By Nina Tannenwald
In the spring of 2006, when rumors spread about a possible U.S. military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh reported that the Bush administration asked the Pentagon to include nuclear strikes among its options. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, however, strongly opposed any plans to target Iran with nuclear weapons; Heresh's sources told him that "there are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries." According to one of the sources, "[I]f senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen."
Click here to return to full article.
The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Why Democrats should use fear tactics
The Republicans have been very successful in using fear to win elections. They have won election after election using fear. Of course they have little else. Their policies have hurt the country and the people and, to the extent people realize them --- the Republicans are good at disguising their actions (lying) --- they dislike these policies. Fear works. And it works much too well --- because Democrats are cowards. It is amazing how much an incompetent, dishonest, unpopular person like George Bush is able to get away with. How can Democrats face, not only the electorate, but their own children?
Fear works. Thus it is time for the Democrats to use it. And there is much to be frightened of.
One topic, which strangely no one ever mentions, but which is terrifying, is accidental nuclear war. The US has more than 20,000 nuclear weapons --- thousands ready to launch within minutes (!) [Carla Anne Robbins, NY Times, June 30, 2008, p. A18]. Of course Russia, for which control of nuclear weapons is weaker, has roughly the same. One accident, one mistake: our countries will be destroyed. And if we continue this long enough that will happen.
What is the reason for this immensely dangerous policy? There isn’t any. It is our policy and we are not giving it up. And thinking about all these missiles is a lot of fun. Although many will disagree the purpose of the military is to protect the country, not to satisfy the emotional needs of people who love (among others) weapons, and certainly not to endanger the country (no matter how thrilling that is). Actually this country does not need politicians to run it; what it badly needs is psychiatrists.
We are concerned that if we remove these weapons from hair-trigger alert the Russians will be able to attack us, as if they didn’t have enough problems, although that will delay the destruction of their own country by only a few hours.
What should be done is to get an agreement to remove all missiles from such alert. Both getting such an agreement and changing the alert can be done very quickly. Yet no one is even thinking about this.
Then we should negotiate agreements to eliminate (at least most of) these weapons, and quickly. What is the point of having dangerous (to us) weapons if there are no targets for them, besides the great emotional satisfactions they bring? And weapons provide intense joy to (too) many.
Here is something that Obama should strongly call for and make a big campaign issue of. Let John McCain come out in favor of accidental nuclear war, or explain why he never raised the issue. He is the security expert (he claims) yet it is Obama who realizes the danger and tries to do something. John McCain’s claim to be a better president is his security background. He has very little else to claim. If that is taken away what arguments can he use? Here Obama can show that he is the one who knows the issues and can do something about them to protect the country, not McCain. He, not McCain, is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. This opportunity, to help the country and world, and gain a big electoral advantage, should not be thrown away. But of course it is almost certain that the Democrats will.
Biography
Books by R. Mirman
Our Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely
Group Theoretical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group
Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory:
geometry, language, logic
Quantum Field Theory, Conformal Group Theory, Conformal Field Theory
Group Theory: An Intuitive Approach
Point Groups, Space Groups, Crystals, Molecules
Headshot:
THE MOST IMPORTANT CAMPAIGN ISSUE THAT NO ONE EVER DISCUSSES
What is the most important issue facing the world? Clearly survival of the human race. Unfortunately this has many aspects, far too many. Some people are aware of, and even discuss one or two in campaigns. But others, though they are extremely dangerous, are never mentioned. It seems that no one cares if the human race is annihilated.
Nuclear war is one. No one plans on having a nuclear war (although terrorists might enjoy it they are unable to deliberately start a full-scale one). What then might cause such a catastrophe? An accident, and that is all too likely. If we wait long enough one is certain.
The US has 776 weapons ready to launch is seconds; Russia has 629. (FAS Public Interest Report, vol 61, #1, Spring 2008). Our control systems have flaws (some serious enough leading to the Sec. of the Air Force, and its Chief of Staff being fired). Do we really believe that the Russian systems are better? All it takes is one little mistake (and big ones have been made) to lead to massive destruction.
It might be argued that the risks are worth it if these weapons are needed. But no one claims that they are. These weapons, so dangerous to --- not others but --- ourselves have no mission, no rationale. Suppose we did not have them, would we and the Russians build them? But they are there and seemingly impossible to get rid of.
What is the reason for this immensely dangerous policy? There isn’t any. It is our policy and we are not giving it up. And thinking about all these missiles is a lot of fun. Although many will disagree the purpose of the military should be to protect the country, not to satisfy the emotional needs of people who love (among others) weapons, and certainly not to endanger the country (no matter how thrilling that is). Actually this country does not need politicians to run it; what it badly needs is psychiatrists.
Instead of putting much effort into reducing the number of weapons that threaten us we are increasing the number. We are intent on setting up an anti-missle "defense" (an unworkable defense against a nonexistent threat) against Iran in Eastern Europe. This infuriates Russia making it more difficult to work together to reduce the dangers to us. There is no plausible reason why Iran would launch a missle attack against Poland. Israel perhaps, leading to Iran's own destruction, so quite unlikely indeed. If we decide a missle attack by Iran is implausible there is always the danger that Lichtenstein or Grenada might develop missles to use against us and it is imperative to develop anti-missle defenses to protect ourselves.
We have been developing anti-missle defenses which don't work. But that is irrelevant. Just by being there they satisfy our emotional needs, which is really their purpose. This is true in general and explains much about our "defense" policies.
We are concerned that if we remove these weapons from hair-trigger alert the Russians will be able to attack us, as if they didn’t have enough problems, although that will delay the destruction of their own country by only a few hours.
Of couse having all these weapons increases the chances that terrorists will get some, as they would love to do. And it encourages other states, some quite dangerous, to develop their own weapons. Is that what we really want? Yet that is what our nuclear policies are encouraging. Try to find even the most extreme hawk who can justifies this. But no one is even trying to get such justification. That is a major reason such insanity continues. The people who are aware of this and realize the insanity are failing completely (as is
usually the case). They are doing nothing instead of what they should: education, challenging. Force those in power to justify exposing us to such dangers (but no one is even trying). Perhaps then they will be forced to act, and in a strange way: rationally.
What should be done is to immediately get an agreement to remove all missiles from this alert designed to lead of an accidental nuclear war. Both getting such an agreement and changing the alert can be done very quickly. Yet no one is even thinking about this. Nor is anyone even raising the issue.
Then we should negotiate agreements to eliminate (at least most of) these weapons, and quickly. What is the point of having dangerous (to us) weapons (4075 operational!) if there are no targets for them, besides the great emotional satisfactions they bring? And weapons provide intense joy to (too) many.
It is amazing that no one is even talking about this.
Here is something that Obama should strongly call for and make a big campaign issue of. Let John McCain come out in favor of accidental nuclear war, or explain why he never raised the issue. He is the security expert (he claims) yet it is Obama who realizes the danger and tries to do something. John McCain’s claim to be a better president is his security background. He has very little else to claim. If that is taken away what arguments can he use? Here Obama can show that he is the one who knows the issues and can do something about them to protect the country, not McCain. He, not McCain, is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. This opportunity, to help the country and world, and gain a big electoral advantage, should not be thrown away. But of course it is almost certain that the Democrats will.
Post a Comment