Our so-called self-government rarely agrees with what we tell pollsters, and yet it does what it does with our acceptance. We may have fallen for the pretense that we’re powerless. Our ignorance and xenophobia should never be underestimated as explanations for what we do. But consider the following public policy and then tell me the clearest explanation isn’t that we all want to rush our arrival at death’s door.
Not only do we spend over half of public discretionary funds on war preparation without a particular war in mind, but we spend a huge chunk of that on weapons we can never use without destroying life on the planet, including in our own country, including if we use those weapons and nobody else retaliates. The earth has one atmosphere, and if we wreck it with nuclear weapons, it won’t matter that we’ve done so on another continent.
We put these evil, useless, apocalyptic weapons on ships and sail them as close as possible to the most dangerous spots on earth. Then we threaten war with the countries they’re floating next to. We stick them on planes and fly them around the skies. Despite hundreds of near-disasters due to human and mechanical mistakes over the years, we spread these weapons (and the energy technology that is closely related to them) to more and more countries. We ignore our treaty obligation to disarm and falsely accuse a nation that has no nuclear weapons yet of violating the treaty, building hostility and the likelihood of war.
The nuclear weapons on planes and ships make nuclear missiles on land obsolete. The United States has 450 land-based Minuteman III nuclear missiles. They are easily targeted. And should they all be destroyed, and should we want to seize the opportunity to all hurry up and die together, the bombs on planes and ships could do the job many times over.
Yet the land-based missiles in the United States are not only still sitting there ready to serve no purpose whatsoever, but they’re on high alert. These nuclear-armed missiles could be sent by a U.S. president in 13 minutes or less. Thirteen minutes, with the very real possibility that false information, an electronic glitch or bad signal, or an error in human judgment, would bring the world as we know it to an end.
President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor was about to wake him up in the middle of the night to inform the President that 220 Soviet nuclear missiles were headed our way, when he learned that someone had stuck a game tape into the computer by mistake. Three years later a Soviet Lieutenant Colonel acted out the same scene, with the computer glitch on his side this time. Then in 1984 another U.S. computer glitch led to the quick decision to park an armored car on top of a missile silo to prevent the start of the apocalypse. And again in 1995, the Soviet Union almost responded to a U.S. nuclear attack that proved to be a real missile, but one with a weather satellite rather than a nuke. One Pentagon report documents 563 nuclear mistakes, malfunctions, and false alarms over the years — so far.
Minuteman III missiles would not, and nothing can, prevent retaliation. Even without retaliation, their unilateral use would ruin the earth’s atmosphere — all over the earth. The missiles’ only function is to kill others in a process that kills us too.
Is that what we want? I’m not imagining we have a democracy. I’m not discounting the power of financial corruption. I’m not suggesting that we are all driven by the same lust for power that moves elected officials and their staff. But look at popular opinion. War is exciting. Peace is dull. Oil drilling is sexy. Solar panels are lame. Storms are cool. Safety and survival are not fashionable at all. We have 450 missiles whose sole purpose is to kill us all. They cost us a fortune every year, while we whine and moan about money as if it were all that mattered. And where is the resistance? It’s in a handful of activists.
You don’t want to die, you say? Freud was a freak? You don’t envy penises or intend your accidents or think the slightest little bit about Bill Clinton when you see a cigar? O.K. I’m thrilled to hear it. Go ahead and prove me wrong.
An easy immediate step toward sanity would be to de-alert the missiles so that 24 to 72 hours would be needed to launch. This would increase our security by reducing the likelihood of an accidental or unauthorized launch. Again, those intent on achieving nuclear doomsday could rest assured that U.S. submarines and bombers would remain able to complete that job many times over.
A second obvious step that would also work wonders for our federal budget would be to decommission these missiles.
You don’t have to click the links above. You don’t have to help end this end-game policy. But don’t come crying to me that you want to live. I’ll not be inclined to believe it.




20 Comments

Thanks for paying attention and for the reminder; it looks like we’ve all gone crazy. I hear the bomb, bomb, bomb mantra…still crazy.
David,
I clicked on your first link and started reading something that was familiar. I’m dismayed that you’ve taken quoted material that John Amidon of Albany, NY spoke and not given him attribution. Please make the necessary changes in your post above so it’s clear which words are yours and which are Amidon’s. Thank you.
We could decommission the vast majority of our nuclear arsenal and use that as a spur to other countries to do likewise. It would even make our hypocrisy vis a vis Iran and other states less contemptible.
Is Our Deepest Desire to Die? I don’t think so. What I see is a certain number of people with a deep desire for control and a fear of change. These bullies work themselves into controlling positions where the end game of the control game is mutual destruction.
The larger number of people, who want to live a normal life, have never figured out how to control these bullies and until they do, they will probably die again and again in wars they did not ask for.
Attack sequence from The Day After (1983)
Depending on who is counting, we spend between $60B and $100B a year on nuclear energy / nuclear weapons, where the nuclear energy research part is in support of nuclear weapons.
So, even though we are no longer testing them, we are still refining our weapons arsenal.
It is a darn good question: Why do we need several thousand nuclear weapons. Since we agreed at one point to downsize them, how come we keep upsizing them?
Our military / MIC is out of control. They will always want more-more-more and will promote the killing of people all over the planet to keep the US population in a state where war and our military are glorified.
And yes, this stupidity combined with rampant overpopulation, overuse of resources, and global warming is about to create a crisis the likes of which humans have not seen since the near extinction 600,000 yrs. ago.
I think mother nature will do to us what we have not been able to do to ourselves yet.
Sorry for your dismay. I write press releases and statements for VFP. I write actions for Roots Action. I write columns about actions at Roots Action. I’m not trying to rip off John but to spread the word to more people.
Well, it’s not one or the other. You could spread the word AND use quotes around the parts of your post (about half?) that are quotes from Amidon.
I’ve enjoyed many of your posts in the past, but am now not so sure I will read more of them.
It also seems to me that as a writer of press releases and columns, you’d want to credit the original speaker of the words as a matter of trust and integrity.
Once again, George Carlin:
http://youtu.be/sDkhzHQO7jY
How is it a rip-off? In this setting, doesn’t a link = attribution? Jmho. Good Morning.
There is no uncredited original speaker of words here.
Sorry, that doesn’t work for me. More times than not, I do not click on the links in a post. I thought everything in your post were your words and ideas and would have continued to think that if I had not clicked on your link. You have very extensively quoted John Amidon with no attribution to him in your post. Whether or not you have ripped off John is one issue that you raise. It’s not the issue I raised.
For me, the issue is that I thought you had written those words and you hadn’t. That creates an issue for me of trusting your integrity as a writer. Had you responded to my original request in comment #2 with some sort of apology for oversight and/or adding attribution in your post, I would now feel differently, but from here on, I will have no idea when what you are posting here is yours or someone else’s direct quote.
Nor will anyone else. That may not matter to some people. Obviously, it matters to me. It’s an integrity issue.
Usually one sees “so and so writes:” and then the quoted text in quotes and usually the “so and so writes” is a link to the original material.
JMHO, I dunno what’s so hard about that.
But yeah, anyone that thinks positively about war is a loony. I’m planning to move to Mexico to get out of the nuclear trade route between the U.S. and Europe/Russia/China/Everyone-and-their-dogs.
I just hope the U.S. and Argentina don’t get into an arms race.
I wrote John’s statement with him. Can you try really really hard to grasp that? I’m plagiarizing myself. Really, try.
I could try really really hard to grasp that and could have tried really really hard to grasp that much earlier had you said that in the first place. And, still, John was quoted as saying that, not you, even if you actually wrote some or all of it.
You think it’s a good idea to be sarcastic the first time you explain why you think you had a right to not quote John? I think it’s a better idea if I’m treated with integrity as a reader and with respect when I have a legitimate issue.
I am sorry for the tone that has developed here as I think the attribution topic is interesting, maybe important, not sure. I cannot imagine that there is much expectation for formal citation, direct quotes on these threads. Member make statements from memory or “something I read.” There is no rule for formal research.
So…is there a standard? I think people write either well or not so well; well-informed or not. I wouldn’t rely on any of this stuff for a term paper unless I could see chapter and verse for myself.
Maybe there is a whole thread here. I truly think a link is adequate, and I know, however, that often there is not even a like for some information. In such an informal setting a rigid expectation, or rule, seems unrealistic.
The next to last line was meant to be “link for some information.”
Sorry.
I won’t read anymore of your posts.