Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 31, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Committed Carbon Emissions Are Rising Fast






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Arts and Culture

Jason Epstein on the Nuclear Threat

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 18, 2007
books and bombs

By Jason Epstein

(Page 2)

On the eve of the Iraq war, Richard Perle, expounding the revolutionary essence of the Bush Doctrine, wrote: “Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly but not alone ... he will take the UN down with him. ... What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order ... the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions,” echoing perhaps inadvertently the disdain for the liberal conceit of the League of Nations by the would-be empires of the 1930s: Japan over its conquest of Manchuria, Germany over its occupation of the Ruhr, and Italy over its invasion of Ethiopia. What Perle saw instead of the liberal conceit of international law was an American new world order sustained not by treaty but by power: the fantasy of an American empire which for the moment lies smoldering in the wreckage of the Bush administration.

The United States and Russia hold nearly all the 27,000 nuclear weapons that currently exist, the larger part belonging to Russia while the American holdings are being modernized as a smaller but more powerful and flexible force. Further reductions are promised. But this démarche reflects more efficient packaging, not a significant reduction of overkill. A redesigned weapon the size of an artillery shell can now vaporize a major city: A few of them would obliterate New York or Los Angeles. A hundred or so would destroy life on Earth. With the Cold War ended, however, the purpose of these weapons has become obscure. With Talmudic intensity, Schell examines the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review of 2001 to learn the strategic policy by which these thousands of refurbished weapons are to be disposed. But “when it came to describing what mission the still immense arsenal would serve, the document [withdraws] into extreme generalities.” Nevertheless, from the “verbal mist of the NPR the ... purpose of the American nuclear arsenal in the post Cold War era emerged: to dissuade, deter, defeat or annihilate—preventively, preemptively or in retaliation—any nation or other grouping of people ... that militarily opposed or dreamed of opposing the United States.”

 

book cover

 

The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger

 

By Jonathan Schell

 

Metropolitan Books, 272 pages

 

Buy the book

book cover

 

Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race

 

By Richard Rhodes

 

Knopf, 400 pages

 

Buy the book

But for all his effort Schell still cannot say how an arsenal of 10,000 or so nuclear weapons, equal to several million Hiroshimas, can implement such a policy, nor can Linton Brooks, who served until January 2007 as director of the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons infrastructure. Before he took this post, Brooks helped produce the January 2001 National Institute of Public Policy study “Rationale and Requirements for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control,” which was regarded by many observers as a blueprint for George W. Bush’s 2002 Nuclear Posture Review. He was nevertheless dismissed by the Department of Energy in January 2007, not because he was unable to answer Schell’s question of how these weapons may be used in any future war, but because he was held responsible for security lapses at the country’s nuclear labs. Otherwise he seems to have been an industrious administrator who ordered his staff to “examine advanced [thermonuclear] concepts that could contribute to our nation’s security. ...” He went on to say: “We must ... ensure that we close any gaps that may have opened in the past decade in our understanding of the possible military applications of atomic energy. No novel nuclear weapons concept developed by any other nation should ever come as a technical surprise to us.” For Frank von Hippel, a physicist and arms control specialist at Princeton,  these orders were “really very distressing. They’re saying, ‘Go after it guys. We’re back in the fifties. Come up with all the crazy ideas you can, if there are any left out there.’ This is fossil Cold War mentality surfacing again.”

Yet Linton Brooks for all his insider’s knowledge confesses in a speech he gave in January 2007 at a Lawrence Livermore-Los Alamos Conference that he too doesn’t know what these militarily useless weapons are for. “The biggest question in the area of doctrine and operations—indeed arguably the most important question facing us in any nuclear area—is the fundamental purpose or purposes of nuclear weapons in the 21st Century. I’m not thinking of the assure, dissuade, deter and defeat typology. It is fine at the conceptual level. Rather I think we lack consensus on the concrete types of situations (other than the residual role in deterring large scale attack from Russia) in which nuclear weapons are relevant.”

Since even Brooks himself doesn’t know what to do with these infinitely destructive weapons, the obvious answer is multilateral nuclear disarmament under strict international control. From a technological point of view, abolition is simply a matter of dismantling the warheads and sequestering the fissile material, far simpler for example than preventing AIDS or preserving what is left of the atmosphere. The real problem is dismantling the multilateral nuclear bureaucracy, for, as Schell admits, “now as then [when Truman decided to drop the bomb] the easier thing is to go with the momentum.” Brooks ends his talk to the nuclear establishment by telling it not to worry. We may not know what we’re doing but your jobs are safe: “The political conditions for abolition are unlikely and the technology to verify abolition does not exist.” Mr. Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency might dispute the latter point, and political conditions do change and soon will. Perhaps in Richard Rhodes’ fourth and final volume we can all share the optimism that proved premature in his present book, or perhaps not.

Jason Epstein is former editorial director of Random House and the first recipient of the National Book Award for Distinguished Service to American Letters.  He has edited many well-known writers, including Norman Mailer, Vladimir Nabokov, E.L. Doctorow, Philip Roth, and Gore Vidal. He also edited McGeorge Bundy’s “Danger and Survival: Choices About the Bomb in the First Fifty Years” and Robert Scheer’s “With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush and Nuclear War.”

1   2

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
TAGS:


Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Marc Cooper on Hugo Chavez

Next item: ‘Dixie Chicking’: Post-9/11 Blacklisting in the Entertainment Industry



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By John Hanks, November 6, 2007 at 7:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’ve always believed in the power of subversion even against a monstrosity like ExxonMobile.  If a good substitute for oil came along, it would be adopted.  Even hemp would have a chance.  No technological fixes are likely.  At least we can’t count on any.

Report this

By The Village Idiot, November 6, 2007 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment

When you search an inventor’s name, especially one claiming to violate the laws of physics, it’s best to keep reading the search results, and have a quick look at what the other side is saying. It only takes a minute. This and several other similar devices have resurfaced several times over the past few decades, and the fact that none have been adopted by anyone anywhere is claimed as proof of the oil companies’ conspiracy to keep us hooked on oil rather than being compelling evidence that the devices are hoaxes (even if the hoaxer genuinely believes it themselves).

Besides, there are many other scientifically valid points that can be raised to show that oil companies don’t exactly have the world’s (and humanity’s) best interests at heart.

Regarding the article: I always suspected that the vast number of nuclear weapons, FAR more than were ‘necessary’ as many people have pointed out,  implied that some or even most were fake and the huge sums of money were stolen by those inside this hyper-secret program. Who’s to know?
  Hell, a Soviet nuclear weapons engineer even admitted as much about the centerpiece of their (mostly fake) arsenal not long after the USSR fell. This was the weapon much of the US buildup was intended to counter (also likely mostly fake).  Check this out (scroll a few articles down for the relevant one): http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/11/18/fhead.htm

Such large-scale, long-term deceptions by a government of its own citizenry no longer happen, of course!

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, November 4, 2007 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

To make it real easy for eveyone here is the link to the invention I mention in my post below:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3484490731703421398

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, November 3, 2007 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment

Hey Bert,

“...so let’s see a guy/gal that’s willing
to get their hands dirty to learn how to move a
car one mile down the road sans gasoline.”

Actually, there is a guy who has done this. Google Joseph Newman and check out the ‘Newman Machine’. There are a number of videos about this device he invented a number of years back that could revolutionize how we think of energy creation & utilization. He claims the oil companies offered him $200 million for the invention (probably to just put it up on a shelf until oil runs out), but said he doesn’t care about the money, rather the invention is his gift to humanity. He has a number of prominent scintists (including some from NASA who tested it and approve), but for some reason the Gov’t & MSM have not given it too much attention.(why would they since it shakes the very foundations of corporate control…MSM, Big energy, MIC, etc.?) 

Check it out and I would be interested in your opinion (and others on this site as well). He’s a little bit kooky, but that’s what people have said about almost all people with revolutionary ideas. I’ve watched several hours of video about him and his inventon and still am a bit baffled. Help me out here folks, ok? Thanks.

Report this

By cyrena, November 1, 2007 at 12:54 am Link to this comment

#110826 by Bert

Bert, great comments. Let’s hear it for the geeks!!! Some serious science could indeed be the answer.

Meantime, I think you might be giving the shrub too much credit for that one statement about America being addicted to oil. His speechwriter, (probably Karl Rove at the time) just threw that in for ‘effect’. It was the one thing that those who had previously supported him (at the time, and before he fell completely off the wagon, and started trashing the entire system, and stealing everything) jumped at. Just a bit of political BS, nothing that he was the slightest bit serious about. The Bush Dynasty has made their entire fortune on oil, (or, most of it) and that’s why we haven’t been using wind, water, and all of the other science so far. Not because it couldn’t have happened decades ago, because it could have.

•  #109083 by WR Curley on 10/23 at 2:37 pm

Got in himmel!
Did I post that tripe?
Proof positive folks…NEVER drink and drive.
Yours in humble penitence,
WR Curley

WRC…I love it!!! Honesty is always a great virtue. Consequently, you’re forgiven. (not that I had any problems with it to begin with;) )

Report this

By Bert, October 31, 2007 at 9:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Don’t you wish all the monies spent on ‘defense’
were spent on advancing the sciences and things
like energy independence?

Sunlight is fickle, feast-or-famine, you only
get it for 12 hours a day, but the other things
like wind and hydro and geothermal can get you
through the cold dark night without setting
something on fire to see by or keep you warm.

And, if you DO have to burn stuff, why burn oil?
There’s lots of clean-burning combustibles out
there, that yet lack maybe a little development,
but by some sources are in fact coming along nicely.

Instead of trying to atomize the planet, put the
scientists to work building that car that doesn’t
run on gasoline no more, swords into plowshares
and all that.

But, the reason I think we’re not doing that is
because the people in charge of our policy are
pretty darn devoted to the oil biz. Is it steady
income? Yes. Is it causing lots of problems?
You damn skippy, it is. Are there better answers?
Yes indeedy. I say ‘vote accordingly’, if we
do get another vote that’s really worth something,
and put the oil boys out to pasture, and get
someone to the front of the line that actually
knows a little science. Not political science,
but actual science, periodic table, math, physics,
all that ‘geek’ stuff. We’ve seen enough windbags
and idiots that can’t count, career fraudsters
and so forth, so let’s see a guy/gal that’s willing
to get their hands dirty to learn how to move a
car one mile down the road sans gasoline. To
Bush’s credit, he did do a talk on energy, made
the famous statement ‘america is addicted to oil’,
but as with golf, a lot depends on that follow-through and instead of lining us up for war with
ANOTHER oil-laden country, I’d sure like to see
a modern renaissance on the topic of energy.
Stop wasting money on football sponsorships,
and start handing out science scholarships instead.
Nothing personal against the football guys,
but the science club has to take the first row
this time…

Report this

By Ga, October 30, 2007 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

Re: #108553 by WR Curley

Thanks WR, I enjoyed that.

In my Harlan Ellison inspired dreams I hope that Gaia opens up herself to swallow Washington, DC, or, at least, the American Enterprise Institute. Or perhaps Minneapolis-St. Paul during the Republican National Convention next year… if we can wait that long.

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/perle+richard/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_16927406/opt_/fpt_/c_666/

Report this

By www.nazilieskill.us, October 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No weapons system goes unused, unless something even worse comes along.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 23, 2007 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

#108978 by Leefeller on 10/23 at 7:28 am: “...Douglas Chambers…”

Leefeller, I think I have mentioed before that I would prefer that you spell my name correctly….... its Scottish so if you are English, you know what I mean, uhh.

But, “The Other” as it once was - in Baghdah before the evil invaders and “the American war”!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMVTHhl-Wz4&eurl;=

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 23, 2007 at 7:55 pm Link to this comment

#109083 by WR Curley on 10/23 at 2:37 pm “...Did I post that tripe…?”

Cool, WRC, no need to apologise here. Even Leefeller has mad some worthwhile comment. Given the drivel that some brazenly post, you should be complimented instead…..

“There is nothing left to conquer, except ourselves. Except ourselves.
Love all of it now. You have so precious little time…”

Get your kicks befor the whole damn sh!thouse goes up, ha ha. Bush has just backed down on blowing up the world (maybe?) and Hillary Clinton has vowed to oppose Bush’s new 196 billion dollar war funding request….... but don’t forget to IMPEACH!!!

Report this

By WR Curley, October 23, 2007 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Got in himmel!

Did I post that tripe?

Proof positive folks…NEVER drink and drive.

Yours in humble penitence,

WR Curley
Elizabeth, Colorado

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 23, 2007 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

Douglas Chambers,

Watched the video, the point being that people are people, even the ones warmongers kill.  But the demons must be placed in our minds so killing becomes acceptable, even preferred.  Warmongers do not appreciate the simple truth, for truth is only an obstacle that could be in the way of the warmonger.

Hitler was very good at hiding the truth from the people, so he rounded up the free thinkers and others he thought might be a threat against his agenda. 

War as the only option to the neoconservative, is only an opportunistic approach to life of the self serving, the greedy. Death of others is only part of the plan.  History has shown us this many times over.

The people in your UTUBE story are only statistics, not people from the Neoconservative point of view. 

We, the weak feel saddened by death of others, not the neoconservative.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 23, 2007 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

“The Other”..... the kind of people the USA wants to snuff this time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdyo0MCsEKk

Report this

By WR Curley, October 21, 2007 at 10:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thanks, Mr Storm.

I always thought The Doors were kind of self-reverential, even onanistic, you want my take on it (which I ‘speck you don’t). All these sorry stiff-dicks who snuffed themselves. I mean, I was there, Haight, ‘65 - ‘76.

Then there’s Dylan, and Lennon, and McCartney, and Bono, and Marley, and Sting…you know, evolutionaries who learn and grow. Someone had to master sucking air through the gills.

All long gone.

We are nowhere now, DeGeneris self-trashed over a dog. Rap-slingers snuffing each other. Gimme a velvet rope to hang myself with.

I don’t know.

I love my dog. He makes me laugh (as Jessica Rabbit said of her boy Roger - but don’t get me wrong).

Help us out here, dude. It’s a long time gone til the sun winks out and the black ball takes the corner pocket.

There is nothing left to conquer, except ourselves. Except ourselves.

Love all of it now. You have so precious little time,

WR Curley
Elizabeth, Colorado

Report this

By WriterOnTheStorm, October 21, 2007 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

RE#108553

Hey Curley. I always read your stuff, but you surely outdid yourself here. Keep ‘em coming.

Report this

By Paul Kurkul, October 21, 2007 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree with comment below by Rowan Berkeley, we need to get over the taboo belief that it’s anti-Semitic to call these warmongers Jewish.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 21, 2007 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

Navel-gazers, jewish, and USA in one sentence, so very profound, hope you did not hurt yourself, or did you make a mistake and mix up your sign up sheet for the KKK. A self proclaimed super patriot like yourself, must a bigot be.

Report this

By John Borowski, October 21, 2007 at 4:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have always known that the Catholics and Protestants abhor the Jew since my younger days when I was taught by the nuns. In August of 1945 a nun told me that a miracle had happened from the Blessed Virgin when they A-bombed Hiroshima. A few years ago I was baffled by the news that the Protestants were spending billions of dollars of their money to transport Jews from Russia to Israel. They paid for the airplane tickets, housing, and given a stipend to encourage the Jews to immigrate to Israel. Knowing their extreme hatred towards the Jews I couldn’t understand why they would do this. I finally found out the reason for doing this. Their bible states the wonderful Armageddon doesn’t begin until all the Jews are in Israel. What Hitler failed to do, they would. Does the psychiatrist or psychologist find this troubling? (I doubt it)

Report this

By Rowan Berkeley, October 20, 2007 at 11:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The sooner all you navel-gazers get used to seeing the word ‘jewish’ in cold print, the sooner the USA can take rational steps to avoid world war four.

Report this

By Verne Arnold, October 20, 2007 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment

#108553 by WR Curley on 10/20 at 6:55 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

WR Curley; you have written a beautiful, poignant, and eloquent piece.  Amen.

Report this

By WR Curley, October 20, 2007 at 7:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Stanley Kubrick’s “Doctor Strangelove” is still the definitive treatise on this topic.

We all know the particulars…self-deluded paranoids who don’t know enough about the nature of the miracle of mortality than simply to walk the quiet earth of a warm autumn Sunday, and watch the leaves drift…these people created a machine that can utterly and eternally transform the function and the form of the godess Gaia in a matter of minutes. We, you and I, all of us, our children’s children, flashed out in a twinkling, will not stand witness to the transformation. Some machine.

This machine has been nesting there, quietly humming, for some fifty years, and we’ve all been tip-toeing around it, tho we hear the humming always.

Fifty years, the least possibly imaginable fraction of the lifetime of the Gaia, and we are a species formed into our full selves some thousand times that fifty years ago. Not thousand plus, but thousand times that fifty. We are, at this juncture in time-space, the self-same species that was capable of sending millions of our own kind into a four years’ shit-pounding hell of a war upon the excuse of the assassination of one pompous, miltitarist, plume-tossing, in-bred, knuckleheaded Austrian arch-duke by one sorry, cheap-suit anarchist with a two dollar pistol. Self-same species.   

So we all know this.

As the lead paragragh of the above review - the only essential paragraph of the above review - suggests, this oddment is rooted in the primal. It germinates from the animal drive to be seen to be able to protect one’s own. Who are, in turn, one’s protectors. To be seen to be able, mind you, is not the same as to be able, but in the social and tribal context, it’s what counts.

There is a justifiably alarmist global reaction to the rising whine of the machine reawakening. The Pentagon (knees skinned in Bagdhad) wants to test a tactical bunker-buster sooo bad (Tehran looks sooo good).

So a global wave of protest rises. This is Gaia - an analogue, mind - marshalling forces to protect herself. Short term, this reaction will all but certainly succeed (and short term is probably good enough for me. I’m old. I wouldn’t speculate on your odds).

The cabalists cited in the above review fancy themselves the masters of the board. But really, they are just pawns in a far deeper game played by the masters in the blood. 

Their prime gambit has been to make you afraid. Very afraid. So that you seek protection. And then they offer you protectors. Reagan (Orwellian stage prop, could scarcely stay awake at public functions), Bush (Orwellian stage prop, crotch pumped, cannot be bothered to study background for public functions), and who’s next? Guiliani, Orwellian stage prop, all painted o’er with fake Muslim gore, vetting his lines with Perle, Wolfowitz, et al. before risking public functions?

But look. You’ve always been afraid, you and all your ancestery - one thousand times fifty years sapient beings- and it’s really not so bad. You get it. You belong to mortality, but dammit, you just don’t want to miss out. You long for the infinite.

Well. In mortal terms, the infinite is unattainable, so maybe that means you’re already there. Shit, I dunno.

My father taught me this when I was ten: If you travel half the distance to your destination with each step, you never get there. I lay night upon night before sleep watching that journey on the pale plastered ceilings of the rented house in Morocco, listening to the fog-shrouded treadfall of French tanks retreating from failed empire, watching the infinite journey, in the fractured dark, from halfway to halfway to halfway. There.

The leaves flame and fall and the cold-smoking winter gives to riotous spring and summer strokes the heavy flanks of the deep-breathing earth, and kids do goofy things and sure you’re gonna die, sure. And? 

Hang in there, folks. There’s music in the wheezebox yet.

WR Curley
Elizabeth, Colorado

Report this

By felicity, October 20, 2007 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

Why so many?  Even dropping a fraction of them would result in total destruction of the planet and everyone on it. Is Perle/Strangelove suicidal? (Probably has a hard time suppressing that Nazi salute.)

We’re in the grip of a huge global for-profit military industry.  The threat of wholesale nuclear extermination, on a scale that might permanently mutilate even that part of the human race which escaped immediate destruction, is only the most spectacular example of the negative results produced by science and technics when they are divorced from any other human purpose than their own propensity to increase knowledge and power, and expand the use of their own special products in a fashion profitable to the producer.  Louis Mumford, 1962.

Report this

By lilmamzer, October 19, 2007 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

#108276 by Jonas South on 10/19 at 10:01 am
(9 comments total)

To lilmamzer
re: 108255

I meant that, if an effective nuclear disarmament regiment is adopted by the leading nuclear powers, sooner or later, lesser nuclear powers will have to accept the same. If their weapons are meant to counter asymmetrical threats, and so long as those threats persist, or is perceived to persist, any proposed disarmament regiment between the major powers will be resisted vigorously by those not directly involved at the start.

Some of them might even be in a position to lobby one of more large powers, to preemptively prevent them from adopting nuclear disarmament. This raises a barrier to any agreement anywhere, and is therefore a hidden cost of proliferation.

Well, it’s just not going to happen.

The US will not be a party to any international disarmament regime so long as Russia and China maintain aggressive military postures, and while rogue states such as Iran, North Korea, and unstable Pakistan stand poised to threaten the US and our allies. And certainly not while the threat of radical Islam hangs over the world. That won’t be going away for at least the next hundred years.

So you can forget about the US foregoing a nuclear deterrent in our lifetimes.

Report this

By Jonas South, October 19, 2007 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

To lilmamzer
re: 108255

I meant that, if an effective nuclear disarmament regiment is adopted by the leading nuclear powers, sooner or later, lesser nuclear powers will have to accept the same. If their weapons are meant to counter asymmetrical threats, and so long as those threats persist, or is perceived to persist, any proposed disarmament regiment between the major powers will be resisted vigorously by those not directly involved at the start.

Some of them might even be in a position to lobby one of more large powers, to preemptively prevent them from adopting nuclear disarmament. This raises a barrier to any agreement anywhere, and is therefore a hidden cost of proliferation.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 19, 2007 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

Vern Arnold,

Pathetic and dangerous people in charge is a good way to describe ruthless thieves.  Some of us may have slept through the biggest coup in history, but I feel this has been happening for many years.  Eisenhower did give warning way back then. Do not forget Henry Wallace and his warning, so some people saw the handwriting on the wall. 

Madness continues, seems we have a kangaroo government.

Report this

By lilmamzer, October 19, 2007 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

#108223 by Jonas South

To serve their singular interests, no effort must be spared to keep our own nuclear arsenal intact.

I don’t understand this statement in the context of your post.

Can you clarify and explain, please?

Report this

By Jonas South, October 19, 2007 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

This excellent review highlights the one question that bedevils efforts to disarm, one which even the most ardent foes to nuclear disarmament, like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, will not and could not answer: Why is it so urgent that we keep nuclear weapons in the post cold war era, when MAD vis a vis the Soviet Union no longer applies?

Do not look to the U.S. and Russia, or even China, for the answer. Look instead to smaller nations like Israel which possess the bomb. Under any nuclear disarmament regiment, they too would be under pressure to disarm. To serve their singular interests, no effort must be spared to keep our own nuclear arsenal intact.

Report this

By Verne Arnold, October 19, 2007 at 4:00 am Link to this comment

I guess the thing that is so shameful is this; the dems have not gained ground in any way, what’s with that?  We have given, repeat “GIVEN”, this president so much power we ourselves have now become powerless…even our votes are for naught.  Mukasey’s even in effect daring the dems to fight his nomination as though it’s a given (theres that word again [given])that he is the next Gonzales, only this time in spades.
Can it really get worse than this?  The answer is a resounding YES…you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 19, 2007 at 3:01 am Link to this comment

Rahtre than “The Making of the Atomic Bomb”, search for the H-bomb which came later and what were the intentions of some in the uSA for using it!

Search “Edward Teller”, the father of the H-bomb (1950+) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller

Search USAF general “Curtis Le May” who wanted to bomb every city in China and Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 19, 2007 at 2:49 am Link to this comment

Although the following is an article about military action against Iran being “a last resort”, I don’t have a good feeling about it or Mullen and especially the current motivations of the Washington administration at all….

WASHINGTON - “While military action against Iran is a last resort, the U.S. has the resources to attack if needed despite the strains of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the top U.S. military officer said Thursday…..... Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the focus now is on diplomacy to stem Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its support for insurgents in Iraq…... But, he told reporters, “there is more than enough reserve to respond (militarily) if that, in fact, is what the national leadership wanted to do….”  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates;_ylt=AppTnIDPHxSK2kgz5Gl7Cp.s0NUE

Report this

By Verne Arnold, October 18, 2007 at 10:45 pm Link to this comment

“Richard Perle, expounding the revolutionary essence of the Bush Doctrine, wrote: “Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly but not alone ... he will take the UN down with him. ... What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order ... the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions,””

Jason Epstein’s article confirms rather than shocks and points to how pathetic and dangerous the people who have grabbed power in the U.S. truly are.

I fear we have slept through the biggest coup in history and we still don’t quite get it.  The hearings on Michael Mukasey’s confirmation are also very frightening…listen closely to the questions and especially the answers.  We are handing the henhouse to the fox…we are cooked, really!

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.