Secrets & Lies. Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
Krugman, today, on the Bush administration's doctrine of "elected dictatorship." Krugman asks, why has the admin. spent the last three years doggedly battling the judicial branch by refusing to release Dick Cheney's energy task force records?
"One possibility is that there is some kind of incriminating evidence in the task force's records. Another is that the administration fears that full disclosure will highlight its chummy relationship with the energy industry. But there's a third possibility: that the administration is really taking a stand on principle. And that's what scares me."
But the secret that the administration is keeping that is the most frightening -- or, at least, one that most needs a public debate on -- is our very own Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nuclear Weapons have always -- at least in terms of public policy -- been a weapon of deterrence for U.S. presidents since Truman (with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan -- Nixon was only pretending...really). Hit us, so the plan goes, and we will reduce you, Soviet Union, to a bunch of smoldering ash pits once known as Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, and Stalingrad.
Part of what makes the secret so frightening is that it's not really secret at all. It's an initiative that the admin. is doing in plain sight, albeit hidden in the minutiae and gov-speak of the U.S. Budget. Our government, apparently with the tacit approval of the Legislative Branch, has decided to develop nuclear weapons that are not meant for deterrence, but are tactical weapons that will be in our "standard" arsenal for dealing with threats. First Strike nuclear weapons.
Fred Kaplan's piece in Slate is essential reading.
"There is no nuclear arms race going on now. The world no longer offers many suitable nuclear targets. President Bush is trying to persuade other nations -- especially "rogue regimes" -- to forgo their nuclear ambitions. Yet he is shoveling money to U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories as if the Soviet Union still existed and the Cold War still raged.
"These are the findings of a virtually unnoticed report written by weapons analyst Christopher Paine, based on data from official budget documents, and released earlier this month by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The report raises anew a question that always springs to mind after a close look at the U.S. military budget: What the hell is going on here? Specifically: Do we really need to be spending this kind of money on nuclear weapons? What role do nuclear weapons play in 21st-century military policy? How many weapons do we need, to deter what sort of attack or to hit what sorts of targets, with what level of confidence, for what strategic and tactical purposes?
"These are questions that haven't been seriously addressed in this country for 30 years. It may be time for a new look."
"One possibility is that there is some kind of incriminating evidence in the task force's records. Another is that the administration fears that full disclosure will highlight its chummy relationship with the energy industry. But there's a third possibility: that the administration is really taking a stand on principle. And that's what scares me."
But the secret that the administration is keeping that is the most frightening -- or, at least, one that most needs a public debate on -- is our very own Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nuclear Weapons have always -- at least in terms of public policy -- been a weapon of deterrence for U.S. presidents since Truman (with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan -- Nixon was only pretending...really). Hit us, so the plan goes, and we will reduce you, Soviet Union, to a bunch of smoldering ash pits once known as Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, and Stalingrad.
Part of what makes the secret so frightening is that it's not really secret at all. It's an initiative that the admin. is doing in plain sight, albeit hidden in the minutiae and gov-speak of the U.S. Budget. Our government, apparently with the tacit approval of the Legislative Branch, has decided to develop nuclear weapons that are not meant for deterrence, but are tactical weapons that will be in our "standard" arsenal for dealing with threats. First Strike nuclear weapons.
Fred Kaplan's piece in Slate is essential reading.
"There is no nuclear arms race going on now. The world no longer offers many suitable nuclear targets. President Bush is trying to persuade other nations -- especially "rogue regimes" -- to forgo their nuclear ambitions. Yet he is shoveling money to U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories as if the Soviet Union still existed and the Cold War still raged.
"These are the findings of a virtually unnoticed report written by weapons analyst Christopher Paine, based on data from official budget documents, and released earlier this month by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The report raises anew a question that always springs to mind after a close look at the U.S. military budget: What the hell is going on here? Specifically: Do we really need to be spending this kind of money on nuclear weapons? What role do nuclear weapons play in 21st-century military policy? How many weapons do we need, to deter what sort of attack or to hit what sorts of targets, with what level of confidence, for what strategic and tactical purposes?
"These are questions that haven't been seriously addressed in this country for 30 years. It may be time for a new look."
posted by John at 7:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home