Hotheads Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - - to open the entire Hotheads website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein


The advice of Jesus Christ to always turn the other cheek when being assaulted is a pile of utter claptrap. The one thing that is almost guaranteed in a conflict is that if somebody shows weakness when assaulted, this will merely encourage the aggressor to do more damage. The only way to deal with aggressors and bullies is to never show weakness and if actually attacked, to always strike the aggressor in such a way that he will be too scared or too damaged to ever attack again. Of course the ability to defend oneself against an aggressor in such a way is to have a deterrent that is capable of inflicting unacceptable losses to that aggressor.

So whether it is a person or an entire nation that is threatened, the only way to deter attack is to have something that will make an aggressor too scared to attack. In the case of individuals, weapons or an expertise in martial arts will deter an aggressor or defeat him if he decides to attack anyway. In the case of a nation, the possession of powerful military weapons and ultimately Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and the ability to inflict them upon an aggressor nation will make it a far too expensive proposition for that aggressor nation to attack a less powerful country.


It is interesting to note that the one predominant nation that constantly insists on disarmament and the eradication of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons by all other nations is the United States of America, the most powerful nation in the world, with the largest military force and the largest stockpiles of such WMD.

On the face of it, global disarmament sounds reasonable if all nations actually worked to accomplish this, however the USA constantly insists and belligerently demands that other nations disarm while the Americans retain and even enhance and refine their WMD. This is not just amazingly hypocritical, but is actually a carefully contrived strategy to allow the USA to remain the most powerful military nation in the world and continue to maintain global dominance by the threat and occasionally the application of brute force against other nations.


History shows that since World War Two, the USA has expanded its forces around the world, stationing its military assets on more than 820 bases in 140 nations. Why does the USA need to have its military forces in so many countries? Here is a partial, but by no means comprehensive list of nations where US forces and assets were, or still are permanently stationed on non-US soil.

Why does the USA have over 840 military bases in 150 nations? WHY???

Virtually no other nation has military bases outside its own sovereign territory, but the Americans have devastating firepower stationed all over the globe, even in parts of the world that would seemingly be of absolutely no interest and no threat to the USA. And not just on foreign territory, but with aircraft carrier fleets and nuclear submarines marauding all over the world. Why? There is only one reason for this - global dominance and the enforcement of economic objectives by military coercion.

However, it is a one-way street with the Americans in this regard, because they refuse to allow any other nation to establish a base on US territory. This was highlighted in 2009 when the American lease on the Manta Air Base in Ecuador came up for renewal. Ecuador's President Rafael Correa stated that he would be happy to renew the lease and continue to have US forces stationed in Ecuador, provided that the USA would allow Ecuador to set up a military base in Miami Florida.

Correa stated, "We'll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami - an Ecuadorean base. If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States."

Of course the Americans refused point-blank to even countenance any foreign troops on US soil, so Correa quite rightly kicked them out of Ecuador. But this incident merely proves that the USA desires to reach its tentacles across the globe and establish military bases that can intimidate whole regions, while never ever contemplating that another nation should be entitled to do the same. This is why the despicable Monroe Doctrine was promulgated and why the Americans have been so belligerent towards Cuba, a nation less than 150 kilometres from Florida, but which has not been in their pockets.


In the USA's many military actions against other nations, including the attacks against Libya in March 2011, the most important thing is the lesson that the USA is teaching the governments of nations that are smart enough to take heed. That lesson is that no matter the inducements, no matter the threats and no matter the pressure, no nation should EVER give up chemical or biological weapons or a nuclear weapons program or indeed any other credible way of dissuading anybody from attacking that nation.

Giving up deterrents such as WMD will not ensure that the USA will not attack your nation.
On the contrary, it will make an attack by the Americans more likely.

History clearly shows that if the Americans want something that a nation possesses, or something the Americans want that nation to do, one day that nation will become a target for the USA's military aggression. The Americans are renowned for breaking every promise, every treaty and every international law and have often attacked other nations, either clandestinely or overtly, when it suited their interests.


Since 1945, the USA actually made physical war on the following nations:

  1. Not one of those nations was any sort of threat to the USA.
  2. Not one of those nations attacked the USA.
  3. Not one of those nations possessed WMD.

The sole reason that the Americans launched wars against those nations was simply because they knew that not one of them possessed any meaningful deterrence to an American attack. Amazingly, the Americans were brought to an embarrassing standstill by the North Koreans and their Chinese friends, thrashed comprehensively by the Vietnamese and then bogged down in two unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In fact the Americans withdrew completely from Iraq with their tails between their legs after the puppet Iraqi government that they installed refused to give indemnity against prosecution to US forces personnel. This meant that if any US troops committed crimes on Iraqi soil, they would be arrested and tried by Iraqi courts. The USA demands such immunity from nations that host US bases, so the quickest way to get the Americans to get out of those nations is to rescind such immunity completely.

But there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if any of those nations attacked by the USA had possessed chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, they would never have been attacked in the first place. This is the reason why the Americans are too scared to launch any military action against North Korea, simply because that nation is armed with nuclear weapons. It is also the reason why the USA is working so hard to convince the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear weapons program, not because the North Koreans have any intention of attacking the USA, but simply because those North Korean nuclear weapons and missiles are the one thing stopping the USA from attacking North Korea.


The USA delivered the deterrence lesson very powerfully in 2003 by attacking Iraq, a country which had no biological or chemical weapons or nuclear weapons program after 1991. According to the CIA's 2004 WMD report, Saddam Hussein had begged the Clinton administration for better relations, promising that it would be Washington's best friend in the region, bar none. In fact, Iraq said that if it had a security relationship with the USA, it would be inclined to permanently discard even the ambition for WMD.

So what happened? The USA decided to attack and invade Iraq to annex its oil, knowing that Iraq had no WMD and thus no deterrent. The Americans had watched United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors scour Iraq for five years and examined all the reports, even from chief UNSCOM American inspector Scott Ritter, who constantly stood against US threats against Iraq and stated on many occasions that Iraq had no WMD whatsoever. So the Americans were confident that they would not suffer much damage if they made war on Iraq.


Despite all the lies emanating from the White House about WMD and then after the invasion, the change of pretext stating that this war was about bringing democracy to Iraq, the evidence that this illegal aggression was about oil came right out of the mouth of US Deputy Secretary for Defence Paul Wolfowitz. He stated publicly to reporters in June 2003 that the USA had no choice but to invade Iraq because this nation was swimming in a sea of oil. The USA certainly did have a choice and that was to refrain from making war, but the Americans knew that they would suffer minimal losses from Iraqi forces, so they connived to make war using a deliberately fabricated pretext.

US Deputy Secretary for Defence Paul Wolfowitz
"The USA had no choice but to invade Iraq because this nation was swimming in a sea of oil."

Nobody in their right minds would ever imagine the USA attacking Iraq if that nation really had possessed an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, let alone even one nuclear weapon that would lay waste to an entire American invading force. The Americans knew very well after five solid years of UNSCOM inspections that Iraq had nothing that could hurt the USA, so the Americans made war on that nation for its oil. It would have never happened if Saddam Hussein really did have WMD.


In April 2011, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor spilled the beans about why the USA was confronting Iran about its nuclear energy program. He stated that if Iran has nuclear power, it will have grave effects on world order, on balance of power and on the Middle East.

Meridor stated, "It may spell the end of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty regime, not only because Iran will be nuclear, but because other countries say they will need to be nuclear, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and others may do it. No more the responsible adults tell the kids what to do. When everybody has the bomb, you can't contain or control or interfere as America could do."

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor
"When everybody has the bomb, you can't contain or control or interfere as America could do."

Meridor's last sentence literally proves that the USA understands that when nations possess strong deterrents against attack, the USA cannot risk making war on those nations because the price would be far too high to pay. This is exactly why the USA constantly demands that other nations disarm or cease developing nuclear programs that are outside complete American control - not because the USA is afraid of being attacked, but simply because it deters the USA from attacking those nations to plunder their resources or for geopolitical dominance.


One of the best examples of the folly of disarmament is that of Libya, which possessed chemical weapons, ballistic missiles and a developing nuclear weapons program. In December 2003, Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi announced that Libya was renouncing all WMD and invited international inspectors to certify its compliance. The USA smugly declared that this demonstrated that in a world of strong non-proliferation norms, it was never too late to make the decision to become a fully compliant NPT state and that Libya would be amply rewarded.

Libya certainly received its reward in March 2011, but not in the form that it expected. The reward came in the form of hundreds of Tomahawk missiles, the imposition of a no-fly zone, aerial attacks and bombardment by the USA's puppet NATO forces on Gaddafi's forces and buildings and the ultimate downfall of the regime that so foolishly agreed to disarm. In fact on 20 October 2011, Muammar Gaddafi was killed by rebel forces in his home town of Sirte and paid the ultimate penalty for his stupidity in disarming his nation.

The USA, France and Britain would have never dared impose a no-fly zone and rain cruise missiles on Libya if that nation had a powerful military force that was armed with sophisticated aircraft, anti-aircraft missiles and other fancy weaponry that were backed up by chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that could be fired at American, British and French vessels in the Mediterranean Sea and even reach Europe and kill hundreds of thousands of their people.

Libya would not have been attacked if it still had those ballistic missiles and even just one nuclear warhead because even a suicidal response by Libya in using that nuclear weapon would have caused those attackers far too high a price than they would expect to pay for their actions. Just one Libyan nuclear weapon would obliterate most of London or Paris and if it was fired at the US Navy base at Manama in Bahrain, it would destroy most of the US Fifth Fleet and kill every American there. The Americans would never invite such a response if they attacked Libya that was armed with such a deterrent.


Various commentators have reported that the US attack on Libya has really driven the message home to many nations that Gaddafi was a stupid fool to have relinquished his WMD and his nuclear program in exchange for the hollow and worthless promises of the Americans. If Libya had developed those weapons, the Americans and their allies would not have been able to intervene in that nation or attack it with impunity.

Iran seems to have already learned the lesson by completely refusing to countenance any curtailing of its nuclear, ballistic missile and sophisticated armaments program, even under extreme pressure and threats by the USA and despite the massive political and financial sanctions imposed on the USA's behalf by a compliant UN.

In fact in August 2011 at a ceremony in Tehran that unveiled Iran's new cruise missile and a new Iranian-made torpedo, former President Ahmedinejad stated, "The best deterrence is that the enemy does not dare to invade." Iran began a military self-sufficiency program in 1992, under which it produces a large range of weapons, including tanks, missiles, jet fighters, unmanned drone aircraft and torpedoes, reducing or eliminating its reliance on foreign-made arms. Obviously after the USA placed an embargo over aircraft parts, even for civilian airliners, Iran has learned the lesson of not trusting any other nation.

Former President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran
"The best deterrence is that the enemy does not dare to invade."

After the air attacks by Western powers on Gaddafi's military forces, Iran was unlikely to negotiate any further over its disputed atomic activities. Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that the airstrikes proved that Iran was correct in continuing its nuclear efforts. While Libya surrendered its atomic assets in exchange for worthless and hollow promises from the USA and was then attacked by the American-controlled NATO, Iran not only did not retreat but increased its nuclear facilities year after year.

This is why the Americans have been blustering for years about attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, but have not dared to do so, because Iran has enough sophisticated armaments to really hurt them, as well as cause havoc to world oil trade by stopping the movement of oil in the Persian Gulf.

Analytical comments from experts reinforce this view:

So the US military actions against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have really driven the message home that if a nation has a credible deterrent in the form of WMD, especially nuclear weapons, it is almost certain that the Americans or their proxies will not dare to attack it. Iran's leaders have made public statements about this, but many other nations have remained silent, but are probably organising their own development of deterrents against attack against any aggressor, not just the USA.


Every government in the world, including Iran, has different factions with different views of the best strategy to deal with the world. Whether or not Iran has an active nuclear weapons program, it is sure that the Iranian faction that wants nuclear weapons has been tremendously strengthened by the USA's attack on Libya. Studying the history of aggression by the USA, Iran would do well to immediately withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, kick out all IAEA inspectors and start building as many nuclear weapons as possible in the shortest space of time.

Something similar has surely occurred inside the North Korean government. After the USA's attack on Libya, the regime would have been made to realise that the only reason that the USA has not attacked and invaded North Korea is because that nation possessed a credible deterrent that could vaporise the entire US Seventh Fleet in the blink of an eye. This was confirmed by the Vice-president Dick Cheney, the architect of the Iraq war. He was asked if he would support the use of military action to disarm North Korea. His answer was simply a startling "No". Cheney was then asked why then he supported the use of military action against Iraq. Cheney replied: "because Iraq was do-able".

So according to Cheney, an attack on Iraq was "do-able" but an attack on North Korea was not "do-able". Why? The answer is that North Korea has "The Bomb". Of course nuclear-armed China would not tolerate an American attack on North Korea and would teach the USA another very bloody lesson, as it did in 1950 to 1953. Of course the USA will not do anything to seriously annoy China, simply because that nation is the USA's biggest creditor and largest economic market and product supplier.


Various US administrations constantly demand that the USA's enemies must disarm because they threaten the lives of American citizens. This is sheer nonsense. The USA does not oppose countries like Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Iran having WMD because the USA is scared that they are going to attack Americans with them. The Americans are confident in knowing that if any nations actually attack the USA, the Americans will obliterate them with their massive firepower.

Not only that, the Americans have not just threatened the lives of people of other nations, they have actually killed literally millions of people in their illegal wars and covert operations. At least two million Vietnamese were killed because of the illegal Vietnam War by the USA. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed by the Americans in their illegal Iraq War. In fact, hard statistics show that since World War Two, the USA has been directly responsible for the deaths of 6 million people or more.

The sober truth is that the lives of American citizens are not at risk from any other nation, but every nation that is stupid enough to kowtow to American demands for disarmament risks the lives of its citizens. But The real and very obvious reason that the Americans oppose other nations having WMD is because that would allow those nations to deter the USA from attacking them in the first place for whatever reason, including attempting to steal their mineral resources, as was seen in the Iraq War.

For instance, former US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld let the real truth slip out in a memo in January 2001.

With those statements, Rumsfeld admitted that the USA understood that nations that were under threat from the USA knew that the only deterrence against American aggression was to have weapons of mass destruction and asymmetric strategies that would make it far too costly in American military hardware and American lives for the USA to ever attack them.

Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission and author of the 2002 National Security Strategy, made a speech in September 2002 about the threat posed by Iraq, which in reality was no threat at all, because by then, Iraq had no WMD whatsoever and that was verified by UNSCOM inspections for five years. Zelikow knew that even if Iraq had WMD, it could not harm the USA mainland itself, but this would make it possible for Iraq or its supporters to deter American and Israeli attacks.

This point was made many times in "Rebuilding America's Defences," the infamous paper from Project for a New American Century.

In 2008, former senators Daniel Coats and Chuck Robb explained the problem in the Washington Post.

Lead author of "Rebuilding America's Defences," Thomas Donnelly, a long-time member of the US foreign policy establishment now working at the American Enterprise Institute also wrote a paper called "Strategy for a Nuclear Iran".


It is most revealing and very important to note the constant use by the Americans of the word "deterrent" in this context. Nowhere do the Americans state or even imply that they are under threat from a first strike from these smaller nations. In virtually every speech, document and book, the Americans are only concerned about the ability of other nations being able to deter the USA from attacking them.

When the targets of American aggression since World War Two are examined, in every single case, those nations have had no useful deterrent to US interference and warmongering. Only those nations with WMD have deterred the Americans from attacking them, but many nations without them have fallen victim to the USA.


Looking at all the military attacks by the USA since World War Two, it is more than obvious why the Americans want all other nations to disarm. It is not because they are any sort of military threat to the USA, but because they can deter American aggression against them. What military threats to the USA were Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Panama, Libya, Grenada, Cambodia and Vietnam? With the exception of Panama and Grenada, both very tiny states with no military power whatsoever, all of those nations were on the other side of the world to the USA and posed absolutely no threat to any US territory.

But this is exactly why the USA pressed Libya to disarm when the Americans found out that Libya was planning to arm itself with nuclear weapons and a variety of missiles. Eventually Libya fell for American pressure and empty promises and very stupidly abandoned its defence plans in 2003. How could Libya become a threat to the USA, all the way on the other side of the world? This concept is utter nonsense. The Americans knew that Libya was never a threat to the USA, but Libyan WMD had a constraining effect upon US economic and military strategy for the greater Middle East and North Africa. The ploy worked and ultimately led to the overthrow and death of its leader, Muammar Gaddafi.

In the US-engineered attack on Libya in February 2011, the American NATO proxies were able to implement their strategy with far fewer worries, instead of being deterred by the knowledge that Libya was armed with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons that could be deployed with devastating effect against their attacking forces.


This is the lesson that the USA is teaching the world and every nation needs to take heed. The Americans have demonstrated that all nations that disarm under pressure from the USA are at risk of being attacked by the Americans, but nations such as North Korea and Iran that refuse to buckle under American demands for disarmament and continue to develop powerful weapons such as long-range ballistic and cruise missiles have a credible deterrent against American aggression. The Americans may bluster, threaten and impose sanctions against those two nations, but the USA just does not dare attack them.

The interesting point to note is that the Americans never demand that their allies disarm. Britain, France and Israel possess arsenals of nuclear weapons and almost certainly chemical and biological weapons too, but never a peep is uttered from the USA about those nations disarming. The Americans would love to persuade the Russians and Chinese to disarm, but of course if they tried, they would be ridiculed. Both Russia and China have observed the USA rampaging around the world attacking nations that were absolutely no threat to the Americans and they learned the folly of disarmament decades ago.

Going on the history of the USA's attacks on defenceless nations for their resources or for those often-quoted "American interests" and the admissions from people such as Donald Rumsfeld about the real motives for American insistence on disarmament, every nation needs to immediately take decisive measures to protect itself from US aggression and indeed threats of attack by any other nation.


For its own security and well-being, every nation should immediately withdraw from the NPT and arm itself with every conceivable deterrent to foreign aggression, including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Even arming every citizen is a good start. Switzerland mandates that every household must have a firearm and ammunition, which makes it almost impossible for invading ground forces to take control when there are guns pointing out of every window at them. Switzerland has not been attacked or invaded for over 400 years.

The ultimate conclusion and lesson to learn for all nations is that disarmament is not a path to safety, but the quickest route to a nation's destruction, especially if that nation is a political target of the USA or possesses something that the Americans covet, such as oil.

Every nation should heed the famous proverb of US President Theodore Roosevelt, because never a wiser word was uttered.