Home | About | Donate

Whose Finger on the Nuclear Button?


#1

Whose Finger on the Nuclear Button?

Michael T. Klare

Once upon a time, when choosing a new president, a factor for many voters was the perennial question: “Whose finger do you want on the nuclear button?” Of all the responsibilities of America’s top executive, none may be more momentous than deciding whether, and under what circumstances, to activate the “nuclear codes” -- the secret alphanumeric messages that would inform missile officers in silos and submarines that the fearful moment had finally arrived to launch their intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) toward a foreign adversary, igniting a thermonuclear war.


#2

Klare's final paragraph succinctly summarizes the Washington DC landscape during the next four years.

Irrespective of which crime family moves into the White House on January 20, anybody who values a future needs to not only protest nukes, but all other military industrial media infotainment complex (MIMIC) profit centers, including Obama's and Clinton's current efforts to restart the cold war with Russia.


#3

Republicans, in their wisdom chose
A fellow who the nation knows
Has tons of cash, but's light on brains
His flapping tongue lacks basic reins

This Hillary clunk knows justice not
She's caused brown people to be shot
And more will die I'd venture guess
As she plays her games of fatal chess

But there is one lady we can trust
Who'll fight for justice well or bust
She needs no lengthy intro here
We all know Jill's of the upper tier


#4

Who is the more dangerous candidate, the one that says he will do business with Russia, China and North Korea, or the one that will confront them with our military?


#5

Murkins were fooled by those mushroom cloud ads during the 1964 POTUS election and during the run up to the Iraq invasion.

Although our fear buttons are currently being pushed harder than ever, we won't be fooled again...vote Green in 16.


#6

This article details how neocons inside the US Governmnet, along withvarious "think tanks" decided several years ago that the US could win a Nuclear war with Russia by using a first strike. They advanced the notion that in taking Russia out and forcing that Country to surrender to US Hegemony, US power could be assured for centuries.

The process began under one Geroge Bush the elder and continues to this day under both Democratic and Republican Presidents without fail.The article concludes Obama implementing the last parts of the Strategy before handing it off to the person who they hope will push that button.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/this-is-no-new-cold-war-its-far-worse-than-that/5554837

Mr Klare has it backwards. Russia is not just being paranoid here with the US forced to respond to Russia's actions. US Strategists have been working towards what they call a "winnable nuclear war" for decades.

Added.

This is an article from 2006 from a US based group detailing how the US has acheived Nuclear primacy and how MAD a thing of the past.

The tone of Mr Kalres atricle seems to lay the blamne for this rush towards Nuclear war at the feet of a paranoid Russia with their actions forcing Western responses. This is not what really goes on.


#7

Somebody's going to wonder who-all this Trump person is running against.

Can no one write a pro-Clinton piece that actually examines Hillary Clinton and the actual content of what Wikileaks has released over the last couple months? I suppose we have 48 hours still, maybe a bit more.

Maybe it's asking too much. Maybe it can't be done.

Could it be that somebody dislikes Donald Trump for any combination of the other obvious and prominent and excellent reasons that one might dislike Donald Trump, and then decides that the polemical point is served better by ignoring Hillary Clinton altogether?

I can't read Klare's mind, but it sure makes sense. And after article after article of roughly this nature, it would be interesting were everybody's motives just and straightforward, wouldn't it?--though I should say in CDs defence that I do not see any such articles anywhere else, either: they may just not exist.

Both leading candidates are apparently up on felony counts. The better connected will get elected, with motives and excuses and a plurality eager to sacrifice the others in its fear. Cheers, friends. We may each yet leave the realm of theory.


#8

Wish your comment was on the Opinion Page of every major newspaper this morning.


#9

The two people I worry about when it comes to nuclear weapons are Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un. I think Hillary Clinton is about as safe as it can get. She does not act in haste. There is a certain danger, probably from a false alarm more than any confrontation, that can't be eliminated. A president might only have six minutes to react if a message is received that Russia has launched a nuclear attack which could be a false alarm. I don't believe any human being is really equipped to handle that type of situation. I have a concern about Pakistan and India. Should Trump win and tear up the Iranian nuclear agreement I would have a long-term concern about Iran and Saudi Arabia. Launching a nuclear war in a confrontation between the US and Russia would obviously be insane. But it might not take a clinical definition of insanity. Trump has shown an inability to inhibit his behavior in a number of areas and seems clearly unfit to be the person who has to make that decisions with regard to nuclear weapons.