Home | About | Donate

Peace and the Nuclear Paradox


#1

Peace and the Nuclear Paradox

Robert C. Koehler

Whenever the topic is nuclear weapons, I remain in a state of disbelief that we can talk about them “strategically” — that language allows us to maintain such a distance from the reality of what they do, we can casually debate their use.

Consider, in the context of the sudden rush of alarming news that Donald Trump may trash the Iran nuclear agreement on May 12, on the false grounds that Iran is in violation of it, this piece of news from several months ago


#2

Terminator: It’s in your nature to destroy yourselves.


#3

Great quote from a great article. Robert Koehler writes like a sane and compassionate human being. Most journalists in today’s “media” seem unable to do so. I suppose that
results from years of being afraid of losing “access” by speaking truth to power.


#4

Yet speaking truth to power is the definition of a good journalist.


#5

As the American Empire falls and we slip into a new dark ages, the risk of loosing a nuclear holocaust on the planet rises. Will we live through it so we can meet our end by runaway climate change or will we preempt that through nuclear annihilation? I predict a bit of both.


#6

I didn’t mean Koehler. I meant his “colleagues”. Maybe I could have written better. In my opinion, Koehler always writes truth.


#7

only the most insane among us thinks nuclear war could solve any problems. nations use the threat hoping to frighten others into obedience. however, we never know when that insane one just might . . .? "I Kmow Which Country the U.S. Will Invade Next! claims political humorist, lee camp. lee makes a pretty good case that our wars and invasions are fought for the financial industry desiring complete control over the world’s currency. simply put “brics vs imf.”

Many of you know about Gen. Wesley Clark’s famous quote about seven countries in five years. Clark is a four-star general, the former head of NATO Supreme Allied Command, and he ran for president in 2008 (clearly he’s an underachiever). But it’s quite possible that 100 years from now, the one thing he’ll be remembered for is the fact that he told us that the Pentagon said to him in 2002: “We’re going to take down seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan. We’re going to come back and get Iran in five years.”-- Lee Camp
“Let me control the nation’s currency and I care not who writes its laws.”–Rothschild

“What this makes clear to me is that no one should have the authority — the power — to declare any war whatsoever---- the paradox that civilization remains economically tied to its own destruction.”—Robert Koehler


#8

It would appear that nuclear weapons are so dangerous that they prevent another conventional world war among the great powers like WWII. Tens of millions of people died in that war. So far there has never been a war anything like it. Nuclear weapons are too powerful to use. Any country could be destroyed ten times over by nuclear weapons. Just one hydrogen bomb can take out a large metropolitan area. These bombs are nothing like the Hiroshima bomb. Hydrogen bombs are perhaps a thousand times more powerful. I think it is essential that Iran does not have nuclear weapons because if if was known that they did that would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia, Iran’s archenemy, almost certain to quickly develop their own nuclear weapons program. It is bad enough with India and Pakistan facing off with each having stockpiles of nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran and a nuclear Saudi Arabia would increase the risk of nuclear war that much more. Fortunately Germany and Japan have not acquired nuclear weapons. With white nationalism rising again in Germany it is reassuring that there are no nukes. And with tensions growing between Japan and China, which have a history of conflict, Japan not having nuclear weapons is also reassuring. Even though nuclear weapons in a sense cannot be used (no nuclear weapons has been used since 1945 even though there have been numerous wars) since they are too powerful and their use could trigger an all out nuclear war which could result in human extinction, it seems close to impossible to get rid of them. Nobody would want a world where nuclear weapons were voluntarily destroyed but one country cheated and became the only nuclear power. So the challenge is how to get rid of nuclear weapons without any country cheating.


#9

Then you have twits like Clinton who think it a good media stunt to hand a world power a red re-set button. Clinton couldn’t even imagine this being made more in the line of a household circuit breaker. She must, like any bully, bludgeon in order to imagine she is in heist of the last word. Subtlety, nuance, respect and nurturing - all indicators and methods of a life being envisioned for a future, are articulated by the “common” human being with clear vision of the “commons” . Predatory capitalism is rhetoric on a palimpsest and actually seems to [think] that what it has been working to erase can be done without any consequences. Wrong … the answers are blowing in the wind.

Nature bats last and the utterly sickening construct of military might is death wafting in thinking its alive and surfing.


#10

Especially concerning the India Pakistan tensions. It is already tenuous enough with the generals having control over such weapons. It is scary to imagine how it will be once climate change starts rendering those two, in addition to most of the middle east, inhospitable for human life.


#11

yes! and we the people are the power koehler addresses. as long as we believe “they” are the power nothing can change. anyway. pretty sure that the generals, the CEOs of the munitions factories, wall street nor trump read our discussions.


#12

Yes, the challenge is how to ensure no one cheats. Humans can be so devious, though, especially those now in power, that it may not be possible. I suggest and challenge any of the nuclear powers, preferably one of the biggest ones, to lead by example: Unilaterally destroy all it’s nukes. Invite all to inspect. Use the money saved to fight poverty around the world. Perhaps, just perhaps, the others will follow suit. (How would that be for “shock and awe”?


#13

as it stands now the rest of the world would never believe that the The Great Satan would do something so admirable.


#14

You’re probably right. It would have to be some country with more credibility than the US right now. That would be almost any one of the other nuclear powers. I would love to see Russia do it in a verifiable way that would be hard to deny and see what BS our PTB come up with to scuttle it, after lifting their dropped jaws off the deck. If it worked and others did follow suit, someone here would probably find a way to take credit for it!