Here Come The Nukes!
1-26-03 - by Michael Tivana    - back to Tribal Messenger

Dear Fellow citizens of the United States,

I have been following a lot of stories this last year, some give me angst while others are so out there that to repeat them would make me look like a fool. These stories range from alien attacks to Chinese troops in Arizona, to a plan to forgive us of our debts. The herd is getting restless and who is to say what is rumor and what is fact. So I look at what I do know is out there and all I have to look no further than the Bush administration to find enough scarry, bizarre stories to get me going.

If you had you told me that Bush would have us on the brink of a nuclear war 2 years ago I would have thought that was too far out there for discussion. If you had told me that Bush would be giving a $75,000 tax rebate to SUV owners (business write off) I would have beleived it possible but not probable. Now Bush has submitted this tax cut before congress and I think it is audacious in light of the protesters waving "NO BLood For Oil" signs. It looks as though Bush is thumbing his nose at the conservation, get off the junk (oil) movement and has an ear to the sign wavers that are sayin, "Kick Ass and Get Our Gas."

Tomorrow Bush will give his state of the Onion address and we will see more than a few teary eyes as a result. I will be crying from the insaneness of humanity in this modern age. How did we go from a peaceful tribal society that unconditionally cared for one another to a society that is in such fear that it allows a leader to talk so glibly about destroying our world? Are we so concerned about our daily lives that we overlooked the creation of such a monster?

How can we pay taxes that go to the creation of radio-active weapons such as depleted uranium? How can we the people of the world allow the concentration of power into one mans grasp that we now see in Resident Bush and then tolerate such language from him when he speaks of nuclear weapons -

"Deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation... the post-Cold War world requires new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces." I find is alraming that this new offense / defense includes new nuclear weapons.

There have been many changes to our country post 911: a change in our civil rights, US citizens spying on one another, the creation of the Homeland Security Agency, a stronger call for privatizing our public domain, the threat of war with the world, a loss of environmental laws and a loss of our integrity with our natural world etc, but the most important change since 911 that I can see is the Bush administration's change in US policy regarding nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration is giving nuclear weapons a prominent and central role in military policy. There has been a shift away from old theories of nuclear deterrence and the conception that these were weapons of last resort. The US Undersecretary of State John Bolton has said: "The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody .. has just been disproven by September 11". This is the biggest, most dangerous change in US government policy since 911.

In January 2002 Bush asked the Pentagon to review it's military contingency plans to include tactical nuclear weapons. Now that review is included in the Bush Doctrine and lists three circumstances in which the US may use nuclear weapons:

  • Nuclear weapons could be used in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. President Bush has made it clear that he is prepared to authorize the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.
  • Nuclear weapons "could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack". This is worrying because the US are considering the use of nuclear weapons, not on the basis of the seriousness of the threat to our security, but on the basis of how difficult it might be to destroy a particular target with conventional forces. This is leading to the development of new nuclear weapons.
  • Nuclear weapons could be used "in the event of surprising military developments". This is a very vague statement and far removed from any idea that nuclear weapons would only be used in response to a massive nuclear attack from Russia. It also suggests that tactical nuclear forces will be kept on a high state of alert.

    Thus we have a decision to make as citizens of the United States. We can buy the administration's reasoning that a strong United States is a safe United States and we must kill the evil ones before they kill us, even if they threaten us or we assume that they are a threat

    OR

    we can call this crazy talk and say that might does not make right. At this point in world history we the people can decide that it is time to lay down our weapons of mass destruction, lay down our weapons altogether and prosper in a world that is safe from annihilation once and forever.

    We the citizens of the United States can call for the impeachment / replacement of our current administration and we can call for new elections for this year. The theme that carried the day in 1973 was that the people no longer had confidence in the Nixon administration to lead us. Thus the battle cry, "Remember Watergate!"

    For more reading on this subject go to -
    http://www.banthebomb.org/news/2002/Mar/020315b.htm

    Michael Tivana

    E_mail:  the Tribal Messenger

    ###

    TOP