George W. Strangelove

[makanaka]

Mini nukes. Nuclear posture review. Axis of evil + Russia, China, Syria and Libya. Bunker-busting N-weapons to reduce collateral damage. New Triad.

Are you all feeling as fearful, bewildered and helpless as I am?

[seditiousdeviant]

nope - feeling invigorated and hopeful. the good book said this would happen in 2000 years - and here we are! we will witness the rebirth! I will get my ultra UV glasses out and wait for it on my roof.
bring it on george!
Hallelujah!

[Nightshade]

Time to wean the president off all those Hollywood political conspiracy flicks and he'll be less prone to dramatics.  Hope it hasn't triggered off some 3rd world war in the making!

[want_to_believe]

heard they already stepped back from the initial statement

[nosy]

They are Morons! That is all I have to say.

Somebody put a leash on these cowboys before they destroy the human race. Abosulte idiots!

Bush highlights the critical nature of controlling Saddam. How hypicritical. I'd say we need someone to control him. Now, what do you think these countries mentioned are going to do, knowing that the US is targeting them with Nuclear weapons. heh?

The US has the defense system against nuclear weapons. What about the rest of us. I guess they don't really care do they?

Good one!

[want_to_believe]

well, i think plan's like this have been ther for a long time , and maybe similar paln's exist in russia, france , uk , israel, irak , india, pakistan, china , syria and many other countries. The only difference is that they never made public. Or do you believ russia or china had there nuclear weapons just stored in some warehouse with out any plan for potential targets or without any intention to use them. There are still many nuclear ICBM's in rushia, pakistan, india or china , targeting western countries and wait that someone push the button. Same for US, France and others.The only big differenc now is, that this information has never been  realeased to the world .That was a very stupid thing, I agree. And of course, all this countries should already know this since years , otherwise it's time to fire your chief of intelligence. And, the US have no ( usefull) defemce system for nuclear weapons in place.

[This message has been edited by want_to_believe (edited 12-03-2002).]

[seditiousdeviant]

yes yes, but remember the diplomatic lingo - tango. if george W (or any other president) says "we believe that a regime change in iraq would be beneficial" - that is as close to a declaration of war as you will get - before the declaration of war. what do you think cheney is doing in the middle east? getting ready for war. so if this nuclear info "leaks", it is just a precursor to something bigger and bolder - or maybe it was just a leak (see, it works - no one is sure, so no one can criticise them until it is too late. and until it is too late they always have the excuse "it was just a leak...). Either way or the other you have to read between the lines. One pattern is clear  - the current bush administration is playing a game of destabilisation and division. purely politically, might not be a bad game. they have the power and momentum, and at the end of the day they may have greatly increased their (oil) influence on the globe, have the beginnings of a missile defence system in place, and have a much stiffer internal security apparatus in place. and these were all goals of the current administration from the start, much before s11. but of course they did not come right out and say all that.

[nosy]

Firstly, there is a difference between these plans and others. These are “strike first” plans and not defensive ones. This is a little different. In this case they are talking about non defensive tactical weapons.

Secondly, … The US says "Hello Mr Iran, Iraq and N Korea, you can't have any weapons of mass destruction" and then says "by the way, we are developing new nuclear weapons to use on you". What do you think these countries along with the others mentioned in the report are going to do? More suspicious of the US action. Fingers on the triggers. Somebody will sneaze!

Thirdly, the US does possess defensive weapons in case of a nuclear attack.

Fourthly, I don’t know which is scarier. Whether this report was leaked out of the congress or they intentionally passed it onto the reporters to use it as a threat. Either way, the words hypocritical, war mongering morons come to mind who do not understand the implications of their actions.

God help us all!

[Bruno]

Some people need to read more before they comment. The nuke review is something the Pentagon does by necessity. The consideration of all possibilities is their job. It was done during previous presidencies and will continue to be done. It's not policy.

[nosy]

There is nuke review and then there is nuke review. I am sure you know that.

[want_to_believe]

no one gives the US any bonus for all the good things they do. Fighting the evil in this world for so many years. Remeber the cold war where only the us was strong enough to protect us from the Communist states . Keep dangoures states or organisations like North Korea, Irak, Syria, Palestine ,IRA, ETA ,Jihad , Taliban and other crazy's away from nuclear weapons  makes this world a lot safer, thast for sure. If you dont like the way they do it , show me an alternative.

[makanaka]

Seems to me that this is yet again an example of a US administration bent upon thumbing its nose at international obligations.

Want_to_believe, as I understand it the US is bound, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers. Now what this pronouncement does is instruct the Pentagon to make all the necessary preparations to do so, while not actually violating the letter of the Treaty. It is, if you like, an announcement that the US government will violate the Treaty whenever it deems it desirable.

Bruno, this was and is no idle comment. At one level of the argument, as expats we trade some amount of security for valuable global experience (and usually more lucrative postings). If you agree that both talent and capital is borderless, then what counts? Security in a global sense. Do you really think this makes you feel more secure?

Also, this is possibly the first such list ever made public. Yes it is true that the Nuclear Posture Review outlines a much broader range of political, strategic and tactical scenarios under which the US government would use nuclear weapons.

It does seem to me that the Nuclear Posture Review is a highly political document. When the Reagan administration thought about reversing approx 30 years of Cold War policy based on the doctrine of containment, it drafted a new Nuclear Posture Review which threw out the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction.

The idea was to achieve nuclear strategic superiority - to ensure that the US would survive a devastating nuclear exchange with the then Soviet Union and still have enough intact and unused nuclear weapons to "prevail" in a post-apocalypse world.

To me, that's the "lingo-tango" that seditiousdeviant has named.

Now this new report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on South Korea, or in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbour.

Don't you think that last contingency is most imminent and therefore most worrying, since the US is openly preparing for a military assault on Iraq?

I'm surprised by the inclusion of such sweeping statements that suggest that nuclear weapons could be used "in the event of surprising military developments". Yes, gentlemen, and what exactly do you spend multi-billion dollar intelligence budgets on so that you don't get surprised?

To hear them in their own words (or thereabouts), Pentagon officials are reported as saying that such language was intended to cover the possible use of new types of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists, but it could apply equally well to a terrorist attack like September 11. Ergo? The Nuclear Posture Review would seem to authorise nuclear retaliation in the event of any such attack.

Finally, want_to_believe, I cannot follow what you mean by "no one gives the US any bonus for all the good things they do". If I understand you, then I wish you had made a distinction between the American people and the US government.

I certainly don't see, and I know many who do not, them as being part of the same whole. But then, you use the words "fighting the evil in this world". Are you adopting Rumsfeld-speak because you like what he stands for or because it's the easy way out?

In any case, want_to_believe, the alternative that you ask for exists in the shape of bodies like the UN, the International Court of Justice, independent human rights organisations. Whatever gave you the idea that a US administration can arrogate to itself the right to replace these institutions, and in attempting to do so, expect the rest of the world to idly sit by?

[nosy]

WTB:
"no one gives the US any bonus for all the good things they do. Fighting the evil in this world for so many years"

Again you have managed to crack me up. That was very funny. well done.

[Bruno]

You said it yourself: ``The Pentagon should be prepared ... .'' Not the government, the Pentagon. The Pentagon's responsibility is to plan for different scenarios. It has done so. You're getting excited over nothing.

Secondly, you must be kidding with your suggestion that the UN, the ICJ and independent human rights groups have any credibility. A huge majority of UN states are autocratic. The organiz\ation is ridden with corruption. I know, my father-in-law works for them. The ICJ wold presumably conduct trials such as that in Rwanda where the judges snicker at the testimony of rape defendents. Rights groups like Amnesty fall all over themselves in Durban, supporting a proclamation that singles out just one country in the world as racist -- Israel.

[makanaka]

Bruno, here's a link you may find interesting http://www.thebulletin.org  which is the publication of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

It was founded by a group of World War II-era Manhattan Project scientists, and they have warned the world of nuclear dangers since 1945. They also make occasional adjustments to the "Doomsday Clock". It is their symbol of nuclear danger - a clock which for the past 55 years has been hovering dangerously close to the midnight hour.

When that clock first made its appearance the minute hand was at seven to midnight. It was the Cold War, and the prospect of mutally assured nuclear annihilation between the US and the USSR was terribly real.

On Feb 27, about a fortnight ago, the Bulletin made its most recent adjustment, one which was overlooked by most of the media. It moved the minute hand from nine to seven minutes to midnight. That means a greater threat of nuclear danger.

This is what the Bulletin had to say about why it made the move: "The September 11 attacks, and the subsequent and probably unrelated use of the mail to deliver deadly anthrax spores, breached previous boundaries for terrorist acts and should have been a global wake-up call. Moving the clock's hands at this time reflects our growing concern that the international community has hit the "snooze" button rather than respond to the alarm."

"We move the hands taking into account both negative and positive developments. The negative developments include too little progress on global nuclear disarmament; growing concerns about the security of nuclear weapons materials worldwide; the continuing US preference for unilateral action rather than cooperative international diplomacy; US abandonment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and US efforts to thwart the enactment of international agreements designed to constrain proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; the crisis between India and Pakistan; terrorist efforts to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons; and the growing inequality between rich and poor around the world that increases the potential for violence and war."

The statement continues and you can read the rest on the site linked to above.

Therefore, Bruno, I don't think I'm getting "excited over nothing", as you say. I'm getting concerned about what this means for the sovereignty of countries, and the rule of international law.

I fail to see how and why you are - if that's what you mean - making a distinction between what the US Pentagon does and what the US administration does. Do you mean to say that the US military establishment is completely independent of the executive and altogether not answerable to the judiciary? If yes then you will agree that there is cause for concern that the US may be experiencing extra-constitutional problems.

One more, Bruno. "Secondly, you must be kidding with your suggestion that the UN, the ICJ and independent human rights groups have any credibility" is what you say.

No, I am not kidding. Why should I be and why should you construe it as such? Are you suggesting that these multilateral bodies have no role to play whatsoever, that their charters and covenants are without meaning, that they have no influence at all in global affairs, and that whatever they propose to do can be turned down at the whim of a US government that is currently in power?

If that is indeed what you are suggesting, then really Bruno at a personal level I fail to see why you as an expat expect (a) your worth to be recognised (b) your talent to be valued (c) your contribution to the society that you currently choose to live in be noted and (d) your concerns as a global citizen to be recorded.

The only mechanisms that can do so must be supra-national, like the ones I have mentioned. They are there. You should help that positive globalisation happen, rather than pour scorn on them.

Finally, you must know that what globally well-known names like Amnesty rely on are the efforts of numerous local, national and regional human rights bodies and groups. If you don't know how they work and what dangers they go through to make the truth known, you have no right to question their credibility.