Home | About | Donate

Why Is There So Little Popular Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War?


#1

Why Is There So Little Popular Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War?

Lawrence Wittner

In recent weeks, the people of the world have been treated to yet another display of the kind of nuclear insanity that has broken out periodically ever since 1945 and the dawn of the nuclear era.

"The fact that both Trump and Kim are being 'messed with' despite their possession of very powerful armed forces, including nuclear weapons, seems to have eluded both men, who continue their deadly game of nuclear threat and bluster."


#2

Two great problems of the day can be solved by nuclear war: global warming becomes nuclear winter and overpopulation becomes few enough people that the devastated world can maybe support. Don't think the morons that have control aren't thinking in this direction.

The reason there is so little popular protest is that we are being propagandized and lulled into a false sense of security that everything will be okay if we just keep shopping.


#3

Perhaps subconsciously, people could recognize that at the root of all the problems the author mentioned is 7 billion people in the world and growing. They might see nuclear war as a natural consequence of overpopulation. Some like the NWO oligarchy could welcome it as racial cleansing.

Others might welcome any wealth leveling effects such a disaster could have. Or would feel self-righteously happy to be able to say "I told you so".

But the fact that war has been sanitized by the media makes it seem like its horrors only happen to other people so we should not be too worried about its effects on us.

Besides who trusts the MSM?

Who believes Trump?


#4

I guess since no nuclear bombs have been dropped on a populated area since 1945 people have become complacent, I think Trump needs to make threats because his base wants a strongman in power so he has to talk the talk. He not only has threatened North Korea but launched a missile attack on one of Assad's air bases in Syria and went along with our largest non-nuclear bomb being dropped in Afghanistan where militants had some tunnels. He is not accomplishing anything but he is acting tough which I think is the point. His base thought Obama was too weak although he renewed bombing in Iraq, started bombing in Syria, and approved numerous drone attacks. Trump even started talking tough against Russia although it remains unclear whether or not he is acting on behalf of Russia in some way to weaken Western liberal democracy. His support of Erdogan and Le Pen suggests he could be working on Russia's behalf. It's anybody's guess what is really going on.


#5

Very important question raised by Dr. Wittner. Then, to answer it, he writes:

"One factor is certainly the public’s preoccupation with other important issues, among them climate change, immigration, terrorism, criminal justice, civil liberties, and economic inequality."

I propose a few slight changes to Dr. Wittner's prose:

"One factor is the media's and ruling class's corralling of the public into activism on issues that, while important in their deepest implications, serve as red-herring distractions from the most pressing crises, which are the war and the runaway speculative black-hole finance economy, which needs war to survive. Indeed many of the other issues thrust artificially to the fore by the media, the political class, and their rich backers (ie. Soros etc.)--such as climate change, third-wave bourgeois feminism, manufactured terrorism--are directly related to and greatly exacerbated by warfare, so that by ending all the wars we would get a good leg up on solving the others."

That's a little closer to how I see it. I think it's interesting, too, that these mega marches don't even address, in any palpably visible way, the other very pressing issues Dr. Wittner mentions or implies: civil liberties, police violence, especially on African Americans, and the pauperization of the masses. That also tells a great deal about the nature of these events, which are shepherding occasions for the neoliberal establishment and therefore have no room for the above themes.

END ALL THE WARS NOW.


#6

The author makes some good points no doubt, however he neglects to mention the media sans the comment regarding "comedians".

The anti-nuclear movement of the 1980s was actually quite mainstream in the media as well. That of course was a pre -Telecommunications Act of 1996 media that had not yet been consolidated by a handful of corporate conglomerates which all have MIC business interests.

That media was also still influenced by the Fairness Doctrine. During the pinnacle of that movement during the early 80s there wasn't such a thing as widespread right wing talk radio that referred to any such concern over nuclear weapons as being only a concern of them thar hippies.

That might have something to do with it.


#7

Why so little protest against nuclear war?

Say wha? Nuclear wha? Oh yeah! I remember nuclear war! Duck and Cover in grammar school and people 'finishing' their basements as bomb shelters! All those nuclear bomb tests that still give us cancer today! Yeah those were the days huh?

We don't do nuclear war anymore. Don't you know that we stopped all that? We led the way with test ban treaties and all sorts of agreements and reductions in stockpiles. It would take a fool or a madman to restart all that again for no reason. There is no way to win a poison drinking contest as it were. No way for one side to win a nuclear exchange, so we don't do that stuff anymore ...right?

Right?

Who would want to restart that insanity? For what reason would it be necessary? Who would want to?

Oh yeah... talk about living in the past! Or would that be dying in the future?

Nuclear war to prove a point? Increased ratings? Does he know what the word nuclear means?


#8

Here's a different take on why there is so little protest and pushback concerning our current nuclear dangers. Warning: It's very cynical.

The 1%, actually the .1% and .01%, have the most to lose if there is a thermonuclear war. Sure, they have their bunkers, but lets face it, life in a bunker and the aftermath sounds pretty grim.

American politics is driven by the these elites. It's been documented by any number of academics. In my darkest moments I have to believe that these incredibly wealthy people will use their influence to prevent armageddon, not out of concern for humanity and the animal kingdom, but because they and their families will suffer in a huge way. They tend to live in metro areas that are certainly key targets.

I know people like me, a retired teacher, have almost no influence so that's all I have. I will be in the streets and vote for peace candidates, give money to anti-war groups, but in the end maybe it's the super wealthy that can keep us from killing millions or billions of our fellow humans.

Of course if the super wealthy are sociopaths, and they might be, then it's even worse than I think. Gotta go, time to take my meds.


#9

"So why is there so little public protest today?"
* I think one of the reasons is that there are so few of us left that have seen, felt, and recovered from radiation from Atomic and Hydrogen weapons. The government is patiently, (or impatiently) waiting for us to die so there will be no one that can speak from direct experience.
* When I read what the politicos and Military of today have to say about nuclear weaponry, they seem to think it is just a bigger bang, like that MOAB monstrosity.
* Radiation, fallout, direct exposure, miscarriages, birth defects, crop failures, Nuclear Winter, don't even seem to fall within the purview of the Powers That Be of today.
* There was a nuclear veteran site where we kept track of each other, our families and the widows and orphans of atomic vets. Then, one day, I tried to log on and the site was gone. No more contact between the nuclear veterans.
* The PTB and military brass of today seem to think that their huge, well equipped bunkers will see them through any nuclear exchange. However, though they may well outlast those of us left on the surface, how many generations are they willing to spend in an underground city, and will all their filters, water supplies, food, power bays last that long?
* I wonder what the PTB will do when they suddenly realize you can't eat money. It has no nutritional value?
* Hitler and his Thousand Year Reich died in the fuehrer bunker under Berlin.
* I wonder what bunker Herr Twitler and his Fourth Reich will perish in?
* I think the situation could be saved, but it would require We the People awakening en masse and taking this country back, by whatever means necessary. Right now, I don't see that happening, but it will be too late after a nuclear exchange has occurred. Remember, fallout is global and at the levels we are talking about here, will prove fatal to huge numbers. Not only human, but animal, plant and sea life, so survival becomes even more remote.
;-})


#10

Looking at the reactions to current events. One reason why people don't really care much is that they feel that all this is just pointless posturing by North Korea that they do every few years.


#11

Hang in there. Individually yes the people have almost no influence when it can make a difference when millions of people join in.


#12

I agree with much of the above. From my perspective as a senior citizen, I would add one more point. Too many people today are too young to comprehend the level of death and destruction involved in a nuclear detonation. I wonder whether President Obama understands. This may explain why he committed to rebuilding our arsenal over the next 30 years. I do not recall hearing
whether he has visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki.


#13

President Obama gave a speech at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial in Japan on May 27, 2016 with Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe at his side. Also I am not the brightest bulb; but, I don't think the super rich are going into any bunkers portlanta, more like into Gulf Stream Jets, etc. headed for Patagonia, or other locations away from the mushroom clouds.


#14

At 71, this is the first time I actually believed nuclear war was a real possibility.

Younger people today might not have the same reactions as protestors in the past because of lack of understanding or not being inundated with the messages we received back then. It was all doom and gloom and war mongers in Washington wanting to create a war for ideological reasons. Deep down we trusted that those in Washington and Moscow understood, knowing viscerally the horror that would be unleashed, and in the end, would back down.

Those in power today seem to view war as a video game where the screen just blows up and we get to start over.

Back then, I was outraged; today I am afraid.


#15

But, that won't save them.
;-})


#16

Indeed. In models that show the predicted global fallout of a nuclear war. It is exactly that, global. It might take weeks but there won't be a single area in the world that won't be covered by nuclear fallout.


#17

Minitrue, you damn well that they ( or rather we ) didn't 'know' about nuclear radiation ( except that it caused the invading mutants of Saturday matinees ) that you and my uncle witnessed first hand. They had a let's see what it will do attitude back then which seems bizarre today but we had just come off the Korean War and seeking to restore containment of the reds etc, so the PTB rationalized about using cannon fodder etc. once we figured out that there would be no escaping a nuclear war, we protested being held hostage like that! But over time we got used to the idea. Bikini atoll test site gave rise to a engineering marvel called the Bikini swimsuit! Nuclear destruction had its good side I guess?

That lazy calmness towards our own annihilation is the reason why we thought it wise to keep on constructing literally tens of thousands of nuclear devices in which only the first relative few could ever be used before we poisoned our own air and water with our own fallout. Yet we kept constructing and stockpiling them didn't we!

The problem is that over time, we all (the world) moved on past MAD and began to look embarrassed whenever the impossible numbers of nuclear weapons were even mentioned at parties and barbecues. We admitted in our burgeoning sanity that no in fact that we didn't really want to blow up ourselves by trying to blow up them. The fun had gone out of nuclear destruction for everybody. It was left to the imagined maniacal dictator or half crazed terrorist to even consider using such a device. A maniacal ego would be necessary to seek out the use of a power that would assure the destruction of perhaps millions at first and if the conflict was prolonged, of everybody else following later!

Victory could be achieved through the extermination of all life on the planet if necessary. The important thing is that we win and they don't!

Well nobody seriously thought to ever initiate mutually assured extermination of all life (odd how so many prolifers seek to exterminate tens of millions on principle huh?) on the planet except in a few dismal bunkers. Hard to throw a great party while the rotting bodies of seven to eight billion people and those of animals and plants etc were just outside your bunker doors. Maybe even having accumulated in huge piles while trying to enter your bunker but faced locked doors until the end?

Now what leader would ever be that freakish and in fact so recklessly insane?

You know it just seems a rotten deal that somehow we have got two of them at the same time.

Meanwhile...people have stopped thinking that nuclear war could ever happen. They all assume that Trump is faking it and trying a con game on N.K.! "He doesn't really mean it" they all say.

Sigh! Good luck kiddies!


#18

It is a little worrying how that mindset is being applied to both Trump and N.K. What we have here is two manchildren playing chicken with each other. Maybe they will both cower out in the end, or maybe they will be frenzied enough to go all in. Sure this posturing is nothing new from N.K. but we've also never have had such a reactionary man as president either.


#19

Which one is the more insane? Both have achieved singular power and could in fact initiate a nuclear exchange that bears no sense, no rhyme nor reason. Why?

What if Trump is the bigger ego? What if he 'just wants to' exercise that much power! What if the North Koreans get so scared of Trump's stupid nonsense and aggressive blathering that they panic?

You know having a sane right wing conservative in the WH was usually bad enough but having one with signs incipient dementia is turning out to be far worse!


#20

If there is any silver lining to Trump's situation is that unlike Kim, the people of the U.S. don't have to treat him like a demigod who is right all the time, even though M$M would like us to think that. The people have the right and responsibility to raise hell over this kind of escalation before he rains hell on everyone.