One Step Beyond
When I was twelve, a TV-movie was released in Britain entitled Threads. It's one of the few movies that has genuinely scared me; it terrified me. Even now there are scenes in the movie that make me break out in a cold sweat.
I suffered the very same reaction when I read about the latest escapades of the schoolyard bully GWB and his cronies. For those who haven't heard this story yet, the US government is currently considering a change to their National Defense Policy and their stance on the use of nuclear weapons. It's been in the pipeline since 2001, when President Bush requested research into the subject.
As things stand, the US is bound by its own policies in such a way that means that they can not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. In other words, if the US is engaged in an armed conflict with a country believed to not possess nuclear capability (such as Iraq), then the US may not, by its own law, use such weapons themselves. This is pretty much in accordance with the non-proliferation treaty, by which all nuclear capable countries agreed to reduce nuclear stockpiles and in essence work towards a WMD-free future. An applaudable agreement.
If the suggested change in policy goes through then it will radically change the way that US forces could wage war. Or to be more exact, could be ordered to wage war by their Commander-in-Chief, the President. In effect, the policy change would give the US the power to launch nuclear-capable WMDs against any nation, regardless of that nation's own nuclear capability. Even more frightening is the wording of the report (it's a large .pdf, so if you're on low bandwidth be warned).
The report itself basically suggests a shift in strategy that would allow the use of nuclear weapons in a number of somewhat hazy ways. These include using nukes to end a war successfully for the US and her allies (though who in their right mind would want to stand next to the kid with the biggest firecracker in the world?), to demonstrate the willingness and ability to use nukes as a deterrent (now it's not enough to have the stick, you need to prove you can use it...) or even just because the target can hold up against a non-nuclear attack. It would effectively turn nukes into strategic battlefield weapons, a project that the US started working on in the sixties, if I remember correctly.
On it's own, this shift would be worrying, but when you consider that in 1999 the US Senate voted against ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (the one that made all nuclear tests internationally illegal for all time) then it gets a whole lot worse. It paints a grim picture.
Imagine the scenario we have in Iraq at the moment. Front-line troops are ordered to withdraw from several cities known to contain terrorist cells and a few hours later those cities are hit by nuclear-armed cruise missiles. The argument would be that the terrorists have proved impervious to conventional attack, thus leaving no other choice.
Now I know that's an exaggerated example of the proposed policy in action, but we've already had the revelation that Bush sent the troops in the first place because God told him to. Could he use the same influence to launch nukes? And even if GWB has been relieved of command when the policy changes, it still means that the US then has the power to launch nukes whenever it feels there is no other alternative.
In the original draft of the report from 2002, several countries are listed by name as potential threats (in other words priority targets): Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria and China. It's well known that the US suspects that all of these countries already have nuclear-capable WMDs, so would they be immediate targets for a strike if the policy changes? To be honest, I'm not sure.
I've lived with the pseudo-threat of nuclear armageddon for most of my life. I'm too young to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, but seeing Threads as a kid, watching the city I lived in suffer from a nuclear attack, made me a little nervous to say the least. Growing up and learning the science and technology behind nukes just made it worse, and the smaller and more precise they get, the more nervous I get. Sure, they make a big bang and tend to destroy the target, but what about the after-effects? Who's going to deal with those?
I really hope that this change doesn't happen. There's already at least one online petition being signed, but you need to be a professional physicist to sign it, so I've decided to start my own. As well as linking to it from this post, I'm adding it as a permanent link. Please sign it, and ask others to sign it. The more people who show concern, the more power the people have.
Anyway, I have some writing to do, so I'm going to sign off.
Be well Sleepsville. I promise my next blog will be more light-hearted.
Addendum: If you're wondering why the second signature on the petition's been voided, it's because I accidentally signed twice. D'oh!
I suffered the very same reaction when I read about the latest escapades of the schoolyard bully GWB and his cronies. For those who haven't heard this story yet, the US government is currently considering a change to their National Defense Policy and their stance on the use of nuclear weapons. It's been in the pipeline since 2001, when President Bush requested research into the subject.
As things stand, the US is bound by its own policies in such a way that means that they can not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. In other words, if the US is engaged in an armed conflict with a country believed to not possess nuclear capability (such as Iraq), then the US may not, by its own law, use such weapons themselves. This is pretty much in accordance with the non-proliferation treaty, by which all nuclear capable countries agreed to reduce nuclear stockpiles and in essence work towards a WMD-free future. An applaudable agreement.
If the suggested change in policy goes through then it will radically change the way that US forces could wage war. Or to be more exact, could be ordered to wage war by their Commander-in-Chief, the President. In effect, the policy change would give the US the power to launch nuclear-capable WMDs against any nation, regardless of that nation's own nuclear capability. Even more frightening is the wording of the report (it's a large .pdf, so if you're on low bandwidth be warned).
The report itself basically suggests a shift in strategy that would allow the use of nuclear weapons in a number of somewhat hazy ways. These include using nukes to end a war successfully for the US and her allies (though who in their right mind would want to stand next to the kid with the biggest firecracker in the world?), to demonstrate the willingness and ability to use nukes as a deterrent (now it's not enough to have the stick, you need to prove you can use it...) or even just because the target can hold up against a non-nuclear attack. It would effectively turn nukes into strategic battlefield weapons, a project that the US started working on in the sixties, if I remember correctly.
On it's own, this shift would be worrying, but when you consider that in 1999 the US Senate voted against ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (the one that made all nuclear tests internationally illegal for all time) then it gets a whole lot worse. It paints a grim picture.
Imagine the scenario we have in Iraq at the moment. Front-line troops are ordered to withdraw from several cities known to contain terrorist cells and a few hours later those cities are hit by nuclear-armed cruise missiles. The argument would be that the terrorists have proved impervious to conventional attack, thus leaving no other choice.
Now I know that's an exaggerated example of the proposed policy in action, but we've already had the revelation that Bush sent the troops in the first place because God told him to. Could he use the same influence to launch nukes? And even if GWB has been relieved of command when the policy changes, it still means that the US then has the power to launch nukes whenever it feels there is no other alternative.
In the original draft of the report from 2002, several countries are listed by name as potential threats (in other words priority targets): Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria and China. It's well known that the US suspects that all of these countries already have nuclear-capable WMDs, so would they be immediate targets for a strike if the policy changes? To be honest, I'm not sure.
I've lived with the pseudo-threat of nuclear armageddon for most of my life. I'm too young to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, but seeing Threads as a kid, watching the city I lived in suffer from a nuclear attack, made me a little nervous to say the least. Growing up and learning the science and technology behind nukes just made it worse, and the smaller and more precise they get, the more nervous I get. Sure, they make a big bang and tend to destroy the target, but what about the after-effects? Who's going to deal with those?
I really hope that this change doesn't happen. There's already at least one online petition being signed, but you need to be a professional physicist to sign it, so I've decided to start my own. As well as linking to it from this post, I'm adding it as a permanent link. Please sign it, and ask others to sign it. The more people who show concern, the more power the people have.
Anyway, I have some writing to do, so I'm going to sign off.
Be well Sleepsville. I promise my next blog will be more light-hearted.
Addendum: If you're wondering why the second signature on the petition's been voided, it's because I accidentally signed twice. D'oh!
Crum
This comment also harks back to your posting 'Developing Madness' from earlier this year.
We live in a world were certain nations are fortunate enough to have the ability to democratically elect a government. The people of that nation (and other nations) may bitch and moan about who/which party was elected, but ultimately that government was placed in that position of power by it's own people. The losing parties and their sympathisers (and the rest of the world) may throw their arms up in disgust about every action that body makes, but that body is legally entitled to try to enforce their mandate.
We are all aware of the mess in Iraq. We are all aware that the mess may have been caused by a government attempting to flex its muscles and maintain it's position as Guardian of the World, an attempt to control world oil production, maybe even an attempt to bring some kind of balance to the religious turmoil of the middle east.
After all that has been said and done in Iraq, unimaginable numbers of lives lost on all sides, and a nation currently experiencing the problems of attempting to ratify a democratic constitution, who is in a position to judge that maybe The American government may have been right from the beginning?
This all leads up to the point of my post. Your original entry in August made a significant point of attacking the USA based on it's condemnation of Iran for resuming it's nuclear program (be that nuclear power or weapons). My question now is do you consider that the USA may have been correct, to have been concerned, about such an extreme nation that has publically announced its wishes to have Israel 'wiped from the map'?
So you've seen Threads, taken it to heart since it's 'your' city that was the victim. But imagine you're not living in Britain, imagine you're living in Israel, with Iran working on their nuclear 'power' program. Now what stand would you like Mr Bush to make?
I see the point that you're making here, and fully agree with your choice of questions. The problem is, as I've admitted on several occasions, I'm no expert and I don't have the answers.
It isn't just the US that's fuelling the fire, and I'm more than comfortable admitting that. At some point in the last hundred years almost every nation on the the planet has been behind one deplorable act or another. Not one nation can honestly claim to have a clear conscience. However, at this particular point in time, and with reference to the constantly shifting "nuclear question", it is primarily the US, under the Bush Administration, that seems to be making all the noise.
It doesn't matter whether you live in Israel or Islington, the potential for a nuclear attack (even if it's not against your homeland) is something that has existed since Big Boy and Little Boy fell on Japan. Wasn't it Oppenheimer who famously said, "...I have become Shiva, devourer of worlds..."?
Nuclear weapons are bad news. All weapons are bad news. Unfortunately, we're still only a few steps up the evolutionary ladder and violence is still a natural human reaction to a threat.
Surprisingly enough, with your final question you hit the nail right on the head, and knowing you the way I do, Mr A, I'm wondering if that's your point. It shouldn't be about what stance GWB takes. It should be about what stance the whole world takes. While one nation acts as the world's guardian there's an imbalance. In my opinion, it's only when national, religious, philosophical and cultural borders are abolished that we'll see a shift towards peace.
At the end of the day, it still boils down to who has the biggest stick, and that's all wrong.
I believe the quote is actually;
"Now I have become Death, Destroyer of Worlds" but hey we knew where you were coming from thanks for the critique on slowdive by the way. Have updated it as noticed 3 typo's!! It's a lot better now!
Sorry got quote slightly wrong.
"Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds!"
also the bombs were Fat Man and Little Boy.
I'll stop being picky now!
[Post a comment]