International Man: Recently, Biden approved Ukraine’s use of American long-range missiles to strike deep inside Russia—something Vladimir Putin has explicitly warned is a red line.
What are your thoughts on the implications of this decision?
Doug Casey: The Bidenistas are extremely dangerous fools. They’re taking one more step on the escalation ladder toward World War III.
I’ve watched governments scale the ladder since the 1950s when schoolchildren drilled to “duck and cover”—get under their desks when the air raid sirens went off. And I well remember the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when we came within a hair’s breadth of nuclear war.
In the mid-1980s, the Soviets could sense that their empire was collapsing—the world was again on the edge of nuclear war—it was a “now or never” thing for them. Fortunately, it was a “not now.” However, what’s happening now may be the most serious crisis of all. Nuclear war is being considered as a realistic option.
Herman Kahn, the author of On Thermonuclear War and Thinking the Unthinkable, became a friend when I lived in Washington, DC. (See Crisis Investing for the 90s for how and why). His rational contemplation of how a nuclear war might start and how it would end was considered outrageous. But now it’s something that’s discussed in the popular media; people have come to accept the near inevitability of it.
The world is ramping up towards World War III. The atmosphere is like that of the late 30s when the civil war in Spain and the Japanese invasion of China were overtures to World War II.
People don’t seem as scared of the prospect as they were in past crises. But they should be more scared now than ever before. At least in some ways.
I say that because, in the past, ICBMs couldn’t be targeted with great precision. To make up for that, their payloads had to be gigantic to get the job done. We’re talking megaton-size city busters; the Soviets tested their 50-megaton Tsar Bomb in 1961 for a reason. But precision delivery systems have obviated the need for giant bombs. And it’s become obvious that there’s no need to destroy an entire city when you can neatly target military or intelligence installations, which are the real dangers.
That means a nuclear war using 1 or 10 kiloton (Hiroshima-sized) warheads is now, arguably, just as “winnable” as one using the 10-megaton devices of 50 years ago. You always want to limit collateral damage. As a result, nuclear weapons, by themselves, no longer necessarily mean the end of civilization. That also means that Putin’s threat to use nukes in retaliation to a serious assault on Russia is very credible. Especially since it appears Russia has missiles that are both hypersonic (10x the speed of sound) and maneuverable, which means they can’t be intercepted.
Of course, it’s no longer just Russia and the US that might go at each other. There are at least nine nuclear powers in the world (US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea). Nuclear technology is no longer a secret. At least 20 countries around the world could create nuclear weapons within a matter of months if they chose to. Anybody can get them. And they don’t need missiles or bombers. Freighters, cargo planes, or trucks are perfectly viable delivery systems. So is FedEx for a miniaturized weapon.
I’m afraid the cat’s out of the bag. The bottom line is that anything that can happen eventually will happen. And there’s a good chance that is now. Especially with the reckless incompetents who still occupy Washington continuing to provoke Moscow, using the Kiev regime as a cat’s paw.
International Man: Putin recently signed a nuclear doctrine that lowers Russia’s threshold for deploying nuclear weapons, particularly if its territorial integrity is threatened.
What’s your perspective on this development?
Doug Casey: Putin and the Russians have been very rational and restrained about this. US neocons provoked the war between the Ukraine and Russia, and the US has financed and prolonged it.
Herman Kahn knew the Pentagon well, and even in the 50s and 60s, he was more afraid of the US starting a war than the Soviet Union. The fact of the matter is that governments in general, and particularly our current government, is populated by psychopaths. We don’t get the best and brightest in Washington, DC. We get the worst kind of people. People that go into government are looking to control and manipulate other people.
In point of fact, the Russians have been reticent about escalating the war. Which, you’ll recall, was intended to end Zelensky’s war against the secessionist Donbas provinces. Their demands, especially in view of the reckless expansion of NATO, are—I know this is shocking to most readers—actually quite reasonable. It’s the Americans, led by the Bidenistas, who are pushing the world towards global thermonuclear war.
International Man: If the Ukraine war escalates further before Trump takes office, how might that impact his ability to resolve the conflict?
Do you think his promise to end the war quickly is realistic?
Doug Casey: Once again, the war in the Ukraine has been fomented, financed, and prolonged by the US. The Ukraine would have had to let its secessionist Donbas provinces go, acknowledge that Crimea was always part of Russia, and forget about joining NATO, without US support. At least 500,000 dead Ukrainians would still be alive, and half the country wouldn’t be in ruins. And things could get much, much worse.
I believe Trump can and will end it. Although I’m afraid that the Jacobins now controlling Washington may yet start a war with Russia in order to declare a state of emergency and keep themselves in office somehow. We’re dealing with criminal personalities who also suffer from severe Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Of course, the Ukraine isn’t the only match that might set off World War III. The US is involved in the potential conflagration between Israel and Iran. And we could easily be drawn into a conflict between the PRC and Taiwan. Our unfriendly Uncle Sam is sticking his nose into hornets’ nests all around the world, and eventually, he is going to wind up getting what he’s asking for, which is war.
International Man: What would the immediate and long-term effects of a US-Russia nuclear war look like?
Is a “limited nuclear war” even possible, or would the use of nuclear weapons inevitably lead to total escalation?
Doug Casey: Let’s return to Herman Kahn. He projected that if a nuclear war had taken place in the 1950s, 60s, or 70s, there would have been scores of millions of casualties and wholesale destruction. But, on the bright side (he was a jolly fat man, with an impish sense of black humor), he projected that the world would recover to pre-war GDP levels within roughly 30 years. There’s no question he was lampooned in Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove” (a superb movie and one of my all-time favorites).
For the reasons I gave earlier, I suspect Herman’s projections are overly grim. On the other hand, things have changed. The real danger today is biological warfare, either by itself or as a post-nuclear adjunct. Governments are certainly preparing for biowar, although none discuss it. Global casualties might run 50-90%. Cyber warfare would also be part of the package. And since the world now runs on computers, WW III would be a real dog’s breakfast.
Apart from that, if the US engages in a real war—not just the nasty little sport wars it’s fought since WW II—it will definitely lose its place in the world pecking order. We’ll fall down several rungs, as did Europe after destroying itself in World Wars I and II. Countries that remain relatively unaffected by the war, basically those in South America and parts of Asia, would become the new world leaders.
The war would be even worse for Russia since it would invite invasion by China, which logically would take over most of Siberia. It would be catastrophically bad for the US, Russia, and Europe. Because of the inevitable biological and cyber aspects, an all-out global thermonuclear war could be even worse than it might’ve been if the war had occurred a couple of generations ago, with only megaton city-busters.
Is a limited nuclear war even possible, or will the use of nuclear weapons inevitably escalate?
If the US and NATO keep provoking the Russians, as they’re doing now, there may well be local strikes in the Ukraine against mainly military targets. It could stop there. Maybe… At that point, the West might see that the Russians really are serious and that it’s a bad idea to prod the bear into a corner.
With any luck, the war would stop before the obliteration of cities and would be limited to military targets. But we’re dealing with psychologically unstable narcissists, especially in the Western countries. It’s, therefore, unpredictable. War has always been the most unpredictable of human activities. The four horsemen of the apocalypse are stalking humanity in earnest.
International Man: Given the rising tensions, how can individuals safeguard themselves against the literal and metaphorical fallout of a potential nuclear conflict?
Doug Casey: Well, very clearly, the safest place to be is the Southern Hemisphere. Number one, there are very few nuclear targets in the Southern Hemisphere.
And number two, global weather systems somewhat insulate the Southern Hemisphere. A prudent American, if he can afford it, should have a second home in South America or the South Pacific. And, yes, I realize that’s not practical for most people. There will be no winners, and relatively few survivors, if our beloved leaders start WW III.
Now for a few wry understatements; this is no time to lose our sense of humor. Depending on its extent, WW III would be bad for stocks. Very bad for currencies. And catastrophic for bonds. Depending on numerous factors, you might have trouble maintaining title to your real estate. But talking about investments is rather academic. Most of our concerns would be more… immediate.
Should they start WW III, the best assets would be a safe location, all manner of prepper stuff, gold, and perhaps Bitcoin. The world will always need money, and those are best monies in today’s world.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
About the author
