Published on Let's Try Democracy (http://www.davidswanson.org)
Home > Blogs > davidswanson's blog > The Pro-Nuclear War Party
________________________________________
The Pro-Nuclear War Party
Aug
14
The Pro-Nuclear War Party
Written by davidswanson Tag: Peace and War [1]
According to a Wall Street Journal report [2], the following people and
entities would like the United States to begin a nuclear war: Secretary of
State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Secretary of Energy
Ernest Moniz, the U.K., France, Japan, South Korea, and Germany. If any of
those people or entities believe they can prove a case of libel, it might be
a huge one. (Are you listening, Rupert?)
According to Mr. Murdoch's newspaper, the White House has been discussing
the possibility of declaring that the United States no longer has a policy
of engaging in the first use of nuclear bombs. The trouble is that those
individuals and nations named above object. They insist, we are told, that
the United States should have the policy of beginning a nuclear war.
Have the people of the UK, France, Japan, South Korea, Germany, or the
United States itself been polled on this? Has any legislature pretending to
represent any of those populations voted on this? Of course not. But what we
could do, perhaps, is amend the policy to read: "When the United States
begins the nuclear war, it shall announce that it is doing so in the name of
democracy." That should be good.
Has Mr. Kerry, Mr. Carter, or Mr. Moniz been evaluated by a psychiatrist?
Was Mr. Kerry against this before he was for it? The important question, I
believe, is whether they want to start the nuclear war with any hatred or
bigotry in mind. If what they intend is a loving, tolerant, and
multicultural nuclear war, then really what we ought to be worrying about is
the unfathomable evil of Donald Trump who has said that he'd like to kill
families -- and particular types of families.
Now, I am not claiming to have fathomed the evil of Mr. Trump, but it has
been U.S. policy since before there was a United States to kill families.
And it is my strong suspicion that a nuclear war and the nuclear winter and
nuclear famine it would bring to the earth would harm at least some families
of every existing type.
The non-nuclear nations of this off-its-axis planet have been moving forward
on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. That sort of strong and sane proposal
could have something to do with the White House interest in advancing
something as weak as a statement of no longer planning to be the first to
start the apocalypse. But you can see the logic of the profiteers quite
clearly. The same White House has laid out a plan to dump a trillion dollars
in the coming years into building smaller, more "usable," nukes. If the
United States commits to not using them first, as other nuclear nations have
already done, and if that commitment becomes universal, well, then nobody
will ever use them, and at some point in the 23rd century it might occur to
some bureaucrat that if nobody's ever going to use them, it might not be the
best use of unfathomable levels of spending to keep building them, and then
where would we be?
But, not to worry, the Wall Street Journal and a pair of aspiring
politicians have got you covered, because "a decision by Mr. Obama to press
ahead with the declaration appears unlikely in his remaining months, given
the controversy it would stir in the midst of a presidential election." If
you believe Mr. Obama is against controversy in the election, I've got an
argument for the deterrent value of nuclear weapons to sell you. If Hillary
Clinton were against first-use, so would Obama be. But she isn't. Neither is
His Huckstership, the Republican nominee.
Opening presidential election debates to include Jill Stein would create the
controversy on this and other issues that Mr. Murdoch and his fellow media
overlords would prefer to avoid. And Obama would find himself on the same
side of that controversy as anyone else who has completely and utterly lost
all sense of human decency.
This site is maintained by a union shop at MayFirst.org
________________________________________
Source URL: http://www.davidswanson.org/node/5246
Links:
[1] http://www.davidswanson.org/taxonomy/term/14
[2]
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/no-first-use-nuclear-policyproposal-assaile
d-by-u-s-cabinet-officials-allies-1471042014-lMyQjAxMTA2NjEwMzUxNDM0Wj
Published on Let's Try Democracy (http://www.davidswanson.org)
Home > Blogs > davidswanson's blog > The Pro-Nuclear War Party
The Pro-Nuclear War Party
Aug
14
The Pro-Nuclear War Party
Written by davidswanson Tag: Peace and War [1]
According to a Wall Street Journal report [2], the following people and
entities would like the United States to begin a nuclear war: Secretary of
State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Secretary of Energy
Ernest Moniz, the U.K., France, Japan, South Korea, and Germany. If any of
those people or entities believe they can prove a case of libel, it might be
a huge one. (Are you listening, Rupert?)
According to Mr. Murdoch's newspaper, the White House has been discussing
the possibility of declaring that the United States no longer has a policy
of engaging in the first use of nuclear bombs. The trouble is that those
individuals and nations named above object. They insist, we are told, that
the United States should have the policy of beginning a nuclear war.
Have the people of the UK, France, Japan, South Korea, Germany, or the
United States itself been polled on this? Has any legislature pretending to
represent any of those populations voted on this? Of course not. But what we
could do, perhaps, is amend the policy to read: "When the United States
begins the nuclear war, it shall announce that it is doing so in the name of
democracy." That should be good.
Has Mr. Kerry, Mr. Carter, or Mr. Moniz been evaluated by a psychiatrist?
Was Mr. Kerry against this before he was for it? The important question, I
believe, is whether they want to start the nuclear war with any hatred or
bigotry in mind. If what they intend is a loving, tolerant, and
multicultural nuclear war, then really what we ought to be worrying about is
the unfathomable evil of Donald Trump who has said that he'd like to kill
families -- and particular types of families.
Now, I am not claiming to have fathomed the evil of Mr. Trump, but it has
been U.S. policy since before there was a United States to kill families.
And it is my strong suspicion that a nuclear war and the nuclear winter and
nuclear famine it would bring to the earth would harm at least some families
of every existing type.
The non-nuclear nations of this off-its-axis planet have been moving forward
on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. That sort of strong and sane proposal
could have something to do with the White House interest in advancing
something as weak as a statement of no longer planning to be the first to
start the apocalypse. But you can see the logic of the profiteers quite
clearly. The same White House has laid out a plan to dump a trillion dollars
in the coming years into building smaller, more "usable," nukes. If the
United States commits to not using them first, as other nuclear nations have
already done, and if that commitment becomes universal, well, then nobody
will ever use them, and at some point in the 23rd century it might occur to
some bureaucrat that if nobody's ever going to use them, it might not be the
best use of unfathomable levels of spending to keep building them, and then
where would we be?
But, not to worry, the Wall Street Journal and a pair of aspiring
politicians have got you covered, because "a decision by Mr. Obama to press
ahead with the declaration appears unlikely in his remaining months, given
the controversy it would stir in the midst of a presidential election." If
you believe Mr. Obama is against controversy in the election, I've got an
argument for the deterrent value of nuclear weapons to sell you. If Hillary
Clinton were against first-use, so would Obama be. But she isn't. Neither is
His Huckstership, the Republican nominee.
Opening presidential election debates to include Jill Stein would create the
controversy on this and other issues that Mr. Murdoch and his fellow media
overlords would prefer to avoid. And Obama would find himself on the same
side of that controversy as anyone else who has completely and utterly lost
all sense of human decency.
This site is maintained by a union shop at MayFirst.org
Source URL: http://www.davidswanson.org/node/5246 ;
Links:
[1] http://www.davidswanson.org/taxonomy/term/14
[2]
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/no-first-use-nuclear-policyproposal-assaile
d-by-u-s-cabinet-officials-allies-1471042014-lMyQjAxMTA2NjEwMzUxNDM0Wj
