Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
"The reason N Korea is starving its people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest." Can anyone point to a credible source that outlines the timeline for the above policies of N Korea? -Mike Michael Redler wrote: "The reason N Korea is starving its people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest." Nice Rick.IMO, that analysis, isone of the most important and least emphasized in the broken and not so free media.I'm sure that I'm not the first person towonder if this kind ofprovocationis in the same vein as the Bay of Tonkin (Todd probably has a better example)-- except perhaps, slower, more sophisticated and overtly hidden. There has been a lot of saber rattling in the past.It seemsto me thatthose involved in manufacturingthat rattling, did soasa politicaltool for food, technology, trade, etc., with agendas that didn't include aneminent attack. But, as Rick points out, things are different now and likeKen described in his"psychopathic neighbor" analogy, "we"might really do something because (IMO) the US government has made hegemony, both in and out of the country, one of it's highest priorities. Mike Richard Littrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Jason, On the face of it your suggestion seems like it should work but in practice it has not. The reason N Korea is starving its people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest. Because they think we might strike first they (and apparently Iran as well) have concluded that they better get a bomb to deter us. It is not past policy but present policy that has brought about the situation with N. Korea. Prior to the axis of evil speech these countries were moderating. North and South Korea were talking about steps that could lead to reunification. Hardliners the world over were on the defensive. Now, with the US looking like a lose cannon, countries that saw nuclear weapons as unacceptably costly are reconsidering. It is not easy to have a nuclear weapons program even with outside help. It requires huge resources and only a country that is very rich or very frightened will undertake such a program. By being unpredictable we engender that fear. North Korea dos not expect to be able to defeat the US in a nuclear war but they know they dont have to. The destruction of an American city by a nuclear bomb would be unacceptable to this country. A first strike by a US administration that brought about such a result would bury that political party even if we won in the end. To borrow your analogy how long do you think your neighbors would put up with you if, in addition to having a gun in your house, you took to shooting at passers by because they looked suspicious or belonged to groups you were enemies with? You get to keep a gun in your house only as long as your neighbors feel sure you would only use it on someone who actually broke into your house first. ___ 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 combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
Hello Mike The reason N Korea is starving it's people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest. Can anyone point to a credible source that outlines the timeline for the above policies of N Korea? -Mike Try the Maria Tomchick article in this post: http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 5-June/97.html [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy http://eatthestate.org/07-10/NorthKoreasWarlike.htm North Korea's Warlike Noises by Maria Tomchick January 15, 2003 Also these: http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/koreatimeline.htm North Korea Nuclear and Missile Timeline http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-timeline.htm Korea Crisis Countdown Timeline http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk/index.shtml News Center : In Focus : IAEA and DPRK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2604437.stm BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Timeline: N Korea nuclear standoff http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4253563.stm BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Why North Korea won't talk http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/northkorea/timeline.html CBC News Indepth: North Korea As it's been said, the lesson some (or many) countries took from the US invasion of Iraq wasn't that Saddam Hussein had WMDs but that he didn't have them. If there'd been any real risk of a US city getting nuked, would the US have invaded? Extremely doubtful. This lesson has certainly not been lost on Pyongyang. To put all this in some perspective, if that's at all possible when folks like Bush and Kim Jong Il are centre-stage, you have to compare the US attitude to North Korea with the slap on the wrist it gave Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf last year following serious nuclear breaches. It's not as if Musharraf is exactly a beacon of democracy either, nor that the sub-continent is any less of a potential powder-keg than northeast Asia is. See: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040308fa_fact The New Yorker: Fact The Deal by Seymour M. Hersh Why is Washington going easy on Pakistan's nuclear black marketers? Issue of 2004-03-08 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040229190439.q5jl04vh.html Pakistan proliferation unpunished so US troops could hunt bin Laden: report WASHINGTON (AFP) Feb 29, 2004 Best wishes Keith Michael Redler wrote: The reason N Korea is starving it's people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest. Nice Rick. IMO, that analysis, is one of the most important and least emphasized in the broken and not so free media. I'm sure that I'm not the first person to wonder if this kind of provocation is in the same vein as the Bay of Tonkin (Todd probably has a better example) -- except perhaps, slower, more sophisticated and overtly hidden. There has been a lot of saber rattling in the past. It seems to me that those involved in manufacturing that rattling, did so as a political tool for food, technology, trade, etc., with agendas that didn't include an eminent attack. But, as Rick points out, things are different now and like Ken described in hispsychopathic neighbor analogy, we might really do something because (IMO) the US government has made hegemony, both in and out of the country, one of it's highest priorities. Mike Richard Littrell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Jason, On the face of it your suggestion seems like it should work but in practice it has not. The reason N Korea is starving it's people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest. Because they think we might strike first they (and apparently Iran as well) have concluded that they better get a bomb to deter us. It is not past policy but present policy that has brought about the situation with N. Korea. Prior to the axis of evil speech these countries were moderating. North and South Korea were talking about steps that could lead to reunification. Hardliners the world over were on the defensive. Now, with the US looking like a lose cannon, countries that saw nuclear weapons as unacceptably costly are reconsidering. It is not easy to have a nuclear weapons program even with outside help. It requires huge resources and only a country that is very rich or very frightened will undertake such a program. By being unpredictable we engender that fear. North Korea dos not expect to be able to defeat the US in a nuclear war but they know they don't have to. The destruction of an American city by a nuclear bomb would be unacceptable to this country. A first strike by a US administration that brought about such a result would bury that political party even if we won in the end. To borrow your analogy how long do
RE: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
Hello Mike, Not that I support what the Bush administration is doing or done but if your comment below is true then why was N Korea doing exactly the same things during the Clinton Administration? Just curious. If memory serves me correctly the Clinton administration signed an agreement with N Korea (which the N Korean Government Broke) to get them to stop such activities. I do believe that there are other driving forces at work here or if you are correct then it is not necessarily driven by a particular political administration but rather an overlying US foreign policy that bridges from one administration to the next. Best wishes, Tim "The reason N Korea is starving its people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest."Can anyone point to a credible source that outlines the timeline for the above policies of N Korea?-MikeMichael Redler wrote: "The reason N Korea is starving its people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest." Nice Rick.IMO, that analysis, isone of the most important and least emphasized in the broken and not so free media.I'm sure that I'm not the first person towonder if this kind ofprovocationis in the same vein as the Bay of Tonkin (Todd probably has a better example)-- except perhaps, slower, more sophisticated and overtly hidden. There has been a lot of saber rattling in the past.It seemsto me thatthose involved in manufacturingthat rattling, did soasa politicaltool for food, technology, trade, etc., with agendas that didn't include aneminent attack. But, as Rick points out, things are different now and likeKen described in his"psychopathic neighbor" analogy, "we"might really do something because (IMO) the US government has made hegemony, both in and out of the country, one of it's highest priorities. Mike ___ 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 combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
hello, tim. tim wrote: then why was N Korea doing exactly the same things during the Clinton Administration? someone pelase corect me if i've got this wrong, but my understanding has been that the agreement(s) drafted under the clinton administration were specifically about plutonuim weapons, while the existing weapons for which they are being accused of defrauding the international community, are based on enriched uranium. a semantic splitting of the atoms which violates the spirit of the agreement, granted, but not the letter. in any case, regardless of the accuracy of these details, the fact remains that from the point of view of the n korean state, there are myriad factors which justify--nay, demand--the development of a nuclear arsenal. the increasingly polarized posture of the us government being a very important one. but there is also their big nieghbor, china, whose ever more rapid metamorphosis toward western capitalism would seem to inevitably lead to an eventual estrangment between the two governments. and then there's their other neighbor, that most here in the u.s. would think to be the least threat to n korea: japan. the country which invaded and brutally occupied n korea (and out of which occupation the current regime emerged; a point whose significance cannot be exaggerated) for over thirty years. a government which, while pacifist in principle, has over the decades developed considerable military capability, and has already taken the first, if very small, step toward undoing the pacifist foundation of its constitution. a government which, in strategic circles, is regarded as a virtual nuclear power, that could assemble a nuclear delivery capability within a few short months. whether we like the n korean regime or not, it *is* a sovereign governemnt, and they have no less right to make strategic decisions based on geopolitical realities than any other government. in fact, pyongyang's actions can easily be seen as a model of restraint when compared to current washington policy of pre-emptive war. best to all, -chris ___ 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 combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
Dear Jason, On the face of it your suggestion seems like it should work but in practice it has not. The reason N Korea is starving its people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest. Because they think we might strike first they (and apparently Iran as well) have concluded that they better get a bomb to deter us. It is not past policy but present policy that has brought about the situation with N. Korea. Prior to the axis of evil speech these countries were moderating. North and South Korea were talking about steps that could lead to reunification. Hardliners the world over were on the defensive. Now, with the US looking like a lose cannon, countries that saw nuclear weapons as unacceptably costly are reconsidering. It is not easy to have a nuclear weapons program even with outside help. It requires huge resources and only a country that is very rich or very frightened will undertake such a program. By being unpredictable we engender that fear. North Korea dos not expect to be able to defeat the US in a nuclear war but they know they dont have to. The destruction of an American city by a nuclear bomb would be unacceptable to this country. A first strike by a US administration that brought about such a result would bury that political party even if we won in the end. To borrow your analogy how long do you think your neighbors would put up with you if, in addition to having a gun in your house, you took to shooting at passers by because they looked suspicious or belonged to groups you were enemies with? You get to keep a gun in your house only as long as your neighbors feel sure you would only use it on someone who actually broke into your house first. A good offense is the best defense but what you suggest is not a good offence. A good offence would be to do everything possible to forge alliances to stop nuclear arms proliferation. Scaring other countries and isolating ourselves while being unreliable in our treaty obligations does not do this. As one who works in the mental health field I am well aware of the seductiveness of crazy behavior. In the short run it gives a person a lot of power because people around you are frightened and dont know what to do about you but in the long run they figure out how to isolate you and take back their power. Then the road to regaining the trust and respect of those around you is long and painful and usually not worth the initial transient benefits of the power play, which is partly what makes it crazy behavior. The same is true for countries, even very powerful ones. Rick Littrell Jason Schick wrote: 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. 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. Jason Schick ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
Like the psychopathic neighbor who periodically kills a cat for no reason. I'm a loose cannon, and you better not [EMAIL PROTECTED] with me (or even look like yer THINKIN' about it!) I believe this is in fact their chosen image, and in many cases their actual nature. To me VERY disturbing. -K Hey, who you callen psychopathic?? I just HATE cats! ;) Tee Hee Hee. ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
Jason, I have to disagree with assumptions with respect to N. Korea. While North Korea and South Korea were talking about steps which could lead to re-unification and during the Clinton Presidency, North Korea was still developing the technology and infrastructure to build nuclear weapons. North Korea's leadership is determined to have a nuclear weapon regardless of the concerns of the world community. Larry On 6/2/05, Richard Littrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Jason, On the face of it your suggestion seems like it should work but in practice it has not. The reason N Korea is starving it's people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest. Because they think we might strike first they (and apparently Iran as well) have concluded that they better get a bomb to deter us. It is not past policy but present policy that has brought about the situation with N. Korea. Prior to the axis of evil speech these countries were moderating. North and South Korea were talking about steps that could lead to reunification. Hardliners the world over were on the defensive. Now, with the US looking like a lose cannon, countries that saw nuclear weapons as unacceptably costly are reconsidering. It is not easy to have a nuclear weapons program even with outside help. It requires huge resources and only a country that is very rich or very frightened will undertake such a program. By being unpredictable we engender that fear. North Korea dos not expect to be able to defeat the US in a nuclear war but they know they don't have to. The destruction of an American city by a nuclear bomb would be unacceptable to this country. A first strike by a US administration that brought about such a result would bury that political party even if we won in the end. To borrow your analogy how long do you think your neighbors would put up with you if, in addition to having a gun in your house, you took to shooting at passers by because they looked suspicious or belonged to groups you were enemies with? You get to keep a gun in your house only as long as your neighbors feel sure you would only use it on someone who actually broke into your house first. A good offense is the best defense but what you suggest is not a good offence. A good offence would be to do everything possible to forge alliances to stop nuclear arms proliferation. Scaring other countries and isolating ourselves while being unreliable in our treaty obligations does not do this. As one who works in the mental health field I am well aware of the seductiveness of crazy behavior. In the short run it gives a person a lot of power because people around you are frightened and don't know what to do about you but in the long run they figure out how to isolate you and take back their power. Then the road to regaining the trust and respect of those around you is long and painful and usually not worth the initial transient benefits of the power play, which is partly what makes it crazy behavior. The same is true for countries, even very powerful ones. Rick Littrell Jason Schick wrote: 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. 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. Jason Schick ___ 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/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
If you follow up this logic, Today it is many in the world who hate Americans (not me). So if you find them uninvited on your territory, i.e. Iraq, it is ok to kill them? In this case they are more dangerous than cats, because the are trigger happy and can easily kill you by mistake. As a result of this, are you suggesting that it is OK to kill Americans in this case? I do not think so, but will think about what you suggest. I do not hate Cats either, but think that it is sometimes necessary to control the wild population without owners. It is however wrong to go around and kill the Cats if they have an owner, because it can cause serious emotional trauma. For some it can be comparable to killing their child. For others it sounds silly to compare it this way, but you must in this case still have respect for the feelings of your fellow being, without evaluations and judgement. Hakan YOU WROTE: Like the psychopathic neighbor who periodically kills a cat for no reason. I'm a loose cannon, and you better not [EMAIL PROTECTED] with me (or even look like yer THINKIN' about it!) I believe this is in fact their chosen image, and in many cases their actual nature. To me VERY disturbing. -K Hey, who you callen psychopathic?? I just HATE cats! ;) Tee Hee Hee. ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
"The reason N Korea is starving its people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest." Nice Rick.IMO, that analysis, isone of the most important and least emphasized in the broken and not so free media.I'm sure that I'm not the first person towonder if this kind ofprovocationis in the same vein as the Bay of Tonkin (Todd probably has a better example)-- except perhaps, slower, more sophisticated and overtly hidden. There has been a lot of saber rattling in the past.It seemsto me thatthose involved in manufacturingthat rattling, did soasa politicaltool for food, technology, trade, etc., with agendas that didn't include aneminent attack. But, as Rick points out, things are different now and likeKen described in his"psychopathic neighbor" analogy, "we"might really do something because (IMO) the US government has made hegemony, both in and out of the country, one of it's highest priorities. Mike Richard Littrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Jason,On the face of it your suggestion seems like it should work but in practice it has not. The reason N Korea is starving its people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest. Because they think we might strike first they (and apparently Iran as well) have concluded that they better get a bomb to deter us. It is not past policy but present policy that has brought about the situation with N. Korea. Prior to the axis of evil speech these countries were moderating. North and South Korea were talking about steps that could lead to reunification. Hardliners the world over were on the defensive. Now, with the US looking like a lose cannon, countries that saw nuclear weapons as unacceptably costly are reconsidering. It is not easy to have a nuclear weapons program even with outside help. It requires huge resources and only a country that is very rich or very frightened will undertake such a program. By being unpredictable we engender that fear. North Korea dos not expect to be able to defeat the US in a nuclear war but they know they dont have to. The destruction of an American city by a nuclear bomb would be unacceptable to this country. A first strike by a US administration that brought about such a result would bury that political party even if we won in the end. To borrow your analogy how long do you think your neighbors would put up with you if, in addition to having a gun in your house, you took to shooting at passers by because they looked suspicious or belonged to groups you were enemies with? You get to keep a gun in your house only as long as your neighbors feel sure you would only use it on someone who actually broke into your house first.A good offense is the best defense but what you suggest is not a good offence. A good offence would be to do everything possible to forge alliances to stop nuclear arms proliferation. Scaring other countries and isolating ourselves while being unreliable in our treaty obligations does not do this. As one who works in the mental health field I am well aware of the seductiveness of crazy behavior. In the short run it gives a person a lot of power because people around you are frightened and dont know what to do about you but in the long run they figure out how to isolate you and take back their power. Then the road to regaining the trust and respect of those around you is long and painful and usually not worth the initial transient benefits of the power play, which is partly what makes it crazy behavior. The same is true for countries, even very powerful ones.Rick LittrellJason Schick wrote:Dear Keith,This is not disturbing to me at all. What it does is warn our enemies, andwe do have legitimate enemies, that we will not necessarily wait to bestruck first. For example, the posturing that N. Korea has been allowed toget away with is a product of our past policies. I don't think anyone canargue that N. Korea is anything but a despicable and corrupt regime that isnothing short of criminal. Under our past policies, N. Korea could bepretty much assured that we would not act unless they actually struck usfirst. They have felt free to defy not only the US but the entire freeworld all while starving there own people. Why should we give a dictatorlike that the advance knowledge that we aren't going to do anything? It'skind of like the gun that I have in my home. My neighbor may not be armedbut the burglar is going to have to assume that we both are because hedoesn't know. I think the best defense has always been a good offense andthat is how I view this policy change.I enjoy the list. Thanks a lot.Jason Schick___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
RE: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
. 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
Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
whole, but I did want to throw out a comment on MAD and WMDs. I don't see the expansion of the MAD doctrine to include non-nuclear WMDs as being logically inconsistent. Given the very premise of MAD is that certain actions are unwinnable given the assurance of retaliation, the *exclusion* of WMDs like bioweapons and chemical agents seems to be more logically inconsistent to me. That is, a smallpox attack that kills 500,000 people is just as horrific as a nuclear strike that kills the same number. Why shouldn't such weapons be covered under the MAD doctrine? If you choose to oppose MAD on the whole, I can certainly see your objection to any expansion of MAD. But on its face, I don't see bioweapons of being any less deserving of MAD status than nuclear weapons. If anything, the contagious nature of a bioweapon makes it a *greater* threat to global health and security than nuclear weapons in most situations short of a full nuclear exchange. Just some food for thought. jh Richard Littrell wrote: Dear Keith, If this is true it is very disturbing as it implies that the US has adopted a first strike policy which is a change that I can't imagine the congress going along with. Contrary to what Schell says the US has had a policy that we would not be the first to use nuclear weapons 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 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. We are inviting another horrendous arms race this time with China if we do this. Haven't we learned anything from the last 40 years? Those of us in the US should be writing to our representatives to get this clarified. Rick Keith Addison wrote: See also: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/05/crossing_nuclear _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_nuc 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. A metaphorical nuclear option-the cutoff of debate in the Senate on judicial nominees-has just been defused, but a literal nuclear option, called global strike, has been created in its place. In a shocking innovation in American nuclear policy, recently disclosed in the Washington Post by military analyst William Arkin, the administration has created and placed on continuous high alert a force whereby the president can launch a pinpoint strike, including a nuclear strike, anywhere on earth with a few hours' notice. The senatorial nuclear option was covered extensively, but somehow this actual nuclear option-a full-spectrum capability (in the words of the presidential order) with precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations)-was almost entirely ignored. The order to enable the force, Arkin writes, was given by George W. Bush in January 2003. In July 2004, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to Adm. James Ellis Jr., then-commander of Stratcom, the president charged you to 'be ready to strike at any moment's notice in any dark corner of the world' [and] that's exactly what you've done. And last fall, Lieut. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, stated, We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes. These actions make operational a revolution in U.S. nuclear policy. It was foreshadowed by the Nuclear Posture Review Report of 2002, also widely ignored, which announced nuclear targeting of, among others, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya. The review also recommended new facilities for the manufacture of nuclear bombs and the study of an array of new delivery vehicles, including a new ICBM in 2020, a new submarine-launched ballistic missile in 2029, and a new heavy bomber in 2040. The review, in turn, grew out of Bush's broader new military strategy of pre-emptive war, articulated in the 2002 White House document, the National Security Strategy of the United States of America , which states, We cannot let our enemies strike first. The
