Scott Ritter: How Close We Came to WW3 on September 13th

Eric Zuesse

Scott Ritter has now confirmed in detail that I was correct when I headlined and reported (emailed to 300 news-media, but it was rejected by all but four) on September 13th that “Biden might decide today whether to initiate WW3 against Russia.” Ritter also documents there that the reason why Biden decided against giving the UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer authorization for the UK to allow Ukraine’s government to use the UK’s Storm Shadow long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia (including to bomb The Kremlin) was that Russian President Vladimir Putin had emphatically warned that if Biden did, then not only would Russia strike against European countries which were involved, but it would likewise strike against the U.S. itself for giving this authorization — in other words, that this would effectively commence WW3. Ritter also revealed that WW3 would last for only 72 minutes — a remarkable statement, because the length of time that a WW3 would last is highly classified information; and Ritter’s allegation on that must therefore rely entirely upon his own personal authority regarding it. As to the extent of his credibility on this matter, I would place him second to only MIT’s Dr. Theodore Postol, who has said that the U.S. Government wants WW3 and expects to win it, though a WW3 would actually kill 5 billion people within the first two years after the explosions (and that information likewise is hidden from the public throughout the U.S. empire). On the day of the Trump-Harris debate, September 10th, I personally requested the debate’s chief moderator David Muir to ask both nominees “Might it be worth a preemptive blitz nuclear attack against Russia &/or China if that's what's needed in order for the U.S. to retain its position as the most powerful nation?” He didn’t respond, and the question was not asked. That question is not discussed within the U.S. empire; instead, it is simply hidden from the public.

So, in Ritter’s article, he headlined on September 19th at Consortium News, “72 Minutes: Last weekend, the world came very close to nuclear war.” He said that on September 6th, Ukraine’s President Zelensky had met in Germany with NATO leaders to request them to allow NATO weapons to be used against Russia however his government wants. Ritter failed to link to his source on that, but on September 6th, Koha.net had headlined “Russia must choose between peace and Putin, says Zelensky”, and reported that, “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky pressed for more arms support during a meeting Friday with the top military leaders of the US and more than 50 other partner countries in Germany.  … Zelensky is staying at the US Ramstein Air Base in Germany. … ”

Ritter’s report also indicated that U.S. SecState Blinken had wanted Biden to give Starmer the go-ahead on this. Ritter’s report described what would likely have happened if Biden had done that (which, as I reported on September 15th, Biden did not do):

Most Americans are unaware about how close they came to waking up Saturday morning, only to find that it was their last.

Ukraine Was Ready to Launch

Had Biden yielded to Starmer’s pressure (the British, together with Ukraine and several NATO nations, believed that Putin was bluffing), and signed off on the permission, Ukraine was prepared to launch strikes on Russia that night.

(British soldiers deployed in Ukraine would be needed to operate the Storm Shadows and they are already there, according to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who has refused to send similar weapons to Ukraine.)

Russia would likely have responded with conventional attacks on Kiev using new weapons, such as the Avangard hypersonic warhead, which would each deliver a blow equivalent to 26-28 tons of explosives.

Russia would also most likely have struck NATO targets in Poland and Romania where Ukrainian fighters are based. And, lastly, Russia would have struck British military targets, possibly including those on the British Isles.

This would prompt a NATO retaliation under Article 5, using a large number of NATO long-range strike weapons targeting Russian command and control, airfields, and ammunition storage facilities.

The Russian response would most likely involve the launching of more Avangard conventional warheads against NATO targets, including Ramstein airbase and NATO headquarters, as well as airbases from which strikes against Russia were launched. …

Whatever U.S. strategic forces that survived this onslaught would be fired at Russia.

And then we all die.

72 minutes.

And the world ends.

We were one stroke of the pen away from this outcome on Friday, Sept. 13, 2024.

Also on September 19th, Newsweek headlined “Russia Warns Its Missiles Can Reach US Ally in Three Minutes” and reported:

Russia has issued a new warning against Ukraine's allies, following recent calls to loosen restrictions on Kyiv's Western-supplied weaponry.

Now over 900-days into the Russia-Ukraine war, the ominous threat comes amid increasing geopolitical frictions between Moscow and Ukraine's global allies, and growing concerns over the conflict's potential for escalation.

"The flight time of the Sarmat missile to Strasbourg is 3 minutes 20 seconds," Russian politician Vyacheslav Volodin posted to Telegram on Thursday.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Russian Sarmat has a range of between 6,214 and 11,184 miles, putting the French city well within its reach.

Volodin, who has served as the Chair of Russia's State Duma since 2016, was writing in response to the recent calls from the European Parliament to lift limitations on Ukraine's use of Western-supplied weaponry within Russian territory and to speed up the delivery of arms to Kyiv.

On Thursday [September 19th], the European Parliament passed a resolution urging European Union (E.U.) member nations to allow Ukraine to employ "Western weapons systems against legitimate military targets in Russia."

The resolution, which was adopted with 425 votes in favor, 131 against and 63 abstentions, stated that, "without lifting current restrictions, Ukraine cannot fully exercise its right to self-defense and remains exposed to attacks on its population and infrastructure."

Until 2022, no comprehensive scientific study was made public regarding what the consequences of a WW3 would be. Scholars did a few studies of what the results would be if non-superpower countries were to go to nuclear war, but the topic of what a WW3 would produce was ignored. Then, finally, in the highly prestigious scientific journal NATURE: Food, was published on 15 August 2022, that study; and, the very next day, CBS News headlined about it, “Nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would kill more than 5 billion people – just from starvation, study finds”. But that’s within only the first two years, and the die-off would continue from there. Nonetheless, it’s more than half of the human population, even just at the start of year 3. 

What would such a war actually be about if it would not be about answering yes to the question “Might it be worth a preemptive blitz nuclear attack against Russia &/or China if that's what's needed in order for the U.S. to retain its position as the most powerful nation?” Would it be about Russia’s and China’s right to exist as a sovereign independent nation instead of to be forced to become yet another U.S. colony? Because, if you think that this right should be denied to them, then shouldn’t the people who live there despise you, since you want them dead? On the other hand, if you think that they do have this right, then shouldn’t you despise the U.S. empire, which is doing everything it can to deny to them that right — the right to remain as sovereign and independent countries? For example: did the war in Ukraine start on 24 February 2022 like the U.S. and its colonies allege, or did it start instead on 20 February 2014, as even Zelensky and Stoltenberg have acknowledged it did? So, isn’t the U.S.-and-‘allied’ claim that Russia’s invasion was “unprovoked” a bald and vicious lie by, and on behalf of, that psychopathically imperialistic power?

Consequently, the first (and still only) worldwide scientifically sampled poll of 1,000 people in each of 65 countries asking “Which country is the biggest threat to peace?” found in 2013 that by an overwhelming margin, the U.S. swamped all others: 24% named America. Pakistan was #2 with 8%. China was #3 with 6%. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, and North Korea were tied at #4 with 6% each. India, Iraq, and Japan, were tied at #5 with 4% each. Syria was #6 with 3%. Russia was #7 with 2%.

Right now, the U.S. regime’s next targets for conquest are Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.

Up to the present time, the U.S. Government has been answering yes to “Might it be worth a preemptive blitz nuclear attack against Russia &/or China if that's what's needed in order for the U.S. to retain its position as the most powerful nation?” If that won’t now stop, then most of us will probably be dead pretty soon. Isn’t it therefore necessary for both of the U.S. Presidential nominees finally to be ASKED this question, which David Muir rejected?

And how much longer will the U.S. regime and its ‘news’-media continue treating America’s voters with contempt?

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.