|
New Nuclear Weapons? Comment by Larry Ross, July 3, 2006
Since 1945, nuclear weapons have been considered a threat to humanities future. Intensive publicity on this theme, as well as much anti-nuclear campaigning has taken place around the world for the last 60 years. Diplomats have spent endless hours working on nuclear arms control treaties with eventual nuclear weapons abolition clauses. Why? Would this have been necessary if nuclear weapons were not so dangerous? Since 2000, the Bush regime has renounced nuclear disarmament treaties, and developed new nuclear weapons and use doctrines. Nuclear war and weapons warnings have virtually disappeared from the Bush-influenced corporate mass media. The media pretend that everything Bush is doing about nuclear weapons and new nuclear war doctrines is perfectly normal and reasonable. Their coverage of the issue and lack of critical honest information helps condition the public to forget their fears and worries about nuclear weapons and war. Their news and article coverage of this subject shows how diligently they work to implant these new permissive attitudes toward American and allied nuclear weapons and make them acceptable to the public. It seems like a large coordinated propaganda operation of the Bush Administration (duplicated in the UK and in other countries) by their corporate media has been effective. They're objective is to selectively wipe out Bush-controlled nuclear weapon and war fears from the public mind and convert that mass mind into a general acceptance of the value of nuclear weapons and their possible use by the President on selected targets he condemns as nuclear threats - such as Iraq in 2003 and now Iran in 2006. Bush has threatened to use nuclear weapons against both Iraq and Iran with no criticism by the media and suppression of any public dissent. The media objective here is to make it appear as if the public totally accepts Bush nuclear threats without dissent. The media does not seriously question or doubt Bush's judgements. It conditions the public not to question the wisdom and authority of George Bush to act as he wishes. Even though President Bush has a very alarming history - ex-alcoholic - fundamentalist Christian, hearing messages from God approving his war making - poor student and armed services record - rich spoiled brat attitudes - unwillingness to accept contrary top-level advice - amazing record of lies, illegal war making, and hair-raising psychopathological profile. The public seems to accept this pro-nuclear, pro-Bush bias of their media, even though Bush's approval ratings have sunk to historical lows. The Bush Administration denounce as enemies carefully selected oil-rich nations, such as Iraq and Iran because Bush says they might, one day, develop nuclear weapons and attack the U.S. The chosen targets are immediately attacked by the media, using a litany of Bush-created lies, as a great threat to the U.S.A. and the world. Generally the public believe the lies and myths and support Bush wars even when he is very widely exposed as creating the lies to justify his wars. The public seems to have a very short memory. The same techniques are being used to prepare the public for a new war on Iran with the media diligently laying the propaganda groundwork as expected. As Dr. Paul Craig Roberts recently warned (see his article on this site) the Bush Administration plans to fool the public again with a 9/11 type of attack on the U.S. and the blame Iran. No doubt they will create some phoney 'intelligence' to back their Iran accusations, as they successfully did for accusations against Iraq from 2001 to 2003. This strategy is expected to get public support for a nuclear war on Iran, boost Bush approval ratings, and gain support for Bush's Republican candidates in the next election. This 'Pearl Harbour' tactic has worked exceptionally well for the neo-conservative Bush Administration to get public and congressional support for their war on Iraq. The media co-operated in suppressing inconvenient facts and facilitated Bush's lie-based war on Iraq. The same approach may work with his planned attack on Iran, particularly if he stages a convincing phoney 9/11 attack on the U.S. as Dr Robert's warned. Although it's carefully sanitized and limited, the following article suggests that Bush will approve of large new nuclear weapons budgets to replace the present ageing U.S. nuclear weapon stockpiles. That will increase nuclear proliferation pressures and boost the new nuclear weapons and war doctrines arms race, thus setting back again any attempts at nuclear disarmament. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
White House ponders NG nuclear warheads By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer July 1, 2006
LIVERMORE, Calif. -- The scientists who crack open the nation's nuclear weapons for a living are never quite sure what they will find inside. Many of the warheads were designed and built 40 years ago, and their plutonium and other components are slowly breaking down in ways that researchers do not fully understand. With no new bombs in production, the government spends billions of dollars each year tending to its aging stockpile. The Bush administration wants to revamp the entire arsenal with a weapon now on the drawing board named the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The redesigned weapon is needed to ensure "a safe, secure, reliable and effective nuclear deterrent for the indefinite future," said Linton Brooks, chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The administration ordered up a competition between Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The two laboratories submitted their proposals for the weapon in March. The White House plans to pick a winner by November. As envisioned, the next-generation nuclear weapon would have the same destructive power as existing ones, but be durable enough to last for decades.
|
