At precisely the same moment that LaRouchePAC was besieging Washington, DC, and congressional staffs this past Wednesday with Lyndon LaRouche's warning of imminent thermonuclear war if Obama is renominated, Harvard's Graham Allison, known for his book and other studies on the Cuba Missile Crisis of 1962, was similarly fighting to awaken US and British leaders to that dire reality with a dramatic op-ed in London's Financial Times titled, "Thucydides' Trap has been Sprung in the Pacific," datelined August 21.
"Classical Athens was the centre of civilisation. Philosophy, history, drama, architecture, democracy—all beyond anything previously imagined," he wrote. "This dramatic rise shocked Sparta, the established land power on the Peloponnese. Fear compelled its leaders to respond. Threat and counter-threat produced competition, then confrontation and finally conflict. At the end of 30 years of war, both states had been destroyed."
"Now, it will take 5 minutes," Lyndon LaRouche interjected.
"Thucydides wrote of these events:" Allison continued: "'It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this inspired in Sparta that made war inevitable.' Note the two crucial variables: rise and fear."...
JCS Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has used the same quote many times to comparable effect.
Turning to China, Allison wrote, "Never has a nation moved so far, so fast, up the international rankings on all dimensions of power. In a generation, a state whose gross domestic product was smaller than Spain's has become the second-largest economy in the world.
"If we were betting on the basis of history, the answer to the question about Thucydides' trap appears obvious. In 11 of 15 cases since 1500 where a rising power emerged to challenge a ruling power, war occurred. Think about Germany after unification as it overtook Britain as Europe's largest economy. In 1914 and in 1939, its aggression and the UK's response produced world wars."...
(Some of Allison's historiography is of the Brand-X, untrue variety, like his reference to 1914, but what he is fighting to achieve outweighs those errors.)
He ends his dramatic warning with a call to arms, so to speak: "To recognise powerful structural factors is not to argue that leaders are prisoners of the iron laws of history. It is rather to help us appreciate the magnitude of the challenge. If leaders in China and the US perform no better than their predecessors in classical Greece, or Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, historians of the 21st century ('If there are any,' LaRouche interjected) will cite Thucydides in explaining the catastrophe that follows. The fact that war would be devastating for both nations is relevant but not decisive. Recall the first world war, in which all the combatants lost what they treasured most."
As you will learn, Allison's outspoken warning that Obama is bringing us straight into a thermonuclear war, is by no means limited to the Pacific,— nor is it limited to him. Over the past ten days, a broad array of America's foremost civilian experts have joined Lyndon LaRouche and our JCS led by General Dempsey, in ringing this alarm bell,— and not one moment too soon.
Graham Allison also chaired a study group of the State Department's independent International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) which published the report "Mutual Assured Stability: Essential Components and Near-Term Actions" on August 14 on the State Department's website. This report nowhere mentions China by name,— rather, its objective is to avoid the coming thermonuclear war with Russia, and establish a regime of long-term war avoidance largely by actions aimed at what the late Edward Teller called "the common aims of mankind,"— and then to expand that cooperation with Russia to include all other possible nations.
The members of Allison's study group included the top expert Joseph Cirincione along with five others. ISAB itself is chaired by former Defense Secretary William Perry, and includes Ambassador Robert Gallucci and Gen. (ret) Brent Scowcroft along with many other experts.
A basic recommendation is that, "Neither side bases decisions on nuclear force structure, posture, or doctrine on an assumption that the other is an adversary or likely to engage in nuclear conflict."
The report's recommendations highlight that, "the United States and Russia join together around the values, norms and motives they share, commit to reducing the global nuclear threat, and agree to influence others to share their views." That call to "join together around the values, norms and motives they share," is repeated again and again throughout the report, referencing not only the US and Russia, but all other nations, as the US and Russia encourage them to join with them this collaboration.
"A critical aspect of greater strategic stability requires both the United States and Russia to recognize that the dire consequences of nuclear conflict between them would be disproportionate to the scale of any plausible bilateral disputes they may have with each other. It should be recognized that both U.S. conceptual thinking on mutual assured stability as well as the U.S. dialogue with Russia must create more clarity on these issues." This "clarity" of course requires getting rid of Barack Obama.
They recommend "the United States and Russia collaborate on a full range of public health issues of mutual interest: stopping drug trafficking (particularly from Afghanistan to Russia), infectious disease prevention, promotion of healthy lifestyles and decreased drug abuse, affordable health care delivery, and other areas as identified."
For whatever reasons, the report never mentions any current issues such as Syria or Iran, or the insane war provocation constituted by the US unilateral European ABM system being built around Russia's borders. Instead, its authors try to flank that latter issue with some alternatives of their own, which necessarily base themselves on LaRouche's Strategic Defense Initiative of 1977 and subsequent years.
First, to "Conduct a joint U.S.-Russia review of the requirements for national and multilateral missile defense in the coming years as missile technology continues to spread, with the goal of achieving a shared understanding of each nations requirements for effective missile defense."
Then, more ambitiously, "Develop agreements on sharing early warning data with Russia and using satellites to jointly monitor ballistic missile launches."
Much more could be said on this report, but we should note here the remarks of Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), by far the most resolute opponent of Obama's illegal Libya war, on returning from Moscow August 23. Lugar very clearly explained to hostile interviewer Andrea Mitchell, that along with his Nunn-Lugar nuclear-disarmament initiative, his mission to Moscow had included a proposal to the Russian government for a cooperative, bilateral US-Russian approach to Syria's chemical weapons in case the Syrian government should fall. Now these weapons themselves are largely if not wholly a manufactured issue, but the importance was that Lugar explained that where Obama had vowed unilateral action, he, Lugar, was proposing bilateral cooperation.
Indeed, look back now at Obama's unexpected appearance at Monday's (August 20) White House news conference, whose purpose was ostensibly to threaten US military action against Syria on the pretext of "chemical weapons." Lyndon LaRouche has explained that that performance was not directed at Russia or Syria; it was a threat against Americans. Why did Obama suddenly have to threaten his American opponents. Why? Because "you are not alone," as one foreign observer told us on August 23. There is broad agreement on LaRouche's assessment among those whose opinion is at all worth listening to in these matters.
All the real experts now know that LaRouche is right: Obama's renomination, even more so his election, is a threat to the existence of the human race.
What's needed now is action.