I enjoy the list. Thanks a lot.
I'm glad you enjoy it, you're most welcome.
However, um... Well. LOL!
Dear Keith,
This is not disturbing to me at all. What it does is warn our enemies, and
we do have legitimate enemies, that we will not necessarily wait to be
struck first. For example, the posturing that N. Korea has been allowed to
get away with is a product of our past policies. I don't think anyone can
argue that N. Korea is anything but a despicable and corrupt regime that is
nothing short of criminal.
Wow, Jason, that has some truly horrific echoes, don't you think?
Under our past policies, N. Korea could be
pretty much assured that we would not act unless they actually struck us
first. They have felt free to defy not only the US but the entire free
world all while starving there own people. Why should we give a dictator
like that the advance knowledge that we aren't going to do anything? It's
kind of like the gun that I have in my home. My neighbor may not be armed
but the burglar is going to have to assume that we both are because he
doesn't know. I think the best defense has always been a good offense and
that is how I view this policy change.
I enjoy the list. Thanks a lot.
Where to start? Should I even start? Well, you started, so I guess
I'll have to.
While this view of North Korea is fairly common in the US, including
various persons in Washington with their fingers on various buttons,
it is more or less confined to the US. It causes vast dismay not only
in Pyongyang but also in Seoul, Tokyo and Beijing, and just about
everywhere else, for very good reason.
How about Chalmers Johnson, who certainly knows what he's talking about:
... China's gross domestic product in 2004 grew at a rate of 9.5
percent, easily the fastest among big countries. It is today the
world's sixth largest economy with a GDP of $1.4 trillion. It has
also become the trading partner of choice for the developing world,
absorbing huge amounts of food, raw materials, machinery and
computers. Can the United States adjust peacefully to the
reemergence of China-the world's oldest, continuously extant
civilization-this time as a modern superpower? Or is China's
ascendancy to be marked by yet another world war like those of the
last century? That is what is at stake. A rich, capitalist China is
not a threat to the United States and cooperation with it is our
best guarantee of military security in the Pacific.
Nothing is more threatening to our nation than the spread of nuclear
weapons. We developed a good policy with the 1970 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, which with its 188 adherents is the most
widely supported arms control agreement ever enacted. Only India,
Israel and Pakistan remained outside its terms until January 10,
2003, when North Korea withdrew. Under the treaty, the five
nuclear-weapons states (the United States, Russia, China, France and
the United Kingdom) agree to undertake nuclear disarmament, while
the non-nuclear-weapons states agree not to develop or acquire such
weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is authorized
to inspect the non-nuclear-weapons states to ensure compliance. The
Bush administration has virtually ruined this international
agreement by attempting to denigrate the IAEA, by tolerating nuclear
weapons in India, Israel, and Pakistan while fomenting wars against
Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and by planning to develop new forms of
nuclear weapons. Our policy should be to return at once to this
established system of controls.
-- From: Wake Up! Washington's alarming foreign policy
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/45607/
Or this:
... U.S. military spending, in billions of dollars per day: 1.08
Ratio of U.S. military spending to the combined military budgets of
Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria: 26 to 1
Percentage of U.S. share of total global military spending in 1985: 31
Percentage of U.S. share of total global military spending in 2000: 36
Number of U.S. states used in 1998 for the staging of mock nuclear
attacks on North Korea: 2 (North Carolina and Florida)
Date that the Nuclear Posture Review (signed by Secretary of Defense
Donald H. Rumsfeld), describing contingency plans to use nuclear
weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, and
Syria, was delivered to Congress: January 8, 2002
Sources: Harper's, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The
Washington Post, The New Yorker, Agence France Presse, Parameters,
Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You, Policy Analysis,
Denver Post, Foreign Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, Sierra Club
-- From: Blood, Stats And Tears
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/20707/
Or...
... distrust of the U.S. overseas has reached such a level, even
among our British allies, that a recent British poll ranked the U.S.
as the world's most dangerous nation - ahead of North Korea and Iraq.
-- From: Behind the Great Divide
By Paul Krugman
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/21179/
(Also: "A Time Europe poll, boasting nearly 400,000 respondents to date,
finds that 84.6% consider the United States the "greatest danger to world
peace in 2003." Etc etc etc.)
Have a look at what South Korea's President says (and China):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2789303.stm
Sunday, 23 February, 2003, 23:27 GMT
US warned over North Korea
I think I'll copy this one in full:
http://eatthestate.org/07-10/NorthKoreasWarlike.htm
North Korea's Warlike Noises
by Maria Tomchick
January 15, 2003
North Korea has kicked UN officials out of its country, removed the
cameras in its Yongbyon nuclear complex, abrogated the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and torn up a 1999 agreement to stop
testing long-range missiles. It has said that any attempts by the UN
Security Council to impose sanctions on North Korea would be viewed
as a declaration of war.
From this perspective--the portrayal of the current crisis in the US
media--North Korea appears to be a rogue nation ruled by a madman.
The reality is somewhat different. A little history can help us
understand what North Korea is doing and why.
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, North Korea was left to
fend on its own economically. Formerly dependent on the USSR for
fuel oil to power its generators and food imports, North Korea had
to quickly develop its export market and a way to generate
electricity, or face collapse. This marked the beginning of the
North Korean nuclear program, initially an attempt to generate power.
North Korea began to build a nuclear complex at Yongbyon, a huge
cave dug into the side of a mountain. It appeared, at least to the
US and North Korea's neighbors (particularly Japan), that the
Koreans might be hiding something, and the fear was that they might
be attempting to refine weapons-grade material to make a nuclear
weapon. Bill Clinton, with satellite photos in hand, confronted
North Korea in 1993.
After a tense standoff, the two sides reached an agreement. North
Korea would allow UN inspectors and cameras into the Yongbyon
complex and would cease work on a nuclear plant that could make
weapons-grade nuclear material. In return, the US and Japan would
provide North Korea with food aid, fuel oil to run its power plants,
and would help it build two commercial-grade nuclear power plants,
which would generate electricity, but not be capable of producing
weapons-grade nuclear material.
North Korea held up its end of the deal, and so did Japan. But the
Clinton administration had a tougher time selling this deal to
Congress. Congress okayed the fuel oil, but refused to approve the
two commercial nuclear plants. Providing any kind of nuclear
materials to North Korea was verboten. Indeed, it's possible that
Clinton knew he didn't have the votes in Congress to approve the two
plants; he may have agreed to that part of the deal simply for
expediency's sake. (In other words, he struck a deal that made him
look tough and statesman-like while probably knowing that he
couldn't deliver on his end and thinking that he could stall long
enough to leave the problem to a future president.)
In the meantime, North Korea got tired of waiting for construction
to begin on its two promised plants. The fuel oil helped a lot, but
they decided to give the Clinton administration a little scare, just
to prod Bill Clinton's memory about his unfulfilled promise. In
1999, they fired a prototype long-range missile over the north of
Japan, sparking another round of diplomatic talks.
By that time the Clinton administration was on its way out, unable
to make any firm promises. Clinton managed to extract a promise from
North Korea, however, to halt testing of long-range missiles,
although no one really believed that North Korea has completely
stopped work on its long-range missile program. After all, missiles
are one of North Korea's main exports. (Remember the ship bearing
North Korean missiles to Yemen that was stopped in the Persian Gulf
a few weeks ago?)
Then, in 2000, George W. Bush was elected president of the United
States. The first thing the Bush administration did was cut off all
negotiations and all contact with North Korea. Then September 11
happened and the Bush administration declared a War on Terrorism.
The Taliban were supporters of terrorism, so Bush attacked and
destroyed the Taliban, leveling what was left of Afghanistan in the
process. Turning its sights to new targets, the Bush administration
named Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as members of an "Axis of Evil."
Immediately, Bush singled out Iraq because of its "Weapons of Mass
Destruction."
Surely one can see why North Korea would be in a panic. The Bush
administration has isolated them, refused to talk (much less
negotiate), and is on a crusade against perceived enemies. To North
Korea, the US appears to be a rogue nation, governed by madmen.
North Korea might be next on the Bush agenda. So, like it or not,
they decided to develop a deterrent to US aggression: a nuclear
weapon.
US policy has always viewed nuclear weapons as a deterrent against
aggression, first in relation to the Soviet Union, and now in
regards to so-called "rogue" or "terrorist" nations. When Cold War
politicians like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney discuss this
deterrent philosophy, they always mention North Korea. Always.
Likewise, Donald Rumsfeld has been pushing the development of the
"Son of Star Wars," an anti-missile program intended to intercept
incoming long-range missiles from hostile nations. When discussing
this program, Rumsfeld always mentions North Korea. Always. Rumsfeld
has been successful in gaining funding for the Son of Star Wars; in
the first stage of deployment, set for next year, 10 interceptor
missiles will be based at Fort Greely in Alaska. In 2005, 10 more
will be deployed in Alaska, the closest US territory to North Korea.
Meanwhile, testing of the interceptor missiles has been conducted in
the Pacific, as a sort of warning to the main target of this
billion-dollar, scary, destabilizing boondoggle: North Korea.
Naturally, North Korea doesn't view these missiles as strictly for
defensive purposes. They view them as an offensive weapon aimed
directly at their heartland. They also take to heart Donald
Rumsfeld's assertion that the US can fight two wars at once: against
Iraq and North Korea, if necessary.
In this context, North Korea's actions make sense. It's the Bush
administration that appears irrational, particularly in their
refusal to negotiate directly with North Korea. North Korea is right
to condemn US attempts to take this issue to the UN Security Council
as a stalling tactic to buy time so Bush can deal with Iraq first.
Notably, South Korea, China, and Japan all support negotiations;
they are particularly fearful of the prospect of sanctions against
North Korea, which could cause the downfall of Kim Jong Il's
government and the exodus of millions of refugees. South Korea, in
particular, would rather have a slow, economically easy
reunification, instead of a major economic collapse in North Korea.
But the Bush administration is on a crusade. If only the US media
could figure that out and report the news with a little bit of
objectivity.
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/22083/
And so on, and on and on.
One other thing... Uzbekistan, for one instance among far too many,
is a "despicable and corrupt regime that is nothing short of
criminal". How come, if despicable and criminal corruption is even a
factor in US foreign policy, Washington is so chummy with Uzbekistan,
and with so many other murderous regimes, and always has been? Not
true? Yes it is. Check out William Blum, for example - there are many
others, it's all in the public record:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/41438/
An Interview with William Blum - The Granma Moses of Radical Writing
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, by William Blum
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II,
by William Blum
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
The American Holocaust
By the way, Blum, Maria Tomchick and Chalmers Johnson are Americans.
So no, Jason, I can't accept your cosy view of it, and neither does
the rest of the world, nor huge swathes of America either. Thank God.
Regards
Keith
Jason Schick
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 12:02 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
Greetings Rick
>Dear Keith,
>
>If this is true it is very disturbing
Yes! I'd be surprised if it wasn't true. I've been watching it
building, bit by bit, for the last couple of years, and not just via
Jonathan Schell (who usually gets it right anyway).
>as it implies that the US has adopted a "first strike" policy which
>is a change
I don't think so.
>that I can't imagine the congress going along with.
On the other hand it's quite hard to think of anything they haven't
gone along with in the last few years.
>Contrary to what Schell says the US has had a policy that we would
>not be the first to use nuclear weapons
I don't think that's been the policy, though I do think Washington
hasn't exactly broken a leg trying to counter the widespread
impression that it is the policy. To say the least. I could check it,
but it's very late here now, it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Could
be wrong, hope so. Maybe someone else will have some comments in the
meantime.
>and to that end have maintained an arsenal powerful enough to absorb
>a strike and retaliate with damage to an enemy that he would find
>unacceptable. This was the MAD doctrine: mutually assured
>destruction. It is insane, of course, as it held the world hostage
>to the decisions of the two super powers but it worked for the
>duration of the cold war at a cost of billions of dollars
More than that.
>that obviously could have been better spent by both sides. There is
>also the question of the effect of developing new delivery vehicles
>and new manufacturing plants for nuclear weapons.
That has been going on quietly in the wings for quite a while. Along
with new types of nuclear weapons.
>We are inviting another horrendous arms race this time with China if
>we do this.
Yes. Maybe the huge headstart the US has on China is the way
Washington would like to play it. Maybe they don't perceive that many
surefire winning games when it comes to China. But this is the one
these folks would probably look to first anyway.
>Haven't we learned anything from the last 40 years?
I'd say Americans certainly have, Washington apparently hasn't.
>Those of us in the US should be writing to our representatives to
>get this clarified.
I think so. For starters.
I just sort of took a slice out of today's news, but there's a bit of
a pattern in those few posts I just sent that this one fits into. All
it was short of was something about the so-called hydrogen economy.
Later...
Best wishes
Keith
>Rick
>
>Keith Addison wrote:
>
>>See also:
>>
>>http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/05/crossing_nucle
>>ar _thresholds.html
>>Crossing Nuclear Thresholds
>>Commentary: The Bush administration is slowly, and quite
>>consciously, blurring the boundaries between nuclear and
>>conventional war-fighting options.
>>By Tom Engelhardt
>>May 26, 2005
>>
>>-----
>>
>>http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050527/a_revolution_in_american_n
>>uc lear_policy.php
>>
>>A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
>>
>>Jonathan Schell
>>
>>May 27, 2005
>>
>>Jonathan Schell, author of The Unconquerable World, is the Nation
>>Institute's Harold Willens Peace Fellow. The Jonathan Schell Reader
>>was recently published by Nation Books. This article originally
>>appeared on TomDispatch.
<snip>
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the full Biofuel list archives (46,000 messages):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Search the Biofuels-biz list archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/
