To summarise the article: if we don't turn the West™ into a coherent Imperial machine the lesser races will take over and pollute our bodily fluids.
I am so tired of this dumb-ass shit: apply more of what got us into this position to get us out of it. Fucking tunnel visioned, unimaginative, dishonest and hypocritical nonsense.
Bring on the Freedom Agenda.
Iran.
Having learned from the Israeli destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, the Iranians have taken the step of locating most of their facilities well beneath the surface. Further, they've located many of them beneth civilian centers.
The Israelis (military) remain convinced that they can take out these facilities with conventional weapons, but the US has been working for several years to conduct conventional tests to simulate the effect of a low yield nuclear weapon on geological formations similiar to the conditions at Iranian facilities.
The name of this program is Divine Strake, officaly it has been cancelled due to intense public opposition in Nevada, and later in Indiana when news leaked of an intended test in that state. In the latter case, the test was to occur in a limestone quarry in the southern part of the state. Although the test consisted of multiple tons of conventional high yield explosives, the yield being appromiately 0.5 kiloton, roughly in the same range as nuclear artillery deployed by the US in Europe during the Cold War. (It may have taken the Soviets 15 minutes to take Berlin, but a nuclear counterforce option could have annihlated a Soviet tank division crossing through the Fulda Gap.)
The point of nuclear weapons is that by raising the stakes of conflict to unacceptable levels, they help ensure peace. That's MAD doctrine, mutually assured destruction, however a second doctrine called NUTs, nuclear utilization theory (no I am not making this up), argues for the development of subkiliton weapons to fill the gap between the blockbusters of the Second World War and Thermonuclear Armageddeon.
Would you like to play a game? (Y/N) And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Iran has nothing to do with security or proliferation or any of the otherf nonsense. Iran is another oil grab by Washington and the Saudis.
Peace with Iran is the worst possible outcome, because the oil keeps flowing, a hostile-ish state entrenches itself in one of the most useful positions on the game board, and it decreases the financial leverage of both the Saudis and the Washington Oil cabal.
War would push up prices, constrict supplies, enhance the stability of the rather wobbly Saudi regimes (at least they believe it would - whether it would actually do that is a different issue), and increase the possibility of a sympathetic new government (qv 'puppet') in Iran.
Threatening a nuclear first strike seems harsh, but it's all part of the same campaign of political pressure.
Is it possible that Grenada has forgotten the lesson administered by the US? Would they broach a "limited" first strike against Wall St, to neutralize this silly talk of a recession? I'll bet the real threat is from the eastern Nato countries themselves, what with this warfare of carbon tax on imports. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Self-aimed Nuclear First Strike to destroy our Nuclear First Strike capability! It's the selfless and responsible mass geno-suicide strategy implemented for the good of the world.
Also, it exploits our current strategic advantage before our enemies can close the mineshaft gap! Just look at the Big Board!
...Cue Vera Lynn
The bomb explodes, and, according to the Soviet ambassador, life on Earth's surface will be extinct in ten months due to the Doomsday Machine. Dr. Strangelove recommends to the President that a group of about 200,000 people be relocated deep in a mine shaft, where the nuclear fallout cannot reach them, so that the USA can be repopulated afterwards. Because of space limitations, Strangelove suggests a gender ratio of "ten females to each male," with the women selected for their sexual characteristics, and the men selected on the basis of their physical strength, intellectual capabilities and their importance in business and the government. General Turgidson rants that the Soviets will likely create an even better bunker than the US, and argues that America "must not allow a mine shaft gap."
ブッシュ大統領によると イランはひどいそうです。 - According to president Bush, Iran is terrifying.
Surely, I can not tell what classmates were thinking, but relative silence felt like I was the first to come up with a negative (= unreasonable to believe) example. Someone later gave a sentence about UFO stories on the internet.
Yet, this is what "infallible" TV channels have to broadcast often.
(It helped me that the words for "president", "terrifying" and even "Iran" somehow came up in the material for that class.)
Look at what the French are doing in the Persian Gulf. France under Sarkozy is building an indepedent "European" (France is Europe?) option against the Iranians and threats to the flow of oil from the region. That's why France has taken options to develop a military presence in Dubai. It allows two things.
The French have the option of carrying out an air strike against Iranian nuke facilities if the US withdraws from the Gulf in 2009. And if allows France a say on what comes in and out of the Straights of Hormuz, i.e. Saudi oil from Ras Tanura.
And if you really want to be disturbed consider that Sarkozy offered Germany French nukes, and not ny nukes, but the top of the line. A nuclear submarine, the single most desired option of the nuclear triad, allowing the holder to retain a second strike option even if their homeland has been annihlated, thereby creating a balance of terror.
It's nearly impossible to take them out, becuase they are 1)mobile and 2) able to hide beneath the waves.
Sarkozy is trying, or at least tried, to break the German-American aggreement reached in 1968, when the Germans were assured US protection in exchange for remaining in NATO. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Don't confuse the actions of the the French head of state for the personal proclivities of Monsieur Sarkozy.
This is a problem that relates to France's role in the world, not the Sarkozy government alone. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Sarkozy is trying, or at least tried, to break the German-American aggreement reached in 1968, when the Germans were assured US protection in exchange for remaining in NATO.
Is that really a bad thing? Wait this is important. Someone is wrong on the Internet.
Uneasy allies is much superior to heavily armed foes. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
And if they really wanted it, Spain could have operational nukes in less than a year due to the civilian nuclear industry. Up until the late 1980's Spain had a passive nuclear weapons program.
In the absence of American hegemony, do you really think that Madrid is going to sit by while the global economic order is ripped to shreds by the rise of a nonliberal hegemon. (See China, see always Imperial Germany in the last century.) And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
But, no, there's nothing liberal about American hegemony right now; there was little that was liberal about it, as BooMan has pointed out, under Bill Clinton (who gets a pass because of the sickeningly low bar set by Junior); and there'll be nothing liberal about it when St McCain or Her Majesty win the White House in November. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
I'm saying that US hegemony while highly imperfect is at least cloaked in the capitalist system rather than naked imperialism.
I doubt that the Chinese will be so obliging. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Neither form of hegemony is good. We need a multi-polar world. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
And anyone with an inkling of understanding of what European imperialism was like in the Belgian Congo or German Southwest Africa would understand why that's an extremely inappropriate thing to say.
The problem with conflating the two, is it obscures the line between them, and makes it possible to slip from economic dominantion to the something more naked without seeing it coming.
Remember that in Iraq, the main course of civilian casualties has been intercine fighting, not something directly attributable to occupying US forces.
The last time we had mulitpolarity, we got the Second World War, because it's an unstable system that encourages states to pass the buck on deterring agressors to other great powers.
Economic autarky and withdraw to the American continent is an option for the United States if faced with Chinese agression, it is not for European states that are far more depedent on resource imports and are exposed to the east and south on land fronts that allow a nation to attack without being forced to transport their forces across large stretches of water. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
I'll be honest, I have not problem with a preemptive nuclear attack on North Korean facilities if it becomes clear that they intend to put nuclear warheads that match the missiles they sell on the open market.
Imagine a world in which warring African states or even rebel groups have access to nuclear weapons through the world market. Or private military groups like Blackwater.
Nuclear weapons must not be allowed to become an object of sale on the world market. If they do they will be used.
And once that taboo is broken, you aren't going to put the genie back in the bottle. Think about chemical weapons, you had prohibitions against their use in international law prior to the first World War, but once they were used on the battlfield their use multiplied.
Imagine the Iran-Iraq war with counterforce nuclear strikes by the Iraqis against Iranian forces massed in the Fao peninsula. The Iraqis did use chemical weapons.
And remember that nuclear weapons (and the capacity to deliver them to your adversaries homeland) give possesor states a veto on foreign intervention on their territory.
There's one state that would find that incredibly desirable: Saudi Arabia.
All it would take is the possession of a small nuclear force on the order of the Israeli arsenal in order to prevent intervention. And if Saudi falls to Sunni extremism in the way Iran fell to Khomeini in 1979?
Would the US, Britain, or France place their cities on the line to defend the Israeli state against a genocidal attack launched by extremist intent on establishing a regional Caliphate?
What happens if the Israelis destroy Mecca? If they turn the Plain of Arafat, all the holy sites rendered radioactive wastelands? Do you suppose that would end well for Europe or the United States? And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
And let's not pretend that there are circumstances in which the premptive use of nuclear weapons is justified.
I don't recall saying there were such circumstances. I'm opposed to preemption, period, but you seem to be making an argument for it on North Korea. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Just because it's an option, need not mean that it be exercised.
What I do believe is that it's extremely dangerous for the North Koreans to do for nuclear weapons what they've done for missiles.
Put them on the market for the highest bidder. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
In 2002, the Spanish ship SS Navarra, stopped a North Korean freighter of the coast of Somalia with 43 Scud missiles bound for Yemen.
They have no concern for the impact of their proliferation of missile technology, and only want to generate cold, hard cash that the can't in any other way.
For the love of all that it holy, they smuggle narcotics into developed countries using diplomatic pouches, and sell it to local dealers. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Because Yemen is offically an ally, and it wasn't the smoking gun that the Bush White House was hoping for.
Now missiles are not particularly useful without a nasty payload, and high explosive isn't that nasty. Biological weapons are hard to disperse. Chemical weapons have a similiar problem, and do nothing to undermine enemy infrastructures, having use in being a terror weapon or against enemy forces. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
In my view, it's all fear-mongering. And, as I said, I don't believe a word any of these hawks tell me. It's just sad that this nonsense has polluted our side of the aisle. The Bush Doctrine has got to go, and it's absolutely shameful that Democrats are reinforcing it. (This, more than anything else, is why I'm going to have real trouble showing up on November 4th.) But, as Bill Maher once said, Americans would eat paint if you spent enough money on advertising. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Ignoring that - the bravado about punishing North Korea for selling Nukes is simply that - unless one is willing to risk the quite likely possibility that if they have nukes to sell, they have made a certain amount of effort to safe keep nukes for a second strike.
As Sibel Edmonds as point out - forget about N. Korea when it comes to selling nuclear secrets. Pay attention to a country far closer to home - the United States.
aspiring to genteel poverty
And their narcotics smuggling wouldn't be an issue if we weren't so concerned about policing other people's drug use. We could bankrupt them on that front at a moment's notice by ending just one of our many stupid wars, but I'm in the minority on that sort of thing, unfortunately, while the majority seems content to do the same things over and over expecting different results. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
How dare they!
The first strike doctrine gave us the Cuban Missile Crisis. MAD (which is a retaliation doctrine) gave us more stability.
don't know when....
classics never die...and people represented in classics neither.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
The decision by the US to build missile interception installations in the Czech Republic and Poland was an incredibly stupid move. As the Americans discuss this and the status of US forces assigned to the installations in both countries, Russia, both the leaders and ordinary Russians, are watching the developments with concern. Why Washington had to provoke this unfortunate state of affairs is hard to understand. Russia had repeatedly signaled readiness to collaborate with the United States, and Washington should have turned over a new leaf in international relations with Russia at its side.
an increasingly brutal world
And we're still only eight years in. There's still plenty of time to beat last century's record.
This admission, together with the reduced incentive from the abandonment of MAD ("If you don't blow me away, I won't... aw hell, maybe I will at that.") may well end up promoting proliferation than otherwise. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
The authors - General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato's ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato's military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK - paint an alarming picture.........
The key threats are: · Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.
· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.
What about military fundamentalism?
Will there be an European politician to tell the military it's not their business to set out policies? The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)
Language.
MfM, you sound like me thirty years ago.
Sorry if that sounds patronizing, but there it is. Your entire analysis could have come from a neocon geostrategic briefing paper. You make their most passionately held point--we need the Empire to manage the unruly nations, and the choice is ours or "theirs"--"them" being anyone else who might assert power.
The Generals speak the language of "military" think, in which the basic assumption is that diplomacy is powerless. Perhaps this blindness is caused by the fact that by the time the military option is exercised, the diplomatic one HAS failed. But, in general, (!!) there are few groups with less useful, more dangerous qualifications to make policy than the generals. Read my diary in which I remember Dr. Hansen, who wanted to nuke Red China as a humanitarian obligation.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/9/8/53024/82110
His logic was a lot like the logic that emerges above, and he was wrong. Had diplomacy failed, (or been absent from the discussion) he might have been proven right.
That said, you may well be right this time--and for the same reason. This sort of blindness creates a situation in which the game played becomes a very special type of game- a negative sum game in which if one player initiates the game, all must play. Think arms race.
This whole discussion deletes that most central human ability-to talk it over and find compromise, common ground, or at least a non-fatal strategy. The US today?
John Bolton: "I don't do carrots."
More than once I have pointed out that because of this, and the loss of the Empire's other sources of power, the US is in danger of breaking the nuclear taboo.
As a grad student, I found myself traveling ever deeper into the land of the expert, which predisposes "expert think". When I discovered that I was becoming an expert, and therefore losing a broader picture, my education began a different path. I'm grateful for that discovery. Good (or at least functional) policy is the province of generalists. Policy makers employ experts, and hopefully know when to gently put them back in their box. With luck, someone will be smart enough to put these guys away.
Eisenhower was the exception in the world of the military- he held onto the broader view. I don't know how, but it's a good thing. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
I can't believe I've got to say this to a bunch of economic wonks like the ET crowd; ah well.
According to your own reporting, the Ponzi world economy is tanking, NO? The ultrawealthy read ET too ... they aren't all Paris Hiltons. The ultrawealthy will STAY ultrawealthy ... NO MATTER WHAT! What's the best way for this to occur? (Do I really have to type this?)
First, fear. Scare the crap out of people ... ordinary people ... so they don't see who is screwing them and how bad. If that doesn't work, Plan B ...
Second, pick a country, any country. Bomb the crap out of them. Now THAT'S a distraction that always works.
Who's the enemy? Doesn't matter!
The REAL enemy? Why, you and me, of course. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
Who exactly do we need first use against?
The Russian newspaper Izvestia has the answer to your question today in a lead article quoting the president of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Problems, General Leonid Ivashov, who is quoted as saying the US and NATO are preparing the ground for a nuclear strike against objectionable countries.
Ivashov says:
Ivashov says that neither Russia, nor China and not anyone else is prepared to give a nuclear response to a nuclear strike by the United States against some country it doesn't like. He says the US and its allies know that and are betting on getting off scot free if they use nuclear weapons first.
He says:
That is probably correct.
Izvestia
All the old levers of power have pretty much broken off in their hands. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
