Misleading the American Public on Nukes
Earlier on this blog I commented on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s attack on Sen. Barrak Obama and his stance on nuclear weapons. Frankly, I believe (like many of you) that neither candidate has fully accepted a progressive platform. What strikes me though is the inconsistency with which they (all politicians) conduct their campaigns.
A recent article by the Boston Globe elaborates on Clinton’s stance on nuclear weapons – just a year ago she said nukes were ‘off the table’ for dealing with Iran. Not only are these candidates inconsistent but their constant threats of military action on states like Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan only reinforce the Bush administration’s assessment that they are part of a falsely constructed ‘axis of evil’. I am almost hesitant to criticize the top Democratic candidates because I would rather be condemning candidates like Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Brownback whose platforms are so far from my ideals. But, if I cannot look to either party to find my values I must keep pressure on those candidates who most closely reflect them.
Related to this is a recent paper published in the Atlantic Monthly. The paper presented a cogent argument that China was a more significant threat to the U.S. than any Arab nation. That if we were to use nuclear weapons, unlike most politicians would like you to believe, they would be used on China. This was not a political paper – it was written by a professor and a former DOD official. It lays out the tactical plan, the devastation, and the potential fallout (political and securities focused fallout) of a nuclear strike. As an activist, for me, the underling issue is clear. Nothing good can come from any nuclear attack from the U.S. or any other state in this world. It only brings destruction.
Senator Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican, and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agrees. He has been a vocal advocate for the collection and destruction of fissile materials throughout his terms in office; passing the Nunn-Lugar bill to focus this work in the Former Soviet Union. He recently wrote a commentary on the success of this program. We can achieve nuclear abolition if we continue to understand and communicate the devastating implications of nuclear war.
Do you agree? Is there ever a reason to use nuclear weapons? Vote in Parade Magazine’s poll on this subject, here.
Only the U.S. can lead the nuclear nations to disarmament because of its immense conventionalmilitary power. Bush-Cheney need nuclear weapons to intimidate nations into accepting our global dominance. The American people must decide whether to work for world domination or world peace and cooperation to limit global warming, poverty, disease, etc. If they choose peace, we can negotiate gradual steps to nuclear reduction and eventual disarmament — saving billions of dollars, reducing future cancers and genetic defects, throwing off the numbing effects of living with thousands of nukes on high readyness targeted on us and on them.
This dangerous boondoggle of nuclear weapons and delivery systems must end now so that we can give top priority to curbing global warming.
Because of its immense military power, only the U.S. can lead the world in working for nuclear disarmament. The Bush-Cheney administratyion needs nuclear weapons to intimidate other nations into accepting our dominance. The American people must decide if they want continuous war for dominance while our society decays, or we can choose peace and cooperation to limit global warming, poverty, disease, etc. If we choose peace, then we must organize to demand peace and eliminate those representatives who don’t agree. If the U.S. takes practical steps toward disarmament, we can negotiate the reduction of weapons and systems. We can freeourselves of the fear of a nuclear exchange and the terrible human and monetary costs of dealing with these horribly dangerous materials. It really is up to us!
Thank you for your words. I too am convinced that we make a choice to be a global power or a powerful peace ally. We cannot have both and we must choose peace. We shall see if the next administration is more responsible with the immense power given to she or he.
You are wrong. Dennis Kucinich is consistent. Go to kucinich.us and find his plans.
Also, go to citizen.org, aclu.org, lcv.org, populationconnection.org, aauw.org, consumersunion.org, and npca.org and get legislators’ voting records and other information. If you don’t know how legislators vote, you don’t know what you are voting for.
Dennis Kucinich is the only peace candidate. The US has been backing militias that enforce the will of corporations on native people everywhere. We are a hypocrital country.
Dennis Kucinich wants people treated in a fair manner. This is why the Corporate Media is trying to keep Dennis from getting out his message to people. Hillary and Obama are favorites; because corporations think these candidates will cooperate with corporations the most.
Dennis Kucinich didn’t cave to the corporate interest in Cleveland, and he doesn’t do that in Congress. You can see that by his voting record. He votes in the interest of the “general good.”
I will vote for him for President, if I have to write his name in. The corporate media is leading the public around by the nose.
Wake up America !!!!
For more information sources, go to informationsources.us.