• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Barbara Moe of Denver writes:

Do we feel “safer” in a world increasingly bulging with nuclear weapons? High school teachers report that many students are unaware that the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How many U.S. citizens are aware that they will foot the bill for the Department of Energy’s proposal for 125 new nuclear weapons by 2030? This $150 billion proposal is already in the government’s pipeline. In the lead-up to the elections of 2008, we should ask all candidates how they stand on the government’s nuclear policies.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Barbara,
You forgot to mention that the DoE proposal to develope a new generation of nuclear weapons is a clear violation of the NPT, of which the US is the worst violator in the world. How many people know that when the NPT was ratified by congress, it stipulated that the Unites States would dismantle its' arsenal of nuclear weapons, in exchange for non-nuclear nations not to seek to develop nuclear weapons? It is always great to lead by force, rather that by example. We should be called the "united states of hipocracy."

Barbara - I am not clear whether you think that the US dropping atomic bombs on Japan to win WWII was wrong or that we should not have done it, though I suspect that is what you do think. Do you know that both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan both were working on A-bombs of their own? Do you think for one second that they would have hesitated in using them? Are you familiar at all with the Reagan Doctrine of "Peace through Strength"? Do you honestly think that if only the USA would not arm ourselves and stop supporting our military advances that the rest of the world will do so also? How is it living in your world? It must be quite nice.

Michael has it ever crossed your mind to ask if we will really need to be spending trillions of dollars on weaponry and military gadgets and whether we really need a worldwide empire of military bases?

Try reading "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler, its an eye opener to say the least.

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. "

"Michael has it ever crossed your mind to ask if we will really need to be spending trillions of dollars on weaponry and military gadgets and whether we really need a worldwide empire of military bases?" flimflam

Yes, I have asked myself that many times. The answer I always get is a resounding "YES!!" based on the assumptions and facts I laid out in my first post. The rest of the world will NOT stop advancing their military technology or capabilities. It is always better to lead then to follow and I would not want to live in a world where the USA is reduced to a second rate military power behind China, Russia, and whatever bloc of countries decides to band together to take us on for their economic or territorial gains.
There has not been a "hot" world war since the end of WWII. American military strength and forward deployment has kept that from happening. There have been "brush" wars and "proxy" wars, but no full blown global war. The USA is largely responsible for that, as well as more democratic nations exisitng now than at any time in history.

Michael, we are not even close to becoming a second rate military power. Last time I checked we spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined.

Also, I hate to tell you this but it appears like some of those bloc countries are or soon will be kicking in our ass in many economic areas. America wasnt made great by its military power, and the history of the world shows that militaristic empires always fail.

flimflam: "spending trillions of dollars on weaponry and military gadgets" won the cold war. Do you agree that spending dollars was better than spending lives, both American and others? "becoming a second rate military power" Is that what you want Flimflam? If not how do you see maintaining strength without spending? As to "whether we really need a worldwide empire of military bases"; How would you protect our interests and world peace without military bases? Empire is your word. And "bloc countries are or soon will be kicking in our ass in many economic areas" this is the hogwash from the seventies that people said about Japan and Germany etc. We will overcome!
A

"Michael, we are not even close to becoming a second rate military power." - flimflam

Good. Let's keep it that way. I never said we were "close". I said I don't want to live in a world where the USA is a second rate military power. The USA may have an approximation to an "empire" with our forward bases and our ability to project power around the world, but we do not "rule". We do not extract treasure from far flung colonies through our power and might. That does not mean we do not influence and bring pressure to bear where we think it is needed. But in terms of historical empires, the USA is the most benevolent and magnanimous empire to ever exist. We send in aircraft carrier battle groups to rescue 3rd world nations after they are hit with tsunamis, we do not send them in to take over the country.

A, no spending trillions on the military did not "win" the cold war, and no a demented hollywood actor did not "win" it either. I have no problem with becoming a second rate or third rate or fourth rate military power. I stopped playing with my GI JOES when I was in elementary school.

What I want is for the USA to continue to be a first rate country with a strong economy. Thats going to take trillions of dollars of investment in infrastructure and education, not spending on a military empire.

Michael, step out of your bubble for a second. Its ingrained in many of us to immediately defend our nation, but you are completely ignorant if you truly believe that we dont use our military empire to rule and extract treasure. Ill challenge you again to read "War is a Racket".

We have nearly 700 bases in 130 countries and these are only the ones our government readily acknowledges. Im willing to listed to any rational explanation of why a benevolent and magnanimous country needs all this weaponry, but I cant come up with something.

Insofar as the "cold war" be concerned, it was a period in which there was sufficient balance of power, on both sides, as to make nuclear warfare an impossible threat - as well as an impossible venture - for even the most fanatic of true believers on either side. The idea of a real "end of the world" was there in the minds of politicians all over; and no one wanted that.

Today, however, there isn't that same balance. The Soviet Union is broken up; and several of its remnants now have not only access to nuclear technology, but also hold stockpiles of Soviet weaponry - including nuclear warheads - without the kind of check and balance that was there earlier in a government that had a very wide international outlook, as well as interest.

Today's fanatics can even buy these weapons - at least theoretically - from the current holders, without regard to the greater concerns that even the Soviet Union had for global stability. And of course, the technology is available on a much more widespread basis as well.

It appears to be a more or less "logical", or even "normal" reaction to desire to somehow either restore the former balance, or get so far out in front that others would not dare to use nuclear weapons, for fear of the retaliation. So, since we are presently sort of the "front runner", let's get further out in front.

Cost - in any way, shape, or form - is not important, or at issue when this kind of reaction takes over.

Old Grouch,

There is no "out in front" when it comes to Nuclear weapons. We already have the power to destroy the world many times over. Whether or not we choose to spend billions more on nuclear weapons isnt going to change that.

Would it not be wiser to spend these billions on nuclear disarmement programs?

flimflam,

Undoubtedly it would be both wiser and more productive of good in the end.

All I was pointing out was the more or less underlying - or unconscious - reaction/response to the current imbalance of world power felt ever since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

After Mr. Kruschev "blinked", at the time of the Cuban missle crises, the sense of "balance" was not really all that much distubed, until the collapse of the Soviet Union as a "super power". Nations went on with sabre rattling - and ventures such as Viet Nam, etc., - but the underlying - and again largely unconscious - perception that nuclear war would have no "winners" at all - and that a scorched and devastated earth was no "prize" - did prevail. There was enough of a "neck and neck" quality to the arms race that no one really wanted to actually test who was "out in front" in the nuclear area.

Nature abhors a vacuum. And, so far anyway, the vacuum left by the Soviet collapse has not been filled. In the meantime, the "race" has become lopsided, no longer "neck and neck". So it has moved into the "cheer on the front runner" stage,

Like it? Or approve of it? NO! But it is something that goes beyond individual ability to really eliminate, or restore balance to.

I'd be right there with Flimflam about nuclear disarmament if he had some interest in disarming the enemy first.

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly