Watched a video by JR Nyquist about ww3. Seems to fit what is happening. This is so close to the Deep Winter series it's like it was divine and you should be scared of the soulless libs and what they will do to us if allowed.
Invasion America?
To achieve victory in a future war, it will not be sufficient to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them very accurately on target; it will also be necessary that the ground forces be able to move rapidly into regions which have been subjected to nuclear strikes.
Only when this problem is solved will it be possible to speak of the effective exploitation of nuclear strikes by tanks and infantry in conclusively defeating the enemy, or of carrying out extensive maneuvers and decisive advances in depth.
Soviet Military Strategy, [p. 343]
The Marxist Democrats are leading with JoBama/Soros to follow their Soviet playbook plans outlined by Jan Sejna's take over of America...
From the comments:
“Portions of the Soviet plans for seizing control of the United States following a nuclear strike were described by the head of this Administration for Special Propaganda to Sejna in 1967 just prior to Sejna’s defection.
The description provides an interesting insight into the possible nature of Soviet plans and, in a certain regard, their efforts to clothe mechanisms in indigenous or nationalistic trappings.
In 1967 the Soviets believed that, in addition to strikes against nuclear and critical military targets, roughly 110 nuclear strikes would be adequate to cripple the United States.
A ‘Central Committee for Salvation and Restoration’ and counterpart Salvation and Restoration committees in newly established regions would be set up.
The first action would be to seize radio and television networks and announce changes in national and state governments, that is, to the new Salvation and Restoration committees. (take over of MSM/BT)
A third party would be created out of the CPUSA, left-wing (DNC) Senators, and prominent figures from finance, industry, and science. Recruitment here is directed toward those people who are regarded as naive and those whom the Soviets refer to as ‘chicken opportunists.’
Middle class radicals, blacks, and Hispanics would be recruited and organized into a national militia.
‘Salvation courts’ would be established and their immediate task would be to execute members of right-wing groups.
There would be heavy reliance on outside ‘advisors’ provided by Soviet surrogates and agents, and the new government would be pushed to negotiate a peace treaty. In the attack, Europe would not be destroyed. Rather, Moscow would launch a propaganda campaign to tell the Europeans that the Soviets had saved their lives. The United States would be blamed for starting the war and an international committee for the neutrality of the United States would be formed. Pressure would be produced from the left and from Europe and elsewhere for the United States to give up.”
Jeff Nyquist says:
June 20, 2021 at 4:23 am
We are stupid enough that they (China) got this far. Look at how the pandemic has worked. They have infiltrated our media, government and business. This is obvious. Who is to say how far they might go?
If I am Xi, I would still entertain high hopes. But China is shaky on stamina, on organization, on honesty in government. Too many people steal. I am not sure they can hold everything together as they advance.
I was told that the Russians gave up the idea of invading the lower 48 states in 1991.
This does not mean they won’t help China with the attack.
I think they are committed to do so (if the war is set to happen). Communism is the common cause of the Socialist Camp, though the Russian leaders cannot say so publicly.
Russia suffered attenuation of her force structure then.
The Chinese had the manpower, shipping capacity, and the desire.
Russia only wants Alaska and to dominate Europe.
I suspect the communist ideal is going to break down because of ethnic differences.
China will have its zone.
Russia will have “the one common European home.”
If one follows Moscow’s policy statements you will see that it takes account of the division of territory with China.
We shall see how things unfold during the summer.
Interview With Nevin: Red Dawn in Retrospect
We’ve got a biological war going on. The Chinese are telling their people to get ready for nuclear war. The Russians are getting ready…. These are all pre-war signs.
They [the Russians] are getting rid of [the dollars in their] sovereign funds; and then you have these mass assassinations, these drone attacks in Mexico….
This is very important for them, for pre-positioning [small units of Spetsnaz] troops.
Populist Roundtable: Episode 9 Part 4 J.R. Nyquist (2hrs)
Jun 6, 2021
In this episode, Nevin and Jeff discussed the Red Dawn Scenario, the Chinese role in Covid-19, potential collaborators with Russian/Chinese occupation forces, Russian military strategy, the writings of Soviet era commissioned officers, and more...
View: https://youtu.be/QAZo3MbsLOA
Joe Biden (aka JoBama) And Allies Put America On A Track To Lose Our First Nuclear War: Democrats Want To Abolish America's Biggest Impediment To A Surprise Nuclear Attack - What Could Go Wrong?
How To Start, And Lose, A Nuclear War
By Dr. Peter Vincent Pry
Losing a nuclear war is surely not intended by the Biden administration and congressional allies, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., Chairman of the powerful House Armed Services Committee. But their call for unilaterally abolishing U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) would surely lose a nuclear World War III.
The U.S. won the Cold War without the USSR launching a thermonuclear holocaust, thanks to the U.S. Triad of ICBMs, bombers, and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).
Each Triad leg plays a special role making a well-rounded nuclear deterrent for the broadest range of scenarios:
—Strategic bombers are the most flexible deterrent, can carry nuclear or conventional weapons, and can be recalled;
—SSBNs, when generated so all boats are at sea, are the most survivable deterrent, a secure strategic reserve to hold at risk the most valuable adversary targets, thereby deterring attack on the most valuable U.S. targets, especially cities;
—ICBMs are the most responsive deterrent, over 95% of the force always standing on alert ready to launch in a few minutes, rapidly retargetable, linked by multiple secure redundant means to the National Command Authority for near instant execution of Emergency Action Messages (EAMs).
Today, anti-nuclear radicals in the Union of Concerned Scientists, Federation of American Scientists, and Nuclear Threat Initiative are an important part of the Democrat Party’s political and intellectual base — and are calling for unilateral abolition of U.S. ICBMs.
These same groups and their pseudointellectual sophistry, masquerading as deep strategic thinking, would have lost the Cold War.
Now they are being welcomed into the Biden Administration.
Anti-ICBM politicians and activists see the greatest virtue of ICBMs — over 95% always on high-alert, every day, for years, serving as sentinels against surprise attack — as the very reason to abolish ICBMs, that they falsely allege are on a “hair trigger” for accidental nuclear war.
Elsewhere, I and others have made the case at length why ICBMs are indispensable to the U.S. nuclear deterrent, and that the alleged risks from their high-alert rates causing an accidental nuclear war are minimal.
For example, see my report "Surprise Attack: ICBMs and the Real Nuclear Threat"(Oct. 31, 2020) or Matthew Costlow’s report "Safety in Diversity: The Strategic Value of ICBMs and GBSD in the Nuclear Triad" (National Institute for Public Policy: May 2021) or, last but not least, recent testimony about the desperate need for U.S. ICBM modernization by Admiral Charles Richard, Commander of STRATCOM.
Eliminating U.S. ICBMs would make much easier adversary nuclear surprise attack, as they would no longer have to destroy 400 hardened ICBM silos, just 3 strategic bomber bases and 2 SSBN ports.
U.S. strategic bombers are no longer maintained on alert or nuclear-armed and would be completely destroyed by a surprise attack. Surprise attack would destroy most of the 14 U.S. SSBNs that are normally at port, while only 3-4 are on patrol at sea.
If the U.S. bans ICBMs, thereby reducing U.S. strategic targets from over 400 to just 5, even if there is thereby a tiny reduction in the possibility of accidental nuclear war, there would be an enormous increased temptation to Russia, China, even North Korea and Iran, to make a surprise attack.
If U.S. ICBMs are eliminated, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran do not even need nuclear weapons to destroy U.S. bombers on their bases or SSBNs in port. Cruise and anti-ship missiles with high-explosive warheads could do the job.
Iran has Russia’s Club-K missile, which has a launcher disguised as a shipping container, so any freighter can be converted into a guided missile cruiser.
If U.S. ICBMs are abolished, and so too the biggest impediment to adversary surprise attack, during a crisis or conflict it would become far more urgent to mobilize U.S. bombers and SSBNs to a more survivable posture.
Bombers would have to be put on strip-alert and nuclear weapons uploaded. Submarines would prepare to put to sea.
Mobilization of U.S. bombers and SSBNs would be highly visible to the adversary—and highly provocative.
Absent ICBMs to deter surprise attack, would the U.S. dare mobilizing bombers and SSBNs—ever? Would the adversary allow the U.S. to mobilize bombers and SSBNs, or strike first?
Banning ICBMs would:
—Greatly increase adversary incentives to strike U.S. bombers and submarines while they are sitting ducks;
—Greatly increase the range of scenarios when the U.S. must mobilize bombers and SSBNs to survivable posture, thereby also greatly increasing risk of triggering “action-reaction” escalation resulting in accidental nuclear war;
—Introduce a real “use them or lose them” dilemma with U.S. bombers and SSBNs where no such dilemma now exists because of the ICBM deterrent;
—Create a real "hair trigger" posture for U.S. SSBNs on patrol, and probably for bombers that will of necessity have to return to airborne or strip-alert, because of greatly increased vulnerability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent without ICBMs;
—Thus, banning ICBMs would undermine and destabilize the foundations of nuclear deterrence in ways more likely to realize the worst fears of anti-ICBM activists.
If you want to start, and lose, a nuclear war — abolish U.S. ICBMs.