Will Americans Vote for Congressional Gridlock or US National Security?

Originally published on Newsmax.com:

Days before U.S. congressional elections crucial to Trump Administration plans for protecting the U.S. and deterring World War III, Moscow’s new “peace offensive” is trying to mobilize the kind of American voter Vladimir Lenin allegedly once described as “useful idiots.”

Will Americans vote for congressional gridlock or for U.S. national security?

At stake are Trump Administration programs strengthening U.S. military might and homeland security, all long-neglected or opposed by the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats:

— Rebuilding the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines.

— Modernizing U.S. nuclear deterrent forces and their scientific-industrial base.

— Protecting the U.S. electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures from cyber and EMP attack.

— Creating a U.S. Space Force and space-based defenses that could render nuclear missiles obsolete.

But wait! Are these programs really necessary?

Just last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin promised: “We have no concept of a preemptive strike.”

“We expect to be struck by nuclear weapons, but we will not use them [first],” Putin said, “The aggressor will have to understand that retaliation is inevitable, that it will be destroyed, and that we, as victims of aggression, as martyrs, will go to heaven.” Whereas Americans “will simply die because they won’t even have time to repent.”

On October 18, according to TASS: “Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov believes that Moscow and Washington should reaffirm the idea it will be impossible to win a nuclear war.”

Lavrov: “The Americans and we have made two fundamental statements since the Soviet era to the effect nobody can win a nuclear war and for that reason it cannot happen. It might be a good idea to reaffirm this postulate.”

Lavrov criticizes U.S. nuclear deterrent modernization, including the development of a U.S. low-yield warhead to counter Russia’s 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, as dangerously destabilizing and threatening to “undermine all existing agreements.”

Yet Moscow expects Washington to be OK with Russia’s violations of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, too long tolerated by the Obama Administration, but now challenged by President Trump.

Threatens Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov on October 21, U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty, which now constrains only the United States and NATO, not Russia or China, would be “very dangerous.”

Who would believe such propaganda, be cowed by such threats?

Too many Americans.

Too many Americans belong to the party of “blame America first” and to the party of suicidal appeasement and to the party that fantasizes about former President Obama’s “world without nuclear weapons” beginning with U.S. unilateral disarmament.

For example, according to national security expert Peter Huessy (October 15): “The Princeton University disarmament group, Global Zero, has released a new…report — The End of Nuclear Warfighting — that calls for the unilateral disarmament of more than two-thirds of the U.S. nuclear deterrent and…placing most U.S. warheads in storage bunkers.”

Moscow wants Americans to temporarily forget, until after voting on November 6, dictator Putin’s March 1 televised briefing to the world describing new nuclear super-weapons giving Russia “nuclear superiority” and demanding that the U.S. “listen to us now.”

Moscow hopes voting Americans never read former Director of the U.S. Defense Nuclear Agency, Vice Admiral Robert Monroe’s recent article accurately describing Russia’s hyper-aggressive nuclear strategy in The Hill:

Russia makes “no distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. They consider the full spectrum of weaponry to be available for military use; and they have even gone farther, by establishing a preferred strategy of early (conflict-ending) use of low-yield nukes in all military actions, large and small. For a quarter-century Russia has been focusing their nuclear weapons research and testing on very low yields (say, from ten to 500 tons). During this same period, they have also been researching and testing greater use of fusion, less of fission, possibly achieving pure fusion. These weapons would emit only neutrons and gamma rays, and leave little or no contaminating residual radiation.”

“Their tactics of use would be ones we’ve never seen or thought about. Putin has threatened military action in many areas of Europe, to recover the former Soviet empire. If armed conflict broke out tomorrow, the advancing Russian armor, mobilized infantry, artillery, and tactical aircraft would be preceded by dozens of low-yield nuclear detonations, killing everything, but leaving roads and bridges intact. The war would be over in days or hours.”

Moscow doesn’t want American voters to read the Congressional EMP Commission Chairman’s Report, recently approved for unclassified publication by the Defense Department:

Russian military doctrine “describes the combined use of cyber viruses and hacking, physical attacks, non-nuclear EMP weapons, and ultimately nuclear EMP attack against electric grids and critical infrastructures as a new way of warfare that is the greatest Revolution in Military Affairs in history. Like Nazi Germany’s Blitzkrieg (‘Lightning War’) Strategy that coordinated airpower, armor, and mobile infantry to achieve strategic and technological surprise that nearly defeated the Allies in World War II, the New Blitzkrieg is, literally and figuratively, an electronic ‘Lightning War’ so potentially decisive in its effects that an entire civilization could be overthrown in hours.”

Vote November 6. And don’t be an idiot.