I know that after the close call false alarm scenarios which have happened recently, there has been a lot of conspiracy theory chatter about how our military engaged in intercepting a missile from some a submarine piloted by some unknown country.

The social media conspiracy theorists are trying their best to convince everyone that the missile story is true. If you want to seize the opportunity, theories range from six missiles incoming shot down by either our military or the French. I have read they were launched by some unknown rogue cabal; intercepted by the Chinese or by some other battery and I have yet to figure out the sources. While I don’t dismiss the possibility of anything, I am waiting for anything credible to convince me that there was any sort of launched missile intercepted by our military.

However, as I was doing a follow up report for a future show, something caught my eye and I decided that I couldn’t ignore it.

We know that with the end of the Cold War, public concern about the threat of nuclear war and the dangers of nuclear weapons had waned. What is most disconcerting is that after the false alarm in Hawaii –American citizens realized just how vulnerable they were and just how unprepared they were for any kind of attack nuclear or otherwise. The only thing that the citizens of Hawaii could do is just crawl in a hole and hope for the best.

A 1998 study estimated that a limited accidental attack on the US, involving 64 warheads on a single Russian Delta IV submarine, could cause 6,838,000 prompt fatalities.

With this in mind, it is difficult to try to encourage people to pick up on survival skills when they have already decided that any nuclear exchange would be the end of life everywhere.

That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but is still a problem for anyone to wrap their head around the probability of a nuclear threat, the psychological toll it takes on the mind and then experiencing the eventual targeting and launching of a missile that could annihilate an area and make it an unlivable place for several years.

They say that a nuclear exchange is survivable, but then would you really want to survive?

In the nuclear information war, we all lose by definition. Many of us have all accepted our roles in the information war and those roles are usually reduced to passive absorption of whatever is reported and no real motivation to seek out more information about a certain topic that should be a concern for you, your family and your community.

Those who have researched vital information for the public are usually tuned out because it tends to be uncomfortable to learn that you have been lied to. It is also uncomfortable to realize that without equally balanced information – the general consensus are willing to accept media information as unquestionable reality.

This is where we lose in the long-term.

What is more alarming is the information I discovered about our future and how the War Pigs are developing their own Combat Swinetology which includes the idea of the Pentagon acquiring smaller nukes and using them much more often.

Think about it – smaller nukes mean that the war pigs will be able to justify using them a lot more often on countries that have no chance of fighting back.

We also know that this philosophy will definitely put a nuclear target on our backs and make life a bit more dangerous.

What is worse is that The Pentagon is now scrambling to find excuses to conduct first strikes.

This includes cyberattacks. They are hyping up the threat of major cyberattacks that might conceivably put lives at risk.

Recently leaked Pentagon documents that have been featured in the Huffington Post and New York Times are now indicating that The Pentagon believes the use of nuclear first strikes against cyberattacks is the only realistic option.

The “massive cyberattack” narrative is built around the assumption that a particularly severe hack could conceivably knock out a good portion of the US electricity grid, a major cell phone network, or even some of the Internet’s backbone.

Obviously no such hacks have ever happened, but officials have been eager to play them up as a possibility, both as a way to justify more spending on cyber-warfare, and to hype threats posed by whatever enemy they choose to hype.

Here is another problem – the U.S. assignments of blame in cyberattacks are rarely grounded in evidence or reality, but rather, they blame whoever is politically expedient at the time, whether it’s Russia, China, or North Korea. Such reckless blame is relatively consequence-free when the U.S. just responds with angry threats, but nuclear strikes could quickly start massive, civilization ending nuclear warfare.

As I have said many times on this show, that everything seems to be writing itself.

There is a lot of chat and murmuring about some sort of nuclear threat looming and now it seems it has come from an unlikely source.

Our own Pentagon!

The Trump Administration has spent its entire time in power easing restrictions on the military, and giving commanders more and more leeway on their operations. It might not be such a surprise for that to spill over into nuclear weapon policy.

We need to take a pause for a moment and ask some serious questions about these trigger happy first strikes based solely on cyberattacks.

Why would the U.S. want to propose a tactical nuclear first strike in response to cyber attacks? Is a low yield nuclear attack an overreaction to cyberattack?

Which of the adversarial states would they propose using such a policy against?

We know that Russia, China, and North Korea all have nuclear weapons or capabilities, meaning a nuclear first strike may have unforeseen and catastrophic blowback potential.

Does this make a nuclear exchange more of a reality in our lifetime?

In December of last year, NATO reportedly made the decision to integrate cyber warfare into its command. We can only speculated that this is in response to Iran. They have improved their skills in effective cyberattacks against the United States, though these attacks have received little to no media hysteria compared to the attention and outrage the alleged Russiagate scandal has garnered. The Russia scandal has been the running conspiracy theory in the media and their lazy journalism and avoidance of reporting the dangers that can be had with a cyber attack is irresponsible.

The U.S. has had Iran in its crosshairs for decades, though finding a way to crack the Iranian regime to the point of no return has not proven easy. The U.S. more or less has an official regime-change policy targeting Iran, and the CIA has essentially set up an office to achieve this goal.

Just weeks ago, U.S. intelligence agencies reportedly gave the green light to Israel to assassinate General Qassem Soleimani leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Even now, the U.S. is laying the groundwork to confront Iran both in Syria and Lebanon.

Just recently we were told that there was civil upheaval in Iran.

Nearly two and a half weeks ago Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reportedly arrested for “inciting violence” as the protests against the Tehran government and skyrocketing food prices began.

Ahmadinejad, whom Iranian officials will seek to keep under house arrest with the approval of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was critical of the regime and President Hassan Rouhani.

Once again, it appears to me that an organized regime change policy similar to what we saw in Ukraine is underway. We can also speculate the U.S., the Saudis, and the Israelis are solely responsible for the anti-government protests—but of course we are always looking for the smoking gun.

Occam’s Razor will tell us a foreign conspiracy can hardly be the primary cause, although no one denies for a moment that the US and its allies would certainly like to take credit for the Iran falling apart right now.

In September of last year, Reuters reported that the Trump Administration was weighing a more aggressive strategy against Iran, including the permission to “open fire” when harassed by armed speedboats operated by the IRGC, as well as directly targeting “cyber espionage and other activity and potentially nuclear proliferation.”

Reading between the lines seems to indicate that the U.S. is certainly keeping its options open on the Iran question if regime change can’t be achieved through more covert means. While it is generally under-reported, Iran is one of the only countries successfully rattling the U.S. and its allies through cyber espionage tactics, and the U.S. is openly discussing a nuclear strike as the only “realistic” option to counter this threat.

But who wants to support that kind of future or even try to write that black page of history in the aftermath of our first strike over a cyberattack?

We make deals with our conscience to accept different views of history based on our bias, and of course, politics skew pour thoughts even more.

But will it all be an accidental mishap of an itchy trigger finger, or will it be a planned attack to make an excuse for an all out war where we can use our smaller nukes more often?

We either believe in the catastrophic or accidental view of history or we choose the other view which is the conspiratorial view of history. The deal is that we have to decide how things truly are in the world and make decisions on what resonates with our conscience.

The average American sees sudden, unexpected chaos, death and destruction in the world and most would immediately believe that it is just random or that there is an organized conspiracy that is busily plotting against the United States.

However, as we have seen, most of these conspiracies are against you and that most of these threats are coming from an unlikely source – our own psychotic government officials.

The people of the United States believe that they are far removed from any and all of the chaos. There are many people in the United States that believe that when death comes knocking on the door of foreign countries it is our duty to try and find away to discourage it from spreading and usually the solution is to spread our own method of death.

Now it is smaller nukes used more often – a proposal; that again, simply will insure that this country is doomed to its own destruction.