|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Nuclear Armament Still Our Central IssuePosted on Oct 5, 2010Of all of the sources of strategic delusion and political illusion today, nuclear weapons undoubtedly make the most prodigious contribution to hypocrisy and useless expense. This certainly is true for Britain, which is set to make major decisions on military expenditure this week. It is expected to avoid a decision on its largest new military expenditure by postponing the replacement of its Trident nuclear deterrent program until after the next general election. This, if so, is very sensible. Trident’s sole value to Britain is symbolic, theoretically substantiating its rank as a nuclear member of the U.N. Security Council, with a veto. The Trident missiles are, as they have been for many years, under American Navy control. They have been superfluous to an American nuclear attack on some rival, as during the Cold War. Their value to Britain is political. In this respect they bear no comparison to the French nuclear deterrent, which is entirely of French manufacture and under complete French control. It could be used against anyone the French wished to attack—even the U.S., for example—and, being a submarine system, it provides a deterrent second-strike capacity. It is not subject to destruction by an enemy first strike, but could retaliate afterward—at a dozen enemy cities—although God only knows what would be left of either the enemy or France after this was over. Better not try it. How Britain spends its military money is of urgent American interest for entirely non-nuclear reasons. High ground-force numbers mean reduced expenditure on the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, in the current international climate of impoverishment and governmental austerity. The Pentagon is putting on London all the considerable pressure it commands to keep the numbers up on British ground forces, since these remain the only foreign forces likely (more likely than any other, certainly) to go on being placed at American disposal in what the Obama administration seems to have endorsed as “the Long War”—the “fight we’re in for the rest of our lives, and probably our kids’ lives,” according to a recent pronouncement by Gen. David Petraeus, who currently is in charge of running this war for the Pentagon-cornered President Obama. (To say “no” to the generals would destroy—or, a subversive thought, possibly make the Obama presidency.) Washington is anxious for London to continue contributing troops (which is not totally assured, since the British public is questioning the purpose and prospects of this Long War). On the other end of the spectrum, Iran is where a nonexistent nuclear weapon dominates a region. American and Israeli officials, think-tank “experts” and newspaper strategists tell us Iran must be stopped from acquiring the capacity for manufacturing a nuclear weapon. This allegedly would put Israel, and the whole region, at the mercy of “the mullahs.” Advertisement Israel is concerned about an Iranian nuclear weapon because of the political and psychological effects upon both states’ standing in the Middle East. Possession of a nuclear weapon would not embolden Iran to attack Israel or anyone else, but it would deeply alter the regional political climate if Iran were a nuclear state, since this would give pause to anyone hostile toward Iran. The U.S. would suffer the greatest blow to its “non-kinetic” power (as the Pentagon likes now to describe means of power that do not go “bang!”). It has invested so much of its non-kinetic power in declaring that Iran must not possess a nuclear weapon that it would suffer a major humiliation if that should occur, and probably suffer a great deal more than humiliation, since Iran also possesses a formidable non-nuclear deterrent against military attack by either the U.S. or Israel. This is its retaliatory ability to do grave military damage to American forces in Iraq, naval forces in the Persian Gulf, and U.S. bases in Kuwait, Qatar and elsewhere in the region. It could disrupt shipping in the Gulf, and block the Strait of Hormuz, interrupting a significant part of America’s and the West’s oil supply for a considerable period. This is why the Pentagon has been so anxious to restrain Israel from attacking Iran. The U.S. and its Arab allies and clients would pay the principal cost if it did so. This possibility also constitutes implied Israeli blackmail of the U.S.: “Do what we want, or we will provoke Iran to make a devastating attack on U.S. interests throughout the region.” The American interest would have been better served, following the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, by turning a blind eye to Iran’s effort to acquire “peaceful nuclear energy,” and to Saddam Hussein’s quest to deter Iran. Taking them both on has meant double trouble for Washington, and, in the end, probably double failure. Plus, there’s Afghanistan. Visit William Pfaff’s website for more on his latest book, “The Irony of Manifest Destiny: The Tragedy of America’s Foreign Policy” (Walker & Co., $25), at www.williampfaff.com. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.  TAGS:
|
Real American Boy: How Our Byzantine Immigration System and Failed Economy May Have Made a Terrorist
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By firefly, October 9, 2010 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment
Excellent piece.
I’ve long questioned the true cost of having a
nuclear armed Iran. As Iran has not actually attacked
another nation (nor even properly threatened one,
although the hype about Israel being ‘wiped’ off the
map has been used to ‘prove’ Iran’s potential
threat).
Iran is not stupid. No country on earth would take on
a war against Israel AND the US and possibly Europe,
without thinking it through first. Iran may be
arrogant, and its government unduly punitive towards
its own citizens, but it is NOT suicidal.
Israel has plans to gradually amass more and more
Report thisland in the Middle East. If anything, Israel is the
greatest threat to ALL Middle Eastern nations and
continues to be so as long as it thinks the US will
dance to its tune.
By LocalHero, October 7, 2010 at 12:41 am Link to this comment
Lafayette, I’d much rather be in a “does not have” nation when those candlesticks start flying. At least the chances of survival would be a lot higher than if one resided in one of the nations lobbing those things back & forth.
In addition, my conscience would be clear knowing that “we” didn’t wipe out all life on the planet.
Report thisBy drbhelthi, October 6, 2010 at 11:16 am Link to this comment
Hypocrisy?
When the illegitimate invaders of Palestine possess
two hundred and thirty (230) nukes “presented” by
Bush, Clinton, Bush?
When the US was taken over by NAZIs via conversion
of the OSS into the CIA, plus redundant iterations
of “Operation Paper Clip,” 1945-1948?
When a Kenyan was inserted into the U.S.
Report thispresidential position, in order to pave the way for
Mrs. Hillary Clinton? The fulfillment of John D.
Rockefeller´s promise to her of the U.S. Presidency,
about 30 yrs ago, when she finagled an oil deal for
him?
By tedmurphy41, October 6, 2010 at 7:39 am Link to this comment
Whatever you do, don’t mention Iran or, for that matter, Pakistan, India, France, the UK(under the full control of the USA), Russia, China, North Korea….................: Well, I don’t think I’ve forgotton anyone, have I?
Report thisBy prosefights, October 6, 2010 at 5:48 am Link to this comment
[t]hat we may face large increase of price of electricity in the future.
This situation may be far worse
According to the Times, China’s “civilian nuclear power industry” (and rest assured there’s
a Chinese military nuclear power industry as well) has 11 operating reactors, with as many
as 10 new reactors per year planned for the next 15 years. That’s 150 new reactors just in China.
So where will the world nuclear industry obtain the uranium fuel for all these new reactors?
That’s a darn good question. Just in the US, annual uranium use for the nuclear power
industry is about 55 million pounds. The US produces less than 4 million pounds of this
fuel - about 7% - and imports the rest.
Uranium supply shortage is real, and “Peak Uranium” is harder to deny than “Peak Oil”.
This year’s world uranium mine output could or might attain 55 000 tons, but demand will
be about 68000 tons. It is difficult to imagine what would happen to world oil, coal or gas
prices if their world supply was 20% lower than their world demand. ...
according to Byron King and Andrew McKillop.
http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/eprishumard/howard/howard.htm#howard
Officially sent to EPRI CEO Tuesday October 5, 2010.
Report thisBy Paul_GA, October 6, 2010 at 5:12 am Link to this comment
With all due respect, when a “has” nation decides to play kick-ass, Lafayette, the best possible deterrent I can think of for a “has-not” nation is an armed populace ready and willing to fight a “war of national liberation” against a foreign invader, no matter how long it takes and how ferocious said war must be waged, to drive out the invader and win.
Report thisBy Lafayette, October 6, 2010 at 12:31 am Link to this comment
Journalistic hyperbole, William?
How’d you like to be a resident of a “does not have” nation, when a “has nation” decides to play kick-ass?
As much as we may lambast MAD, it worked to bring peace, of sorts, to this world for the past sixty years since Soviet Russia first exploded its atomic bomb.
Report this