The Idiocy of War

I would say bring on that day when the idiot presses the button, in order to erase homo sapiens from the planet, except for the fact that it would also do the same to all the non-human life of the planet at the same time!

The USA didn't have any spy satellites in the early 60s, they only had the U2 spy plane. As for ICBMs, whilst it's true that the USSR only possessed four R7a Semyorka in 1961, by late 1962 that had increased to 75, but the USSR also possessed medium range missiles, which were those at the heart of the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. The USA genuinely believed that the USSR was way ahead of the USA, but that impression might have been influenced by the fact that the USSR was way ahead of the USA in terms of their space programme, which used a similar launch vehicle, the R7 rocket, which is still used for satellite launch by Russia. The fact of the matter was that the USA was way ahead of the USSR in terms of ICBM possession and development though for both the early 1960s was still very early days in terms of ICBM development.

Neither is Iran, and anyway I don't see the relevance: I was correcting your assertion that these conflicts can only be resolved by negotiation or mutual annihilation: it's evidentially untrue.

Well of course not, not in 1945. It was all a bit new and special back then, and rather experimental. 80 years next year, and still no-one apart from the USA has gone for the nuclear option in anger, not even Putin has opted for a small-scale limited battlefield option. Nor has North Korea lobbed one at anyone else in a fit of pique. Built-in instant retribution is a real kicker.

And let's not forget that Shia Muslims and Suni Muslims take a very different line about a lot of things, and also Iraq and Syria do rather get in the way of Israel attempting even a token land incursion into Iran, let alone an invasion. Geography counts for a lot in these situations.The likeliest attacks will be on Iranian oil production and transportation, but even they are very poor option - look where that approach got Saddam Hussein. Even Netanyahu doesn't want to be that unpopular with enemies and allies alike.

Do your plans include sending UN troops in to referee civil wars, because I imagine the 10 million people in South Sudan currently facing starvation (on top of everything else already happening there which "the world" is busily ignoring) will be mightily bucked up to hear that.

No member state particularly the US, China or Russia would ever agree to that. The UN Charter forbids violating the sovereignty of its member states.

That's utter rubbish. All through the Cold War the Warsaw Pact countries (effectively Soviet satellites similar in status to Belarus today) were bordered by NATO countries and in two cases the Soviet Union was directly bordered by NATO countries, Turkey and Norway. Also, I don't think anyone supports the ludicrous notion of Putin bad, therefore war good. The only reason there is a war between Russia and Ukraine at present is because Russia invaded Ukraine, violating Ukraine's national sovereignty which Ukraine has a fundamental right to defend. It is at base no more complex than that. There were no decisions that NATO expand eastwards taken in the 90s, countries certainly applied to join the alliance, just as Sweden and Finland recently applied for and attained membership; as a result of Russian aggression. The much vaunted 'reasons' why Russia is to be excused is because the country felt threatened by NATO is a load of BS. As is the claim widely believed by far too many on the left in the UK that Ukraine is full of Nazis, clearly something culled straight from Putin's playbook for gullible western useful idiots. There are obviously neo-nazis in Ukraine, but they haven't been anything like as successful as even the UK's home grown neo-nazis whether they be open or hidden. Heck, there are almost definitely crypto-fascists elected to the UK Parliament. No one in their right mind is in favour of war, and even Putin is wary of overextending its use, hence the planned short campaigns in Chechnya and Georgia, both of which were preludes to what is happening in Ukraine today. Sure, Ukraine isn't perfect, what nation actually is? There is also the inconvenient fact that for the past 30 odd years most of the NATO alliance has been basking in the so called 'peace dividend' following the Cold War. Putin certainly played a number on much of the leadership in the west, lulling them into a false sense of security, doing huge gas and oil deals with many countries in the EU, destabilsing relationships, such as stirring up anti EU rhetoric during the Brexit campaign and promoting Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. All this played into Putin's notion that the west is weak, which persuaded him that the invasion and annexation of Ukraine could proceed unopposed, and initially much of the west expected Ukraine to quickly capitulate. If anything is prolonging this awful conflict it is the reluctance of western power to properly supply Ukraine with what it needs. Much of that could be supplied at minimal cost given that much of the equipment Ukraine needs is already in existence in superabundant amounts due to the insane stockpiles of equipment that exist. Supporting Ukraine to win would more quickly end this war and save thousands of lives, both Ukrainian and Russian. I think any sane, rational human being would love for the species to be free of war, but so far it's not something humans have managed to do. I don't have any answers there other than to suggest that in order to remain free of war requires that we are constantly ready for it. That seems to be the rationale of the Cold War period. It's far from ideal, but while there is always a good chance that a Putin, a Hitler or other tyrant acquires political power there will always be a risk of war. Had Ukraine already been a NATO member with moderately developed defences Putin would never have invaded in the first place.

Did you by any chance watch Putin being interviewed by Tucker Carlson? It could easily have been an opportunity for him to reach out to the American public to express Russia's concerns about NATO expansion, especially in an election year. Instead he argued that Ukraine had no right to exist as a sovereign country, Lithuania exists only because 'we say it does,' and Poland started WW2 by provoking the Nazis. The man is an absolute psycho. He described the break up of the Soviet Union as the biggest crime of the 20th century (in other words bigger than 2 world wars, the Holocaust and Stalin's genocide). The West is guilty of a lot of things, but there is a reason why Eastern Europeans do not trust Russia.

Who do you send all your ideas to, so various governments can consider acting on them? You say you've been raising these points for 20 years, and had responses, so I suppose you must have made some important connections at the top by now, maybe you even have a direct line to various foreign ministers, or an e-mail address at least. Or do you just rely on the traditional Basildon Bond and purple ink?