I suspect a lot of you might prefer that I posted on research related to the political assassinations of the 1960’s – especially that of JFK. Certainly it’s a subject that still involved with – even doing new research as the opportunity presents. I will post on some of that following the Dallas conference. But I have to say, the ongoing studies that led me first into deniable and covert warfare and larger questions of warnings intelligence, national command authority and military confrontations tend to hold my attention these days. That’s because after researching some 60 years of those activities, it’s clear there are lessons that are not being learned from even our most recent history.
Surprise Attack examines the Cold War in considerable detail but more than that, it looks at how domestic politics and political campaigns are far more important – and potentially dangerous  – in bringing about strategic confrontation than we acknowledge. As an example, Nixon’s campaign promises on Vietnam let him into an extremely dangerous gambit, secretly threatening nuclear warfare to force a conclusion. These days that is known as the Nixon/Kissinger “madman” strategy. Less discussed is that Ronald Reagan’s aggressive campaigning and remarks about a Soviet “evil empire” were translated either with his knowledge (or as it increasingly seems, without) into a series of military actions which we now know almost drove the Soviets into a panicked, preemptive nuclear strike. In examining Soviet correspondence now available, they quite openly stated that they did not understand if comments made during Reagans election campaign were for political effect, or deadly serious.

With the end of the Soviet regime and the Cold War, we might have thought such a political risk had ended. Unfortunately the same political tactics that can win elections and garner public support are now being used in the Russian Federation – and its working. Actually it’s amazing how frequently Mr. Putin has been threatening (with measures beyond those of the Cold War) and invoking the nuclear card. I explore that in the last chapter of Surprise Attack; I think most have failed to follow the news of some of the most outrageous Russia threats. And it continues. This week a Russian media broadcast included a remotely guided submarine weapon capable of creating “wide areas of radioactive contamination, rendering them unusable for military, economic or other activity for a long time”. The weapon is in the continental destruction class of cobalt enhanced nuclear devices – something not even discussed since around 1960.

Later Russian remarks that the broadcast was a mistake are nonsense, the Russian military does not make that sort of mistake with the media, never has. The fundamental problem is that Putin is very successfully reviving an assertive strategic military projection and with it elements of the MAD man strategy. It is a tool that seems to be working extremely well for him and his domestic popularity. However it is a tactic that brings back the very worst elements of the Cold War – and as usual, is fueling American politics and the positions taken in current presidential debates.
So, you might want to set your calendar back to 1970, or 1980 …just to be current.


About Larry Hancock

Larry Hancock is a leading historian-researcher in the JFK assassination. Co-author with Connie Kritzberg of November Patriots and author of the 2003 research analysis publication titled also Someone Would Have Talked. In addition, Hancock has published several document collections addressing the 112th Army Intelligence Group, John Martino, and Richard Case Nagell. In 2000, Hancock received the prestigious Mary Ferrell New Frontier Award for the contribution of new evidence in the Kennedy assassination case. In 2001, he was also awarded the Mary Ferrell Legacy Award for his contributions of documents released under the JFK Act.

4 responses »

  1. Carter Dary says:

    Hi Larry,

    I suspect the Soviets realized Reagan was a near moron. However, his xenophobia was terrifying to the sane leadership of the Soviets. Should have been for Americans, but as usual, most people thought he was a “cowboy” savior—too illiterate to know. Just my opinion of course.


    • Hi Carter, well the Russians have always been very pragmatic. Since we can now see a good deal of their internal communications we know that at first they simply regarded him as a politician, saying assertive and aggressive things to get elected. But after his election, certain of his ongoing comments led them to believe that he really was an ideologue – and serious. Over the next few years, a series of American military activities – some of which Reagan himself appears to not to have known about but all of which followed the “tone” he was projecting began to seriously frighten the Soviet leadership. In fact they did not question his intelligence, they were afraid he had actually become mentally unbalanced or unstable. The really scary point is that we know from Reagan’s own diaries that he could not believe the Soviets would consider him a real threat. Its all a pretty nasty story and truly did take us – well actually the Soviets – to the brink during a series of military exercises in Europe. It may have been the Navy’s air runs over Soviet naval groups that really started it all – and of course just this month a Soviet long range nuclear capable bomber did a low level overflight over one of our carriers…..personally I have the same concerns about Putin that the Soviets had about Reagan.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Just keep after both
    Both are of extreme importance and you have much to contribute

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s