|
|
|
Military Spending, Morale and the Draft |
| |
John C. Yoo (who is John Yoo?) and the "Bush" (neocon) Doctrine
The new "Bush Doctrine" is not something Bush dreamed up. It's instead the neocon doctrine, slightly watered down in areas like torture, where it has already caused much trouble. The Wall St. Journal, discussing John C. Yoo, puts it most clearly:
The Yoo Doctrine, as it might be called, fits with the broader Bush-administration view that pursuing American interests is best for the country and the rest of the world.
|
This definition would also serve rather well for the word "hubris."
|
|
| |
Nuclear Preemption
The neocons have worked consistently to clear the way for the use of nuclear weapons. Firstly by removing the US from nuclear control treaties, secondly by pushing for nuclear "bunker busters," the easiest nuclear device to justify using, and now by advocating the use of nuclear weapons to preempt terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction.
The Pentagon's draft of this new policy states: "U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them."
"The continuing proliferation of WMD ... increases the probability that someday a ... terrorist may ... use those weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary."
Of all the possibilities for terrorist attacks, one that could be stopped by nuclear preemption and only by nuclear preemption is about the most difficult to imagine. On the other hand, it is not so hard to imagine that (1) the preemption might be a mistake, and (2) our allies, who are already abandoning us in Iraq, will give us even less support in curbing nuclear proliferation.
Consider that the US spent two years studying the WMD question in Iraq, with inspectors on the ground, and still concluded there were litterally tons of them when there were none. Nuclear preemption would only be needed if the time-frame to act were hundreds of times shorter. What would be the chance of error then?
In short this proposal has not weighed the benefits and has not even considered the costs.
|
|
http://zfacts.com/p/409.html | 11/07/09 23:40 GMT
Modified: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 04:56:43 GMT
|
| |
Sample Chapters
Carbonomics:
Cap and Trade
Kyoto II,
Oil Security ...
Bear with OPEC ?!
|
|
|
|
