Tag Archives: Nuclear Weapons


Recently when arguing with someone as to the wisdom of using military force against Iran, having made some point, the retort was, “I can’t believe you favor Iran having nuclear weapons”.

Well, I don’t, indeed I am opposed to the United States having nuclear weapons. I favor the abolition of nuclear weaponry under international supervision. “Nukes” are just too dangerous for humans to possess.

Case in point, in 1961, the U.S. Air Force accidentally dropped two hydrogen bombs on Goldsboro, North Carolina. These bombs were 250 times the destructive power of the one that devastated Hiroshima. The only reason North Carolina was not evaporated was due to the delightful fact that the bombs, built by the lowest bidder, had defective wiring. Thank God for incompetence! If the military contractor had actually been as good as its marketing pretends it was, North Carolina would be a memory.

The fact is that humans are just too limited, too dumb, too prone to error, to allow anyone to possess such power. It is not enough to prevent proliferation, we must disarm.

Iran should not have a Bomb. But it should not look north to see nukes possessed by the Russians, or east to Pakistani and Indian nukes, or west to Israeli nukes*, or south to the nuclear-armed ships of the U.S. Navy. Let’s establish a nuclear-free zone from the Atlas Mountains in Morocco to the Himalayas. It would be a good first step for the world to emulate.


* Yes, Israel has nuclear weapons. Everyone knows but we’re supposed to pretend that they don’t. It undercuts the American argument for bombing Iran if we acknowledge that Iran only wants to do what Israel has already done.


God Must Intend for Us to Work for Justice Because He Made So Much Injustice to Correct

SISTER MEGAN RICE is an 82-year old Catholic nun. She participated in a nonviolent demonstration against nuclear weaponry which resulted in a trespass at a nuclear power plant. Usually simple trespass is dismissed with a fine or a day or two in the hoosegow.

Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department wants to make an example of this nun and her friends and so have augmented charges so as to impose a 16 year criminal sentence. But even that “death sentence” isn’t enough for the Government to prove its point, the Department is considering even more serious charges which could entail a sentence of 65 years.

Really? Is that what the Government wants to do? Make such an example of minimal misdemeanor offenses so as to turn it into a felony. Banksters rob the country of BILLIONS and they get invited to the White House to dine. Bishops coverup massive child abuse and they are consulted for their ethical advice. A nun trespasses and she is banged up with a chamber pot for what remains of her natural life.


P.S. Most people think, quite naturally, that if one commits an offense then one is charged for that offense. It doesn’t work that way. For any possible set of actions there are prospectively 20 or 30 would-be charges. Prosecutors can charge various different things for the very same offense. So while the Sister only trespassed she may do time for all sorts of things. For example, when Martha Stewart was supposedly involved in insider trading, the prosecutor couldn’t find any evidence to support that charge. So he charged her with “lying”. Yes, she lied to a Federal Officer when she said she was innocent of insider trading and did time, not for insider trading, but for lying. It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack.


Double Standards

The UNITED NATIONS has called upon Israel to open its nuclear facilities for inspection.

The longstanding “secret” — wink, wink, nudge, nudge — is that Israel has developed nuclear weaponry. It has already done what we worry Iran may do.

We may bomb Iran for thinking about doing what Israel has already done. Will we bomb Israel?

Let’s make our policy in the Middle East make sense and establish a nuclear-free zone from the Sahara to the borders of Pakistan. No nukes for Iran, no nukes for Israel, no nukes for anyone.

The Grey Lady with Her Bloomers Down

The NEW YORK TIMES is THE voice of the Establishment. Known as the grey lady of journalism, the Times could be relied upon to be objective and comprehensive in its coverage of the news.

Something happened to change the grey lady. The nationwide beating of the war-drums under the second Bush caught a sympathetic heartbeat in the old girl and the Times suppressed its own findings to join in the march to war. The Times knew, as did anyone exploring the topic, that there were no WMDs in Iraq but it opted for war nevertheless. History is repeating itself.

Iran proposed at the meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement that ALL nukes be banned. Well, it might be said that this was a trick, that the Ayatollahs were not serious but regardless, this was news and it was not reported in the Times. The Times is doing to Iran what it did to Iraq, it is filtering (censoring?) the news to portray Iran as unfavorably as possible. This will make war easier.

War with Iran?

The Obama Administration is about to Bush-whack the American people once more. We have been told again and again by the politicians in the regime that war may be necessary because Iran is going nuclear. A Government is not made up exclusively of political-types, there are the government professionals, the experts, who run the government when the politicians don’t muck it up. What are the Pros saying?

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) for 2007 stated conclusively that Iran had halted the development of nuclear weapons.

The 2011 NIE confirmed that the 2007 finding remained valid and that was the conclusion of 17 intelligence agencies.

The Associated Press interviewed senior Israeli officials and found that they too believed there was no indication that Iran had decided to build a bomb.

And the International Atomic Energy Agency, which had correctly told the Bush regime that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in 2003, has also found that Iran had no military nuclear program.

In general, nukes aside, is Iran a military threat? No.

The United States spendsĀ  $ ONE TRILLION on its military, Iran spends 1/10 of 1% of what the U.S. spends. Iran only spends a quarter of what Saudi Arabia spends and even less than what the collection of oil sheikdoms known as the United Arab Emirates spends. Iran is still dependent on American arms and munitions stockpiled over 30 years ago. Iran is not a military threat.

So why are the political-types, Repub-wackos and Obamadrones, continually bleating of the need to attack Iran now? The answer is that now is no different from then. Political-types have been crying wolf since 1979. Before 1979, the United States was providing technical assistance and gizmos to aid the Shah of Iran develop nukes. We weren’t against it then. We weren’t against Israel developing nukes or India, and although surprised by Pakistan’s bomb we never threatened to take them out.

If you were running Iran and watched what the U.S. did in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria, none of which had nukes, and compared that to the ginger treatment of nuclear North Korea, you might have the idea that a nuke or two would be a good defense.

If Obama decides on war it will be a war of choice, not necessity.

SOURCE: Christian Stark, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Iran and the Bomb, whowhatwhy.com (September 27, 2012)

Bush Iraq – Obama Iran . . . Is This an Old Rerun?

RALPH NADER nader.org (January 12, 2012)

The same neocons who persuaded George W. Bush and crew
to, in Ron Paul’s inimitable words, “lie their way into
invading Iraq” in 2003, are beating the drums of war
more loudly these days to attack Iran. It is remarkable
how many of these war-mongers are former draft dodgers
who wanted other Americans to fight the war in Vietnam.

With the exception of Ron Paul, who actually knows the
history of U.S.-Iranian relations, the Republican
presidential contenders have declared their
belligerency toward Iranian officials who they accuse
of moving toward nuclear weapons.

The Iranian regime disputes that charge, claiming they
are developing the technology for nuclear power and
nuclear medicine.

The inspection teams of the International Atomic Energy
Authority (IAEA) that monitor compliance with the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran
belongs, have entered Iran numerous times and, while
remaining suspicious, have not been able to find that
country on the direct road to the Bomb.

While many western and some Arab countries in the Gulf
region have condemned Iran’s alleged nuclear arms
quest, Israel maintains some 200 ready nuclear weapons
and has refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty,
thereby avoiding the IAEA inspectors.

Israelis in the know have much to say. Defense
minister, Ehud Barak, responded to PBS’s Charlie Rose’s
question “If you were Iran wouldn’t you want a nuclear
weapon?” with these words:

“Probably, probably. I don’t delude myself that they
are doing it just because of Israel. They have their
history of 4,000 years. They look around and they see
the Indians are nuclear. The Chinese are nuclear,
Pakistan is nuclear as well as North Korea, not to
mention the Russians.”

The Iranian regime, with a national GDP smaller than
Massachusetts, is terrified. It is surrounded by
powerful adversaries, including the U.S. military on
three of its borders. President George W. Bush labeled
Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, one of the three
“axis of evil,” and Teheran knows what happened to Iraq
after that White House assertion. They also know that
North Korea inoculated itself from invasion by testing
nuclear bombs. And all Iranians remember that the U.S.
overthrew their popular elected Prime Minister Mohammad
Mosaddegh in 1953 and installed the dictatorial Shah
who ruled tyrannically for the next 27 years.

Recently, Iran has experienced mysterious cyber
sabotage, drone violations of its air space, the
slaying of its nuclear scientists and the blowing up of
its military sites, including a major missile
installation. Israeli and American officials are not
trying too hard to conceal this low level warfare.

Israel military historian–strategist Martin van
Creveld said in 2004, that Iranians “would be crazy not
to build nuclear weapons considering the security
threats they face.” Three years later he stated that
“the world must now learn to live with a nuclear Iran
the way we learned to live with a nuclear Soviet Union
and a nuclear China….We Israelis have what it takes
to deter an Iranian attack. We are in no danger at all
of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on
us…thanks to the Iranian threat, we are getting
weapons from the U.S. and Germany.”

U.S. General John Abizaid is one of numerous military
people who say that the world can tolerate a nuclear
Iran–which, like other countries, does not wish to
commit suicide.

Using the “Iranian threat,” served Israeli Prime
Minister Netanyahu, who on his first tour of duty back
in 1996, speaking to a joint session of Congress, made
a big point of the forthcoming Iranian bomb.

Somehow the Iranians, who were invaded in 1980 by a
U.S.-backed Saddam Hussein, resulting in a million
casualties, and who have not invaded anybody for 250
years, are taking a very long time to build a
capability for atomic bomb production, much less the
actual weapons.

In mid-2011, Meir Dagan, recently retired head of
Israel’s “CIA,” repeated his opposition to a military
attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, adding it would
engulf the region in a conventional war.

He further took the Israeli government to task for
failing “to put forth a vision,” noting that “Israel
must present an initiative to the Palestinians and
adopt the 2002 Saudi Arabia peace proposal, reiterated
since, that would open full diplomatic relations with
some two dozen Arab and Islamic countries in return for
an Israeli pullback to the 1967 borders and recognition
of a Palestinian state.”

The war-mongers against Iran have often distorted
Iranian statements to suit their purpose and kept in
the shadows several friendly Iranian initiatives
offered to the George W. Bush Administration.

Flynt L. Leverett, now with Brookings and before a
State Department and CIA official, listed three
initiatives that were rejected. Right after the Sept.
11 attacks, Iran offered to help Washington overthrow
the Taliban. The U.S. declined the offer. Second, in
the spring of 2003, top Iranian officials sent the
White House a detailed proposal for comprehensive
negotiations to resolve questions regarding its weapons
programs, relations with Hezbollah and Hamas and a
Palestinian peace agreement with Israel. This proposal
was rebuffed and ignored.

Third, in October 2003, European officials secured an
agreement from Iran to suspend Iranian uranium
enrichment and to pursue talks that Mr. Leverett said
“might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic
deal.” The Bush administration “refused to join the
European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed,”
he added.

A few days ago, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
said Iran was developing a capability for making
nuclear weapons someday but was not yet building a
bomb. So why is the Obama Administration talking about
a western boycott of Iran’s oil exports, so crucial to
its faltering, sanctions-ridden economy? Is this latest
sanction designed to squeeze Iranian civilians and lead
to the overthrow of the regime? Arguably it may
backfire and produce more support for the government.

Backing the Iranian regime into such a fateful corner
risks counter-measures that may disrupt the gigantic
flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Should that
occur, watch the prices of your gasoline, heating bill
and other related products go through the roof–among
other consequences.

Isn’t it about time for the abdicatory Congress to
reassert its constitutional responsibilities? It owes
the American people comprehensive, public House and
Senate hearings that produce knowledgeable testimony
about these issues and all relevant history for wide
media coverage.

The drums of war should not move our country into a
propagandized media frenzy that preceded and helped
cause the Iraq invasion with all the socio-cide in that
country and all the costly blowbacks against U.S.
national interests?

It is past time for the American citizenry to wake up
and declare: Iran will not be an Iraq Redux!

* * * * * * * *

Let’s keep these points in mind:

The IAEA has said that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon

Defense Secretary Panetta said that Iran is not building a weapon

But if they were? This is a country with a nuclear power to its north (Russia), and to its east (Pakistan and India), and to its west (Israel) and to its south (the U.S. fleet), it would not be surprising for it to want nukes.

Israel frequently threatens to attack it. Someone, Mossad or CIA, is assassinating its scientists. Flying drones are over-flying its airspace.

Why does Israel get to have nukes but any other nation that tries is to be suppressed?

Let’s ban nuclear weapons in the region from the Mediterranean to the South China Sea: No nukes in Iran, or Israel, or Turkey, or Pakistan, or India.