Ever since Saint Ron ascended the throne nearly 40 years ago the US has refined blaming/penalizing victims while rewarding perpetrators to levels never seen in human history.
This article addresses one of the many manifestations of that trend.
They are the crime responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians 75 years ago
And the canard and bogus lie and false narrative is: " BY KILLING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT JAPANESE MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI WE SAVED THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN LIVES. "
If only a Catholic like Phil and Dan Berrigan was or Cathy Kelly is, was the nominee for the Supreme Court.
(numbers added by me)
- They are the crime responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians 75 years ago.
- They have littered the landscape with radioactive waste.
- They have cost the United States more than $5 trillion from the public coffers.
- They are the apocalyptic nightmare on hair-trigger alert that haunt our children’s dreams.
I agree with the sentiment of the article and activists in that I want the United States to give up nuclear weapons either unilaterally if we must, or preferably along with other nations in exactly the same way we (claim to) have given up chemical weapons (by 1997 according to ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program) and biological weapons (by 1975 according to ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention).
But I’d like to ask why we have failed on nuclear compared to chemical and biological when points 2-4 (*) made in the article should be an irrefutable argument for most people who don’t have a personal profit at stake in the nuclear weapons industry (which I would say is a small subset of the entire defense industry - a small subset that sucks a lot of money, but a small subset nevertheless).
Is it just a messaging issue? If we could convince enough voters of these points, would it happen? Or do we need to make some type of systematic change in how government works before it will be possible to make the move. Since it may take a while to make systematic change, I would want the messaging going full force in case it can be pushed through with just this. So what do we know about different people’s attitude about nuclear weapons who currently don’t support a ban? What are there reservations? Are there any easy ways to mitigate them and get on board? What % of voters do we need? We see how a pretty healthy % of people support M4A (around 2/3) but we don’t have it. Do we need 75% of the people with us on this or more?
(*) I don’t consider point 1 to be an effective argument against nuclear weapons that distinguishes them from conventional weapons. We used non-nuclear weapons to kill civilians in Tokyo at about 1/2 the total numbers in Hiroshima. So it’s not like (at that point in time), nuclear weapons were the sole technical development that allowed for massive civilian death and any asserted war crimes.
( John Lennon - Imagine (original demo) )
I would be curious to know what percentage of people we need to make policy changes as well. I would wager a beer… if 100% of Americans said “I want it.” They would say “you cant have it.”
“Big-name health insurers raked in $8.2 billion in profit for the fourth quarter of 2019 and $35.7 billion over the course of the year.”
Stop paying health insurance?
Stop paying taxes?
The war machine…
If they would kill themselves and leave the rest of us out of it…
the problem is not the weapons or the trillions spent on them, they are crimes no doubt.The real problem is the media that is controlled by a foreign entity of which no one dares to name.
I have no idea which entity that is. I’m sure you can name the entity here. This is a safe place, man. Like, a totally safe place. We’re all here to help each other. Go. Get some juice, come back, and tell us who the man is, man.