Home | About | Donate

Faith-Based Peace Activists, Facing 25-Year Sentence, Defend Disarmament Action at Nuclear Submarine Base

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/12/faith-based-peace-activists-facing-25-year-sentence-defend-disarmament-action

Vandalize a static missle ?
Not a very good idea.
The jail time without attorney visit seems too long and harsh.
These folks should have had a bail bond hearing.
They are guilty of trespass.
Convicted spies do less time than 25 years.
Heck, Manning is a hero to many folks.
Snowden also. (has book coming out soon)
Wikileaks involved with Russia meddling in
2016 USA elections.

1 Like

The American government keeps trying to make “examples” out of people who are using their 1st Amendment rights.
Freedom of religion—hmmm and so many keep saying that this is a Christian nation while they are arresting Christians ----wow, I guess they have forgotten the “Do unto others, " commandment ,” and besides the Jesus person was said to have thrown the money changers out of the temple!
Throwing the death bringers out of the government seems like a better idea, and certainly the people in Central and South America , and Asia ----would say ,“YES,” to that idea along with so many who have actually been in war!
Many of those in government seem to specialize in making wars, not ending them, and sending others to die in them, while they remain safely enclosed in government at home. Geez America, in the world’s first democracy, even Socrates went to war—all the rich and those in government did too------maybe you all should look into that, as somehow people are more thoughtful when their own life is on the line!

1 Like

Relentless :

If they can disarm a nuclear base, we need them to train teams of people to disarm the nuclear arsenals of every country with nuclear capabilities.

2 Likes

Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, dem and rep senators respectively, with greatest everlasting thank youse and remembering.

Did gather up nuclear weapons in central asia as well as siberia and other soviet territories after the empire bankrupted when Gorbachev was in office.

They both deserve the Nobel Peace Prize !!
Plus all the Russian workers, engineers, scientists who safeguarded the world from some nutzoid gaining access to nukes.

Is a nuclear weapons free world really a more peaceful one?

Currently in the South China Sea, China is in active violation of a UN Maritime Treaty and has claimed land from 8 other Asian nations. Over the last 10 years China has deployed destroyers and submarines, built military bases on man made islands and has even blockaded land occupied by other nations attempting to seize control over these 8 nation’s claims to land. Their objective is to maintain control of the area, control all its resources and pass tariffs in the second busiest water area in the globe.

So why hasn’t China succeeded? Because US destroyers and armed nuclear capable submarine patrol this area within striking distance of major Chinese cities. China can’t attack the US ships as this is considered an act of aggression and by global strategic policy warrants a nuclear response.

But what if nukes didn’t exist, what would this situation look like?

  1. China would seize control of all claimed land by military force likely causing a world war in Asia.
  2. China would gain control of the sea and lay tariffs harming all other nations trade through international waters.
  3. The UN and many other nations would lay massive economic penalties on China, which would hurt China, but also every country on earth economically speaking and likely lead to a world recession.
  4. The US would get involved and tensions would rise significantly with China.

Are these outcomes really more peaceful than our current situation?

Let me give you another scenario:

Russia wants to gain control of natural gas resources in eastern Europe including Estonia, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. These are all countries that used to be a part of the USSR.

However, there are two problems:

  1. Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistahn and Turkmenistan all have strong ties to major oil and gas players in the middle east. Invading these nations could pose significant economic issue for Russia attacking OPEC.

  2. Estonia and Latvia do not have strong ties to the middle east, but they are NATO nations.

Under global strategic policy and NATO ally agreements if a country or enemy of NATO invades a NATO country and attempts to secure control over it this may warrant a nuclear response. Since the Cold War the USA and many of its allies have nuclear weapons within striking distance of Moscow in Europe.

What if no nukes existed?

  1. Russia invades Estonia and Latvia and war in eastern Europe begins.

  2. Russia invades Estonia and Latvia and NATO sees this as a global threat and you have officially started WW3.

  3. The UN and many other nations hit Russia with massive economic penalties. Although they did this when Russia invaded Crimea and this did not sway Russian political policy, so perhaps even tougher economic penalties followed by cancellation of trade relations, thus causing a massive economic recession possibly even depression in Europe.

  4. (Unlikely) Maybe China comes to the support of Russia during their economic troubles and now china is hit with the same economic sanctions and now you have create a world trade war.

Are these scenarios really better than our current one?

You could come up with any bull shit scenario you want and they would be better than the nuclear insanity that we are in. These weapons are a global russian roulette. If any are used it would trigger another and a nuclear winter would basically be the end of civilization as we know it. An extremely miserable end at that.

2 Likes

i got arrested once with Martin Sheen, at an anti-nuclear action at the Nevada Test Site back in the 1980s.

i was not “motivated by my faith.” But as the saying goes, whatever floats your boat!

BS scenario? That’s funny considering the fact these scenarios are from seminars presented by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Center for Global Security Research.

The speaker of the seminars? Michael Nacht - Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs under the Obama Administration (2009-2010), Aaron Wildavsky Dean of the Goldman School with speciality in US National Security Policy (1997-2008) Assistant Director for Strategic and Eurasian Affairs of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1994-1997).

I can’t wait to see how your credibility stacks up for your argument…

You are here to apologize for the monsters who plan and prepare for nuclear annihilation. You sound oh so rational! What a shtick. You are sick.

1 Like

it is maniacs like you and that loon curtis lemay who contemplate actually using nukes. Too bad Gort isn’t here to eliminate your precious weapons of death.

Oh, yes, totally agree. We need to build at least 25,000 more nuclear weapons. You know, just in case. Personally, I’m looking forward to nuclear war. Its going to be awesome, even glorious. More Nukes! More Nukes! More Nukes!

Who do you work for NWO shill, propaganda maven?

That’s funny considering the fact these scenarios are from seminars presented by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Center for Global Security Research.

Thank you for answering my earlier question regarding your employment. I understand, now. Like anyone else you are simply concerned about job security.

If this were a sane country, that’s a Big IF, these folk’s would be hero’s, one and all and get the Medal Of Freedom. The last I heard Martin Sheen was still serving others at a soup kitchen. Whether we like it or not we are here to be of service to others. What other reason can there be?

1 Like

So a standoff is worse than massive international war, or significant economic decline?

Interesting how stated federal policy with significant explanation of said policy is now considered to be propaganda.

Why wont you answer the question - Would a non-nuclear south china sea or non-nuclear NATO really make the world a safer place even though there are existing circumstance on the tipping point of international war?