We no longer have a universal ideal!" exclaimed Fyodor Dostoevsky in the nineteenth century. Everything is flabby, vapid, all people are vapid! We all ... are empty!" According to Dostoevsky, civilization had become an "ant heap" and Western religion was "fast approaching atheism." A few years later a German philologist named Friedrich Nietzsche foresaw the advent of what he called "European nihilism," which signified the future collapse of Christianity and the rise of totalitarian states, destructive wars, and a new barbarism. "Everything will be mob rule," Nietzsche predicted. England only had another fifty years as a great power. The United States would "seemingly" become a great power, but would be "quickly consumed." The country that would emerge on top, said Nietzsche, was Russia.
If a man of great insight and intuition, like Dostoevsky, thought our great grandparents were "flabby" and "vapid," what would he say about us? And if Nietzsche was correct in his predictions regarding the British, perhaps we ought to consider his prophecy regarding the Americans. Even as these words are written, the United States is embracing collective suicide. I am not talking about the economic crisis. I am referring to Barack Obama's foreign policy, which promises to fulfill Nietzsche's prophecy regarding the future dominance of Russia. As reported by the major media, President Obama has set out to eliminate most of America's nuclear arsenal. We're talking about bombs mounted on intercontinental rockets that can travel anywhere on earth and wipe out hardened military targets. We are talking about weapons that can reduce an Army to radiated debris, sink fleets, and devastate cities. These are the decisive weapons of our time - terrible and awesome.
Without the threat of American nuclear bombs, Europe would have been overrun by Russian tanks in the 1950s and the global economy wouldn't have developed after World War II. As the center of global capitalism, the United States owes its very existence to The Bomb. Nevertheless, Barack Obama wants to reduce America's arsenal. "We want a new arms reduction treaty," he says. And Russia will give him one.
On their side the Russians are eager to encourage U.S. disarmament. There has even been liberal posturing from Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. A few weeks ago a Russian general, talking on the radio, publicly advised the Kremlin to take a more soothing stance toward the Americans. Half the American nuclear arsenal doesn't work, he said, and the other half is seriously neglected. The Kremlin only needs a little patience and a little friendliness. If Russia lays low and avoids stunts like the recent incursion into Georgia, then Russia might enjoy the dominant position. President Obama wants a nuclear arms reduction agreement. All Russia has to do is sign the agreement and ignore its requirements. This is what the Russians have already done. In 1997 the famous intelligence expert, Bill Lee, warned that Russia had a hidden stockpile of nuclear weapons that nobody wanted to talk about. As it turns out, arms reduction is too sexy. It is something that flabby and vapid people cannot resist.
America's nuclear weapons infrastructure has suffered decline over many years. Last week I was told by an American expert that Pakistan presently has a greater nuclear weapons manufacturing capacity than the United States. Furthermore, the Russians and Chinese have produced a new generation of nuclear weapons that we know little about. The American public has never understood the usefulness of nuclear weapons, especially when it comes to their own survival. Once I heard an American senator say that a few dozen such weapons would destroy the planet. Such childish notions are not believed by Russian generals, or by those who've bothered to study the rational military use of these weapons. To lay things out suggestively, let us say there are ways to disarm nuclear warheads in flight - through the detonation of interceptor nuclear warheads at a distance. But American politicians are too stupid to discuss such realities. Few grasp the strategic implications of "electromagnetic pulse", low trajectory SLBM strikes, or gray terror.
During the 1970s, when the Australians studied the effects of a full-blown nuclear war in the northern hemisphere, they concluded there would be additional cancers due to fallout. But the overall cancer rate in Australia would go down because the imports of tobacco from the U.S. would be cut off.
If you think in strict strategic terms, nuclear war is perfectly winnable. A few years ago China's Minister of National Defense, Gen. Chi Haotian, remarked on the strategic failures of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. They should have eliminated their enemies "one at a time," he said. "If they had ... gained some time to advance their research [and] ...succeeded in obtaining the technology of nuclear weapons and missiles, and launched surprise attacks against the United States and the Soviet Union using them, then the United States and Soviet Union would not have been able to defend themselves and would have surrendered." The logic applied by the Chinese general can still be applied to the present situation. As the American nuclear arsenal rots from neglect, the prospect of a surprise attack on the U.S. can once again be entertained.
The U.S. nuclear arsenal is presently believed to include about 2,300 warheads. Some experts on nuclear warfare believe that anything below 2,000 warheads would be dangerous for the American side. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already notified Congress of her intention to begin talks with the Russians on "deep nuclear reductions."
In terms of foreign policy, the arms reduction approach epitomizes flabbiness and vapidity. It is the answer one comes to expect from those who are "empty." If this is our government, then we know what to expect. The United States is headed for disarmament. Who dares to raise an alarm against this shameful stupidity?
