Tuesday, September 02, 2014

who owns the nukes if wall st. owns the government?

countercurrents |  So if "we" gave away our jobs, gave away our major corporations, gave away our trade secrets, gave away access to the natural resources assumed to be the spoils of war, donated our military men to protect Chinese industry in Afghanistan and Iraq, and charged our taxpayers over a trillion dollars for accomplishment of these tasks, then who will determine the use of our nukes? A fair question, isn’t it? A nuclear war between the United States and Russia would likely leave China and our emigrated industry, the corrupters of Congress, untouched, at least physically, and would make it overnight the unquestioned dominant economic power in the world. So perhaps we cannot assume that our government is giving full consideration to the dangers to the US itself of nuclear war with Russia. 

American politics of both parties at this time portray a nation bent on self-destruction. For instance, the Republican Party, which as a practical matter is the controlling party today, "is divided between the ‘hope America fails’ Republicans, who appear to actively want joblessness to rise to seek political gain, and the radical Republicans who adore Ayn Rand, like Paul and Ryan, who favor extremist economic policies that would make America fail ." Budowsky, " July 4 Infamy: Republicans Try to Destroy America’s Economy," http://www.laprogressive.com/republicans-destroy-economy/ And the Democrats, with as much or more support from Wall Street than the Republicans, elected a candidate for two terms whose political strategies (e.g. assertion of the existence of a Senate "super majority") have assured Republican control, whose name alone uniquely qualifies him to be controversial and misunderstood, and whose very first day in office was spent openly and deliberately rejecting central campaign promises that he could as easily have kept, "What Fools We Are," 

Has it not come to anyone’s mind that Wall Street may have intentionally engineered a politics of failure for the United States, and that the Republicans’ willingness to destroy the American economy is Wall Street’s as well ?
And how better quickly to engineer a lasting failure of America, than to steer it into a nuclear first strike after resettling the great corporations thousands of miles away, leaving them free to pick up the spoils in two or three newly-vacated subcontinents? Doesn’t that make this nuclear confrontation uniquely dangerous? 

These are insane questions, and one who poses them must question his own sanity, but they are no more nor less insane than the question, to which we now casually assume the answer: "Aren’t Wall Street and the world’s political and corporate leaders steering us into ultimately catastrophic climate change?"

I don’t know what’s going on here, but I know the people had better regain control of the nuclear weapons, and fast.


John Kurman said...

Given the endemic number of monumental fuck-ups over the past 70 years, it's pretty much a given that nuclear weapons are not a Great Filter.

CNu said...

So, the past 70 shows us you don't get to do yourself in "accidentally" with nukes. What if they're a species suicide solution? What if the test here is to see whether or not anybody will go all Jack D. Ripper and use some of these stockpiles on purpose?

John Kurman said...

I don't think so. The collected empirical data suggests nukes just ain't gonna do the job - even at the maximum stockpile numbers under the senile old Reagan. Of, course, say, 1,000 one-gigaton cobalt clad H-bombs *might* wipe the slate clean, but wouldn't that be a tad embarrassing if they didn't? Better to do the job manually and make sure. Remember, Hulagu Khan slaughtered a million muslims in a week with just blades and cudgels.