Who can forget the movie "Dr. Strangelove.."? One crazy general sets the wheels in motion towards MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) with the people in power seemingly unable to cope with the diplomacy required to prevent it. Released in 1964, it brought attention to the insanity that is our nuclear weapons program.
Agreements were put in place with SALT I in 1972, and SALT II in 1979. There have been other lesser dimplomatic achievements since then, but it seemed everyone understood that to fire a single nuclear missile would result in MAD.
Apparently, that zeitgeist never reached certain military leaders in NATO. They have declared that Pre-emptive nuclear strike is a key option
The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists.
Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".
Whether or not the manifesto is taken as policy remains to be seen, but let's not ignore the fact that this is coming from high-level military leaders. Let's also not forget that the Bush Administration refused to take the nuclear option off the table when discussing Iran.
Another reason this is so scary is the flimsy rationale that is often used to initiate a war. Did I say flimsy? How about lies - 935 of them
A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.
"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
The rationale that nothing can come off the table to fight this War on Terra is disturbing at face value, especially when it can be shown that this really isn't a war on terror
In sum, the war on terror is a political gambit and myth used to cover over a U.S. projection of power that needed rhetorical help with the disappearance of the Soviet Union and Cold War. It has been successful because U.S. leaders could hide behind the very real 9/11 terrorist attack and pretend that their own wars, wholesale terrorist actions, and enlarged support of a string of countries—many authoritarian and engaged in state terrorism—were somehow linked to that attack and its Al Qaeda authors. But most U.S. military actions abroad since 9/11 have had little or no connection with Al Qaeda; and you cannot war on a method of struggle, especially when you, your allies and clients use those methods as well.
So while the U.S. is engaging in a false war under false pretenses, and a top-level general is promoting nuclear first strikes as a viable military strategy, what is the U.S. doing to keep the nuclear problem from proliferating any worse than it already has?.... um... Selling our nuclear secrets to foreign countries
Edmonds had told this newspaper that members of the Turkish political and diplomatic community in the US had been actively acquiring nuclear secrets. They often acted as a conduit, she said, for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they attracted less suspicion.
She claimed corrupt government officials helped the network, and venues such as the American-Turkish Council (ATC) in Washington were used as drop-off points.
The anonymous letter names a high-level government official who was allegedly secretly recorded speaking to an official at the Turkish embassy between August and December 2001.
It claims the government official warned a Turkish member of the network that they should not deal with a company called Brewster Jennings because it was a CIA front company investigating the nuclear black market. The official’s warning came two years before Brewster Jennings was publicly outed when one of its staff, Valerie Plame, was revealed to be a CIA agent in a case that became a cause célèbre in the US.
Hmmm... perhaps Plame's husband Wilson was just an excuse to out her so they could shut down a program that was causing them problems? :foil:
Perhaps we have a few Dr. Strangelove's in our government...