It's unfortunate that you use the "beyond his paygrade" comment that echoes the shameful Biden outburst against him in his testimony to Congress back before Iraq.
Ritter is mostly writing here as a peace advocate. He's not talking about US capability as much as its intentions in gamesmanship. This sort of advocacy writing often relies on worst-case scenarios to make points.
Yeah, he often goes a bit overboard in his details, but overall his intentions are good, and like most independent voices out there, he's competing for attention, trying to make a living, so I give him the same latitude I give a lot of writers in the space.
In the beginnings of the Russian SMO in Ukraine, Scott Ritter said in multiple interviews that he thought Ukraine’s acquisition of the M-777 howitzers were going to be a “game changer”! Lol, so much for that prediction.
Ritter, like many ex-military, ex-something pundits relies too much on his also ex' buddies. the military said the howitzers were "gamechangers", so he repeats it without analysis.
Ritter is absolutely correct. He thinks about minutes of response time, which nukes in Eastern Europe reduces to a minute or two. This was why the INF treaty was so important in the 80's. Sustained industrial capacity is irrelevant for a nuclear war. That's the crux of his analysis, and that's why nukes in Eastern Europe are so dangerous. The time and margin of error for a counterstrike is reduced to close to zero. We've been on the edge of nuclear war several times. It didn't happen because there was time for a human being to think about it. That's being erased.
Of course, he's right about strike time . But strike time on Russia from Europe has always been minimal. So Russia has prepared for that. By the time, Dark Eagle is online, the Russians will have Zircons on the Polish border. Sustained industrial capacity IS relevant because the Russians have enough firepower to annihilate every military site in the West in minutes. Tomahawks take time to reach their targets. So this is not a real "escalation". Dark Eagle is two years away.
Never forget who's in charge - it is Clown World = DaSynagogue of Satan.
Since you're writing from a perspective of reason and logic, assuming our enemy DSOS is doing likewise, you're discounting the fact that DaOldBastahd cares not a rat's ass how many humans - millions or billions are murdered - including his deluded servants. Who are they? You might be surprised - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2023/05/who-are-daservants-of-satan-does-it.html?m=0 - the fact that most folks - both secularists and churchians - dismiss this as spiritual nonsense, is precisely why the ultimate disaster could happen. Never forget who said they would pull down the curtain of humanity if necessary - they want a war, using our treasure and OUR BLOOD!
If only I could convince my draft age grandkids.......pisses me off no end!
In my Special Article for coffeebuyers I talk about Todd's concept of Western "nihilism" as spiritual vacuity. I am not religious as you are -- but I tend to agree with you.
I can't help but chuckle when someone calls me religious, but I understand because the word itself has become meaningless - it all depends on our perspective. I'm actually the guy who was first invited to a men's Bible study years ago, and then invited to leave because I asked too many questions.
The primary reason I started my website 9 years ago was to connect the knowledge of government, religion, politics and culture as an interrelationship which determines our success or failure as a nation or society. Most folks have zero interest in that, because they ASSume they already have the answers in their narrow field of interest.
Even within my own and extended family - which has churchians, agnostics and everything in between - I'm DaBurr under their saddle - I ask too many questions. In effect, neither secularists or churchians like to be challenged - and I usually get accused of just dispensing 'my opinions'.
Ironically, all my opinions are the result of years of reading and researching what actual writers and researchers have produced, some of them archived in DaLimbraw Library - so essentially, I'm just DaLibrarian.
What I have learned is that - historically and biblically speaking - the Bible backs up history and history backs up the Bible. It's becoming uncanny....especially these days. No, I don't mean end times - I mean history keeps repeating itself - the Bible just explains why!
The threat of a nuclear exchange has existed since 1945 when our British friend (sic) Lord Bertrand Russell demanded a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.
The threat of a "miscalculation" or accidental exchange, I believe, is what the honorable Scott Ritter is warning about today.
If Ritter's training and prior work experience as a weapons inspector are insufficient for him to speak to the subject you are discussing, what are your qualifications?
Good point. I have no "qualifications" --institutionally defined. So I rely on study and research, I am a polymath and autodidact. Note that Brian Berletic is similary "unqualifed" (although nominally a Marine tech & repair guy) but studies and researches to prove truly informed analysis. Alex Mercouris is a lawyer -- but still amazing astute.
I'm not overly impressed with formal "institutional" qualifications myself. Experts who have them are often wrong. I think good 'ol common sense or wisdom count for more in most things. Outsiders can often see the forest when the "experts" see mostly the weeds. I appreciate what you are doing, which is why I'm here.
Scott Ritter is indeed very American, and proud of things like Operation Desert Storm on a technical basis rather than a moral one. His audience seems to eat up his constant talk of possible huge escalation.
On the point about the US not starting nuclear war in Europe because their hypersonic missiles can't compete with the Russians' - I think on the contrary the biggest worry is that they might do that BECAUSE they can't compete with Russia! If the way they've used Ukraine (and every other American proxy ever) shows anything, it's that their friends are only their friends until they outlive their usefulness. An empire in decline is a dangerous thing, and this is the first time in history that such an empire has had nuclear weapons
I take your point. "An empire in decline is a dangerous thing, and this is the first time in history that such an empire has had nuclear weapons". You are quite right.
Ritter's job is not as an analyst but as a Utube self promoter; hey, we all have to make a living-he needs to bring up new material constantly and the more dramatic the issue the better-hence he goes out of his lane.
He is a good analyst but Julian is right he was way out of his intellectual lane in this instance.
Unfortunately many US based analysts, regardless how they good their analysis, still have a lifetime of inbuilt assumptions of US superiority branded into their subconscious. Ritter sometimes does it, Douglas McGregor does it too. All analysts have their bias, even if subconscious.
Scott was one of the first people to say that the first $60B package for Ukraine in 2022 is a game changer and that Russia needs to mobilize and take this seriously. He was right.
That said he does exaggerate a bit and goes ballistic (no pun intended) very easily. So although he is directionally correct he goes too far.
The bottom line is even if they are available and workable would they use them? I don’t think so. Even if Russia detonates a nuclear weapon in Europe they STILL won’t use them because they know the next one will be in Washington.
Meaning, although I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand (even Putin said the U.S. will eventually get similar weapons) I wouldn’t go crazy with end of the world scenarios (just yet).
None of what’s in this article invalidates what Ritter said. It actually missed the entire point. For instance, the possible or probable technical limitations of the Dark Eagle do not necessarily eliminate the risk of the activation of a nuclear retaliation protocol. Moscow must assume the worst under the risk of possible nuclear attack where it may only have half a dozen of minutes to react to possible annihilation. It's not about "knowns" but about unknowns; it;s not about capabilities but about uncertainties. With weapons treaties out the window, adversaries can only suspect the worst. By the way, for what it's worth, the Doomsday Clock is now at 90s from midnight.
Also, starting of with Ritter’s former job title as argument is cheap. (He was an analyst. He has knowledge of weapons and protocols. He held other positions and performed other duties (e.g. operational planning) than simply “inspect weapons”. Downplaying his knowledge by saying he was “just” a weapons inspector, not a “strategist” (whatever that means) is absurd.
“His job was simply looking for sites where the Iraqis might be hiding banned weapons”. This is ignorance brought to insulting levels. Ritter was part of the team inspecting Soviet equipment under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.)
"For instance, the possible or probable technical limitations of the Dark Eagle do not necessarily eliminate the risk of the activation of a nuclear retaliation protocol. Moscow must assume the worst under the risk of possible nuclear attack where it may only have half a dozen of minutes to react to possible annihilation. It's not about "knowns" but about unknowns; it;s not about capabilities but about uncertainties. " Good point.
I feel the same way about Scott. He is often helpful with his overviews. But he is also very “American”. ちょっとうるさい
I remember that at the beginning of the war in Ukraine there was an attempt by the “deep state” to discredit him because of alleged contacts with underage girls. That really affected Scott. There are certain tactics like the person who leaked the legendary war log to Assange and then suddenly became Mrs. Manning....
I do not discount Ritter's contributions. I LIKE him! I just feel that he is not as good a strategic analysist as, say, Brian Berletic or Alex Mercouris (who pretends he is not!). He has a defined area of expertise --which precludes strategic analysis. But his heart is in the right place.
There may be method in their madness!
https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/the-1-may-have-a-plan
It's unfortunate that you use the "beyond his paygrade" comment that echoes the shameful Biden outburst against him in his testimony to Congress back before Iraq.
Ritter is mostly writing here as a peace advocate. He's not talking about US capability as much as its intentions in gamesmanship. This sort of advocacy writing often relies on worst-case scenarios to make points.
Yeah, he often goes a bit overboard in his details, but overall his intentions are good, and like most independent voices out there, he's competing for attention, trying to make a living, so I give him the same latitude I give a lot of writers in the space.
In the beginnings of the Russian SMO in Ukraine, Scott Ritter said in multiple interviews that he thought Ukraine’s acquisition of the M-777 howitzers were going to be a “game changer”! Lol, so much for that prediction.
Ritter, like many ex-military, ex-something pundits relies too much on his also ex' buddies. the military said the howitzers were "gamechangers", so he repeats it without analysis.
That makes total sense!
Great article, some good research and analysis. Thx. I tend to agree, sometimes Scott is a bit melodramatic “”& then you’re dead””!!! Hahaha
Yes, melodramatic. it's a job I guess.
Great stuff on our otherwise helpful and dedicated..Critter. Done with mercy and aplomb,
I LOVE 'critters" as everyone knows.
Ritter is absolutely correct. He thinks about minutes of response time, which nukes in Eastern Europe reduces to a minute or two. This was why the INF treaty was so important in the 80's. Sustained industrial capacity is irrelevant for a nuclear war. That's the crux of his analysis, and that's why nukes in Eastern Europe are so dangerous. The time and margin of error for a counterstrike is reduced to close to zero. We've been on the edge of nuclear war several times. It didn't happen because there was time for a human being to think about it. That's being erased.
You've defined it precisely - especially since a US first strike plan is now an open secret - been there for decades.
Of course, he's right about strike time . But strike time on Russia from Europe has always been minimal. So Russia has prepared for that. By the time, Dark Eagle is online, the Russians will have Zircons on the Polish border. Sustained industrial capacity IS relevant because the Russians have enough firepower to annihilate every military site in the West in minutes. Tomahawks take time to reach their targets. So this is not a real "escalation". Dark Eagle is two years away.
Never forget who's in charge - it is Clown World = DaSynagogue of Satan.
Since you're writing from a perspective of reason and logic, assuming our enemy DSOS is doing likewise, you're discounting the fact that DaOldBastahd cares not a rat's ass how many humans - millions or billions are murdered - including his deluded servants. Who are they? You might be surprised - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2023/05/who-are-daservants-of-satan-does-it.html?m=0 - the fact that most folks - both secularists and churchians - dismiss this as spiritual nonsense, is precisely why the ultimate disaster could happen. Never forget who said they would pull down the curtain of humanity if necessary - they want a war, using our treasure and OUR BLOOD!
If only I could convince my draft age grandkids.......pisses me off no end!
In my Special Article for coffeebuyers I talk about Todd's concept of Western "nihilism" as spiritual vacuity. I am not religious as you are -- but I tend to agree with you.
I can't help but chuckle when someone calls me religious, but I understand because the word itself has become meaningless - it all depends on our perspective. I'm actually the guy who was first invited to a men's Bible study years ago, and then invited to leave because I asked too many questions.
The primary reason I started my website 9 years ago was to connect the knowledge of government, religion, politics and culture as an interrelationship which determines our success or failure as a nation or society. Most folks have zero interest in that, because they ASSume they already have the answers in their narrow field of interest.
Even within my own and extended family - which has churchians, agnostics and everything in between - I'm DaBurr under their saddle - I ask too many questions. In effect, neither secularists or churchians like to be challenged - and I usually get accused of just dispensing 'my opinions'.
Ironically, all my opinions are the result of years of reading and researching what actual writers and researchers have produced, some of them archived in DaLimbraw Library - so essentially, I'm just DaLibrarian.
What I have learned is that - historically and biblically speaking - the Bible backs up history and history backs up the Bible. It's becoming uncanny....especially these days. No, I don't mean end times - I mean history keeps repeating itself - the Bible just explains why!
That's not religiosity - that is REALITY!
But you keep writing, Julian! I'll keep reading!
The threat of a nuclear exchange has existed since 1945 when our British friend (sic) Lord Bertrand Russell demanded a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.
The threat of a "miscalculation" or accidental exchange, I believe, is what the honorable Scott Ritter is warning about today.
If Ritter's training and prior work experience as a weapons inspector are insufficient for him to speak to the subject you are discussing, what are your qualifications?
Good point. I have no "qualifications" --institutionally defined. So I rely on study and research, I am a polymath and autodidact. Note that Brian Berletic is similary "unqualifed" (although nominally a Marine tech & repair guy) but studies and researches to prove truly informed analysis. Alex Mercouris is a lawyer -- but still amazing astute.
I'm not overly impressed with formal "institutional" qualifications myself. Experts who have them are often wrong. I think good 'ol common sense or wisdom count for more in most things. Outsiders can often see the forest when the "experts" see mostly the weeds. I appreciate what you are doing, which is why I'm here.
Scott is just like Alex Jones. They both over dramatize every YT show. That's why I don't listen to either of them
You did a very good job on the arms comparisons, Julian.
Thanks for that.
😃
Scott Ritter is indeed very American, and proud of things like Operation Desert Storm on a technical basis rather than a moral one. His audience seems to eat up his constant talk of possible huge escalation.
On the point about the US not starting nuclear war in Europe because their hypersonic missiles can't compete with the Russians' - I think on the contrary the biggest worry is that they might do that BECAUSE they can't compete with Russia! If the way they've used Ukraine (and every other American proxy ever) shows anything, it's that their friends are only their friends until they outlive their usefulness. An empire in decline is a dangerous thing, and this is the first time in history that such an empire has had nuclear weapons
I take your point. "An empire in decline is a dangerous thing, and this is the first time in history that such an empire has had nuclear weapons". You are quite right.
Ritter's job is not as an analyst but as a Utube self promoter; hey, we all have to make a living-he needs to bring up new material constantly and the more dramatic the issue the better-hence he goes out of his lane.
He is a good analyst but Julian is right he was way out of his intellectual lane in this instance.
Unfortunately many US based analysts, regardless how they good their analysis, still have a lifetime of inbuilt assumptions of US superiority branded into their subconscious. Ritter sometimes does it, Douglas McGregor does it too. All analysts have their bias, even if subconscious.
Scott was one of the first people to say that the first $60B package for Ukraine in 2022 is a game changer and that Russia needs to mobilize and take this seriously. He was right.
That said he does exaggerate a bit and goes ballistic (no pun intended) very easily. So although he is directionally correct he goes too far.
The bottom line is even if they are available and workable would they use them? I don’t think so. Even if Russia detonates a nuclear weapon in Europe they STILL won’t use them because they know the next one will be in Washington.
Meaning, although I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand (even Putin said the U.S. will eventually get similar weapons) I wouldn’t go crazy with end of the world scenarios (just yet).
All good points!
>no pun intended
Damn shame, you missed it.
None of what’s in this article invalidates what Ritter said. It actually missed the entire point. For instance, the possible or probable technical limitations of the Dark Eagle do not necessarily eliminate the risk of the activation of a nuclear retaliation protocol. Moscow must assume the worst under the risk of possible nuclear attack where it may only have half a dozen of minutes to react to possible annihilation. It's not about "knowns" but about unknowns; it;s not about capabilities but about uncertainties. With weapons treaties out the window, adversaries can only suspect the worst. By the way, for what it's worth, the Doomsday Clock is now at 90s from midnight.
Also, starting of with Ritter’s former job title as argument is cheap. (He was an analyst. He has knowledge of weapons and protocols. He held other positions and performed other duties (e.g. operational planning) than simply “inspect weapons”. Downplaying his knowledge by saying he was “just” a weapons inspector, not a “strategist” (whatever that means) is absurd.
“His job was simply looking for sites where the Iraqis might be hiding banned weapons”. This is ignorance brought to insulting levels. Ritter was part of the team inspecting Soviet equipment under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.)
"For instance, the possible or probable technical limitations of the Dark Eagle do not necessarily eliminate the risk of the activation of a nuclear retaliation protocol. Moscow must assume the worst under the risk of possible nuclear attack where it may only have half a dozen of minutes to react to possible annihilation. It's not about "knowns" but about unknowns; it;s not about capabilities but about uncertainties. " Good point.
I feel the same way about Scott. He is often helpful with his overviews. But he is also very “American”. ちょっとうるさい
I remember that at the beginning of the war in Ukraine there was an attempt by the “deep state” to discredit him because of alleged contacts with underage girls. That really affected Scott. There are certain tactics like the person who leaked the legendary war log to Assange and then suddenly became Mrs. Manning....
I do not discount Ritter's contributions. I LIKE him! I just feel that he is not as good a strategic analysist as, say, Brian Berletic or Alex Mercouris (who pretends he is not!). He has a defined area of expertise --which precludes strategic analysis. But his heart is in the right place.