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.
3 comments:
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.
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?
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.
Post a Comment