in pig’s blood, as per the fictitious Pershing Doctrine recently circulated by Donald Trump?

  42. Bill Herschel says:

    It’s a full court press. Which actually reminds me of the 60’s Celtics, very good memories. Edward Bernays is beaming in Hell.

  43. different clue says:

    My knowledge is years out of date. I remember reading/hearing some years ago that Matthews’s audience was a few couple million people or so. If it is down to 126,000 average viewers per episode; secure office-holders or psychologically-secure fame non-seekers could already boycott that show with no harm done to themselves.
    Maybe people haven’t yet realized just how unnecessary Matthews has become to show up on to get crucial exposure.

  44. Anonymous says:

    “Stationed” is a strange term to describe someone who kept riding around with a forged licence on a Bandit.

  45. Pajarito says:

    W48 ( 155 mm nuclear warhead was available 1962 into the 1990s. Small yield, expensive.

  46. turcopolier says:

    This wiki link has been posted three times now. pl

  47. LondonBob says:

    Well it is a fascinating real life experiment in the effectiveness, or not, of a sustained propaganda campaign.
    Does the growth of alternative media negate the influence of the MSM?
    How grounded in reality must a meme be?
    Is distrust and dislike of the MSM such that it has the opposite effect?
    What are the implications if it fails?
    Is it subject to diminishing marginal returns, potentially negative after sufficient time?
    So far it is failing, and I suspect having an opposite impact for some? Although whilst I believe it has failed in their attempt to stop Trump being nominated enough damage has been done to seriously impede his Presidential bid. That said Trump is unique in his already high profile, ability to manipulate the media, use of new media, as well as being innately gifted in the art of persuasion/salesmanship that I don’t think many could replicate what he has done.

  48. LondonBob says:

    It is instructive to look at the successful run by long time pro Palestinian activist Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour Party here in Britain. He received the full barrage of media attacks, just like Trump, as well as well funded opponents, however he won nonetheless. Indeed he won so big with 60% of the vote that there was no need for a second or third round of voting as usually happens. The margin of victory was important because since his election he has faced repeated attempts to destabilise his leadership by his own MPs as well as a continuing barrage by the media. The plus side for Trump is I believe he is a stronger character and more natural leader than Corbyn.
    Of course Corbyn also received the trick use of nuclear weapons question. His answer was he couldn’t conceive of ever using nuclear weapons and was duly pilloried for it. Like being asked whether people should pay their taxes to the Romans in 30AD Palestine, it is difficult to on the spot come up with a render unto Caesar and render unto God answer that satisfies all parties.

  49. alba etie says:

    Plus how much advertising dollars would be lost if ratings dropped ?

  50. aleksandar says:

    I didn’t know either so I have to search.
    The United States Army Security Agency (ASA) was the United States Army’s signal intelligence branch. The Latin motto of the Army Security Agency was Semper Vigilis (Vigilant Always), which echoes Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”[2] The Agency existed between 1945 and 1976 and was the successor to Army signal intelligence operations dating back to World War I. ASA was under the operational control of the Director of the National Security Agency (DIRNSA), located at Fort Meade, Maryland; but had its own tactical commander at Headquarters, ASA, Arlington Hall Station, VA. Besides intelligence gathering, it had responsibility for the security of Army communications and for electronic countermeasures operations. In 1977, the ASA was merged with the US Army’s Military Intelligence component to create the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM).

  51. turcopolier says:

    I finally figured out that Harbaugh was talking about ASA. Why they would have been having meetings about Soviet plans in Europe escapes me. As you observed their function was to provide service cryptologic capability to DIRNSA. I was never a SIGINTer. pl

  52. Jonst says:

    Well I can’t speak for u, but in my nuclear family we had one son stationed in Europe. One in Vietnam. And one son (me) expected to join. And it was expected-and demanded-demand enforced by sarcasm, that when u came to the table to eat u knew where your kin were station. Who were the leaders of the respective nations impacting said kin. I.e. President, generals, foreign ministers, head of the Party, and so on. You were expected to know if a major campaign was going. You were expected to know maps. When Summits were on going. You were expected to know this stuff not because you should know “current events”, although they (elders) thought that to. You expected to know it because your brother, son,nephew, cousin ass might be on the line. And maybe yours too.soon enough. And God help the person who thought knowing all this stuff made them special or smart.

  53. Kunuri says:

    Same maybe true of the Swiss, fits right into their defense policy after WWII. In fact, in the 50s they tried to get nuclear weapons through various sources but failed. Instead they built nuclear power plants, one close to where I lived for 5 years. Given their wizardry with anything mechanical, and determination when it comes to the defense of their country, I often though them having and being capable of assembling nuclear weapons in record time. And they always had the means of delivery. Did you all know that they still have arsenals and supplies buried in the Alps, constantly being upgraded? There was a large bunker in WWII style astride a hill behind my house with modern locks on the doors where I saw civil defense inspectors milling around several times.

  54. cynic says:

    More dangerous than nuclear weapons to Europe is the suicidal wish of the left to replace their own people by the trash of the third world and the death cult which has been the principal enemy of Europe for a millennium:

  55. LondonBob,
    This takes me back years. At the start of the ‘Eighties, a good number of my television colleagues were staunch CND supporters. I was very strongly opposed, in part precisely because these people were leftists like Jeremy Corbyn (I didn’t take to him then and don’t now, to put it mildly.)
    In 1986, however, I came across an article published the previous year in the Chatham House journal ‘International Affairs’, entitled ‘Deterrence: The Problem – Not the Solution’. I would not have read further, had I not seen that its author, Michael MccGwire, then at Brookings, had ended twenty-five years service in the Royal Navy, which started in May 1942, as head of the naval section of the Defence Intelligence Staff.
    To my surprise, I found that MccGwire had thought for decades that the ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ should be scrapped. So too, I discovered, had the other most formidable British military intellectual I came across, General Sir Hugh Beach, formerly Commandant of the Staff College at Camberley and Master-General of the Ordnance – also a Second World War veteran.
    (For a July 1987 paper by MccGwire, anticipating the Soviet liquidation of their offensive posture in Central Europe, and explaining the interpretations of the history of Soviet military strategy which underpinned both this – correct – prediction, and his critique of academic ‘deterrence’ theory, see .)
    One is used to people collapsing into empty rhetoric when it comes to the question of whether we should maintain the ‘independent nuclear deterrent’. However the attack on Corbyn by the chief of the defence staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton on the BBC’s ‘Andrew Marr Show’ not only represented a clearly improper intervention in politics, but came close to touching new depths of inanity. According to a ‘Guardian’ report:
    ‘Corbyn’s position undermined ”the credibility of deterrence”, Houghton said, adding: ”The whole thing about deterrence rests on the credibility of its use. When people say ‘you are never going to use the deterrent’, what I say is you use the deterrent every second, of every minute, of every day. The purpose of the deterrent is that you don’t have to use it because you successfully deter.”’
    (See .)
    Who is ‘deterred’ from doing what ‘ever second, every minute, of every day, was not made clear. That someone capable of such inanities should head the defence staff is frightening.
    To its credit, the ‘Guardian’ – which so often seems to have degenerated into a purveyor of neocon nonsense – not only carried a reasoned critique of Houghton’s comments by Richard Norton-Taylor in the article to which I have linked, but also an attack on the conventional wisdom by Sir Simon Jenkins.
    (See .)
    And of course an irony is that the position taken by Corbyn was precisely that consistently argued, over many years, by the Tory politician whom the left most loved to hate – J. Enoch Powell. A speech Powell made in 1983, I think, wears rather well with time.
    (See .)
    But then Powell had been a figure of some consequence in military intelligence during the war, first in the Middle East and then in India. And his task in the Middle East had been to anticipate Rommel’s actions – just as the task of naval intelligence people in the tradition from which MccGwire came had been to anticipate the actions of enemy navies.

  56. rjj says:

    also….of that 126K (or whatever number is accurate), a large number only tune in to be outraged. it may even be a very large number – advertisers don’t give a crap about why people are sitting there watching their content breaks.

  57. Jonst says:

    Had my belly full of “prepared” fools, uttering predictable sound bite answers that say nothing. That is not to say I am for (or against) Trump. It is to say I am against people “prepared” to spoon fed me bullshit that I am supposed to be grateful for.

  58. Old Microbiologist says:

    Yes, that was my understanding as well. I use to find it so humorous that we would man the Fulda gap with large numbers. I pulled border patrol duty back in the early ’70s and we would sit there in fortifications for months without ammunition, of course. I recall later I worked with my fellow officers from the UK and they patrolled their part of the border by driving a jeep once a week. The funny part was the UK border in the north is flat and open but the US part was mountainous and heavily forested. If I were planning to invade Germany from the east using heavy armored forces I would I refer flat terrain. I also played several times for REFORGER which was always a mess. The current concep being bandied about is not dissimilar so would be equally messed up.

  59. Old Microbiologist says:

    Meaning, longer delays in any indictment, perhaps until next year.

  60. Jonst says:

    Sure, but you can put on a full court press when you got Russell backing you up on the defensive end of the court……’ Come on, bring it to me kid, I got somethin’ for ya’. Good memories indeed!

  61. turcopolier says:

    You were there so that the Sovs would know that they could not just drive over to visit LeaNder in Cologne or wherever without a fight and that this fight would be likely to escalate after they ran over us. Yes, the north German plain is much better “going” but we had the sector we had for reasons that went back to our zone of occupation which in turn was dictated by our position to the right of the Brits in 1944-45 and that was dictated by a decision to mass our forces in southern England before D-Day. pl

  62. NotTimothyGeithner says:

    Trump is doing well in areas where whites are dying at high rates across economic lines which is an under reported story. At the same time, Sanders is thrashing Hillary among people who largely use what is called alternative media for news. In both cases, the voters of the respective candidate appear to be leave their lying eyes rather than the msm gatekeepers.
    The msm still sets the terms of acceptable discourse, but it’s audience can only shrink going forward.

  63. Laguerre says:

    My two centimes, from another Brit, is that it is very difficult to believe anything Trump says. He changes his position so often to adapt to his audience that you really have no idea what he would do if elected. Perhaps this is taken as a given in the US, and so not mentioned.
    But I would have thought that the most useful activity would be source analysis, as historians do, in order to divine what he would be likely to stick with, if elected. My opinion is that he would not be revolutionary, as his ego is the most important factor.
    By the way, he is quite different from Corbyn, cited earlier by the Brits. Corbyn is a man of principle, who would rather go down than betray his principles.

  64. turcopolier says:

    So far as I recall you have never had a PM who was a businessman and I doubt that you understand the breed. We had Harding. He was a close analog to someone like Trump. For such people practicality and transactions are all. Existing structure are to be created and taken down as conditions change. in business if you do not do that you go bankrupt burdened by a lot of useless and expensive organizational structure. what you probably think of as “principles” are thought of by businessmen as vanity. trump’s standard speeches and talk are very like all the expensive restaurant dinner table BS I have heard rattled off to prospective customers and business partners. it is just PR to him and them. Have you ever know any new money people with a net worth of a billion dollars? He is typical of the breed. pl

  65. aleksandar says:

    Out of the topic, I apologize.
    ( Sad this evening and you know what I mean )
    Respect to LT Alexandar Prokhorenko.

  66. doug says:

    So true. I recall Trump’s speech at AIPAC. He took the time to plug his deal making book during the speech (he’s always selling his “brand”) and point out that in negotiating you always give the other side something they consider valuable but which isn’t so valuable to you. Rather transparent of him. I haven’t noticed it being picked up in the media.

  67. J says:

    The Russians have said they will go asymmetrical to meet OTAN and its OTAN nuclear aspiration.

  68. Neil R says:

    “True, but I think Trump did more damage to his campaign with a previous comment saying that he would be “open to Japan or the ROK getting nuclear weapons.” That was against U.S. policy since the beginning of the nuclear age and was a stunning admission. I don’t think he has ‘clarified’ that, either. ”
    How has this been covered in the States? I don’t get the sense that many Americans appreciate how Trump’s comments played in Japan and South Korea. This has been a tornado in both countries as the Japanese and South Korean leadership have been stunned. Obviously both countries are capable of attaining nuclear capability very quickly. However the last thing either wants to do right now is to explore that possibility openly with the blessing of the United States. And it would literally spark the worst sort of multipolar arms race in the region Gregory Henderson had aptly called the “vortex.” Obviously the United States, Russia and the PRC are robust nuclear states. And the DPRK is a nascent one.
    If Japan proliferates, South Korea will follow (or vice versa). And the PRC will rapidly increase PLARF capabilities to counter such a development especially now with the decision to deploy THAAD in ROK. (Actual capabilities aren’t what matter. The crucial factor is how the PRC leadership perceives the system.) And I haven’t even begun to point out inevitable crisis instability (we face that once a year usually during the USFK spring training cycle) with possibly three nuclear states staring eyeball to eyeball. All the decades-old recycled arguments about BMD’s potential utility *after* a preemptive counterforce strike apply to crisis instability especially regarding the DPRK.
    The United States could pledge no-first-use and still not affect this potentially dangerous situation in a hypothetical future. And if Taiwan decides to explore that road? Then all bets are off. IMHO obstacles to proliferation are difficult to overcome politically. The United States just recently negotiated a 123 Agreement with South Korea and that process had been extremely difficult. Park had to slam down the opposition from the right wing of her party who opposed it. But political pressure from the United States is just about the only barrier to these states proliferating as they’re certainly wealthy enough and possess the scientific and technical base to push through a program very rapidly. Japan’s plutonium stockpile is around 47 metric tons.

  69. Neil R says:

    “This horrified the Germans so much it provoked a serious effort towards reunification. I don’t know the veracity of this but it was related to me by a reliable source. And I tend to believe it. I don’t think the Germans ever really understood how little the US cared for them at the time. Maybe that has changed but I doubt it.”
    I don’t get this. Were these Germans living under a rock? Going back to the New Look/Massive Retaliation and the Pentomic Division days, the United States openly declared what our intentions were with the FULL blessing of every major NATO state. The French doubted our resolve to go nuclear as they rightfully pointed out the notion of “decoupling” nuclear deterrence posture in Europe. In fact friggin’ Helmut Schmidt *demanded* the deployment of Pershing IIs and GLCMs.
    As for why V and VII Corps bothered to cover the Hessian corridor, well this goes back to the heart of tripwire and giving US and NATO leadership options other than nuclear. Sure rotating scout platoons in OPs didn’t carry ammunition in 2ACR and 11ACR sectors. But their procedure if the balloon had gone up was to withdraw and rejoin QRFs which were merely 2 or 3 kms behind the barrier anyway. And those sneaky Grenzers carried ammo anyhow. Besides if the GSFG had actually achieved a total strategic and tactical surprise (presumably people were awake while manning GSRs right?), then we deserved to lose. Besides, the GSFG wasn’t going to pick and choose where their main effort was going to be. Their way of fighting was to quickly reinforce success whether it’s on the North German Plain or along the Fulda-Frankfurt axis or wherever.

  70. Max H says:

    IMO, Trump is still the best candidate hands down. But he has ALL of the conservative/Republican establishment attacking him 24/7. No candidate can hold up under these relentless attacks. Sanders is second best but doesn’t have a prayer against the Democrat establishment/Clinton machine. If it comes down to a non-Trump GOP candidate and Clinton, I will vote for Clinton. Or, if Trump goes third party I vote for him there. I have a lot of family members and friends who are simpatico with this view, so expect a crazy election in the fall.

  71. ked says:

    I find Trump so unworthy of becoming President that I don’t mind him getting nailed on topics any decent politician for national office should be able to handle. The abortion trap (“if it’s against the law and a mortal sin, shouldn’t the woman having one be prosecuted, just like Johns hiring prostitutes?”) is one that is well understood by all the players. It points out the logic in extremis of the rabid anti-abortion set for whom there is no middle ground.

  72. Babak Makkinejad says:

    And how about Hillary of “We-will-obliterate-Iran” fame?
    Is she trustworthy, having, in effect, taken the side of Israel; which is not her country?

  73. ked says:

    Babak, I thought this thread was about Trump. When there’s a “Hillary, Font of Evil or Just Another One of the Guys?” Post, I’ll weigh in.

  74. LondonBob says:

    Thanks for the Enoch Powell link, reinforces my own position.
    In regards to Trump it is rather obvious his position has always been that he would like less nuclear weapons in the world, but that he would also wish to see South Korea and Japan take care of their own defence. Not sure I understand the outrage, I expect the American electorate doesn’t either.
    At the end of the day he will have advisors and a staff who will explain the best path to attains his goals. At the moment he looks the best shot we have at not having my own country waste billions on nuclear weapons system we have no need for, or indeed involving ourselves in whichever countries are next on the neocons list, so I continue to wish him good luck.

  75. KHarbaugh says:

    The Army Security Agency had both strategic and operational elements.
    There was some degree of tension between their requirements.
    At the national level, ASA operated various fixed field stations at quite a few far-flung places in the world: see
    as part of the national cryptologic program.
    Perhaps in your Vietnam experience you heard of the 8th RRFS at Phu Bai?
    In addition to the fixed field stations, there were various mobile SIGINT collection systems and platforms, both ground-based and airborne (for example, GUARDRAIL and QUICKLOOK,
    see e.g. ).
    In theory, all these also would provide support as possible to the field army for any operations it might be performing.
    But there were always concerns about tasking of limited SIGINT assets between targets of importance to the national level and those of importance to the field army.
    Also concerns with the rapidity and adequacy of the information flow from Fort Meade to operational commanders.
    As a result, ASA’s CGs and its DCSOPS desired to have some SIGINT collection and analysis capability under direct, dedicated control of operational Army commanders.
    I am sure this tension is continuing, but I have no idea what has happened since my experience in the 1970s.

  76. rjj says:

    would a half-assed consideration of a dilemma be a unilemma or a monolemma?

  77. different clue says:

    I think that concern about Trump’s views on Korea and Japan perhaps arming themselves with their own nukes comes from fear of rapid super-destabilization of East Asia if China, SouKorea, Japan and maybe even Taiwan get involved in a four-way nuclear arms race. What if they go to nuclear war? What if NorKorean ratf*kers somehow figured out how to drop a nuke on one of the other countries with plausible “club of four” fingerprints on it?
    How would America avoid being pulled into such a war?
    It is disturbing that Trump would open the door to such a hallway without even realizing what a hallway he was opening the door to. Even if only in theory.

  78. Dubhaltach says:

    Thank you Colonel

  79. Dubhaltach says:

    Thanks for that, plainly my assumptions about when the production of small nuclear munitions came about on a relatively large scale were wrong.

  80. YT says:

    Such insane ideas have been… promulgated even before the advent of the lunatic far left on your shores…
    By one whom Herr Hitler called a “rootless, cosmopolitan, and elitist half-breed”.
    “The [European] man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”

  81. ked says:

    for lovers of lemmas, pseudolemma.

  82. Max H says:

    Okay, if that is the criterion, then Hillary Clinton should likewise be found unworthy. She botched an abortion question as well that resulted in criticism from her major supporter, Planned Parenthood.

  83. ked says:

    Are all botched responses equal in import? Anyway, I’m confident we’ll have many fine opps to deconstruct Hillary if she remains ahead of Bernie and captures the nomination. I hope the discussions will not drive Col Lang to despair. We can leave that to the election drama itself.

Comments are closed.