I just heard (Alex Christoforou) that the UK will be shipping depleted uranium shells to Ukraine. So, radioactive waste distributed in Eastern Ukraine, since the Zelensky regime likely won't retake it. Will genuine nukes be far behind?
So the U.S. has the capability to obliterate about 14,000 Hiroshimas, just on its current submarine fleet. This doesn't include all the land-based ICBMs, nor the Bomber-dispatched warheads, etc.
Once there was at least sane leadership in the U.S., which agreed with Russia on at least limiting the total destructive power of their arsenals. Talks begat limitations that began ratcheting down those arsenals, and the ABM and INF treaties succeeded.
But the neocons, who have subsequently taken over the power centers of U.S. foreign policy, aren't particularly rational and the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from those treaties.
The ABM treaty was a key piece, for Anti-Ballistic Missile systems by nature upended a nuclear state's reliance on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) - the deterrent ability represented by the other's state's ability to retaliate. MAD effectively removed any state's incentive for a first strike. ABMs could theoretically neutralize (or at least significantly reduce) a retaliatory strike; and both sides understood that and agreed to their ban.
George W. Bush, no doubt under advice of Donald Rumsfeld, unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the ABM. It wasn't long before the U.S. Patriot ABM system was deployed to Poland and other places ringing Russia. As some have pointed out, the problem with ABMs isn't limited to their ability to constrain any retaliatory strike. They are platforms which can easily be adapted to offensive use as well. In any case, Trump, similarly led by Mike Pompeo, withdrew from the INF as well.
What is any state left to make of these developments, and of Obama's assent (after he'd won the Nobel Peace Prize, no less!) to commit another Trillion dollars to modernizing the U.S. nuclear strike potential? And of the U.S. push to expand a hostile military alliance around the nation so targeted?
Would it be too much to hope for that a citizenry will awaken to this lunacy in time to stand up with others and say, loudly, "NO MORE!" ? Because, based on the results of the last twenty years or so of elections, I don't have much hope that any political leadership will show such enlightenment.
Looking ahead, we have to hope - and pray - that the citizens wake up. The increasing visceral hatred being displayed toward Russia (and China) by many of the West's "leaders" means the next time there's an alert of incoming missiles - it may not be dismissed as a computer error (for example, as it was by the Russian watch officer during Able Archer 83). And with hypersonic missiles, the days of asking for confirmation will be over - it will be launch on warning. And that's all before AI systems take over the command and control functions - Terminator Judgment Day.
Based on the last twenty-two years of absolute total silence by the American People about their government's "Forever War," i have zero hope that the American People are ever going to demand anything from their politicians or their political system.
And until that happens, ain't nothin gonna change except to get worse.
Jeff, being both idealist but also one who can 'read the tea-leaves' , i.e. see the trends, I can't disagree on either point. However the trend-lines point, I'll continue to maintain seeds of hope that something short of a completed, major extinction event killing off most of humanity will persuade the citizenry to snap out of their propaganda-induced sleep-walk, mobilize with others and put an end to 'business as usual'.
No... if i was a betting man, I wouldn't bet my life savings on it. But I will still do what little I can to make it happen. Why otherwise would we even take the time to write about such things if we didn't maintain at least some seeds of hope that others might be inspired also to do what they can?
i hear what You are saying, Roger; but let me point out an incontestable fact:
The internet ~ in chat groups, the blogosphere, and social media ~ has been awash with people posting positive pings hoping to inspire Other people to “also do what they can” since 9/11. And here we are today.
That RAGE AGAINST THE WAR MACHINE ANTI-WAR RALLY in DC on 19Feb ~ the FIRST planned major anti-war action in this country since that big weekend back in 2003 just before we launched our search for Saddam’s “WMDs” ~ drew 750 to 1500 [depending on the source] Peace Warriors. And the CODE PINK/Veterans For Peace/etc etc etal’s 18mar MARCH ON THE WHITE HOUSE drew considerably less.
At some point, it is going to take a lot more than endless chit-chat on the internet to make anything happen.
And my guess is that the Planet Earth would have no problem at all with “most of humanity” being killed off in some sort of Armageddon Event. Even if it takes significant numbers of the Plant, Animal, Fungi, Protista, and Monera Kingdoms with them.
As it stands right now, if most of humanity sticks around and continues to destroy the Planet’s Biosphere at its current pace, significant numbers of those Folks in those other Kingdoms will continue to get disappeared anyway, and even more so than they already are now.
In any event, Earth will abide; one way or another. Whether the species Homo sapiens sapiens is still along for the ride is still to be determined.
Jeff, I didn't mean to suggest that I EXPECT all will awaken and voila! all problems solved. As I said, I can read the trends as well as anyone. And I never said it will be easy. To build the kind of mass movement of a scale that I think would be necessary to force change is a most daunting prospect. As a a 5-decades-long dissident and once professional community organizer, I know the obstacles better than most. Ego-driven behaviors (self-centeredness) of individuals will make organizing difficult enough; then there's the sheer amount of $$ and institutionalized power we're up against. And IF such movements actually pose a threat to the beneficiaries of the status quo, they will actively try to crush the movement(s) before they're long out of the crib.
So believe me, I'm aware that internet chatting isn't of itself going to bring about the change. And I know the likelihood of success in redirecting the global Titanic is NOT particularly good. But hey! What else do you want to do with your remaining time?
Thank You, Roger, for clarifying that. And Thank You even more for Your concluding question: “What else do you want to do with your remaining time?”
That is a question that every American ~ indeed, every Human Being ~ old enough to think for themselves needs to be asking themselves and deciding upon an answer. Be they of the Greatest, Silent, and Boomer generations; but more particularly, the Gen Xers, Millennials, Gen Zers, and Gen Alphas.
What i want to do with the rest of my time is to find people capable of putting together a Strategic Plan ~ complete with proposed Tactical actions ~ that can serve as a blueprint for effectively confronting, combatting, and ultimately defeating and dismantling The American Empire and any other Empire that attempts to rise up and take its place.
And i’m not sure, at this point at least, if that would require a “mass movement.” My hunch is that what is needed is simply a Critical Mass of conscious, concerned, and committed Citizens who have decided that this Bullshit has gone on long enough, and needs to be terminated, with extreme prejudice if necessary.
And who are committed to making that happen. Along with presenting a valid, viable alternative to the present system of government and governance.
Hi jeff, - I don't know that I ever framed the question the way you did, but we had great discussions about the generally-agreed-upon unlawfulness of U.S. intervention in Nam. -- The discussions were more open and candid that one might imagine. In the run up to the U.S. attack on Iraq, I was teaching two sections of the upper-level "Law, Morality, and War" course and just had wrapped up a unit on aggression and self-defense before a two-week break. Before the break, students overwhelmingly agreed that it would be an act of aggression for the U.S. to attack Iraq. And, students generally thought it would not happen, that Bush was threatening war just to force Saddam to give up his weapons, which they agreed the Bush administration had not made a good case that Saddam had. The U.S. attacked during the break. We never questioned the legitimacy of the attack after that, as it would have been pointless and inappropriate.
Later in the course, we discussed pacifism, conscientious objection and the like, including instances of soldiers willfully refusing to serve in Iraq. (-:
I'm glad you've appreciated my writings and that you've commended my page to others. Thanks, fella.
Hi Nile: Heh; my guess is that active duty personnel questioning the "justness" of Iraq War II after it had been launched would have been viewed far more negatively than being merely moot and "inappropriate."
i'll elaborate in my email with other thoughts and questions on and about Your Just War Theory article. Have a good one. ~ jeff
My fave. Anodyne term still being we "made contact"--short for waiting to get our collective asses blown off!, or "Collateral Damage" civilians, or noncombatants killed, and lastly as I was in during the tail end of the spear so to speak of the Vietnam War 73- 77 we were SAC (Strategic Air Command) Trained Killers, but "Peace Was Our Profession" lol Only the Sane noticed this Irony...! What was it the Vietnam Combat Vets. were fond of sayin to everything "Don't mean Nuthin"
I agree with you on the inherent dishonesty in the innocuous-sounding names given to nuclear-weapons systems. At the same time, I find it equally unsettling that in prior generations service members descriptions related to the service in which they served (i.e., airman, marine, sailor, or soldier). Now they all seemed to be called "warfighters".
It was a term I first heard used in a corporate presentation a number of years- and now seems to have spread to use by government bureaucrats. Perhaps both issues reflect the corporatization of the senior military as many flag officers appear to be overly attentive to their post-retirement opportunities.
Yes, I've written several articles on the whole warrior/warfighter nomenclature and how dangerous it is to democracy.
We should all be citizen-soldiers, citizen-airmen, etc., and note how "citizen" comes first. But the new idea is to say FU to the citizen ideal and embrace the warrior/berserker identity, as if we're a bunch of Vikings. Then again, maybe we are ...
Kind of reminds of a line from Neil Young's song Keep On Rocking In The Free World - "We got a kinder, gentler, Machine gun hand". Linking today @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
The name business isn't new. There was, of course, the B-24 Liberator but also the USS Shangri-La, an Essex class carrier commissioned in Feb '44. Unlike the subject of "Lost Horizon," I don't expect that Shangri-La was delivering peace, tranquility, and long-life. (I also built a model of it, made by Revell.)
Your observations on the language used to describe weapons prompts me to share my recent article "War Language and Lies" that pertains to similar matters. see https://occasionaljustice.com/14Mar2023
The “Domino Theory” may have been an especially wrong, misleading, and simplistic metaphor, Bill, but the big difference between it and Eisenhower’s “Cross of Iron” and “Military Industrial Complex” speeches was that the Domino Theory rant worked.
As i commented to Your tribute to the “Cross of Iron” speech back on 22mar:
Eisenhower gave his “Domino Theory” speech of 07apr54, one month after the Battle for Dien Bien Phu began and one month before it fell, ending America’s bankrolling France’s doomed attempt to reclaim its colonial empire in Southeast Asia in complete and total failure. At least for everybody not making all kinds of money from that obscenity started by Truman shortly after Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Japan’s surrender, and dutifully carried on by Ike, even as Korea was raging.
And within one year of him proclaiming his Domino Theory bullshit, the US had installed Diem in Saigon, totally ignored the Geneva Accords that had officially ended what the Vietnamese People term “The French [as opposed to “The American] War,” boycotted the national election on the leadership of a unified Vietnam in 1956, and laid the foundation for what ultimately kicked in after the US government’s and its media’s Lies about an “incident” or two in the Tonkin Gulf in August of 1964. [See Professor Stanton’s linked article above for the details.]
And the rest, as one wag put it, “is history.”
Given that America’s M-I-C desperately needed and wanted a War someplace, anyplace after Korea concluded, a valid hypothesis is that had Eisenhower not bought into and then sold the “Domino Theory” as it related specifically to Southeast Asia, Nixon would have become President back in the 50s; just like LBJ after JFK's "Peace Speech" and then Dallas.
Just like Ike would have been replaced if he had given his “M-I-C” speech any time before his last days in the Oval Office. Had that happened any sooner, Nixon would have become President long before 1969 again, much like LBJ assumed the throne in 1963.
Whatever potential for GOOD Ike’s Cross of Iron and M-I-C speeches might have had back then or might potentially have today, the EVIL propagated, perpetrated, and perpetuated in the name of his “Domino Theory” rant renders those other two chats as totally irrelevant and meaningless then and now. Particularly for the Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian Peoples and their Lands, Countries, and Nations.
And just to throw a little good ole time Religion into it: If there is a JUST God, one day America and Americans will pay ~ with interest ~ for what it and they have propagated, perpetrated, and perpetuated all over this Planet in the name of, among other things, so-called “freedom, prosperity, security, democracy, equality, and justice for all” since the end of World War II. Starting with those Dominos.
Thank You, Professor Stanton, for that link to Your article; You nailed that matter totally.
i look forward to reading the articles in Your Archive; just scanning them reveals lots to chew on and think about there. Especially on the "Chinese Peace Attack."
Thanks for the kind words, jg. I am glad you appreciate my writings. My most recent, posted yesterday, is titled "Just War Theory." I presented something like that to hundreds of U.S. active duty troops over the years. https://occasionaljustice.com/23Mar2023
Hi Nile. Thank You once again for another link; this to the Just War article. Again, another piece with lots to chew on and think about. Just like all the rest of the articles in Your Archive, which i’ve had a chance to read thru once, and look forward to going back and digging into deeper.
i have a number of questions and thoughts about Your Just War piece that i will send via email, but must ask one question: When You presented this material to all those active duty troops over the years, did You ever ask them the following question:
“Based on the internationally established and accepted principles and requirements of ‘jus ad bellum’ [when it is just to participate in war], has any war that the United States been involved in since the end of World War II been ‘JUST’?”
It would be interesting to see how many Americans ~ once they were made aware of those principles and requirements ~ would answer the same question with a “Yes” or a “No,” eh?
i’m looking forward to Your upcoming article on aggression and self-defense; and encourage all BV readers to check out Nile’s https://occasionaljustice.com/ . Have a Great day. ~ jeff
I just heard (Alex Christoforou) that the UK will be shipping depleted uranium shells to Ukraine. So, radioactive waste distributed in Eastern Ukraine, since the Zelensky regime likely won't retake it. Will genuine nukes be far behind?
So the U.S. has the capability to obliterate about 14,000 Hiroshimas, just on its current submarine fleet. This doesn't include all the land-based ICBMs, nor the Bomber-dispatched warheads, etc.
Once there was at least sane leadership in the U.S., which agreed with Russia on at least limiting the total destructive power of their arsenals. Talks begat limitations that began ratcheting down those arsenals, and the ABM and INF treaties succeeded.
But the neocons, who have subsequently taken over the power centers of U.S. foreign policy, aren't particularly rational and the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from those treaties.
The ABM treaty was a key piece, for Anti-Ballistic Missile systems by nature upended a nuclear state's reliance on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) - the deterrent ability represented by the other's state's ability to retaliate. MAD effectively removed any state's incentive for a first strike. ABMs could theoretically neutralize (or at least significantly reduce) a retaliatory strike; and both sides understood that and agreed to their ban.
George W. Bush, no doubt under advice of Donald Rumsfeld, unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the ABM. It wasn't long before the U.S. Patriot ABM system was deployed to Poland and other places ringing Russia. As some have pointed out, the problem with ABMs isn't limited to their ability to constrain any retaliatory strike. They are platforms which can easily be adapted to offensive use as well. In any case, Trump, similarly led by Mike Pompeo, withdrew from the INF as well.
What is any state left to make of these developments, and of Obama's assent (after he'd won the Nobel Peace Prize, no less!) to commit another Trillion dollars to modernizing the U.S. nuclear strike potential? And of the U.S. push to expand a hostile military alliance around the nation so targeted?
Would it be too much to hope for that a citizenry will awaken to this lunacy in time to stand up with others and say, loudly, "NO MORE!" ? Because, based on the results of the last twenty years or so of elections, I don't have much hope that any political leadership will show such enlightenment.
It's a form of insanity, Roger. Or irrationality. A death wish.
Looking ahead, we have to hope - and pray - that the citizens wake up. The increasing visceral hatred being displayed toward Russia (and China) by many of the West's "leaders" means the next time there's an alert of incoming missiles - it may not be dismissed as a computer error (for example, as it was by the Russian watch officer during Able Archer 83). And with hypersonic missiles, the days of asking for confirmation will be over - it will be launch on warning. And that's all before AI systems take over the command and control functions - Terminator Judgment Day.
Based on the last twenty-two years of absolute total silence by the American People about their government's "Forever War," i have zero hope that the American People are ever going to demand anything from their politicians or their political system.
And until that happens, ain't nothin gonna change except to get worse.
Jeff, being both idealist but also one who can 'read the tea-leaves' , i.e. see the trends, I can't disagree on either point. However the trend-lines point, I'll continue to maintain seeds of hope that something short of a completed, major extinction event killing off most of humanity will persuade the citizenry to snap out of their propaganda-induced sleep-walk, mobilize with others and put an end to 'business as usual'.
No... if i was a betting man, I wouldn't bet my life savings on it. But I will still do what little I can to make it happen. Why otherwise would we even take the time to write about such things if we didn't maintain at least some seeds of hope that others might be inspired also to do what they can?
i hear what You are saying, Roger; but let me point out an incontestable fact:
The internet ~ in chat groups, the blogosphere, and social media ~ has been awash with people posting positive pings hoping to inspire Other people to “also do what they can” since 9/11. And here we are today.
That RAGE AGAINST THE WAR MACHINE ANTI-WAR RALLY in DC on 19Feb ~ the FIRST planned major anti-war action in this country since that big weekend back in 2003 just before we launched our search for Saddam’s “WMDs” ~ drew 750 to 1500 [depending on the source] Peace Warriors. And the CODE PINK/Veterans For Peace/etc etc etal’s 18mar MARCH ON THE WHITE HOUSE drew considerably less.
At some point, it is going to take a lot more than endless chit-chat on the internet to make anything happen.
And my guess is that the Planet Earth would have no problem at all with “most of humanity” being killed off in some sort of Armageddon Event. Even if it takes significant numbers of the Plant, Animal, Fungi, Protista, and Monera Kingdoms with them.
As it stands right now, if most of humanity sticks around and continues to destroy the Planet’s Biosphere at its current pace, significant numbers of those Folks in those other Kingdoms will continue to get disappeared anyway, and even more so than they already are now.
In any event, Earth will abide; one way or another. Whether the species Homo sapiens sapiens is still along for the ride is still to be determined.
Jeff, I didn't mean to suggest that I EXPECT all will awaken and voila! all problems solved. As I said, I can read the trends as well as anyone. And I never said it will be easy. To build the kind of mass movement of a scale that I think would be necessary to force change is a most daunting prospect. As a a 5-decades-long dissident and once professional community organizer, I know the obstacles better than most. Ego-driven behaviors (self-centeredness) of individuals will make organizing difficult enough; then there's the sheer amount of $$ and institutionalized power we're up against. And IF such movements actually pose a threat to the beneficiaries of the status quo, they will actively try to crush the movement(s) before they're long out of the crib.
So believe me, I'm aware that internet chatting isn't of itself going to bring about the change. And I know the likelihood of success in redirecting the global Titanic is NOT particularly good. But hey! What else do you want to do with your remaining time?
Amen.
Thank You, Roger, for clarifying that. And Thank You even more for Your concluding question: “What else do you want to do with your remaining time?”
That is a question that every American ~ indeed, every Human Being ~ old enough to think for themselves needs to be asking themselves and deciding upon an answer. Be they of the Greatest, Silent, and Boomer generations; but more particularly, the Gen Xers, Millennials, Gen Zers, and Gen Alphas.
What i want to do with the rest of my time is to find people capable of putting together a Strategic Plan ~ complete with proposed Tactical actions ~ that can serve as a blueprint for effectively confronting, combatting, and ultimately defeating and dismantling The American Empire and any other Empire that attempts to rise up and take its place.
And i’m not sure, at this point at least, if that would require a “mass movement.” My hunch is that what is needed is simply a Critical Mass of conscious, concerned, and committed Citizens who have decided that this Bullshit has gone on long enough, and needs to be terminated, with extreme prejudice if necessary.
And who are committed to making that happen. Along with presenting a valid, viable alternative to the present system of government and governance.
Hi jeff, - I don't know that I ever framed the question the way you did, but we had great discussions about the generally-agreed-upon unlawfulness of U.S. intervention in Nam. -- The discussions were more open and candid that one might imagine. In the run up to the U.S. attack on Iraq, I was teaching two sections of the upper-level "Law, Morality, and War" course and just had wrapped up a unit on aggression and self-defense before a two-week break. Before the break, students overwhelmingly agreed that it would be an act of aggression for the U.S. to attack Iraq. And, students generally thought it would not happen, that Bush was threatening war just to force Saddam to give up his weapons, which they agreed the Bush administration had not made a good case that Saddam had. The U.S. attacked during the break. We never questioned the legitimacy of the attack after that, as it would have been pointless and inappropriate.
Later in the course, we discussed pacifism, conscientious objection and the like, including instances of soldiers willfully refusing to serve in Iraq. (-:
I'm glad you've appreciated my writings and that you've commended my page to others. Thanks, fella.
Hi Nile: Heh; my guess is that active duty personnel questioning the "justness" of Iraq War II after it had been launched would have been viewed far more negatively than being merely moot and "inappropriate."
i'll elaborate in my email with other thoughts and questions on and about Your Just War Theory article. Have a good one. ~ jeff
My fave. Anodyne term still being we "made contact"--short for waiting to get our collective asses blown off!, or "Collateral Damage" civilians, or noncombatants killed, and lastly as I was in during the tail end of the spear so to speak of the Vietnam War 73- 77 we were SAC (Strategic Air Command) Trained Killers, but "Peace Was Our Profession" lol Only the Sane noticed this Irony...! What was it the Vietnam Combat Vets. were fond of sayin to everything "Don't mean Nuthin"
Last one "Friendly Fire" nothin Friendly about it!
I agree with you on the inherent dishonesty in the innocuous-sounding names given to nuclear-weapons systems. At the same time, I find it equally unsettling that in prior generations service members descriptions related to the service in which they served (i.e., airman, marine, sailor, or soldier). Now they all seemed to be called "warfighters".
It was a term I first heard used in a corporate presentation a number of years- and now seems to have spread to use by government bureaucrats. Perhaps both issues reflect the corporatization of the senior military as many flag officers appear to be overly attentive to their post-retirement opportunities.
Yes, I've written several articles on the whole warrior/warfighter nomenclature and how dangerous it is to democracy.
We should all be citizen-soldiers, citizen-airmen, etc., and note how "citizen" comes first. But the new idea is to say FU to the citizen ideal and embrace the warrior/berserker identity, as if we're a bunch of Vikings. Then again, maybe we are ...
Kind of reminds of a line from Neil Young's song Keep On Rocking In The Free World - "We got a kinder, gentler, Machine gun hand". Linking today @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
The name business isn't new. There was, of course, the B-24 Liberator but also the USS Shangri-La, an Essex class carrier commissioned in Feb '44. Unlike the subject of "Lost Horizon," I don't expect that Shangri-La was delivering peace, tranquility, and long-life. (I also built a model of it, made by Revell.)
Your observations on the language used to describe weapons prompts me to share my recent article "War Language and Lies" that pertains to similar matters. see https://occasionaljustice.com/14Mar2023
Thanks, Nile. The "Domino Theory" was an especially wrong and misleading metaphor. Way too simplistic.
The “Domino Theory” may have been an especially wrong, misleading, and simplistic metaphor, Bill, but the big difference between it and Eisenhower’s “Cross of Iron” and “Military Industrial Complex” speeches was that the Domino Theory rant worked.
As i commented to Your tribute to the “Cross of Iron” speech back on 22mar:
Eisenhower gave his “Domino Theory” speech of 07apr54, one month after the Battle for Dien Bien Phu began and one month before it fell, ending America’s bankrolling France’s doomed attempt to reclaim its colonial empire in Southeast Asia in complete and total failure. At least for everybody not making all kinds of money from that obscenity started by Truman shortly after Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Japan’s surrender, and dutifully carried on by Ike, even as Korea was raging.
And within one year of him proclaiming his Domino Theory bullshit, the US had installed Diem in Saigon, totally ignored the Geneva Accords that had officially ended what the Vietnamese People term “The French [as opposed to “The American] War,” boycotted the national election on the leadership of a unified Vietnam in 1956, and laid the foundation for what ultimately kicked in after the US government’s and its media’s Lies about an “incident” or two in the Tonkin Gulf in August of 1964. [See Professor Stanton’s linked article above for the details.]
And the rest, as one wag put it, “is history.”
Given that America’s M-I-C desperately needed and wanted a War someplace, anyplace after Korea concluded, a valid hypothesis is that had Eisenhower not bought into and then sold the “Domino Theory” as it related specifically to Southeast Asia, Nixon would have become President back in the 50s; just like LBJ after JFK's "Peace Speech" and then Dallas.
Just like Ike would have been replaced if he had given his “M-I-C” speech any time before his last days in the Oval Office. Had that happened any sooner, Nixon would have become President long before 1969 again, much like LBJ assumed the throne in 1963.
Whatever potential for GOOD Ike’s Cross of Iron and M-I-C speeches might have had back then or might potentially have today, the EVIL propagated, perpetrated, and perpetuated in the name of his “Domino Theory” rant renders those other two chats as totally irrelevant and meaningless then and now. Particularly for the Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian Peoples and their Lands, Countries, and Nations.
And just to throw a little good ole time Religion into it: If there is a JUST God, one day America and Americans will pay ~ with interest ~ for what it and they have propagated, perpetrated, and perpetuated all over this Planet in the name of, among other things, so-called “freedom, prosperity, security, democracy, equality, and justice for all” since the end of World War II. Starting with those Dominos.
Thank You, Professor Stanton, for that link to Your article; You nailed that matter totally.
i look forward to reading the articles in Your Archive; just scanning them reveals lots to chew on and think about there. Especially on the "Chinese Peace Attack."
Thanks for the kind words, jg. I am glad you appreciate my writings. My most recent, posted yesterday, is titled "Just War Theory." I presented something like that to hundreds of U.S. active duty troops over the years. https://occasionaljustice.com/23Mar2023
Hi Nile. Thank You once again for another link; this to the Just War article. Again, another piece with lots to chew on and think about. Just like all the rest of the articles in Your Archive, which i’ve had a chance to read thru once, and look forward to going back and digging into deeper.
i have a number of questions and thoughts about Your Just War piece that i will send via email, but must ask one question: When You presented this material to all those active duty troops over the years, did You ever ask them the following question:
“Based on the internationally established and accepted principles and requirements of ‘jus ad bellum’ [when it is just to participate in war], has any war that the United States been involved in since the end of World War II been ‘JUST’?”
It would be interesting to see how many Americans ~ once they were made aware of those principles and requirements ~ would answer the same question with a “Yes” or a “No,” eh?
i’m looking forward to Your upcoming article on aggression and self-defense; and encourage all BV readers to check out Nile’s https://occasionaljustice.com/ . Have a Great day. ~ jeff