What's new

Ellsberg: US Military Planned First Strike on Every City in Russia and China

TaiShang

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
27,848
Reaction score
70
Country
China
Location
Taiwan, Province Of China
Ellsberg: US Military Planned First Strike on Every City in Russia and China … and Gave Field Commanders Power to Push Button

"A war with Russia would inevitably involve immediate attacks on every city in China. In the course of doing this—pardon me—there were no reserves. Everything was to be thrown as soon as it was available—it was a vast trucking operation of thermonuclear weapons"

George Washington



Daniel Ellsberg – America’s most famous whistleblower, the former military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers which helped end the Vietnam war – has just published a book revealing that he was also one of the main nuclear war planners for the United States in the 1960s.

Ellsberg said in an interview this morning that the U.S. had plans for a first strike on every city in Russia and China … and that numerous field-level commanders had the power to start nuclear Armageddon:

[Interviewer] So, you made copies of top-secret reports for plans about nuclear war years before you copied the Pentagon Papers—

DANIEL ELLSBERG: That’s right.

[Interviewer] —and released them to the press?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Essentially, my notes, and sometimes verbatim excerpts, not the entire plans themselves, but on plans that were then unknown to the president, to begin with, to President Kennedy. I briefed his aide, McGeorge Bundy, in his first month in office on the nature of the plans and some of the other problems, like the delegation of authority to theater commanders for nuclear war by President Eisenhower, which was fairly shocking to McGeorge Bundy, even though Kennedy chose to renew that delegation, as other presidents have.

But I was given the job of improving the Eisenhower plans, which was not a very high bar, actually, at that time, because they were, on their face, the worst plans in the history of warfare. A number of people who saw them, but very few civilians ever got a look at them. In fact, the joint chiefs couldn’t really get the targets out of General LeMay at the Strategic Air Command.

And there was a good reason for that: They were insane. They called for first-strike plans, which was by order of President Eisenhower. He didn’t want any plan for limited war of any kind with the Soviet Union, under any circumstances, because that would enable the Army to ask for enormous numbers of divisions or even tactical nuclear weapons to deal with the Soviets. So he required that the only plan for fighting Soviets, under any circumstances, such as an encounter in the Berlin corridor, the access to West Berlin, or over Iran, which was already a flashpoint at that point, or Yugoslavia, if they had gone in—however the war started—with an uprising in East Germany, for example—however it got started, Eisenhower’s directed plan was for all-out war, in a first initiation of nuclear war, assuming the Soviets had not used nuclear weapons.

And that plan called, in our first strike, for hitting every city—actually, every town over 25,000—in the USSR and every city in China. [Ellsberg isn’t the first to discuss U.S. plans for a nuclear first strike. In the 1986 book To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon’s Secret War Plans, one of the world’s leading physicists – Michio Kaku – revealed declassified plans for the U.S. to launch a first-strike nuclear war against Russia. The forward was written by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clarke.] A war with Russia would inevitably involve immediate attacks on every city in China. In the course of doing this—pardon me—there were no reserves. Everything was to be thrown as soon as it was available—it was a vast trucking operation of thermonuclear weapons—over to the USSR, but not only the USSR. The captive nations, the East Europe satellites in the Warsaw Pact, were to be hit in their air defenses, which were all near cities, their transport points, their communications of any kind. So they were to be annihilated, as well.

***

The weapons, the machinery that will carry this out, this was no hypothetical plan, like Herman Kahn might have conceived at the doomsday machine that he thought up at the RAND Corporation as my colleague. This was an actual war plan for how we would use the existing weapons, many of which I had seen already that time.

***

Every president has delegated. I don’t know the details of what President Trump has done or since the Cold War. Every president in the Cold War, right through Carter and Reagan, had delegated, in fact, to theater commanders in case communications were cut off. That means that the idea that the president is the only one with sole power to issue an order that will be recognized as an authentic authorized order is totally false.

How many fingers are on buttons? Probably no president has ever really known the details of that. I knew, in ’61, for example, that Admiral Harry D. Felt in CINCPAC, commander-in-chief of Pacific, for whom I worked as a researcher, had delegated that to 7th Fleet, down to various commanders, and they, in turn, had delegated down to people. So when you say, “How many altogether feel authorized?” if their communications are cut off—and that happened part of every day in the Pacific when I was there—communications got better, but the delegations never changed.

****

Generally, they allow for lower-level majors, colonels to decide, “The time has come. We’ve lost our commanders. The time has come to go.”




Ellsberg says that not much has changed since he served as a nuclear war planner. Indeed, experts say that new U.S. weapons technologies are geared towards first strike capabilities.

Source: Zero Hedge

@Martian2
 
.
The US plan to nuke the Soviet Union and China simultaneously is called SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan).

WHY OBAMA CAN'T END NUKES | Newsweek (April 2, 2010)
"For many years, America's master plan for nuclear war with the Soviet Union was called the SIOP—the Single Integrated Operational Plan.
...
According to a knowledgeable source who would not be identified discussing sensitive national-security matters, President Obama wasn't briefed on the U.S. nuclear-strike plan against Russia and China until some months after he had taken office."
----------

Decades ago, the United States concluded that an undamaged Soviet Union or China could take over the world if the US was impaired in a nuclear war.

Today, we see China and Russia holding joint military exercises. The survival of China and Russia depends on deterring the United States. The official US position is very aggressive. If the US goes to war against either China or Russia then the other non-combatant country automatically gets nuked.

More than any other factor, the United States is driving China and Russia together. It's just logic. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The US has declared China/Russia as an enemy if the other is at war with the United States. This means China and Russia will always be in the same boat if they don't want to get nuked.
 
.
According to a knowledgeable source who would not be identified discussing sensitive national-security matters, President Obama wasn't briefed on the U.S. nuclear-strike plan against Russia and China until some months after he had taken office."

It is very strange that even the presidents are left in dark. Then one wonders, who has the knowledge? I always believed that "deep state" was a conspiracy. But, it actually seems plausible.

Today, we see China and Russia holding joint military exercises. The survival of China and Russia depends on deterring the United States. The official US position is very aggressive. If the US goes to war against either China or Russia then the other non-combatant country also gets nuked.

In this case, can Russia and/or China design a similar strategy?

For example, for Russia, England and France would be added to the list (or any country that it suspects to hold NATO-US nuclear warheads); for China, Japan and South Korea (US military populated areas)?
 
.
China 2nd strike of retaliatory does not mean it will launched the nuclear weapon at US only when the nuclear warhead landed on China.

If China is sure US launched nuclear strike on China in first mins, China will retaliate immediately without even to comfirm the nuke landed on China. By the way, ICBM still need at least 45mins to 1hr to reach China if launched from US. I doubt US will place their SSBN at SCS. If fire from western pacific, it will still need 20mins to 25mins to reach China. That is enough time to launch and counter.
 
. .
It is very strange that even the presidents are left in dark. Then one wonders, who has the knowledge? I always believed that "deep state" was a conspiracy. But, it actually seems plausible.



In this case, can Russia and/or China design a similar strategy?

For example, for Russia, England and France would be added to the list (or any country that it suspects to hold NATO-US nuclear warheads); for China, Japan and South Korea (US military populated areas)?
China has spent a lot of money to ensure a retaliatory thermonuclear strike.

China has ICBMs in silos. Next, China placed ICBMs on mobile trucks. China is in the process of placing ICBMs on trains. China may position thermonuclear warheads in its miniature space shuttles. China has dug thousands of miles of reinforced tunnels to protect its ICBMs (e.g. China's Underground Great Wall).

China is in the process of developing new SSBNs that can strike the US from the South China Sea.

China's H-20 stealth bomber should be thermonuclear-capable and will be ready by 2025.

The US succeeded in diverting precious Chinese monetary resources into building a multi-redundant thermonuclear arsenal. This slowed down China's civilian technological progress for decades, because precious funds had to be allocated to China's thermonuclear programs.

The downside for the US, after all these decades of Chinese nuclear investments, is a very credible and thorough Chinese thermonuclear counter-strike.

In a way, the US approach makes sense. If the Soviet Union/Russia nukes the US then China's additional nukes won't make any difference. Thus, the US threatened its thermonuclear arsenal at China to obtain a free benefit. Diverting Chinese resources into thermonuclear weapons did not affect the outcome for the US.

Russian thermonuclear warheads will reach the US first, due to closer physical proximity. China can't destroy a country that has already been obliterated.
 
Last edited:
.
China 2nd strike of retaliatory does not mean it will launched the nuclear weapon at US only when the nuclear warhead landed on China.

If China is sure US launched nuclear strike on China in first mins, China will retaliate immediately without even to comfirm the nuke landed on China. By the way, ICBM still need at least 45mins to 1hr to reach China if launched from US. I doubt US will place their SSBN at SCS. If fire from western pacific, it will still need 20mins to 25mins to reach China. That is enough time to launch and counter.

Then monitoring and tracking of enemy's movement in peace time is very important.

US only use nukes if others do not have it

Look at hiroshima n nagasaki

Hopefully that's the case but there is this risk of prisoner's dilemma given that especially nuclear activities are highly clandestine and information (and trust) is hard to find.

China has spent a lot of money to ensure a retaliatory thermonuclear strike.

China has ICBMs in silos. Next, China placed ICBMs on mobile trucks. China is in the process of placing ICBMs on trains. China may position thermonuclear warheads in its miniature space shuttles. China has dug thousands of miles of reinforced tunnels to protect its ICBMs (e.g. China's Underground Great Wall).

China is in the process of developing new SSBNs that can strike the US from the South China Sea.

China's H-20 stealth bomber should be thermonuclear-capable and will be ready by 2025.

The US succeeded in diverting precious Chinese monetary resources into building a multi-redundant thermonuclear arsenal. This slowed down China's civilian technological progress for decades, because precious funds had to be allocated to China's thermonuclear programs.

The downside for the US, after all these decades of Chinese nuclear investments, is a very credible and thorough Chinese thermonuclear counter-strike.

In a way, the US approach makes sense. If the Soviet Union/Russia nukes the US then China's additional nukes won't make any difference. Thus, the US threatened its thermonuclear arsenal at China to obtain a free benefit. Diverting Chinese resources into thermonuclear weapons did not affect the outcome for the US.

Russian thermonuclear warheads will reach the US first, due to closer physical proximity. China can't destroy a country that has already been obliterated.

Then perhaps it means the same the other way round? What I mean is, the possibility of nuking China in the event of a Russia-US nuclear exchange can be replicated in the event of a China-US nuclear exchange, in which the US would nuke Russia.
 
.
Then monitoring and tracking of enemy's movement in peace time is very important.



Hopefully that's the case but there is this risk of prisoner's dilemma given that especially nuclear activities are highly clandestine and information (and trust) is hard to find.



Then perhaps it means the same the other way round? What I mean is, the possibility of nuking China in the event of a Russia-US nuclear exchange can be replicated in the event of a China-US nuclear exchange, in which the US would nuke Russia.
Yes. It does work the other way around.

The US has an ultimatum for China and Russia. If I go, you two are coming with me.

It's a very strange stand-off.

In a Mexican-standoff, three parties point one gun at the other two. Here, the US points one gun at China and another gun at Russia. However, China and Russia point all of their guns (thermonuclear warheads) at the US.

The modern world is bizarre. It's game theory taken to an extreme. The US is signalling to China and Russia that if nuclear weapons have to be used then we all go together. Thus, the US seems to be applying indirect pressure to the third party.

For example, when the US Army is patrolling in the Baltic States and Poland, Chinese should be concerned. According to the decades-long US SIOP policy, if US-Russian tensions escalate then China will bear the consequences.

Similarly, US-China tensions in the South China Sea could also lead to Russia getting nuked.

In the end, I think the US goal is to force China and Russia to the negotiating table. China usually stays away by declaring a policy of military non-interference in foreign affairs. With the US position on SIOP, China may have to come to the negotiating table to ensure that US-China and US-Russia tensions don't escalate.
----------

The US has little leverage over Russia. However, China is Russia's banker. The US could be trying to gain leverage over Russia through China.

Here how it works. If you (China) want to live then you better make sure that the US doesn't have to use nuclear weapons against Russian expansion. See, it's very simple.

You (Russia) had better help us keep the Chinese in line. If the US has to use nuclear weapons over a dispute with China in Asia then we're nuking you too. You (Russia) had better go talk to the Chinese to get them to moderate their geopolitical moves.

In the end, I think its psychological pressure. You don't have the option to be a neutral third party. You have a vested interest in shared survival or destruction.

The US SIOP policy forces a three-way hotline. When tensions rise between two of the parties, the third country is automatically pressured to become a peace broker.
 
Last edited:
. .
Read the article carefully. Ellsberg is talking about the early 1960s with doctrines in place from the late 1950s, when the U.S. Army in Europe was small and explicitly followed a doctrine which envisioned early use of battlefield nuclear weapons, and when the only "strategic" nuclear weapons the U.S. had were nuclear bombs carried on bombers based in the U.S. and Britain, plus warheads on IRBMs in Turkey.

There was no nuclear triad of deterrence and the army in Europe was later expanded to provide a sturdier conventional "tripwire". By the late 1960s the doctrine had shifted radically away from "first strike" to nuclear deterrence: the U.S. had ICBMs and SLBMs, missiles were withdrawn from Turkey, the number of commanders who could authorize nuclear weapons use was much smaller and followed a strict hierarchy, many smaller tactical nukes were withdrawn, etc.
 
.
Read the article carefully. Ellsberg is talking about the early 1960s with doctrines in place from the late 1950s, when the U.S. Army in Europe was small and explicitly followed a doctrine which envisioned early use of battlefield nuclear weapons, and when the only "strategic" nuclear weapons the U.S. had were nuclear bombs carried on bombers based in the U.S. and Britain, plus warheads on IRBMs in Turkey.

There was no nuclear triad of deterrence and the army in Europe was later expanded to provide a sturdier conventional "tripwire". By the late 1960s the doctrine had shifted radically away from "first strike" to nuclear deterrence: the U.S. had ICBMs and SLBMs, missiles were withdrawn from Turkey, the number of commanders who could authorize nuclear weapons use was much smaller and followed a strict hierarchy, many smaller tactical nukes were withdrawn, etc.

I don't think so.

It's better to take it serious and put it under the possibility threat.

Just remember that USA encourage India to develop nuclear weapons complete with long range rockets.

It's not for Pakistan, but for China. Just like USA military bases in Japan and South Korea, not for north Korea but for China. Why do you think USA always poking North Korea all the time? Including recently.

In my opinion, China should put India, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Australia, NATO countries and other countries who has USA military bases on it, beside of USA on the target of nuclear bomb list if the war happened with USA. Attack it on the first strike, whatever they are declaring as not involved in the conflict.

Of course, China should make the plan in secret. It just started when the ar
 
.
I don't think so.

It's better to take it serious and put it under the possibility threat.
"Take it serious" by evaluating the record. Then you can likely dismiss it as a threat, a currently-irrelevant flash in the pan deceptively highlighted by America-haters.
 
.
By the late 1960s the doctrine had shifted radically away from "first strike" to nuclear deterrence: the U.S. had ICBMs and SLBMs, missiles were withdrawn from Turkey, the number of commanders who could authorize nuclear weapons use was much smaller and followed a strict hierarchy, many smaller tactical nukes were withdrawn, etc.

I guess the missiles were (allegedly) withdrawn from Turkey as part of a deal during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Yes. It does work the other way around.

The US has an ultimatum for China and Russia. If I go, you two are coming with me.

It's a very strange stand-off.

In a Mexican-standoff, three parties point one gun at the other two. Here, the US points one gun at China and another gun at Russia. However, China and Russia point all of their guns (thermonuclear warheads) at the US.

The modern world is bizarre. It's game theory taken to an extreme. The US is signalling to China and Russia that if nuclear weapons have to be used then we all go together. Thus, the US seems to be applying indirect pressure to the third party.

For example, when the US Army is patrolling in the Baltic States and Poland, Chinese should be concerned. According to the decades-long US SIOP policy, if US-Russian tensions escalate then China will bear the consequences.

Similarly, US-China tensions in the South China Sea could also lead to Russia getting nuked.

In the end, I think the US goal is to force China and Russia to the negotiating table. China usually stays away by declaring a policy of military non-interference in foreign affairs. With the US position on SIOP, China may have to come to the negotiating table to ensure that US-China and US-Russia tensions don't escalate.
----------

The US has little leverage over Russia. However, China is Russia's banker. The US could be trying to gain leverage over Russia through China.

Here how it works. If you (China) want to live then you better make sure that the US doesn't have to use nuclear weapons against Russian expansion. See, it's very simple.

You (Russia) had better help us keep the Chinese in line. If the US has to use nuclear weapons over a dispute with China in Asia then we're nuking you too. You (Russia) had better go talk to the Chinese to get them to moderate their geopolitical moves.

In the end, I think its psychological pressure. You don't have the option to be a neutral third party. You have a vested interest in shared survival or destruction.

The US SIOP policy forces a three-way hotline. When tensions rise between two of the parties, the third country is automatically pressured to become a peace broker.

It is interesting that the US assumes so much confidence in its nuclear stockpiles, defense systems. If not for China, would Russia be considered at least to have parity with the US in nuclear (in gross amount of warheads and delivery/defense capabilities).

If the US is able to set up game against China-Russia by lumping them up together, why would Russia not do a similar doctrine, lumping up the US and Europe together?

If the US has the capability, Russia must have the capability to do so, as well.

China, on the other, can only leverage on the US forces nearby, but the US would not pay too much heed to the destruction of Japan or Korea as a result of a nuclear exchange between China and the US. I think what they really care about is only their homeland.
 
.
China will need to patrol its ballistic missiles subs on the western side of the US, Russian ballistic missiles subs on the eastern side of the US. If the US goes rogue, time for fireworks.
 
.
I guess the missiles were (allegedly) withdrawn from Turkey as part of a deal during the Cuban Missile Crisis.



It is interesting that the US assumes so much confidence in its nuclear stockpiles, defense systems. If not for China, would Russia be considered at least to have parity with the US in nuclear (in gross amount of warheads and delivery/defense capabilities).

If the US is able to set up game against China-Russia by lumping them up together, why would Russia not do a similar doctrine, lumping up the US and Europe together?

If the US has the capability, Russia must have the capability to do so, as well.

China, on the other, can only leverage on the US forces nearby, but the US would not pay too much heed to the destruction of Japan or Korea as a result of a nuclear exchange between China and the US. I think what they really care about is only their homeland.

And care for Europe too.

The more USA build military bases surrounding China, the more China build hypersonic long range missiles.

It will make USA think twice to attack China. And will make the world peace.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom