The Hollywood Liberal

A blog in keeping with the legacy of The Declaration of Independence and “the Right of the People to alter or abolish…”

To Nuke or Not Is The Question:

August 2, 2007 - Obama on the Use of Nuclear Weapons - The New York Times

“In an interview with the Associated Press today, Barack Obama said he would not use nuclear weapons “in any circumstance” to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“’I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,’” Obama said, with a pause, “’involving civilians.’” Then he quickly added, “’Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.’”
(When the bombs were dropped the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had estimated populations of 310,000 and 250,000 respectively. An estimated 90,000- 140,000 in Hiroshima and 60,000- 80,000 people in Nagasaki died immediately; within two to four months after the bombing.)

“No one will ever know for certain how many died as a result of the attack on Hiroshima. Some 70,000 people probably died as a result of initial blast, heat, and radiation effects. This included about twenty American airmen being held as prisoners in the city. By the end of 1945, because of the lingering effects of radioactive fallout and other after effects, the Hiroshima death toll was probably over 100,000. The five-year death total may have reached or even exceeded 200,000, as cancer and other long-term effects took hold.”
Manhattan Project

NYT – August 3, 2007: Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton … declined to say whether she agreed with Mr. Obama’s initial statement….

“I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”

Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, another Democratic contender, said: “… Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.”

The questions here are simple: What is wrong with denouncing the use of nuclear weapons? Do you or do you not plan to use nuclear weapons?

We don’t know because these “contenders” for the US Presidency are moral cowards or worse, war mongers.

As seen in the preceding photographs taken after the nuclear terror visited upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 the US was the first nation to use nuclear terror weapons – either against military or civilian targets.

President Bill Clinton continued the use of nuclear weapons (the so-called “depleted uranium” block buster bombs) in Kosovo through the United Nations action in the early 190’s; Presidents George Bush Senior and Junior continued there use in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US ally, Israel, used them in its war in Lebanon.

These users of weapons of mass destruction, clearly the most lethal weapons of terror every created, are the “leaders of the free world” who have continually sought to bring “democracy to the world” by bombing it back into the stone age and then attempting to construct a new world to their liking.

For western “civilization” this theory of “nation building” began in 1492 when Columbus sailed the ocean blue and upon arrival christened what would be called America, as (the white man’s) God given land. The European “colonists” proceeded to mass murder the resident citizens. That precedent remains is the never-ending theme of the US government.

There is no good use of nuclear bombs; arguably given the instability of nuclear fusion, that of nuclear power. Then there is the impossible task of safely containing the waste on our planet. It is time to stop the fantasy (begun in the Cold War), that the threat of mutual nuclear destruction brought about peace.

Photographic visits to the fire bombing of Dresden and Japan during WWII and the use of dioxin-laden chemicals (Agent Orange), in South East Asia and the chemicals weapons used by one time ally Hussein prove that if you’re bent on mass murder you can do so without leaving the planet permanently poisoned.

So why not denounce the use of nuclear weapons?

Because governments of State Class Control can only rule through fear — the more terrifying, the better. Whether it is the Corporate State of western and European nations

Because governments of State Class Control can only rule through fear —
the more terrifying, the better. Whether it is the Corporate State of
western and European nations or that of the State Capitalist dictatorships of
China and Pakistan, these men are hell bent on controlling or destroying life
on this planet.
There ought to be no equivocating, no rationalizing about continued
nuclear armament. Arguing that nuking Japan saved millions of America GI lives is simple war
mongering rationalization: where were these islanders going? Strategic
destruction of their military capability at the point in the war would
have crippled Japan; a blockade would have brought them to the point of incapacity and
eliminating the ruling royalty by other means could have been
accomplished. That this terror was fueled by a racist US simply added to the rationale.

The nuclear terror bombing of Japan certainly ended the war sooner but
it served a far more important strategy: to terrify the Russian government
and other would be rivals for world domination. It was a strategy that failed:
The Soviet Union and the communist People’s Republic of China soon had
the secret weapon. What followed was the loss of incalculable amounts of
money, natural and human resources that drove an arms race that has lead us to
both the point of global nuclear destruction and a world filled with nuclear
terror. Whether it’s the unstoppable missile penetration of major urban
areas or a “suitcase bomb” at the intersection of the San Diego and Santa
Monica, or at the Hollywood Boulevard exit.

We in the United States have both a political and moral responsibility to
ourselves and to the world to denounce the use of nuclear weapons. No
candidate for President, no matter how “œliberal,” ought to be considered until
he or she does so.