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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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