WWIII : Washington se prépare une Guerre Nucléaire Mondiale.
Le complexe militaire et du renseignement américain est engagé dans des préparatifs systématiques pour la Troisième Guerre Mondiale. Pour le Pentagone, un conflit militaire avec la Chine et / ou la Russie est inévitable, et cette perspective est devenue la force motrice de sa planification tactique et stratégique.
Trois audiences au Congrès américain mardi ont démontré cette réalité. Dans la matinée, le Comité des services armés du Sénat a tenu une longue audience sur la cyberguerre. Dans l’après-midi, un sous-comité du Comité des services armés de la Chambre des représentants a discuté de la taille et du déploiement actuels de la flotte américaine de porte-avions, tandis qu’un autre sous-comité du même panel a discuté de la modernisation des armes nucléaires américaines.
07/11/2015 by Don Quijones
By Patrick Martin of WSWS.org
The US military-intelligence complex is engaged in systematic preparations for World War III. As far as the Pentagon is concerned, a military conflict with China and/or Russia is inevitable, and this prospect has become the driving force of its tactical and strategic planning.
Three congressional hearings Tuesday demonstrated this reality. In the morning, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a lengthy hearing on cyberwarfare. In the afternoon, a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee discussed the present size and deployment of the US fleet of aircraft carriers, while another subcommittee of the same panel discussed the modernization of US nuclear weapons.
We will provide a more detailed account of these hearings, which were attended by a WSWS reporter. But certain preliminary observations can be made.
None of the hearings discussed the broader implications of the US preparations for war, or what a major war between nuclear-armed powers would mean for the survival of the human race, and even of life on our planet. On the contrary, the hearings were examples of what might be called the routinization of World War III. A US war with China and/or Russia was taken as given, and the testimony of witnesses and questions from senators and representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike, concerned the best methods for prevailing in such a conflict.
The hearings were component parts of an ongoing process. The witnesses referred to their past writings and statements. The senators and representatives referred to previous testimony by other witnesses. In other words, the preparations for world war, using cyber weapons, aircraft carriers, bombers, missiles and the rest of a vast array of weaponry, have been under way for a protracted period of time. They are not a response to recent events, whether in the South China Sea, Ukraine, Syria or anywhere else.
Each of the hearings presumed a major US conflict with another great power (sometimes unnamed, sometimes explicitly designated as China or Russia) within a relatively short time frame, years rather than decades. The danger of terrorism, hyped incessantly for the purposes of stampeding public opinion, was downplayed and to some extent discounted. At one point in the Senate hearing on cyberwarfare, in response to a direct question from Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the panel witnesses all declared that their greatest concern was nation-states, not terrorists.
One of the witnesses at that hearing was Dr. Peter W. Singer, listed as a “Strategist and Senior Fellow” for New America, a Washington think tank. He titled his presentation, “The Lessons of World War 3.” He began his prepared statement with the following description of that imagined conflict:
“US and Chinese warships battle at sea, firing everything from cannons to cruise missiles to lasers. Stealthy Russian and American fighter jets dogfight in the air, with robotic drones flying as their wingmen. Hackers in Shanghai and Silicon Valley duel in digital playgrounds. And fights in outer space decide who wins below on Earth. Are these scenes from a novel or what could actually take place in the real world the day after tomorrow? The answer is both.”
None of the hearings saw any debate about either the likelihood of a major war or the necessity of winning that war. No one challenged the assumption that “victory” in a world war between nuclear-armed powers is a meaningful concept. The discussion was entirely devoted to what technologies, assets and human resources were required for the US military to prevail.
This was just as true for the Democratic senators and representatives as for their Republican counterparts. By custom, the two parties are seated on opposite sides of the committee or subcommittee chairmen. Without that arrangement, there would be no way of detecting, from their questions and expressions of opinion, which party they belonged to.
Contrary to the media portrayal of Washington as deeply divided between parties with intransigently opposed political outlooks, there was bipartisan agreement on this most fundamental of issues, the preparation of a new imperialist world war.
The unanimity of the political representatives of big business by no means suggests that there are no obstacles in the path of this drive to war. Each of the hearings grappled, in different ways, with the profound crisis confronting American imperialism. This crisis has two major components: the declining economic power of the United States compared to its major rivals, and the internal contradictions of American society, with the deepening alienation of the working class and particularly the youth.
At the House subcommittee hearing on aircraft carriers, the chairman noted that one of the witnesses, a top Navy admiral, had expressed concern over having “an 11-carrier navy in a 15-carrier world.” There were so many challenges confronting Washington, he continued, that what was really needed was a navy of 21 aircraft carriers—double the present size, and one that would bankrupt even a country with far more resources than the United States.
The Senate hearing on cybersecurity touched briefly on the internal challenge to American militarism. The lead witness, retired Gen. Keith Alexander, former director of the National Security Agency and former head of the Pentagon’s CyberCommand, bemoaned the effect of leaks by NSA contractor Edward Snowden and Army private Chelsea Manning, declaring that “insider attacks” were one of the most serious threats facing the US military.
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia asked him directly, referring to Snowden,“Should we treat him as a traitor?” Alexander responded, “He should be treated as a traitor and tried as such.” Manchin nodded heartily, in evident agreement.
While the witnesses and senators chose to use the names of Snowden and Manning to personify the “enemy within,” they were clearly conscious that the domestic opposition to war is far broader than a few individual whistleblowers.
This is not a matter simply of the deep-seated revulsion among working people in response to 14 years of bloody imperialist interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen and across North Africa, important as that is.
A war between the United States and a major power like China or Russia, even if it were possible to prevent its escalation into an all-out nuclear exchange, would involve a colossal mobilization of the resources of American society, both economic and human. It would mean further dramatic reductions in the living standards of the American people, combined witha huge blood toll that would inevitably fall mainly on the children of the working class.
Ever since the Vietnam War, the US military has operated as an all-volunteer force, avoiding conscription, which provoked widespread opposition and direct defiance in the 1960s and early 1970s. A non-nuclear war with China or Russia would mean the restoration of the draft and bring the human cost of war home to every family in America.
Under those conditions, no matter how great the buildup of police powers and the resort to repressive measures against antiwar sentiments, the stability of American society would be put to the test. The US ruling elite is deeply afraid of the political consequences. And it should be.
Vers des combats aériens étatsuno-russes en Syrie ? Les Etats-Unis déploient des F-15 en réponse au déploiement des Su-30 russes
Le Pentagone envoie des F-15C soit-disant pour lutter contre l’Etat islamique (EI). Mais les avions de chasse ont seulement des armes air-air, et l’EI n’a pas d’avions. Ce qui signifie que le véritable adversaire est la Russie.
L’US Air Force déploie en Turquie jusqu’à une douzaine d’avions à réaction spécialisés dans les combats air-air apparemment pour aider à protéger d’autres avions de chasse US et alliés des avions de chasse russes survolant la Syrie.
Officiellement, le déploiement des F-15C Eagle, avions de combat bimoteurs à Incirlik, en Turquie, – qui a été annoncé par le Pentagone en fin de semaine dernière – entend «assurer la sécurité» de des alliés des USA a déclaré Laura Seal, une porte-parole du ministère de la Défense, au Daily Beast.
Cela pourrait signifier que les F-15 et les missiles air-air qu’ils transportent aideront l’armée de l’air turque dans ses patrouilles frontalières, afin d’intercepter des avions et des hélicoptères syriens qui se seraient écarter sur le territoire turque.
Mais plus probablement, les F-15 vont escorter des avions d’attaque et des bombardiers lorsqu’ils frapperont des miliciens de l’EI à proximité des forces du régime syrien et des avions de combat russes qui, depuis le début octobre, ont bombardé l’EI et les rebelles soutenus par les Etats-Unis qui combattent les troupes syriennes.
Seal a refusé de discuter du déploiement en détail, mais a laissé entendre son véritable but : « Je n’ai pas dit que cela ne porterait pas sur la Russie« , a-t-elle dit.
La puissance aérienne russe en Syrie occidentale est remarquable comprenant plusieurs chasseurs Su-30 qui sont principalement des avions de combat air-air. L’arrivée des Su-30 en Syrie a soulevé des protestations, car Moscou insiste que ses forces ne combattent que l’EI (et les terroristes, NdT), mais l’EI n’a aucun avion pour justifier l’engagement des Su-30.
Les F-15 de l’US Air Force envoyés en Turquie seront les premiers avions de guerre US dans la région qui sont dévoués strictement aux combats aériens. Les autres avions de chasse, avions d’attaque et bombardiers déployés par le Pentagone, y compris les F-22, F-16, A-10 et B-1 transportent des bombes et des missiles air-sol et ont mis l’accent sur la suppression des miliciens sur le terrain.
À l’opposé, les F-15 portent des armements air-air, et leurs pilotes sont formés exclusivement pour abattre les avions de guerre ennemis. Il est intéressant de noter que les F-15C n’ont jamais été déployés en Afghanistan et n’ont jamais participé à l’occupation US de l’Irak. La guerre en Syrie entre dans une nouvelle dimension…
With tensions rising with multiple geopolitical rivals, the U.S. military-industrial complex is preparing itself for World War 3.
The Pentagon has concluded that it is a question of when, not if, an armed conflict with Russia and/or China begins. Now preparations are underway to ensure that the U.S. is ready for such a war, writes Patrick Martin for The World Socialist Website.
On Tuesday there were three congressional hearings which showed how far advanced these preparations are. The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on cyberwarfare, a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee discussed the US aircraft carrier fleet and another talked about the modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons.
There were no discussion of the implications of World War 3, only plans for how the U.S. could prevail. As such, the idea of World War 3 is being normalized in the minds of policy planners.
Attendees discussed previous meetings and ideas, illustrating that the plans have been being drawn up over an extended period of time. Far from being a response to recent geopolitical events, they are part of a longstanding scheme.
At each of the hearings a conflict between major world powers was discussed in a short time frame. War is predicted to occur in a matter of years rather than decades, and it will be with other nation-states rather than terrorist groups.
The hearings were devoted to working out which technologies, assets and human resources the U.S. needs to win such a war, and the acceptance of inevitable conflict was evident among Democrats as well as Republicans. Although the media reports that Washington is divided along party lines, on this issue politicians seem to agree: the U.S. is preparing for World War 3.
However there remain a number of problems for politicians to resolve. One issue is the declining economic power of the U.S. compared to its rivals, and the increasing divisions in U.S. society as the working class and the young become more isolated.
In discussions about aircraft carriers a top Navy admiral bemoaned the fact that the U.S. had only 11 colossal aircraft carriers rather than the 21 it really needs to confront the multiple challenges the country faces. However maintaining a fleet of such a size would bankrupt a country even with far more resources than the U.S.
Internal divisions were raised during the Senate hearing on cybersecurity. During the meeting retired Gen. Keith Alexander, former director of the National Security Agency and former head of the Pentagon’s CyberCommand, said that “insider attacks,” such as those carried out by Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, represented a serious threat.
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia asked Alexander, “Should we treat him as a traitor?” in reference to Snowden. Alexander responded, “He should be treated as a traitor and tried as such.”
While individual whistleblowers like Snowden and Manning have grabbed the headlines, the attendees demonstrated that internal opposition has grown far larger than these two. The U.S. population is increasingly critical of military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen and across North Africa.
These same working people would be a major component in the U.S. war effort against another major world power such as China or Russia. Assuming that politicians could prevent such a war from deteriorating into a nuclear exchange, American citizens would have to mobilize both economic human capital to support the war effort.
Such a mobilization would involve a huge deterioration in living standards for many Americans, not to mention the fact that many young men would die in combat. As we have seen in past conflicts, these young men tend to be the children of the working class.
Now that the population is more aware of the U.S. role in conflicts around the world, people are becoming more vocal in their opposition to U.S. militarism. The Vietnam War marked the first time that conscription was met with serious public opposition and draft defiance, and since then the U.S. Army has been made up of volunteers. If World War 3 broke out it would inspire the restoration of the draft, provoking serious opposition from those families asked to bear the human cost of war.
Such widespread opposition to World War 3 would put the cohesion of U.S. society to the test, even though repressive police powers would probably be increased. The U.S. ruling elite must surely be worried that the political impact of World War 3 could bring the established system crashing down around their ears.