Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Fire Next Time, and Next Time, and Next Time 

Scott Ritter writes that

The Bush administration has come face to face with the reality of the failure of its policies. Rather than curtailing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the administration's crusade against global tyranny has served as an accelerant in placing the most dangerous weapons known to man in the hands of xenophobic regimes that have been backed into a corner…
"Freedom is on the march," Mr. Bush has said. Unfortunately for the United States, North Korea and Iran don't see it that way. And if America keeps marching, it could very well be in the direction of a nuclear apocalypse.

What a happy thought. Problem is, the administration has NOT “come face to face with the reality of the failure of its policies.” They deny that there is any reality other than what they want to see. And this is exactly what makes the doomsday clock tick. In fact, the timetable of events around 9/11 makes it clear that some of these loonies think a nuclear war is winnable, that government could continue, business could continue, in the event of nuclear war.

One loonie, Cresson H. Kearny, even has the temerity to say that

Those who hold exaggerated beliefs about the dangers from nuclear weapons must first be convinced that nuclear war would not inevitably be the end of them and everything worthwhile. Only after they have begun to question the truth of these myths do they become interested, under normal peacetime conditions, in acquiring nuclear war survival skills...

This sort of thinking has a long tradition in GOPiana. For example, Richard Pipes—a Reagan advisor—said in 1982 that, "The probability of nuclear war is 40 percent...and our strategy is winnable nuclear war." Maybe the new thinking is that the Rapture will take care of everything. One thing you can bet is that these Nixon and Reagan retreads have not changed their ideology.

Anyone who thinks “the end of the cold war” means the end of the threat of nuclear war is as delusional as the ones who think such a war is winnable, or that there are such things as “tactical nukes.” I used to think—back in the days of the test ban treaty and then the nuclear freeze movement—that no-nukes was one position everybody could agree on. But that isn’t indicated by the current silence.

The United States in 2002 had around 10,600 warheads. Nobody knows how many others there are stashed around the globe.

Where’s the outrage? I should warn everyone now that as August 6th approaches this topic will become more and more shrill, at least from my pen...

corrente SBL - New Location
~ Since April 2010 ~

~ Since 2003 ~

The Washington Chestnut
~ current ~

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]


copyright 2003-2010

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?