US Thinking About “Low-Yield” Nuclear Warfare - This Should Outrage the World

Rasa - The Pentagon regime intends to create a new 30,000 man occupying force in northern Syria, along the border between Syria and Turkey. The force is expected to predominantly be American, Kurdish, but also include some Arab fighters - read terror proxies.

News ID: 435836

Date: 15 January 2018 - 23:59

RNA - According to Spokesman Col. Ryan Dillon, the inaugural class of border fighters have already been trained. There is no timeline on getting to 30,000, though in the past the US has struggled mightily to achieve large numbers in such training efforts. Unsurprisingly, since this whole scheme boils down to training and arming a heavily Kurdish force, guarding what is ultimately Kurdish YPG territory, Turkey is furious, saying the entire enterprise is unacceptable. But post-ISIL Syria is also furious, because it doesn’t need to have such a force along its border with Turkey.

Turkish officials have already summoned a US charge d’affaires in Ankara to protest the effort, and are being increasingly public about their opposition to the idea. Recent history suggests Turkey’s opposition to US actions in Syria will have no impact on them, however. Having repeatedly threatened such an offensive in the past, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has announced that a Turkish invasion of the Afrin District of northern Syria, held by Kurdish YPG forces, will be launched in the coming days.

In other words, there needs to be a global front against the latest US move at the United Nations instead, where member states can talk directly to the US and force it to change course.

Turkey, a UN member state, considers the YPG to be terrorists on par with ISIL, which has meant US support for the Kurdish group has caused a lot of tensions between the two sides. With US support for a new Kurdish border force, Turkey may believe chasing them out of Afrin needs to be done sooner, rather than later. And in a world that is dominated by the rule of jungle, the US takes any action that it likes to give Turkey the needed excuse to embark on military action in the territories of another sovereign state without its endorsement or, at least, its content.

It gets worse when we hear that new details continue to emerge on the Pentagon draft proposal on changes to American nuclear policy. This policy would see a focus on acquiring new types of nuclear weapons for the region, with an eye toward more usable ones for limited nuclear wars in the Middle East and beyond.

This is something some in the US military brass have been pushing for years, with an eye toward the acquisition of “low-yield” nuclear weapons that the War Party could readily use in situations where they would currently be unthinkable – Syria, Syria-Turkey border, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, North Korea, and suchlike.

This is now said to include not just the acquisition of these new nuclear arms for more limited and frequent nuclear wars, but also revisions of nuclear policy that would dramatically relax restrictions on such strikes. With the US spending preposterously large amounts of money on nuclear arms, some bureaucrats are galled at the fact that they get essentially no use out of them. In making smaller, more easily used nuclear arms, however, the US may ultimately end up normalizing nuclear warfare in the Middle East, something that would have huge implications for Iran, Russia, and Syria.

The US could find many pretexts to normalize its “low-yield” nuclear warfare. For instance, it can fault Iran for not preventing alleged weapons transfers to Syria, Yemen and Iraq, hence taking the world’s focus off the harm done to civilians overall in any given nuclear attack. This could also rapidly disintegrate into a collection of warring statelets throughout the region, making it difficult for the UN to ever end such conflicts, let alone reunite after a US nuclear attack. This heavily faults the latest US decision to build a strong occupying force along the Syrian-Turkish border which we now know what they will be for: illegal airstrikes and even limited but frequent nuclear strikes.

Those expecting the US to leave Syria, however, should take a minute to consider this: the US still hasn’t left Germany and Japan. In fact, there are quite a few places the US hasn’t left, and while certainly most of them don’t pose a threat to American soldiers, they reveal a pattern about the US staying, rather than leaving Syria.

Surely one could say that the US has a military presence in Syria now. They even have bases and troops on the ground but we should include the warplanes in the sky as well. The US military arguably has more presence in Syria than it does in Germany or Japan. To take this idea further, it would also be rational to say the US has a military presence wherever it uses unmanned aerial vehicles to strike targets throughout the region.

All the countries that have some sort of American military presence - from military attachés to the troops involved in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan - essentially results in highlighting pretty much this dangerous situation. Considering a sizable US military presence, existence of illegal bases in Syria, and the fact that the Pentagon regime is thinking about conducting “low-yield” and frequent nuclear strikes in Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and even North Korea, we are all advised to fasten our seatbelts, it’s going to be a nuclear ride by a country ruled by a Racist President known as agent orange!

847/940