 Let's be clear. If World War II happens, it will be the result of choices made by the U.S. Empire. The commander of the U.S. nuclear arsenal has stated unequivocally that the war in Ukraine is just a warm-up exercise for a much larger conflict that's already in the mail. Anti-war's Dave DeKamp reports, quote, The commander that oversees U.S. nuclear forces delivered an ominous warning at a naval conference last week by calling the war in Ukraine a warm-up for the big one that is to come. This Ukraine crisis that we're in right now, this is just the warm-up, said Navy Admiral Charles Richard, the commander of U.S. strategic command. The big one is coming, and it isn't going to be very long before we're going to get tested in ways we haven't been tested in a long time. Richard's warning came after the U.S. released its nuclear posture review, which reaffirms that the U.S. doctrine allows for the use of the first use of nuclear weapons. The review says that the purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter strategic attacks, assure allies and partners, and achieve U.S. objectives if deterrence fails, end quote. Not only does Richard appear to believe that a hot war between major world powers is a foregone conclusion, he has also previously stated that a nuclear war with Russia or China is now a very real possibility. Again, this is not some armchair warrior opining from his desk at a corporate newspaper or DC think tank. This is the head of Stratcom. Richard would be personally overseeing the very warfare he is talking about. What I find most striking about remarks like these is how passive they always make it sound. Richard talks about the big one, like other people talk about California earthquakes, as though a hot war with China would be some kind of natural disaster that just happened out of nowhere. This type of rhetoric is becoming more and more common, describing an atomic age world war as something that would happen to the U.S. empire, rather than the direct result of concrete A or B decisions made by the empire, is becoming its own genre of foreign policy punditry. This passive oopsie poopsie narrative overlay that's placed atop the U.S. empire's militarism is nothing new. Back in 2017, fair.org's Adam Johnson documented the way Western media are always describing the United States as stumbling into wars and getting sucked into military interventions, like a cheating spouse making up bad excuses after getting caught. This framing serves to flatter two sensibilities, one right and one vaguely left. It satisfies the right-wing nationalist idea that America only goes to war because it's compelled to by forces outside its own control, the reluctant warrior, the gentle giant who will only attack when provoked to do so. But it also plays to a nominally liberal hipster notion that the U.S. military is actually incompetent and boobish and is generally bad at war-making. This is expressed most clearly in the idea that the U.S. is drawn into war despite its otherwise unwar-like intentions. Will the U.S. be drawn further into Syrian civil war? asks Fox News in 2017, April. How America could stumble into war with Iran, disclosed the Atlantic in February 2017. What it would take to pull the U.S. into a war in Asia, speculated Quartz, April 2017. Trump could easily get us sucked into Afghanistan again, Slate predicted in May of 2017. The U.S. is stumbling into a wider war in Syria, the New York Times editorial board in May 2015 warned. A flexing contest in Syria may trap the U.S. in an endless conflict, Vice News in June of 2017 added. So let's get real clear about this here and now. If there is a hot war between the U.S. and a major power, it will not be because that war was stumbled into. It will not be like an earthquake or other natural disaster. It will not be something that happens to or is inflicted upon the U.S. empire while it just passively stands there in Bambiite innocence. It will be the result of specific choices made by the managers of empire. It will be the result of the U.S. choosing escalation over de-escalation, brinkmanship over détente, not just once but over and over again, while declining off-ramp after off-ramp. It will be the result of real material decisions made by real people who live in real houses while collecting real material paychecks to make the choices they are making. Another thing that strikes me about comments like those made by Charles Richard is how freakish and insane it is that everyone doesn't respond to them with okay well then let's change all the things we are doing because that's the worst thing that can possibly happen. And make no mistake that absolutely is an option. The option to turn away from the collision course with potentially the most horrific war of all time is available right now and it will remain available for some time into the future. This isn't 1939 when war is already upon us. If anything it's more like the early 20th century precursors to World War One and all the stupid aggressions and entanglements which ultimately gave rise to both World Wars. One of the many ways our cultural fascination with World War Two has made us stupid and crazy is that it has caused us to forget that it was the single worst event in human history. Even if a hot war with Russia and or China didn't go nuclear it would still unleash unspeakable horrors upon this earth which would reverberate throughout our collective consciousness for generations. That horror should be turned away from and the time to start turning is now.