AI
| Followers | 80 |
| Posts | 82226 |
| Boards Moderated | 2 |
| Alias Born | 12/26/2003 |
Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:05:09 PM
Preemptive Nukes for NATO
According to the Guardian five former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands — including Gen. John Shalikashvili, a former NATO commander — have authored a manifesto insisting that a preemptive nuclear strike should be a key NATO option:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,2244782,00.html
A “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.”
In other words, the West needs to be able to preemptively nuke any country it deems a threat in order to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons!? Don’t worry, however, the manifesto’s authors reassure us that nuclear fighting would be “limited in scope.”
But it gets better…. Apparently renewed emphasis on the preemptive use of nuclear weapons will also revive NATO:
“Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure….”
HUH!? As ArmsControlWonk Andy Grotto asks, “How could a renewed emphasis on the preemptive use of nuclear weapons possibly promote NATO unity?! The authors apparently missed the Schultz-Perry-Kissinger-Nunn op-eds in the WSJ endorsing the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and less reliance on them in the meantime.”
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1774/a-new-preemptive-nuclear-posture-for-nato
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2252&issue_id=54
UPDATE: Chris Floyd, whose writing I admire, offers more insightful analysis here:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/The_New_New_World_Order%3A_A_First-Strike_NATO_%DCber_Alles/
What are the dangers to “the West’s values and way of life” that the war chiefs want to aim nuclear missiles at?
Well, “political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism,” for a start. (Reckon NATO will nuke the next GOP presidential debate?) The “dark side of globalization” is another; this apparently covers organized crime, terrorism and proliferation of WMD. Then there’s “climate change and energy security,” which will entail “a contest for resources and potential ‘environmental’ migration on a mass scale,” as the Guardian puts it. Another danger worth nuking over is “the weakening of the nation-state, as well as of organizations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.”
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/22/preemptive-nukes-for-nato/#more-1381
According to the Guardian five former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands — including Gen. John Shalikashvili, a former NATO commander — have authored a manifesto insisting that a preemptive nuclear strike should be a key NATO option:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,2244782,00.html
A “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.”
In other words, the West needs to be able to preemptively nuke any country it deems a threat in order to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons!? Don’t worry, however, the manifesto’s authors reassure us that nuclear fighting would be “limited in scope.”
But it gets better…. Apparently renewed emphasis on the preemptive use of nuclear weapons will also revive NATO:
“Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure….”
HUH!? As ArmsControlWonk Andy Grotto asks, “How could a renewed emphasis on the preemptive use of nuclear weapons possibly promote NATO unity?! The authors apparently missed the Schultz-Perry-Kissinger-Nunn op-eds in the WSJ endorsing the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and less reliance on them in the meantime.”
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1774/a-new-preemptive-nuclear-posture-for-nato
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2252&issue_id=54
UPDATE: Chris Floyd, whose writing I admire, offers more insightful analysis here:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/The_New_New_World_Order%3A_A_First-Strike_NATO_%DCber_Alles/
What are the dangers to “the West’s values and way of life” that the war chiefs want to aim nuclear missiles at?
Well, “political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism,” for a start. (Reckon NATO will nuke the next GOP presidential debate?) The “dark side of globalization” is another; this apparently covers organized crime, terrorism and proliferation of WMD. Then there’s “climate change and energy security,” which will entail “a contest for resources and potential ‘environmental’ migration on a mass scale,” as the Guardian puts it. Another danger worth nuking over is “the weakening of the nation-state, as well as of organizations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.”
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/22/preemptive-nukes-for-nato/#more-1381
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
