Showing posts with label nuclear war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear war. Show all posts

September 25, 2012

On the Precipice of War - Press Conference with Rep Walter Jones & Retired Military on HCR107



Diane V. McLoughlin, September 25, 2012:  


Please encourage everyone you know to contact their elected representatives to ask them to support H.R. 107. [Find your representative's contact information, here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find ]

According to the Constitution, only the duly elected representatives  have legal authority to green-light war. The executive branch - regardless of which political party is in power - has over time aggressively and illegally shunted the will of the People aside, to the degree that we are now at risk of nuclear war.  

The truth is heard in quiet rooms such as the one in the above video. It is unsettling how quiet and under-attended this moment captured on film with these top officials, is. 

Any president must understand that if they try to launch offensive war without the consent of the People, they will be removed from office through the legal mechanism of impeachment.  This legal fail-safe, thoughtfully built into the Constitution, may be the last frail thing that stands in the way of nuclear war. 

------------ 

A sample form letter:  

Dear Congressman _________:  

I am writing to respectfully urge you to support H. Con. Res. 107:  

'Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.'   

Congressman, I am including a link to a Youtube, wherein Rep. Walter Jones; Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan; and, Lt. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (USA Ret.) former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell (2002-05), each lay out their views as to the current state of the nation, particularly with regard to the perilous status of global political affairs:


['Press Conference with Walter Jones & Retired Military on HCR107; Sept. 21, 2012]  

We attacked Libya without authorization.  Iran (and beyond?) may be next. Please support HCR 107. 

Most respectfully, 

(your signature) __________

----------------------------------------

August 29, 2012

Romney Obama Paul The Elites Corruption And The Bomb

by Diane V. McLoughlin
main website: mcloughlinpost.com

August 29, 2012

The military-industrials sector, the political class and the banks are pulling off a neat trick - a shell game. There is little substantive difference between Romney and Obama.  

Their apologists raise the issue of Ron Paul's support for bringing back a gold-backed dollar. They say it's wacko, hoping that voters will believe them and that, as a result, voters would ignore almost every other pertinent thing. 

Every time one hears of 'economic easing' it means that, in reality, they are watering down the value of the dollar - a hidden tax on you and me. Ron Paul's idea is to prevent them from so impoverishing us. If you think about it, it's not so easy to water down gold.

Not all issues are equal, of course.  Ron Paul wanted to save us from ourselves by restoring sanity to our foreign policy. Our military 'adventurism' is often described as reckless. Thinking we can boss everybody and control all the world's riches is not sane.  
Ringing nuclear-armed Russia with missiles.  Not sane. Positioning the military for future dreams of challenging nuclear-armed China. Is that sane?  Refusing to compute that Russia and China, of necessity, are increasingly allying their interests. (One senses a trend.)

Judge not by what they say, but by what they do - the better test. What happened with the cheating throughout the Republican leadership contest, and, ultimately, against Ron Paul delegates in the end at the Republican National Congress, in Tampa, Florida - is not symptomatic of the GOP. I don't think so. It's symptomatic of the fact that we are headed straight to lawlessness, war and hell. Ron Paul wanted to stop it. Or try, anyway. All the while, he was smeared and mocked in the popular press. Meanwhile, during the 2012 Republican leadership campaign, tens of thousands in California alone turned out to hear Ron Paul share his message in a matter of days. This was the norm.









 Photos: Text, straightening horizons, tinting and light corrections by Diane V. McLoughlin. The photos are borrowed from general circulation. Happy to add attribution if you leave a request in comments.

July 27, 2012

Bankruptcy Obama War Romney Liberty Paul

Bankruptcy Obama War Romney Liberty Paul 


July 21, 2012


by Diane V. McLoughlin
main website mcloughlinpost.com


Two candidates remain in competition for leadership of the Republican Party:  former one-term governor Mitt Romney and 12-term Congressman and obstetrician, Dr. Ron Paul.  The Republican National Convention takes place this August, in Tampa, Florida.


Proxies have unleashed a barrage of attack ads in what appears to be an almost frantic attempt to magnify the minor differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney. The expense of these ad campaigns are expected to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars - a wasteful sum in these troubled economic times.   


Obama's healthcare insurance mandate forces the taxpayer to purchase private health insurance.  But private industry must seek to maximize profit while minimizing expense.  Government forcing people to purchase a privately produced product risks weakening further a system already accused of stingily doling out healthcare, with little accountability.  To be sure, there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the woeful state of healthcare in the U.S..  Everybody demands a rich cut - insurance companies, healthcare providers and drug companies - while many sick people are neglected or forced to go bankrupt.  The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who do go bankrupt due to exorbitant healthcare costs have insurance.  How the government guaranteeing insurance companies the taxpayers' business is going to help improve healthcare while controlling costs is the billion (or is it trillion?) dollar question.


'Obamacare' was modeled directly from the Massachussett healthcare model, which was rolled out during Mitt Romney's one-term as governor there.  

Both Obama and Romney support the continuance of formless, ill-defined, illegal wars. These regional pots we are stirring may represent - like a gathering storm on the horizon - a poorly organized (wildly unnecessary) yet potentially explosive World War Three. Not knowing when to quit is not new.  The difference is that, be it tribe, country or empire, nobody was armed with nuclear weapons. Nobody held the power, at the push of a button, to launch war with the potential to destroy all life on Earth. (Beware the nihilists itching to deploy nuclear bombs. )  

Both Obama and Romney support the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an odious set of new laws President Obama sanctified by signing during the Christmas holidays just past. (Irony.) The NDAA destroys all natural meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by empowering the government to kidnap and lock up anyone, including American citizens, and detain them indefinitely, in secret,  without charge or trial.

However, given that President Obama claims the executive power to order the assassination of U.S. citizens on his say-so alone, the NDAA is merely a tattered corner of the rule-of-law shredded picture.  Obama is handed the stats on individuals on cards, like baseball, only they're for intel on what suspects have done, are accused of having done, or are accused of thinking of doing.  Then the President gives a Caesar-like thumbs up or thumbs down.  Mistaken identity; falsely fingered by some guy being tortured at one of the country's many secret torture chambers around the world; well, too bad for you. There is no appeal.  You won't even know you're in the cards in the first place, most likely.

It would be wrong to suggest that President Obama is coming up with these ideas entirely on his own. It's the fact that he chooses to cooperate with what has devolved into a rotten political, bureaucratic, military, industrial system.  Barack Obama campaigned on the slogan, 'Change - Yes We Can!'  He could have.  But he hasn't and isn't.  

Mitt Romney surrounds himself with Bush Junior's neocon foreign policy advisers. His foreign policy stump speeches are so belligerent one wonders if  he's got 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' going around in his head like John McCain, before him.  All indications point in that direction.  


Mitt and Obama pass the system's muster because both are pro-war 'team players'.

As it stands, troops are being positioned in the Pacific (American; Canadian; presumably other countries, too.)  Literally hundreds of military bases (and bombs) are set up all over the planet.

The U.S. has its bloodied military fingers in so many overseas pies that it is difficult to keep them all straight, or to trust that it's possible that we can know them all given the machinations of clandestine networks such as the CIA.  The list includes Yemen; Iraq; Afghanistan; Pakistan; Libya; Syria; Palestine; Egypt; Bahrain and Iran (war ships being positioned directly off of Iran's coast now.)









The real 'prize', the goal, appears to be somehow 'controlling' Russia and China.

The closest we have come so far to nuclear war is during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The U.S. had placed nuclear weapons in Russia's backyard.  Russia retaliated by placing nuclear bombs in Cuba.  It became a dangerous nuclear stand-off.  We are again ringing Russia with missiles.  They don't like it.  It is clear that this course could lead to MADness: Mutually Assured Destruction.

Something else raises the risk of nuclear war further.  The longer nuclear weapons exist without large-scale and catastrophic use, the more complacent we become that such an eventuality could ever occur.  There was no complacency or false sense of invincibility in America during the Cuban missile crisis fiasco.  There are older apartment buildings in New York that, to this day, still have the signage posted indicating that the basements are to be used for nuclear fallout shelters. In point of fact, I and my elementary-aged school chums once howled with laughter when our teachers instructed us on how to cower beneath our desks, during a nuclear attack drill.  We could kiss our asses goodbye.

The fusing of private corporations and public governance is dangerous. It's a big part of the reason we are on the road we are on.

Ron Paul:

Ron Paul has fought corruption his entire Congressional career. Corporate lobbyists learned not to bother knocking on his door. His nickname on Capitol Hill: 'Dr. No'.




Above:  Congressman Dr. Ron Paul seated at his desk

In contrast to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Ron Paul has the backbone to say, Enough!, to the evil twins of endless war and government corruption.

The media is answerable to only a few corporate masters. If you haven't heard of presidential candidate Ron Paul, or if you have and its been to marginalize him as a goof or a bad guy there are reasons for that - none of them, I am sorry to say, are honest.

The Republican leadership contest began with a field of nine contenders.  That field is now down to two.  That is not how it has been played out in the corporate press.  

The fact that Ron Paul has qualified to compete against Mitt Romney for leadership of the Republican Party is testament to his popularity, accomplished in spite of alleged state and national Republican Party leadership cheating, vote fraud, ballot box stuffing, and physical intimidation - broken fingers; a dislocated hip - and other shady works (example, Youtube clip, 'Interview Nevada Delegate Fraud'; at 4:56mins).

Below, award-winning news anchor, Ben Swann, discusses the current situation in Massachusetts. Seventeen elected delegates have been stripped of their appointed duty to vote for the next Republican Party leader, by the Mitt Romney camp within that state's party apparatus. Legal proceedings to reverse this sham are underway:










During the Republican leadership campaign, Ron Paul has garnered far and away more donations from veterans and active-duty military than all other candidates, combined.  The following short Youtube was posted early January, 2012.  To-date, it has garnered two million-plus views.

'Ron vs. Mitt (see why so many people believe in Ron Paul)':








Army veterans are organizing to march on the convention to pay their respects with a salute to Ron Paul  - the only presidential candidate who is, himself, a veteran.  As is so often the case, the one with military experience is the one most mindful of when, and when not, to send troops into harms' way. It is Ron Paul's conviction that it is well past time to bring the troops home.  Defend the country by all means.  But it is unconstitutional, as well as dangerous, to continue to try to be the policemen of the whole world. 


The march in Tampa to salute Ron Paul will not be the first such march. A similar march was held earlier in 2012 on President's Day, to honor Dr. Paul as the choice of the troops. In addition, a dedication was conducted in front of the White House for all soldiers who have fallen in Iraq since Obama pledged to bring the troops home from there. The ceremony was held with backs symbolically turned to President Obama, because he broke his promise, with tragic consequences.

In addition to Ron Paul's support from troops, there are not one but two liberty-celebrating events being held in Tampa the weekend before the convention.  Attendees who support Ron Paul for president will be travelling in from around the country to be there and could well be counted in the tens of thousands.

All eyes are on the GOP. Ron Paul has qualified to be on the ballot in Tampa. Will the Republican Party follow the rules and register Ron Paul?  It is certain that along with the underhanded activities of some, there are Republican Party leaders who have conducted themselves with grace, dignity and honor. Time will tell.  Heads democracy wins regardless of the outcome at the convention.  Tails, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama win the White House. In that case it may well be national bankruptcy and world war.

---------------------


Notes:  In state contests where Ron Paul won the majority of delegates, the national Republican Party has indicated that the papers to register Ron Paul for the Tampa leadership convention need to be filled out and sent in.  


I will hopefully get this posted to my main website in the next day or two.


Ron Paul on the Issues ;

A Ron Paul Youtube playlist



November 08, 2011

Obama Tells Allies U.S. Will Attack Iran By Fall 2012 - click link below for quicker access

Barack Obama has told America’s allies that the United States will attack Iran before fall 2012 unless Tehran halts its nuclear program, a time frame that suggests Obama is willing to use war as a re-election campaign tool to rally the population around his leadership. Link: Obama Tells Allies U.S. Will Attack Iran By Fall 2012 EUTimes.net

August 27, 2010

Reactions to American Extremism

I don't know exactly how, but we need to stop.
They need to forgive, but I don't know how they could. 

by Diane V. McLoughlin, August 27, 2010

Writer Ross Douthat faults Americans for 'failing to recognize extremism when it’s staring them in the face...'; whenever they are, in his opinion, taken in by Islamic extremist polemicists.(1) Although there are aspects to his article where I find myself agreeing with him, when, for example, he suggests that we can't expect Muslims to behave exactly like ourselves and we should seek common ground with moderates, I think the above quote best describes most Americans about the United States itself.

When it comes to American extremism Americans don't see it, even though it is as plain as day - American Exceptionalism; American spiritual (Christian and Jewish and democratic) purity; caring, philanthropic America: this is the fiction.

Soldiers returning, some of them, come home seeing things quite differently: the reality. (1a)

If anything spurs an Islamic reactionism toward America, it has to be two things: American hypocrisy, and American terrorism.

If anything could take the gas out of the tank of Islamic reactionism it is that we stop being hypocrites and we stop terrorizing.

For individual Americans, there are acceptable excuses for not knowing or understanding America's war crimes. But Osama bin Laden didn't seem to think so, in his 2002, 'Letter to America':

'The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.' (2).

I guess nobody took the time to tell him about the Bush-Gore farce of a 2000 presidential election, or how that all turned out.

To him, in a democracy, the people choose leaders who represent their views, unlike in a dictatorship; politicians enact the will of the people in a democracy; ipso facto: all Americans are guilty.

Too simplistic. I totally disagree. In order to make good choices, you have to have information; you need to be an informed voter.

Also, stupidity is an excuse, to a degree. Stupidity has a genetic component. Half of any population has an I.Q. of 100 or less. There are all kinds of intelligence, of course: social intelligence; moral intelligence; the latter, in my view, being of far greater importance than whether or not one knows a hypotenuse from a hippopotamus.  

THE FUCKING MORONS - this is what I yelled, for example, at my T.V. during the beyond-evil American 'Shock-and-Awe' bombing campaign of Iraq when that began to unfold in 2003 - the fucking morons in the military and political leadership that dream these things up - they are another category entirely - the one labeled 'Guilty'.

Stupidity is not to be equated with illiteracy. You can be smart and not know how to read. But it is tragic that one in seven American adults can't read, making it that much less likely that they would be able to ferret out
alternative news sources beyond the mainstream. Illiteracy itself is a threat to a functioning democracy. (2a)

Wisdom only comes with time and experience, no matter how intelligent you are.
 
So, if you're stupid and you don't know or don't realize that your country is doing wrong, personally, I think you get a pass. Young and naive, again, personally, no one should blame you for not knowing what your government has been doing to others. In my own heart of hearts, young and naive tragically describes the majority of American troops, duped into fighting corporate resource wars. Ignorance and youth are two of the most important reasons why moral leadership is so vitally important to right conduct of any nation.

It is a war crime, or a crime against humanity, to target civilians. It is important to understand, however, that we have committed the same war crime of targeting civilians, ourselves.

Osama bin Laden seemed not to realize the important role mass communications and education both play in controlling what the people know and what they think. If the people are not told the truth about their country's activities, either in the news or in schools, where, exactly, are they supposed to get it in order to vote for the men and women who will best represent them? It isn't always exactly impossible, but I wouldn't exactly describe it as easy, either, trying to figure out what the hell is going on.

Living in a so-called democracy brings up another issue: Politicians lie.

Perhaps it is also news to bin Laden and his followers that democracy in the United States is corrupted by monied interests; it isn't working as it should. I can't bring myself to say that America's political culture is corrupt straight to the bone, but like a computer with a hidden virus using power behind the scenes for its own purposes, there is corruption.

Based on bin Laden's own argument, then, 9-11 was a crime against innocent civilians. Osama bin Laden's group thinks that Americans know what's going on and that they approve of it. And my bedrock conviction is the polar opposite: No they don't.

Most Americans do not know. Some have some degree of knowledge, but the magnitude? No way.

Perhaps this is the biggest lie of all told by America's leaders to the people: The downplaying of the sheer magnitude of the destruction, just the vast scale of the human cost in the wars we have waged in both Iraq and Afghanistan - and are now beginning to quietly wage in Pakistan with remote-controlled, armed planes called drones - as if hunting down and killing people were like some sort of computer game. The carnage in the imprecision of it is mind-boggling - for Pakistani villagers, of course, not for us.

Those in the news business that don't agree with American foreign policy, some of them say something (3). There are a few courageous writers. But more either say nothing or hold their nose and repeat the fiction. To what? Hold on to a job? I worry about maintaining a roof over my head, but I worry far more about my children living on after me in a viable world - a world with flowers, trees and honey bees. It may not happen.

That last, hints, I suppose, at one source of my impatience with right-wing writers droning on and on, or shouting, as the case may be, about radical versus moderate Islam - not an honest word nor the faintest whiff of a suggestion that we are anything but lily-white in our activities in the Middle East.

'Like what; what whiff?', the trusting citizen might ask. Good question.

A short, far from complete (with apologies) list:

Iran: 1950's CIA overthrow of the democratically-elected leadership of Iran, leading to an American puppet's reign of abject, despotic state terror against Iran's own people. Over what? Oil.
Great Britain has a hand in it. (4)

Iraq: Eight-year war between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Iran. The U.S. sides with Iraq, giving aid and weapons including chemical and biological weapons. A million people die. (4a)

Iraq: Ten-years military siege and bombing campaign of Iraq 1993-2003; 500,000-plus Iraqi children murdered via American biological warfare; (5; 5a)

Iraqi city of Fallujah: Alarmingly high numbers of Iraqi children today are being born genetically deformed, our use of depleted uranium nuclear-waste bullets and bombs suspected cause; (6)

2003-present: War and occupation of Iraq based on lies; (7)

Afghanistan: 2001-present, war of Afghanistan based on lies; (8) the longest war in American history, as of June 7, 2010; (8a)
(Image, right:  Rumsfeld/Saddam Hussein; Dec. 20, 1983;
                                                                             Getty Images)


1947-present: 3 billion American dollars worth of military hardware gifted to Israel every year, making the occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians possible; support for Israel's various attacks, occupation, of Lebanon; destruction, cluster-bombing of Southern Lebanon, 2006.
(Image, right:  Israel attacks Gaza, code-named 'Operation Cast Lead',
                                     late-2008 - early 2009.)


----------------------------

9-11 was blow-back. It had nothing to do with religion. America's intellectual and political
leadership are afraid - they'd have to be - because of what we've done, and because of
what we continue to do.

We're the bully in the school yard sitting on some poor schmuck - sooner or later, you have to get off. What happens next, is anyone's guess.

Some of the people pissed at us come from parts of the world where most people are Muslim. But that is only the half of it. We've been stirring it up making enemies all over the place - including placing, or attempting to place, nuclear missiles at Russia's doorstep.

We have over 700 military outposts around the globe. We're in Africa; Central and South America, too. We'll be challenging, no doubt, Canada and Russia over control of the melting Arctic marine shipping routes, along with the imagined pot of gold of Arctic oil exploration. Gulf II plus territorial disputes. Grand.

Yet, all one hears is stuff about a religious faith called Islam, and in which ways it should be practiced that would be deemed acceptably uncritical of the U.S.; judged appropriate, or not - by us.

We need to wake up. We need everybody on board - Christians, Muslims, Jews, the Right, the Left - everybody. We have to realize that if we don't stop, and say 'enough!' - then it doesn't stop. Somehow, together, we must stop this evil building as it rolls downhill.

I don't know exactly how. But we need to stop. They need to forgive, but I don't know how they could.

Otherwise, where it ends could be the end. Cuba's Fidel Castro is thinking about this. He recently wrote, after conferring with scientific advisors, that it may be that it actually only takes a few nuclear bombs, rather than many, to make the world inhospitable for the continued survival of the human race in an ensuing nuclear winter; that a nuclear winter may last, not two years as is currently imagined, but ten. (9)

It is a shocking revelation to him. It is to me, too. I think I understand where Castro is coming from. He is on his way to checking out. What's going on? What's the big picture? To what aspect of world affairs might he make the most lasting contribution in the time left to him? He settles his gaze on the immensity of risk inherent in current world conflict.

Nuclear weapons have been put on the move. For several years it has been open debate about whether or not to use 'tactical' nuclear weapons against Iran.

In conclusion: If America is to be encouraged to pull back from this destructive course, the world will have to meet America half-way. For the sake of mankind's survival, the world needs to reassure an America fearful of retaliation that all efforts will be made to help defuse the justifiable anger - and let it go.

-------------------------------

Footnotes:

(1) New York Times Op Ed: 'Imam Rauf and Moderate Islam'; Ross Douthat; August 26, 2010;
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/imam-rauf-and-moderate-islam/#preview

(1a) See, for example, website, 'Iraq Vets Against the War';
http://ivaw.org/node/6111 ; also, 'Military Families Speak Out'; http://www.mfso.org/

(2) 'Letter to America'; Osama bin Laden; as published in observer.co.uk, November 24th, 2002;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

(2a) 'Literacy study: 1 in Seven U.S. Adults Are Unable to Read This Story'; Greg Toppo; USA Today; 1/8/2009;
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-08-adult-literacy_N.htm

(3) For discussion, see: 'Iraq: Why the Media Failed'; Gary Kamiya; Salon.com; April 10, 2007; the writer
highlights notable and noble examples of American journalistic excellence in criticizing the proposed Iraq war.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/10/media_failure

(4) 'New York Times Special Report: CIA in Iran'; James Risen; NYT on the web; 2000; notes it was a joint goal of the CIA and Britain's SIS;
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

(4a) 'Partners in Crime: US Complicity in the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein'; Paul Rockwell; December 23, 2003; Common Dreams;
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1223-11.htm

(5) 'BBC News Middle East Iraqis blame sanctions for child deaths'; Jeremy Bowen; August 12, 1999; notes that the 500,000 figure comes from Unicef estimates;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm ;

(5a) 'We Think the Price Is Worth It'; Rahul Mahajan; Fair Extra!; November/December 2001;
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

(6) 'Toxic munitions 'may be cause' of baby deaths and deformities in Fallujah'; David Randall; The Independent; September 15, 2009;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-munitions-may-be-cause-of-baby-deaths-and-deformities-in-fallujah-1820971.html ;

(7) Youtube clip: President George W. Bush admits there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE

(8) Excellent analysis by Eric Margolis: 'Afghanistan: A War Of Lies'; LewRockwell.com; c. Eric Margolis, 2009;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis165.html ;

(8a) 'Afghan war is now longest war in U.S. history'; Thomas Nagorski; ABC News; June 7, 2010;
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/afghan-war-now-longest-war-us-history/story?id=10849303

(9) 'Nuclear Winter'; Fidel Castro, as published in CounterCurrents; August 24, 2010;
http://www.countercurrents.org/castro240810.htm ;

August 02, 2010

No More Hiroshimas Republicans - Lets Make a Deal

By Diane V. McLoughlin, mcloughlinpost.com

August 6, 2010:   This year marks both the 65th anniversary of the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima, and renewed negotiations between Russia and the United States to drastically reduce the number of launch-ready nuclear weapons between the two most heavily nuclear-armed countries in the world;  an act of sane world stewardship.

New START (strategic arms reduction treaty), which was signed by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian Federation President Demitri Medvedev, on April 8, 2010, is to be roundly praised and applauded. (1)

It is bordering on a psychotic break with reality that Republican obstructionism and cheap electioneering could find the U.S. side scuttling a golden opportunity to drastically reduce the number of deployed nuclear warheads in the world - potentially increasing the odds of an eventual nuclear Armageddon.   Republican partisanship by extreme-right ideologues such as Mitt Romney is now beneath contempt. (2)

Why shouldn't U.S. law makers ratify the nuclear weapons reduction treaty? Some of the obvious arguments that need to be addressed:

We can't trust them; what about China (and Pakistan, India, North Korea, Iran and Israel?);  and 'first-strike' capability concerns.

Trust is something we build. It doesn't magically spring up from out of the ground, folks. In order to pull back from possible confrontation, to avoid misunderstanding, we must take measures to build trust.

China and other countries: If we step back a distance from total world nuclear destruction, as with New START, even if measured in inches, it's a statement. And in New START, the proposal is to reduce the total number of U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 - a whopping reduction by two-thirds from 1991 levels, and a thirty percent reduction from 2002.  One negative with this nuclear warhead reduction treaty is that the number of nuclear warheads that are 'operationally inactive' (stockpiled) will continue to be counted in the thousands.

So there is still more to do.  I cannot imagine that a single city or town would be left standing, either in the United States or in Russia, in a full-on nuclear confrontation with 1,550 nuclear warheads at the ready. (3) But a step back is not either nothing - or a step forward toward the abyss. New START is aptly named; it would encourage more inches away from the edge of mankind's destruction. Should we invite other nuclear-armed states to the arms-reduction party? Uh...yes?

A NYT editorial alludes to a crucial point: We should not use this New START as a cover to initiate development of even bigger and more lethal nuclear weapons to replace those we dismantle.  (4)

It doesn't get much more weird than to say that there are some businesses that are in the nuclear weapons manufacture and maintenance business.  And anyone in a business wants to stay in business.

Wherever businesses are located they are, guaranteed, to be located in some politician's backyard who has to look somewhere for money to husk for votes in order to stay in power.

Lead, persuade or follow: the politician's perennial choice. While weighing the options, the new movie,
'The Road' (5) should be compulsory viewing for, come to think of it, every single one of the world's politicians - and citizens. It's a good refresher on just how bad a post-nuclear apocalyptic world will be. I would throw in this clip 'Nuclear Nightmare' (6) from the movie, 'Terminator II', as well as this YouTube clip from 'The Day After':





The truth of it is that if anyone, anywhere, pushes the button, it's MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction - game over - where you are over there, and where I am, over here, as illustrated in the Matthew Broderick movie, 'War Games'. In the movie, it was feared that the Pentagon supercomputer confused a war game with the real thing.  The computer illustrates the trajectory of nuclear weapons that would be deployed; the computer concludes that no one can win:



The longer time stretches out without nuclear incident, without the world's complete nuclear disarmament, I fear the more complacent our false sense of security will become.

One of the biggest nuclear war building blocks of trust the world had, the Bush II administration destroyed, actually. It is impossible to overstate what a dangerous move this is. Before, it was American policy that we would never be first to reach for the nuclear button. Post 9-11, Bush changed that. He said that from henceforth we reserved the right to strike preemptively.  As an emotional reaction, understandable; nevertheless, that was a bad, bad move. What did W's administration think opponents would do with their own nuclear strategy other than adopt preemption themselves? 

At roughly 900 military installations around the globe, one gets a strong feeling that the U.S. can only push things so far without fear of blowback.  Logically, fear of blowback must be a tremendous source of inertia inhibiting American pullback. 

In the end, there are only a few ways to deal with who we perceive as our enemies:  Ignore them, destroy them or befriend them. The most revered of American Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, famously disclosed that to him the latter is the preferred course - eliminate our enemies by making them our friends.  To achieve critical MAS - Mutually Assured Survival - it is the only course open to us that will sustain the human race.

With ever-increasing pressures threatening to destabilize peace and human security, from global population growth causing all of us to scramble for fewer and fewer natural resources, to global warming and, conversely, depleting fossil fuel sources, mankind is imminently capable of creative problem solving - that's the positive - but we have got to get it together.  

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is a welcome ray of hope in these politically unstable and troubled times.

Republicans, Democrats:  Embrace New START.   It may be the most important vote you ever make. 

- Writer,  Diane V. McLoughlin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes

*There are thousands of nuclear bombs in existence in the world today.  The average size (destructive force) of one bomb is approximately 300 kilotons (kT) which is equal to 600 million pounds of dynamite.  A cursory Google search finds that the largest U.S. nuclear bomb is the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), at 335 kT.

A nuclear weapon of this size causes destruction 10 - 15 times greater than that of the nuclear blast at Hiroshima, and creates a mass fire radius outward from the blast's center of approximately 65 miles. Destruction:  Total.  Radiation contamination downwind would render hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable.   (For more, please see: 'The effects of a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead detonated above Washington D.C.'; by Steven Starr; Nov. 2005. wagingpeace.org)

Even a minor nuclear conflict between two lesser states could blast and burn so much particulate matter into the atmosphere that the world's protective ozone layer would be severely damaged, and catastrophic cooling would affect our ability to grow food.

A major nuclear war is capable of creating what is referred to as a global 'nuclear winter'; possibly plunging the temperature even to below freezing in summer over much of the world's agricultural production zones. The ability to grow crops would be destroyed for most, it is feared, with obvious and catastrophic results.

(1)  Treaty Between the United States of America and the
Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of  Strategic Offensive              Arms; initial signing, April 8, 2010, ratification yet pending.   http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf

(2) See: 'John F. Kerry:  How New START Will Improve Our Nation's Security'; Washington Post; July 7, 2010;   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070603942.html?sub=AR ;

(3)  Key Facts about the New START Treaty
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/key-facts-about-new-start-treaty ;

(4)  NYT editorial, 'Ratify the Treaty'; Aug. 1, 2010;  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/opinion/02mon1.html?_r=1 ;

(5)  YouTube clip, movie, 'The Road'; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CwJHxEQ0WA&feature=related ;

(6) YouTube clip of the 'Nuclear Nightmare scene', from the movie, 'Terminator II'
[CAUTION:  Extremely disturbing; Not suitable for young viewers]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR_midwZ2f0&feature=related

March 01, 2010

Obama and the Nuclear Weapons Policy Review

Mar. 1, '10, McLoughlin Post

The Obama White House is in the middle of what is known as a Nuclear Posture Review; a review of nuclear weapons policy that apparently all presidents must go through.

The current review focuses on several key items, which include:

Reduction by the thousands the number of nuclear warheads currently in the U.S. arsenal,

Rejection of the Bush White House regime's push to develop a new class of small nuclear weapons known as 'bunker-buster' bombs which would be potentially useful in destroying weapons development conducted deep underground by an enemy.  The problem is that they may be small but they are still nuclear.  Nuclear particulates would be spread far and wide - even picked up by globe-encircling weather systems - rendering a large swath of the immediate area uninhabitable and sickening and killing many in the vicinity, while over the span of generations causing random cancers otherwise, far from the targeted site(s) and beyond mankind's ability to control or remediate.

One might go so far as to hope that stepping away from new nuclear weapons development might increase the prospect of a new detente between the U.S. and countries such as Iran.

Deciding whether or not to retain George W. Bush's policy of 'first-strike' capability - a very dangerous change from past nuclear war policy which went from a policy of choosing never to be the first to launch, to reserving the option of preemptively launching nuclear weapons against an enemy believed to be preparing to attack. This fundamental change in nuclear weapons launch policy increased, rather than diminished the risk of an unnecessary launch/retaliatory launch through miscalculation or mixed signals by any side.

Engaging and working openly with other nations, notably Russia, to encourage the mutual reduction in nuclear weapon stockpiles;

Discuss with European allies the option of removing American nuclear missiles from European soil;

To develop a new class of tactical non-nuclear weapons, as the New York Times reports, to perhaps gradually rely more on non-nuclear weapons with a system of missiles dubbed 'Prompt First Strike' that could hit targets anywhere in the world in under one hour.

To maintain in good working order weapons already in stock.

Sampling comments from NYT readers, Sebastinecc of India reminds us what Einstein had to say about nuclear war: 
'I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.' 
Comment 19 by Paul Rosenburger reminds us that as destructive as the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, those nuclear bombs were childs' play compared to the nuclear bombs we have in our arsenals today.  'As long as we hold onto ours, we cannot hope to convince other nations to eliminate theirs.'


February 26, 2010

VDARE.com: 02/25/10 - The Road to Armageddon

VDARE.com: 02/25/10 - The Road to Armageddon

By Paul Craig Roberts
 
Excerpt:  The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper’s website for the past three days was the "Inside the Beltway" report, "Explosive News," [By Jennifer Harper, February 22, 2010]about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad on February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press conference seriously.
How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers suddenly disintegrate into fine dust? How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires? "A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7," reports the Washington Times.
The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology provided "insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction" and are "calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials."
The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the architects and engineers said: "Government officials will be notified that ‘Misprision of Treason,’ U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act. The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial."
There is now an organization, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. At the main press conference in San Francisco, Erik Lawyer, the head of that organization, announced the firefighters’ support for the architects and engineers’ demands. He reported that no forensic investigation was made of the fires that are alleged to have destroyed the three buildings and that this failure constitutes a crime.
Mandated procedures were not followed, and instead of being preserved and investigated, the crime scene was destroyed. He also reported that there are more than one hundred first responders who heard and experienced explosions and that there is radio, audio and video evidence of explosions.
Also at the press conference, physicist Steven Jones presented the evidence of nano-thermite in the residue of the WTC buildings found by an international panel of scientists led by University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Professor Niels Harrit. Nano-thermite is a high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic capable of instantly melting steel girders.
Before we yell "conspiracy theory," we should be aware that the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists offer no theory. They provide evidence that challenges the official theory. This evidence is not going to go away.
If expressing doubts or reservations about the official story in the 9/11 Commission Report makes a person a conspiracy theory kook, then we have to include both co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission and the Commission’s legal counsel