Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chomsky On the Domestic Nuclear Peril

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
chlamor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 08:40 PM
Original message
Chomsky On the Domestic Nuclear Peril
Here are a few snippets from a recent article and the link below. Are we focused on the immediate dangers? Is it too much to consider? I recall hearing Helen Caldicott about a year ago at a nearby University and was unaware at how close to nuclear sendoff due to glitches we had been. Hair-trigger times.



If you can imagine some rational observers from Mars looking at this curious species down here, I don't think they'd put very high odds on survival--another generation or two. In fact, it's kind of miraculous that we've come along this far.

The world has come extremely close to total destruction just in recent years from nuclear war. New Mexico plays an important role in this. There's case after case where a nuclear war was prevented almost by a miracle. And the threat is increasing as a consequence of policies that the administration is very consciously pursuing.
<snip>
It's come to the point where you can read in the most sober respectable journals warnings by the leading strategic analysts that the current American posture--transformation of the military--is raising the prospect of what they call "ultimate doom" and not very far away. That's because it leads to an action-reaction cycle in which others respond. That leads us to be closer and more reliant on hair-trigger mechanisms, which are massively destructive.
<snip>
There's a document called The Essentials of Post Cold War Deterrence that was released during the Clinton years by the Strategic Command, which is in charge of nuclear weapons. It's one of the most horrifying documents I've ever read. People haven't paid attention to it.
<snip>
Everything means the opposite of what it says. Deterrence means our offensive stance should primarily be based on nuclear weapons because they're so destructive and terrifying. And furthermore just the possession of massive nuclear forces casts a shadow over any international conflict, like people are frightened of us because we have this overwhelming force.

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky02262005.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC