Military Review

Calls for Disarmament, or the Doctrine of Controlled Humanism

33
A few days ago, White House press secretary Josh Ernest called on Russia to reduce strategic offensive weapons. The call is not new at all. The propaganda slogans of the western information machine in relation to any systems that are not acceptable to the West are extremely similar and distorted in general, they, frankly speaking, do not differ in their flexibility. Everywhere there are aggressors (in some cases with atomic bombs), corrupt officials, politically persecuted pravoruby, all sorts of harassment, and so on and so forth. And so, if all this is destroyed by the “undemocratic” regimes themselves, then the “civilized” West will accept these regimes in its womb.


Western propagandists, as always, lie. And lie, as always, recklessly and on all counts.

First, they, adherents of Western ideology and Western mentality, do not advocate universal disarmament, but disarmament of those whom they want to enslave, destroy, or, at best, on whose territory they want to ensure the most favorable economic regime for themselves and loved ones. Naturally, a strong military state, while still unfriendly toward the Western globalist system, is a headache for an extensively organized Western and pro-Western economy. Such an unfriendly, that is, "undemocratic" and "bloody", state will be an obstacle to the unbridled interference of the largest corporations, banks and commodity companies in the economy of this very "bloody" state. And obstacles, as any liberal perfectionist knows, are to be eliminated, preferably radical and immediate.

Secondly, the West will never accept anyone but itself into its community. This directly follows from the chauvinistic western socio-political doctrine, which is divided into currents, subgroups, sub-blocks, and so on, but in its essence it is one and unchanging and defends Western exclusiveness. In the West, the center is always in the West, and the periphery is in the rest of the “uncivilized” world. Therefore, the maximum that a country that has disarmed by the will of the West can claim is to become a western vassal with minimal autonomy in internal affairs. Not our case, the West traditionally expects from us either slavery or our physical elimination.

In order not to be unfounded, I will try to acquaint the reader with the background of today's controlled humanism purely in fact, without affecting the chauvinistic anti-Russian Western teachings, of which many dozens have accumulated over the past three hundred years.

There was such a financier in the US - Bernard Baruch. The financier is extremely influential, bringing to power the three presidents of the United States and subsequently controlling, through his numerous organizations, about a third of all silver deposits in the world, as well as a significant amount of gold, copper and oil deposits. Of course, activities of such magnitude would have been unthinkable in the absence of a solid ideological and political foundation, and it would be a shame if the building created by overwork and adventurous talent was completely inappropriate with such a disposition by the doctrine of sovereignty. And Baruch as a genius, of course, the manager was not only perfectly aware of this, but also competently built his own behavioral line and, consequently, the behavioral line of the modes and systems under his control.

In 1945, the United States tested the atomic bomb in Japan. The total number of dead - about 240 thousand people, in one fell swoop. Americans realized that in their hands is not only the most terrible weapon, but also an extremely effective tool for the implementation of their decisions and the implementation of their political and economic will. But they also realized that the atomic bomb was about to be in service with their main (and, perhaps, at that time the only) enemy in the geopolitical game - the USSR. What to do in order to preserve the status of monopolists in the military and political terms? Obviously, to launch the doctrine of controlled humanism.

Already in 1946, Baruch proposes to the UN Atomic Energy Commission a program in accordance with which the creation of the Atomic Energy Agency was planned, the function of which was to control all research in the field of atomic energy. The agency should have complete information about these studies. And even more: Baruch proposes to transfer to the United States all the technological information about research in the field of nuclear energy. In other words, the United States, according to Baruch’s plan, should have gained power over the entire then emerging world system of weapons of mass destruction, thereby having the opportunity by force to impose any decision on anyone.

Baruch’s plan was not to be realized. Despite the fact that the UN Atomic Energy Commission approved the draft by a majority of votes, the USSR, which had veto power, did not give it a go. The world was saved from Armageddon, but the sharp contradictions outlined already then did not disappear anywhere today.

Now a little about disarmament at a practical international level.

According to the START-I treaty, Russia and the United States should mutually reduce their nuclear arsenal, while following this reduction, Russia's nuclear arsenal became about one and a half times smaller than the US nuclear arsenal. Disarmament under the START-I project, although it was implemented, but in an obviously unidirectional and uneven format.

The START-II Treaty banned ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. According to the official version, the ban was due to the fact that the radius of action of ballistic missiles with separable warheads significantly increases the risk of escalation of international conflicts. However, the Russian side was forced to refuse to ratify this treaty - due to the fact that the United States had abandoned the ABM Treaty. As we see, the USA again tried to eat the fish and not wet the legs; and limit ballistic missiles, and build their own system to combat them. It is obvious that the United States again tried to form a system in which the enemy is in a position that is obviously losing to him.

Finally, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was not signed and ratified by the very knowledgeable US “humanism”, and it is for this reason that the Treaty has not yet entered into force (and, judging by recent events, is unlikely to enter). A "bloody" and "dictatorial" Russia signed it.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with disarmament. Moreover, it is necessary in conditions of colossal overpopulation of the globe and in conditions of political, economic, racial-ethnic and interfaith tension. Apparently, it is precisely disarmament that can now be used to minimize conflicts. But disarmament is good only when it is happening at a massive rate and at the same pace in all states. But this is not even close, and it is the Western world that will never allow it, which needs to be disarmed “into one gate” until the end.

It should be understood that what is happening now is only a consequence of what has been repeatedly voiced and carried out by the western side, starting with the 40 of the last century and up to our days. Baruch is dead, but his work lives!
Author:
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. xavbek7
    xavbek7 9 February 2016 12: 08 New
    +9
    Call to disarm!))) And would have made a gesture of goodwill and eliminated the eejis, and all the launch vehicles. Toda you look and we'll put the thread in the "cellar")))
    1. vovanpain
      vovanpain 9 February 2016 12: 26 New
      20
      Well, yes, well, yes, at one time the USSR and the USSR were disarmed through the Misha Hunchback, then Russia was disarmed through the alconaut Boris and it was almost gone, they barely managed to stop the collapse of Russia. Now, we’ve started singing old songs about the main thing-3, I hope we have the wisdom to send these disarmamentists away.
      1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Uncle VasyaSayapin 9 February 2016 12: 54 New
        +5
        If they are for disarmament, then let them disarm.
        1. Villon
          Villon 9 February 2016 17: 12 New
          +1
          Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
          If they are for disarmament, then let them disarm.

          And no one will even bother them.
      2. Inok10
        Inok10 9 February 2016 12: 58 New
        +3
        Quote: vovanpain
        Well, yes, well, yes, at one time the USSR and the USSR were disarmed through the Misha Hunchback, then Russia was disarmed through the alconaut Boris and it was almost gone, they barely managed to stop the collapse of Russia. Now, we’ve started singing old songs about the main thing-3, I hope we have the wisdom to send these disarmamentists away.

        ... I still need to recall the CFE of 1992 ... about conventional weapons in Europe ... it’s good that we sent them in the forest in 2007 ... hi
      3. Cube123
        Cube123 9 February 2016 14: 23 New
        +1
        And they are on the same training manual and act. They dropped the price of oil (as in the 80s) and believe that Russia, like the USSR, will crawl on its knees and accept any imposed conditions.
      4. Weyland
        Weyland 10 February 2016 01: 08 New
        0
        Quote: vovanpain
        Baruch proposes to transfer to the United States all technological information on research in the field of nuclear energy.
        (...)
        then through alconaut Boris disarmed Russia


        “Boris was a Tatar by his father, Russian by his mother, and who was unknown by the rest of his relatives. But he ruled, as was supposed in those days, safely. He made promises, executed, exiled and eradicated sedition.
        But neither by executions, nor by exile, nor by other graces was he able to win the love of the people. The name Boris was pronounced with irony.
        - What is he "Boris" - said about him on the sly. - Borukh, not Boris. (...) We know these Borisov ... "(c)
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Cripple cross
    Cripple cross 9 February 2016 12: 09 New
    +8
    Apparently, it is disarmament that can now minimize conflicts.

    Utopia. There will be more and more weapons. Humanity will never disarm. There ... one of these days another nuclear power has appeared, so it will continue.
  4. The black
    The black 9 February 2016 12: 13 New
    19
    USA - RUSSIA: We will introduce 100500 divisions to the Baltic states, tear your economy to shreds, Siberian riches should belong to the whole world (that is, America) give your territories to everyone who asks ... and Yes, let us reduce your nuclear weapons and we’ll laughing
    1. kot28.ru
      kot28.ru 9 February 2016 12: 23 New
      10
      100500 good You can’t expect anything good from them! hi
  5. Artem shlykov
    Artem shlykov 9 February 2016 12: 17 New
    +2
    That's right. There is nothing to add. The more of us, the less of them.
  6. Fantazer911
    Fantazer911 9 February 2016 12: 18 New
    +6
    News from tvzvezda.ru

    Speaking at a conference in Canberra, Australia, military procurement expert Kendall explained that America is redistributing its investments based on an ever-changing strategic environment.
    In his opinion, the new budget has been drawn up on the basis that many countries, including China and Russia, are updating and improving their armies in order to “be able to
    reflect the projection of military force from the United States. ” And America is dealing with a similar situation for the first time in its history.
    Based on this, Kendall summarized, the military budget will be maximally oriented
    countering threats since the cold war.
    Well now we are on the list first
  7. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 9 February 2016 12: 20 New
    +3
    it is necessary in conditions of colossal overpopulation of the globe and in conditions of political, economic, racial-ethnic and interfaith tensions

    In such cases, some historical figures did the opposite - they unleashed another world war. Here you’ll think, is disarmament really necessary?
  8. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 9 February 2016 12: 29 New
    +7
    Fourth Reich calls for disarmament.

    Any contract is an agreement to establish reciprocal right and responsibilities.

    Pindofascists:
    1. They want to have only rights.
    2. They want to exclusively interpret these rights themselves (Type - aggression is prohibited, but aggression against Syria - no, since this is a humanitarian act laughing )
    3. Want to put on "partners"sucked out of nowhere duties (Type of duty to promote the overthrow of Assad, duty to contain fascist Ukraine, duty not to touch any traitors, etc.).

    It is not possible to conclude any kind of agreements with exceptional ones; especially regarding disarmament.
  9. with
    with 9 February 2016 12: 32 New
    +9
    There is no trust in them AT ALL.
    1. Gormenghast
      Gormenghast 9 February 2016 13: 02 New
      +3
      In all countries, at all times, homosexuality was a sign of decline and decay.

      In republican Rome, one legion was caught and a pilum was inserted into a bad hole.

      But then came the well-known homo-emperors, such as the Satanists Caligula and Nero; attitude towards sodomites has changed - how it ended for Rome everyone knows.

      It is necessary to live up to such that proclamation of love is a symbol of democracy!

      The USA will fall as Rome fell; the buggers will lay them out.
  10. Petrof
    Petrof 9 February 2016 12: 33 New
    +3
    it’s not clear why such agreements were signed at all (START) - who cares how much nuclear weapons we have, this should not concern anyone
  11. horoh
    horoh 9 February 2016 12: 34 New
    +2
    Gentlemen mattresses, before offering anything, return to the previous state what you destroyed. And there may be something and somehow .....
  12. 31rus
    31rus 9 February 2016 12: 44 New
    +4
    Dear, everything is clear here, Russia has many, many times called not to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, to conclude a real treaty on the reduction of nuclear weapons, and what is important, the carriers, we were ignored, how could some kind of Russia indicate the United States itself, but then rearmament began , new types of weapons have gone and have already proven their effectiveness in practice, and then oops, but the United States is not so strong, moreover, Russia is acting tough and then "enlightenment" comes, but no gentlemen, there are no more fools, here it is the hour of truth, yourself you will also ask Russia more than once, everything else is no longer important
  13. raid14
    raid14 9 February 2016 12: 49 New
    +3
    In the article about the START-3 treaty signed by Medvedev (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNV-III), for some reason, not a sound. For reflections on "Completely Voluntary Disarmament".
    According to the US Department of State [120] as of March 1, 2013, the US military had 766 deployed strategic offensive weapons, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), ballistic missiles in submarines (SLBMs) ​​and heavy bombers; against 499 - deployed in Russia.
    When calculating nuclear charges, it turns out that the United States has 1654 nuclear warheads on various carriers, compared to 1480 for Russia.
    In total, the United States currently has 930 deployed and non-deployed strategic offensive weapons, compared to 816 in Russia.
    1. Lator kron
      Lator kron 9 February 2016 13: 21 New
      +4
      This is with regards to the United States, and in general it is necessary to compare not America and Russia, but NATO and us:
      The situation is heating up especially; they need war like air.
      THEY Are really sure that Russia can be destroyed as a state.
      with the balance of forces between NATO and Russia, in their opinion, a military operation looks very tempting:
      According to the Stockholm Institute for Peace Research (SIPRI), NATO and the United States have more than 3,3 million soldiers — 4,3 times more than ours.
      A big advantage in airplanes - more than 20 thousand against 3 429 Russian.
      The fleet is not even worth comparing - 1 NATO versus 734 Russian ships.
      There are 150 military bases abroad; we have six.
      And most importantly: 28 NATO member countries have 50% of global GDP. Ours is 2%. This is a confrontation of $ 80 billion in Russia's military budget versus $ 800 billion in NATO.
      But they are afraid of nuclear war. Because Russia has shown that in we can get anyone and anywhere (the same caliber with a nuclear charge) and much more from this arsenal.
      But they have a hidden hope to instantly decapitate the top of Russia. And of course, a bet on a massive missile bomb strike.

      Here are two good hopes.
      There is still a third to ruin Russia from within, as has already been done with the Soviet Union. And in the 90s almost to ruin Russia into separate federal districts. Those. make a raw materials appendage with which do whatever you want.
      Our task is to prevent the Russians from inside rotting, liberals, fifth columns, all kinds of media echo, rain and other abominations should be punished as traitors to the motherland. Otherwise, we will again lose the information war and then there will really be a real kirdyk of Russia.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 February 2016 19: 21 New
      +1
      For 2015, we have parity - 1640 US warheads, 1680 Russia.
  14. Lator kron
    Lator kron 9 February 2016 12: 56 New
    +1
    They are not friends at all with the golovenka, or they lost their last conscience.
    The military budget itself was increased from 800 million to 4.5 billion, and we are obliged to lay down our arms and immediately surrender!
    But figs on the nose! Thank God the authorities are not liberals, and we will show them to Kuzkin’s mother more than once, if necessary.
  15. valent45
    valent45 9 February 2016 13: 29 New
    0
    Nuclear deterrence of the Americans is the main opportunity for Russia to give them the teeth !!!
  16. Papapg
    Papapg 9 February 2016 13: 37 New
    +1
    called on Russia to reduce strategic offensive weapons
    I remember that earlier in our unit there were three missiles equipped with nuclear warheads, and one soldier guarded them with an SKS carbine! Http: //topwar.ru/uploads/images/2016/756/edjd453.jpg Nobody encroached on the sacred. It’s much worse to disarm, if now the SKS rifle is shot with a rifle, and earlier ... Enough, disarmed. One Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement is what our country was worth.
  17. afrikanez
    afrikanez 9 February 2016 13: 44 New
    +1
    I-love myself, Myself-loves me, Me-loves I. This is actually the main criterion for all US policy. I almost forgot, they still have money, money and money again! fool
  18. gladysheff2010
    gladysheff2010 9 February 2016 14: 16 New
    0
    Quote: afrikanez
    I-love myself, Myself-loves me, Me-loves I. This is actually the main criterion for all US policy. I almost forgot, they still have money, money and money again! fool

    Money for the United States is a means of total control. However, the centers of "new" forces: Russia and China do not lend themselves to total control, so they send staffs of their emissaries for provocative intrigues and search for corrupt people. Only we know who to drink vodka with and how much drinks .
  19. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 9 February 2016 14: 20 New
    0
    Well, this is arrogance!
  20. vmo
    vmo 9 February 2016 14: 59 New
    +2
    And the chief is the chiefhttp: //topwar.ru/uploads/images/2016/431/rbef393.jpg
    1. gergi
      gergi 9 February 2016 16: 01 New
      +1
      It has long been kneading clay.
  21. Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 9 February 2016 15: 17 New
    +2
    And here Baruch couldn’t do without it .. Where is some kind of nonsense for the Russians, surely some Baruch’s ears stick out! And our Jewish colleagues are still offended.
  22. gergi
    gergi 9 February 2016 16: 00 New
    0
    We must arm ourselves to the teeth. And the Borukhs should not be allowed to power over the cannon shot anymore, otherwise we will all die, the Borukhs will have time to blame. We have nowhere to blame, we have one homeland, Russia.
  23. rus-5819
    rus-5819 9 February 2016 16: 43 New
    0
    The West will never accept anyone but itself into its community.

    West, America ... I am not a supporter of the "theory of isolationism", but Russia is a great, self-sufficient power, isn't it time to start limiting any "Western suckers"?
    I foresee angry comments: "partners", "investment in the economy", "business development", "integration into the economy", etc.
    And in my opinion it is necessary as Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich used to say: "In my patrimony, I am the master!"
    Well, or close to that.
  24. was-witek
    was-witek 9 February 2016 19: 10 New
    0
    We saw the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in full glory and ZYYYYYsali !!! No, kids, it won’t do that !!!