Ted Postol, ehemaliger Berater des US-"Verteidigungs"-ministers,
hat schon vor Jahren vor US-Kriegsplänen gewarnt, "konventionellen" Krieg mit Atomwaffen zu führen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pXPgK9Pld8&t=91m25s
Um einen "postwar world order compatible with Western values" herbeizubomben, würden die US-Warlords auf den Knopf drücken. Die NATO-Expansion und -Aufrüstung(u.a. auch der illegalen Atomwaffen in der BRD) dient wie das ABM-System(RAND: "not simply a shield but an enabler of U.S. action") der Vorbereitung eines nuklearen Erstschlags gegen Russland. Die Zahl der toten Nicht-US-Amerikaner spielen bei den US-Kriegsplänen keinerlei Rolle. In den 80ern haben sich die europäischen US-Vasallen noch daran gestört. Heutzutage offenbar nicht mehr.
"Victory is Possible
by Colin S. Gray and Keith Payne
...
If American nuclear power is to support U.S. foreign policy objectives, the United States must possess the ability to wage nuclear war rationally.
...
Surely no one can be comfortable with the claim that a strategy that would kill millions of Soviet citizens and would invite a strategic response that could kill tens of millions of U.S. citizens would be politically and morally acceptable. However, it is worth recalling the six guidelines for the use of force provided by the "just war" doctrine of the Catholic Church: Force can be used in a just cause; with a right intent; with a reasonable chance of success; in order that, if successful, its use offers a better future than would have been the case had it not been employed; to a degree proportional to the goals sought, or to the evil combated; and with the determination to sparre noncombatants, when there is a reasonable chance of doing so.
...
Small, preplanned strikes can only be of use if the United States enjoys strategic superiority -- the ability to wage a nuclear war at any level of violence with a reasonable prospect of defeating the Soviet Union and of recovering sufficiently to insure a satisfactory postwar world order.
...
The United States should plan to defeat the Soviet Union and to do so at a cost that would not prohibit U.S. recovery. Washington should identify war aims that in the last resort would contemplate the destruction of Soviet political authority and the emergence of a postwar world order compatible with Western values.
...
Strategists cannot offer painless conflicts or guarantee that their preferred posture and doctrine promise a greatly superior deterrence posture to current American schemes. But, they can claim that an intelligent U.S. offensive strategy, wedded to homeland defenses, should reduce U.S. casualties to approximately 20 million, which should render U.S. strategic threats more credible. If the United States developed the targeting plans and procured the weapons necessary to hold the Soviet political, bureaurcratic, and military leadership at risk, that should serve as the functional equivalent in Soviet perspective of the assured-destruction effect of the late 1960s."
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/articles/80-summer-payne.html
http://www.heise.de/forum/p-28530638/
"The quasi-governmental Rand corporation describes BMD as "not simply a shield but an enabler of U.S. action."
In journals across the political spectrum, military analysts write approvingly of BMD. In the conservative National Interest, Andrew Bacevich writes, "Missile defense isn't really meant to protect America. It's a tool for global dominance." To Lawrence Kaplan in the liberal New Republic, BMD is "about preserving America's ability to wield power abroad. It's not about defense. It's about offense. And that's exactly why we need it.""
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/2008080102.htm
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP181/index2.html
"The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy
...
If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left."
http://web.archive.org/web/20060406055430/http://www.foreignaffairs.o
rg/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-n
uclear-primacy.html?mode=print
"Putin: US / NATO is irreversibly pushing the world towards nuclear war"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PgSX-WD96Q
"Stationierung neuer US-Atomwaffen in Deutschland"
http://web.archive.org/web/20150923231123/http://www.zdf.de/frontal-21/stationierung-neuer-us-atomwaffen-in-deutschland-russland-beklagt-verletzung-des-atomwaffensperrvertrages-40197860.html
“We Could Lose Two Hundred Million People [in a Nuclear War] and Still Have More Than We Had at the Time of the Civil War”
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb580-JCS-chairmans-diary-from-1971-reveals-high-level-deliberations/
Erstschlagsplan SIOP-3:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070401081613/http://www.nd.edu/~klieber/
Foreign%20Affairs%20article%20documents/2005_SIOP-3.pdf