Link here.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Monday, October 10, 2016
War College Podcast: Why nuclear war looks inevitable
By Jason Fields
Several developments have the potential to move the hands of the nuclear doom clock closer to midnight.
A new U.S. nuclear policy has a chance of destabilizing the balance of terror by creating a larger arsenal of smaller weapons.
Why?
Smaller weapons are more tempting to use. The argument for so-called "tactical" nukes is that they would destroy a smaller area and create less fallout, making them more "safe" to use than traditional many-megaton bombs. And that could lead to temptation to use them.
Just as importantly, that could give other nuclear-armed powers the impression that the U.S. would be more likely to use the weapons - a dangerous spiral that could culminate with...the end of the world, literally.
The United States is hardly the only nation adding stress to a system that is always a hands-breadth from tragedy.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has rattled the nuclear sabre, even threatening to station missiles in annexed Crimea. Pakistan, another nuclear-armed country, is a divided nation with government agencies linked to Islamic extremism and a beef with India. India has a beef with Pakistan and territorial disputes with China.
North Korea is a wildcard with an accelerating nuclear program that may still be getting help from Pakistan - which denies it. Recent tests by North Korea and China's lack of overt response has set U.S. teeth on edge.
In the end, the basic question is whether humanity can have such dangerous toys and not use them.
Incredible as it may seem, at the height of the Cold War the world might actually have been safer, experts say. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had a death wish, and those were clearly the stakes.
And, of course, nihilistic militants have no such qualms.
Several developments have the potential to move the hands of the nuclear doom clock closer to midnight.
A new U.S. nuclear policy has a chance of destabilizing the balance of terror by creating a larger arsenal of smaller weapons.
Why?
Smaller weapons are more tempting to use. The argument for so-called "tactical" nukes is that they would destroy a smaller area and create less fallout, making them more "safe" to use than traditional many-megaton bombs. And that could lead to temptation to use them.
Just as importantly, that could give other nuclear-armed powers the impression that the U.S. would be more likely to use the weapons - a dangerous spiral that could culminate with...the end of the world, literally.
The United States is hardly the only nation adding stress to a system that is always a hands-breadth from tragedy.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has rattled the nuclear sabre, even threatening to station missiles in annexed Crimea. Pakistan, another nuclear-armed country, is a divided nation with government agencies linked to Islamic extremism and a beef with India. India has a beef with Pakistan and territorial disputes with China.
North Korea is a wildcard with an accelerating nuclear program that may still be getting help from Pakistan - which denies it. Recent tests by North Korea and China's lack of overt response has set U.S. teeth on edge.
In the end, the basic question is whether humanity can have such dangerous toys and not use them.
Incredible as it may seem, at the height of the Cold War the world might actually have been safer, experts say. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had a death wish, and those were clearly the stakes.
And, of course, nihilistic militants have no such qualms.
Link here.
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Acceptable Losses - Aiding and abetting the Saudi slaughter in Yemen
By Andrew Cockburn
Just a few short years ago, Yemen was judged to be among the poorest countries in the world, ranking 154th out of the 187 nations on the U.N.’s Human Development Index. One in every five Yemenis went hungry. Almost one in three was unemployed. Every year, 40,000 children died before their fifth birthday, and experts predicted the country would soon run out of water.
Such was the dire condition of the country before Saudi Arabia unleashed a bombing campaign in March 2015, which has destroyed warehouses, factories, power plants, ports, hospitals, water tanks, gas stations, and bridges, along with miscellaneous targets ranging from donkey carts to wedding parties to archaeological monuments. Thousands of civilians — no one knows how many — have been killed or wounded. Along with the bombing, the Saudis have enforced a blockade, cutting off supplies of food, fuel, and medicine. A year and a half into the war, the health system has largely broken down, and much of the country is on the brink of starvation.
This rain of destruction was made possible by the material and moral support of the United States, which supplied most of the bombers, bombs, and missiles required for the aerial onslaught. (Admittedly, the United Kingdom, France, and other NATO arms exporters eagerly did their bit.) U.S. Navy ships aided the blockade. But no one that I talked to in Washington suggested that the war was in any way necessary to our national security. The best answer I got came from Ted Lieu, a Democratic congressman from California who has been one of the few public officials to speak out about the devastation we were enabling far away. “Honestly,” he told me, “I think it’s because Saudi Arabia asked.”
Link here.
Such was the dire condition of the country before Saudi Arabia unleashed a bombing campaign in March 2015, which has destroyed warehouses, factories, power plants, ports, hospitals, water tanks, gas stations, and bridges, along with miscellaneous targets ranging from donkey carts to wedding parties to archaeological monuments. Thousands of civilians — no one knows how many — have been killed or wounded. Along with the bombing, the Saudis have enforced a blockade, cutting off supplies of food, fuel, and medicine. A year and a half into the war, the health system has largely broken down, and much of the country is on the brink of starvation.
This rain of destruction was made possible by the material and moral support of the United States, which supplied most of the bombers, bombs, and missiles required for the aerial onslaught. (Admittedly, the United Kingdom, France, and other NATO arms exporters eagerly did their bit.) U.S. Navy ships aided the blockade. But no one that I talked to in Washington suggested that the war was in any way necessary to our national security. The best answer I got came from Ted Lieu, a Democratic congressman from California who has been one of the few public officials to speak out about the devastation we were enabling far away. “Honestly,” he told me, “I think it’s because Saudi Arabia asked.”
Link here.
War College - Why wars in the Middle East will cost the U.S. trillions more
The United States is at war and has been for more than a decade. Although major combat operations in Iraq in Afghanistan have ended, America still maintains a presence in both and will for years to come. It also funds Syrian rebels, bombs Islamic State strongholds in the region and runs drones from Afghanistan to the Horn of Africa. With America fighting on so many fronts, it’s hard to understand the Pentagon’s strategy or the endgame for the various conflicts. Retired U.S. Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich says it feels that way because it is that way. According to Bacevich, the American military is fighting a war that began decades before 9/11. This week on War College, Bacevich walks us through what he calls America’s War With the Greater Middle East and tells us how it started and why he thinks it must end.
Link here.
Link here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)