ZCommunications | There is Much More to Say by Noam Chomsky | ZNet Article
security is often not a high priority for state action, contrary to received doctrine.
2011年2月2日水曜日
2010年7月9日金曜日
2010年5月28日金曜日
2010年5月26日水曜日
2010年5月15日土曜日
very scientifically safe things about drilling
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
2010年4月18日日曜日
2010年4月17日土曜日
Nuclear Insanities New START Treaty is a Slow Start Toward Disarmament By Julien Mercille
http://www.zcommunications.org/nuclear-insanities-by-julien-mercille
Writing in the 19th century, Russian anarchist Michael Bakunin said that the State is “the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity… this explains why kings and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries—statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats and warriors—if judged from the standpoint of simply morality and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labor or to the gallows.”
The nuclear arsenals built by the United States and Russia and their feeble attempts at dismantling them prove Bakunin right again. Washington and Moscow’s combined stockpiles contain over 10,000 nuclear warheads, each 5 to 25 times more powerful than the bomb that flattened Hiroshima. The just signed New START Treaty will probably result in total cuts of about 800 warheads: in other words, our magnanimous leaders have agreed to reduce the nuclear power they hold in their hands, and over our heads, from one 150,000 to 140,000 times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima… Thank you so much, Mr Obama.
As if this wasn’t enough, the just released US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) tells us how those weapons might actually be used. The NPR’s key sentence is the following: “the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”
Supporters of the NPR call it an improvement over Bush’s because it states that the United States won’t respond to a chemical or biological attack with nuclear weapons, but rather, with a “devastating conventional military response”.
However, nuclear weapons still play an important role under Obama. First, they can be used against other states that do possess them (like China and Russia) if they attack the US with conventional, biological or chemical weapons, i.e., even if they don’t attack with nuclear weapons. Second, nukes could be used against “non-state actors” like Al Qaeda, as Robert Gates explained: “all options are on the table when it comes to… non-state actors who might acquire nuclear weapons” [1]. This implies that the country in which those terrorists are located will face nuclear retaliation no matter its standing under the NPT.
Third, countries that Washington determines not to be in compliance with the NPT are subject to nuclear attack even if they don’t possess any nuclear weapons. The reference here is to Iran and North Korea, but since Washington makes that determination not based on facts but on whether a country is “with us or against us”, in practice it means that those the United States deems to be enemies are at risk.
Sadly, Obama is not ready to adopt a “no first use policy” and is content with a situation in which he could be the first to order a nuclear strike. He also leaves about 200 nuclear weapons in five European countries (Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey). In short, as the Federation of American Scientists’ Hans Kristensen concludes his review of the NPR, the document is a “disappointment” for those who were hoping for clear and significant reductions in the role and numbers of nuclear weapons [2].
The New START Treaty, on its part, calls for two kinds of reductions: nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles.
Warheads are the part of a missile or bomb that contains the nuclear explosive charge, and currently, the US has about 2,200 strategic warheads and Russia 2,600. Under New START, both must reduce their arsenals to 1,550 deployed warheads by 2017. Media reports have emphasized that the treaty will “slash nuclear stockpiles” by about 30% compared to the Moscow Treaty signed by Bush in 2002 that imposed a limit of 2,200 warheads.
The problem with this 30% figure is that it is wrong: the real warhead reductions will be less than that, in fact, probably about 10-15%. This is because of a special counting rule in the treaty by which all warheads associated with one bomber aircraft are counted as one. For example, if an American bomber carries 20 nuclear bombs, that counts as only one warhead, not 20. Therefore, it’s easy to see that the 1,550 limit will in fact “hide” many more actual warheads. How many exactly will depend on how the US and Russia allocate their cuts among submarines, land-based missiles and bombers, but estimates are that when they reach the limit of “1,550” in 2017, the US will in fact possess about 1,800 warheads and Russia slightly less than 2,200—reductions of about 13% compared to current arsenals, not 30%.
In short, the treaty gives no incentive to get rid of nuclear bombs launched by bomber aircrafts and as such underestimates the real number of warheads deployed by both powers. Further, the treaty does not require that any warhead be destroyed: they are merely to be moved into storage, and could be brought back into operation eventually. And there is no requirement to remove the 200 US tactical nuclear weapons located in Europe.
Delivery vehicles are what brings the warheads to explode on the adversary’s territory in war and are of three kinds: bomber aircrafts, ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, land-based) and SLBMs (ballistic missiles launched by submarines). The treaty imposes a limit of 700 deployed delivery vehicles for each side. But here again, reductions are small: Russia currently has about 600, so it literally has nothing to do since it is already in compliance. The US has 798 and will have to reduce this by 12%, to 700.
The New START Treaty is only a slow move towards disarmament. A top nuclear expert based in the United States summed it all up when he told this author that “as most arms control treaties, New START just codifies the changes that were going to happen anyway.”
Nevertheless, it is important to appreciate the treaty’s positive aspects. For one, it establishes a structure of verification and confidence building between the United States and Russia that will allow for future deeper reductions, and it encourages the two countries’ leaders not to renege on planned cuts in their arsenals.
A question raised both by the NPR and New START is whether or not the Obama administration will build new nuclear weapons. During his election campaign, Obama had promised not to do so. Yet, his 2011 Budget request released last February calls for a 10% increase in nuclear weapons spending next year. Has he reneged on his promises?
The answer depends on how we define the term “new nuclear weapon”. When nuclear warheads age, instead of dismantling them, their life is often extended through various modifications ranging from rebuilding some or all the parts but keeping the original warhead design, to manufacturing new untested nuclear components of new design to replace existing ones. Which ones of those changes should be referred to as yielding a “new” warhead is debatable. The NPR states that “The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads” but that it will extend the lives of aging warheads using the “full range” of available methods. Some analysts have concluded that this in practice means new warheads, and would even permit production of Bush’s Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program.
But there is another way in which Obama can be said to produce new nuclear weapons: he is building new delivery vehicles for warheads, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a replacement for the Ohio-class nuclear-armed submarine, and modernizing existing strategic ballistic missiles such as the land-based Minuteman III and submarine-based Trident II, in addition to plans to replace the nuclear-capable Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM). Can’t those be considered new nuclear weapons since they are new vehicles to deliver warheads?
The bottom line is this: we can argue on what constitutes a new nuclear weapon and whether or not Obama is developing them. What is certain however, is that a president truly committed to nuclear disarmament would not even extend the life of aging nuclear warheads and would destroy them before they reach the end of their shelf life. Obama is clearly not that kind of president.
It is sometimes believed that nuclear weapons contribute to maintaining a balance between super-powers, making the international system more stable. In fact, there have been many nuclear near-accidents throughout the Cold War and since then, due to systems’ malfunctioning or human errors. Maintaining nuclear arsenals in place only increases the chance that a real accident will one day happen.
For instance, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the world came very close to global nuclear war, averted thanks to a Soviet submarine commander, Vasili Arkhipov, who countermanded an order to fire a nuclear-tipped torpedo at US warships off Cuba. US destroyers whose orders were to enforce a naval quarantine did not know that the Soviet submarines sent to protect their ships were carrying nuclear weapons and fired at the submarines to force them to the surface. The officers in Arkhipov’s submarine thought this meant World War III might have started, and the first captain said “We’re going to blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all. We will not disgrace our navy”. But Arkhipov calmed him down and torpedoes were not launched: in the words of Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, “The lesson from this is that a guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world.” [3]
In 1983, at a time of tension in US-Soviet relations, a newly-inaugurated Soviet early-warning system detected incoming American nuclear missiles. However, Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet officer then in charge of monitoring the system and notifying his superiors if an attack was detected, chose not to let them know for he believed the new system was simply malfunctioning. He was right: there were no incoming missiles. The Russian system had indicated otherwise due to a unique alignment of its satellite’s viewing angle with the sun, which caused sunlight to be reflected by the clouds in a way that caused the warning system to indicate that several missiles had been launched against the Soviet Union. Had Petrov chosen to alert his superiors, they could have launched a massive retaliatory strike, changing the course of history.
In 1995, Norwegian and American scientists launched a large rocket from an island off the coast of Norway to study the northern lights. Russian radars detected the rocket but mistook it for a nuclear Trident missile launched from a US submarine. For a few moments, Russia was poised to launch a full-scale nuclear attack on the United States. Reportedly, Russian military doctrine allowed 10 minutes from the time of detection to decide on a course of action. The next day, then President Yeltsin stated that he had in fact activated, for the first time, his “nuclear football”, a device allowing him to communicate with his top military advisers to review the situation.
If the world is not to wait for decades before such risks become history, the New START Treaty must be implemented, and agreements on further cuts need to be reached—fast.
Julien Mercille is lecturer at University College Dublin, Ireland. He specializes in U.S. foreign policy and geopolitics. He can be reached at jmercille[at]gmail[dot]com.
Notes
[1] “Gates: Iran, N. Korea not Immune from Attack”, 6 April 2010, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3872260,00.html
[2] Hans Kristensen, “The Nuclear Posture Review”, 8 April 2010, http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/04/npr2010.php
See also “New START Treaty Has New Counting”, 29 March 2010, http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/03/newstart.php
and Pavel Podvig of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, “New START Treaty in Numbers”, 29 February 2010, http://russianforces.org/blog/2010/03/new_start_treaty_in_numbers.shtml
[3] Marion Lloyd,“Soviets Close to Using A-Bomb in 1962 Crisis, Forum is Told”, Boston Sunday Globe, 13 October 2002, A20.
Writing in the 19th century, Russian anarchist Michael Bakunin said that the State is “the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity… this explains why kings and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries—statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats and warriors—if judged from the standpoint of simply morality and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labor or to the gallows.”
The nuclear arsenals built by the United States and Russia and their feeble attempts at dismantling them prove Bakunin right again. Washington and Moscow’s combined stockpiles contain over 10,000 nuclear warheads, each 5 to 25 times more powerful than the bomb that flattened Hiroshima. The just signed New START Treaty will probably result in total cuts of about 800 warheads: in other words, our magnanimous leaders have agreed to reduce the nuclear power they hold in their hands, and over our heads, from one 150,000 to 140,000 times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima… Thank you so much, Mr Obama.
As if this wasn’t enough, the just released US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) tells us how those weapons might actually be used. The NPR’s key sentence is the following: “the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”
Supporters of the NPR call it an improvement over Bush’s because it states that the United States won’t respond to a chemical or biological attack with nuclear weapons, but rather, with a “devastating conventional military response”.
However, nuclear weapons still play an important role under Obama. First, they can be used against other states that do possess them (like China and Russia) if they attack the US with conventional, biological or chemical weapons, i.e., even if they don’t attack with nuclear weapons. Second, nukes could be used against “non-state actors” like Al Qaeda, as Robert Gates explained: “all options are on the table when it comes to… non-state actors who might acquire nuclear weapons” [1]. This implies that the country in which those terrorists are located will face nuclear retaliation no matter its standing under the NPT.
Third, countries that Washington determines not to be in compliance with the NPT are subject to nuclear attack even if they don’t possess any nuclear weapons. The reference here is to Iran and North Korea, but since Washington makes that determination not based on facts but on whether a country is “with us or against us”, in practice it means that those the United States deems to be enemies are at risk.
Sadly, Obama is not ready to adopt a “no first use policy” and is content with a situation in which he could be the first to order a nuclear strike. He also leaves about 200 nuclear weapons in five European countries (Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey). In short, as the Federation of American Scientists’ Hans Kristensen concludes his review of the NPR, the document is a “disappointment” for those who were hoping for clear and significant reductions in the role and numbers of nuclear weapons [2].
The New START Treaty, on its part, calls for two kinds of reductions: nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles.
Warheads are the part of a missile or bomb that contains the nuclear explosive charge, and currently, the US has about 2,200 strategic warheads and Russia 2,600. Under New START, both must reduce their arsenals to 1,550 deployed warheads by 2017. Media reports have emphasized that the treaty will “slash nuclear stockpiles” by about 30% compared to the Moscow Treaty signed by Bush in 2002 that imposed a limit of 2,200 warheads.
The problem with this 30% figure is that it is wrong: the real warhead reductions will be less than that, in fact, probably about 10-15%. This is because of a special counting rule in the treaty by which all warheads associated with one bomber aircraft are counted as one. For example, if an American bomber carries 20 nuclear bombs, that counts as only one warhead, not 20. Therefore, it’s easy to see that the 1,550 limit will in fact “hide” many more actual warheads. How many exactly will depend on how the US and Russia allocate their cuts among submarines, land-based missiles and bombers, but estimates are that when they reach the limit of “1,550” in 2017, the US will in fact possess about 1,800 warheads and Russia slightly less than 2,200—reductions of about 13% compared to current arsenals, not 30%.
In short, the treaty gives no incentive to get rid of nuclear bombs launched by bomber aircrafts and as such underestimates the real number of warheads deployed by both powers. Further, the treaty does not require that any warhead be destroyed: they are merely to be moved into storage, and could be brought back into operation eventually. And there is no requirement to remove the 200 US tactical nuclear weapons located in Europe.
Delivery vehicles are what brings the warheads to explode on the adversary’s territory in war and are of three kinds: bomber aircrafts, ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, land-based) and SLBMs (ballistic missiles launched by submarines). The treaty imposes a limit of 700 deployed delivery vehicles for each side. But here again, reductions are small: Russia currently has about 600, so it literally has nothing to do since it is already in compliance. The US has 798 and will have to reduce this by 12%, to 700.
The New START Treaty is only a slow move towards disarmament. A top nuclear expert based in the United States summed it all up when he told this author that “as most arms control treaties, New START just codifies the changes that were going to happen anyway.”
Nevertheless, it is important to appreciate the treaty’s positive aspects. For one, it establishes a structure of verification and confidence building between the United States and Russia that will allow for future deeper reductions, and it encourages the two countries’ leaders not to renege on planned cuts in their arsenals.
A question raised both by the NPR and New START is whether or not the Obama administration will build new nuclear weapons. During his election campaign, Obama had promised not to do so. Yet, his 2011 Budget request released last February calls for a 10% increase in nuclear weapons spending next year. Has he reneged on his promises?
The answer depends on how we define the term “new nuclear weapon”. When nuclear warheads age, instead of dismantling them, their life is often extended through various modifications ranging from rebuilding some or all the parts but keeping the original warhead design, to manufacturing new untested nuclear components of new design to replace existing ones. Which ones of those changes should be referred to as yielding a “new” warhead is debatable. The NPR states that “The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads” but that it will extend the lives of aging warheads using the “full range” of available methods. Some analysts have concluded that this in practice means new warheads, and would even permit production of Bush’s Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program.
But there is another way in which Obama can be said to produce new nuclear weapons: he is building new delivery vehicles for warheads, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a replacement for the Ohio-class nuclear-armed submarine, and modernizing existing strategic ballistic missiles such as the land-based Minuteman III and submarine-based Trident II, in addition to plans to replace the nuclear-capable Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM). Can’t those be considered new nuclear weapons since they are new vehicles to deliver warheads?
The bottom line is this: we can argue on what constitutes a new nuclear weapon and whether or not Obama is developing them. What is certain however, is that a president truly committed to nuclear disarmament would not even extend the life of aging nuclear warheads and would destroy them before they reach the end of their shelf life. Obama is clearly not that kind of president.
It is sometimes believed that nuclear weapons contribute to maintaining a balance between super-powers, making the international system more stable. In fact, there have been many nuclear near-accidents throughout the Cold War and since then, due to systems’ malfunctioning or human errors. Maintaining nuclear arsenals in place only increases the chance that a real accident will one day happen.
For instance, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the world came very close to global nuclear war, averted thanks to a Soviet submarine commander, Vasili Arkhipov, who countermanded an order to fire a nuclear-tipped torpedo at US warships off Cuba. US destroyers whose orders were to enforce a naval quarantine did not know that the Soviet submarines sent to protect their ships were carrying nuclear weapons and fired at the submarines to force them to the surface. The officers in Arkhipov’s submarine thought this meant World War III might have started, and the first captain said “We’re going to blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all. We will not disgrace our navy”. But Arkhipov calmed him down and torpedoes were not launched: in the words of Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, “The lesson from this is that a guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world.” [3]
In 1983, at a time of tension in US-Soviet relations, a newly-inaugurated Soviet early-warning system detected incoming American nuclear missiles. However, Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet officer then in charge of monitoring the system and notifying his superiors if an attack was detected, chose not to let them know for he believed the new system was simply malfunctioning. He was right: there were no incoming missiles. The Russian system had indicated otherwise due to a unique alignment of its satellite’s viewing angle with the sun, which caused sunlight to be reflected by the clouds in a way that caused the warning system to indicate that several missiles had been launched against the Soviet Union. Had Petrov chosen to alert his superiors, they could have launched a massive retaliatory strike, changing the course of history.
In 1995, Norwegian and American scientists launched a large rocket from an island off the coast of Norway to study the northern lights. Russian radars detected the rocket but mistook it for a nuclear Trident missile launched from a US submarine. For a few moments, Russia was poised to launch a full-scale nuclear attack on the United States. Reportedly, Russian military doctrine allowed 10 minutes from the time of detection to decide on a course of action. The next day, then President Yeltsin stated that he had in fact activated, for the first time, his “nuclear football”, a device allowing him to communicate with his top military advisers to review the situation.
If the world is not to wait for decades before such risks become history, the New START Treaty must be implemented, and agreements on further cuts need to be reached—fast.
Julien Mercille is lecturer at University College Dublin, Ireland. He specializes in U.S. foreign policy and geopolitics. He can be reached at jmercille[at]gmail[dot]com.
Notes
[1] “Gates: Iran, N. Korea not Immune from Attack”, 6 April 2010, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3872260,00.html
[2] Hans Kristensen, “The Nuclear Posture Review”, 8 April 2010, http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/04/npr2010.php
See also “New START Treaty Has New Counting”, 29 March 2010, http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/03/newstart.php
and Pavel Podvig of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, “New START Treaty in Numbers”, 29 February 2010, http://russianforces.org/blog/2010/03/new_start_treaty_in_numbers.shtml
[3] Marion Lloyd,“Soviets Close to Using A-Bomb in 1962 Crisis, Forum is Told”, Boston Sunday Globe, 13 October 2002, A20.
2010年4月3日土曜日
Obama: ALL THE EVIDENCE shows Iran is developing nukes - Haaretz - Israel News
Obama said "all the evidence indicates" that Tehran is trying to get the "capacity to develop nuclear weapons." Advertisement With such a capability, Obama said that Iran could "destabilize" life in the Mideast and trigger an arms race in the region, adding that, for that reason, he felt "the idea here is to keep on turning up the pressure." - Haaretz - Israel News
What evidence? Where?
What He said does not make any sense unless he was actually talking about U.S. & Israel (but in that case they already have nukes!). Or he wants the whole world to know that he is seriously evil. The Godfather of the world!
What evidence? Where?
What He said does not make any sense unless he was actually talking about U.S. & Israel (but in that case they already have nukes!). Or he wants the whole world to know that he is seriously evil. The Godfather of the world!
2010年3月8日月曜日
Haiti: The Mobilization of Aid, Public Discourses and Political Action By Manuel Rozental
Haiti: The Mobilization of Aid, Public Discourses and Political Action by Manuel Rozental from Justin Podur on Vimeo.
On February 11, YCISS at York University held a panel on Haiti. “Haiti: The Mobilization of Aid, Public Discourses and Political Action within Canada” examined how the mobilization of aid is occurring through the media, diasporas, non-governmental organizations, the military – particularly the Canadian Forces – and other government institutions, and to what effect. The following is Manuel Rozental's talk from the YCISS panel. Manuel Rozental is associated with the University of Toronto and a coordinator for the Canada-Colombia Solidarity Campaign.2010年2月7日日曜日
Famous Investigative Journalist Grag Palast on Citizen Radio!
Famous Investigative Journalist Grag Palast on Citizen Radio!
talks about corporatecracy and Haiti.
WARNING A LOT OF %#@?! WORDS
talks about corporatecracy and Haiti.
WARNING A LOT OF %#@?! WORDS
2010年2月3日水曜日
2010年1月30日土曜日
After one word away from nuke war/核ミサイルを持つべきでない理由：知らないうちに核戦争になる恐れがある
I originally posted this on facebook on November 25, 2009
In Japan some people are raising voice to have Nuclear weapon, saying they want to feel confident about their country unless they have nuke and threatening themselves with the nukes of China.
I don't think their was not a one anti-nuke voice ever heard. But due to regime change from being Bush-friendly in Japan, we happened to become a just little safer country.
It's late but may be I should be telling this why I'm against possessing nuke on this Thanks Giving Day occasion.
Because we can come so close to the danger of nuclear war without knowing about it.
Most dangerous moment that might have caused nuclear war was at the Cuban Missile Crisis according to Noam Chomsky.
They found out about this incident in 2002, 40th anniversary summit meeting of Cuban Missile Crisis in Havana, attended by key participants from Cuba, Russia, and the United States.
"The fact that we survived the crisis was a miracle.
We learned that the world was saved from possible nuclear devastation by one Russian submarine captain, Vasily Arkhipov, who countermanded an order to fire nuclear-tipped torpedos when Russian submarines were attacked by U.S. destroyers near Kennedy's "quarantine" line.
Had Arkhipov agreed, the nuclear launch would almost certainly have set off an interchange that could have "destroy[ed ] the Northern hemisphere," as Eisenhower had warned." (Noam Chomsky, Interventions p21)
According to late Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara the military officer has only 2-3 minutes to decide whether nuclear attack alarms are real or not and there are many false alarms:
"the commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC) carried with him a secure telephone, no matter where he went, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The telephone of the commander, whose headquarters were in Omaha, Nebraska, was linked to the underground command post of the North American Defense Command, deep inside Cheyenne Mountain, in Colorado, and to the U.S. president, wherever he happened to be. The president always had at hand nuclear release codes in the so-called football, a briefcase carried for the president at all times by a U.S. military officer.
The SAC commander’s orders were to answer the telephone by no later than the end of the third ring. If it rang, and he was informed that a nuclear attack of enemy ballistic missiles appeared to be under way, he was allowed 2 to 3 minutes to decide whether the warning was valid (over the years, the United States has received many false warnings), and if so, how the United States should respond. He was then given approximately 10 minutes to determine what to recommend, to locate and advise the president, permit the president to discuss the situation with two or three close advisors (presumably the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), and to receive the president’s decision and pass it immediately, along with the codes, to the launch sites. The president essentially had two options: He could decide to ride out the attack and defer until later any decision to launch a retaliatory strike. Or, he could order an immediate retaliatory strike, from a menu of options, thereby launching U.S. weapons that were targeted on the opponent’s military-industrial assets. Our opponents in Moscow presumably had and have similar arrangements. "
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2829
And Russia and China may not even have that 2-3 minutes. (Noam Chomsky, Failed State p14)
So in order not to threaten Russia and China and receive unnecessary nuclear attacks we should never have nuclear weapon.
Thank God world is slightly safer because of Obama administration continuing from Bush administration to reduce nuke especially from Europe. Where they probably don't have time at to evaluate but only to react.
But Obama administration is causing unnecessary economic sanction against Iran (affiliate of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) with no reason of attacking Europe.
And stopping nuclear inspection of Israeli facilities who is not NPT affiliate along with India and Pakistan, all U.S. allies.
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSTRE58H3QW20090918?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604
And stopping Africa to become nuclear weapon free zone because of U.S. military base of Diego Garcia.
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSTRE58H3QW20090918?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604
核ミサイルを持つべきでない理由：知らないうちに核戦争になる恐れがある
アルキポフという男が世界を救った
キューバミサイル危機と呼ばれるものが、人類が核戦争に近づいた最も危険な事件と言われていて、
邦題で『博士の異常な愛情』という映画もできましたけど、
なかでも、最も危険な事態が起きたのが、１９６２年１０月２７日、２００２年の、キューバ、ロシア、アメリカが参加した、
キューバミサイル危機４０周年記念首脳会議であきらかになりました。
われわれがキューバ危機を乗り切ることができた事実は奇跡であった。この首脳会議であきらかになったように、
世界はロシアの潜水艦士官ワシーリー・アルキポフによって、核による惨禍の危険性から救われたのである。
アルキポフは、ロシアの潜水艦がケネディの「臨検ライン」付近でアメリカの駆逐艦から攻撃されていたとき、
核弾頭を搭載した魚雷を発射せよとの命令を受けたが、それを退けたのだ。もしアルキポフが命令に従っていたら、
その核魚雷発射は、ほぼ確実に核戦争の勃発を招き、アイゼンハワーが警告していたように、「北半球が破壊される」
にいたっただろう。（ノーム・チョムスキー著『お節介なアメリカ』、ちくま新書、p39）
故ロバート・マクナマラ元米国防長官によると、米国ではもし核攻撃の警報があると、司令官は2，3分で、
事実かどうか決定しなければなりません。誤報がたくさんあります。
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2829
ロシアや中国には、その2，3分も無いかもしれません。（ノーム・チョムスキー、『破綻するアメリカ壊れゆく世界』、p25-6）
ので、個人的には、日本は核武装して、ロシアや中国の標的になるべきでないと思います。
ばんそうこうをはるなんてがっかりだよ
去年の５月２３日コロラド州の発射準備された核ミサイルの、無人格納庫で、火事が起きました。
米空軍は5日後の5月28日にその事実を知りました。
原因はバッテリーの充電器だとされています。
この事件は10月30日に報道され、充電器は全米国ミサイル発射地で取り替えられたと伝えられました。
次の10月31日、訂正が報じられました。「火事の原因となった充電器はまだ全部取り替えられていません。」
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6153938
火事の事実は、ミサイルに接続されたケーブルの問題を見に行った係員によって発見されました。
米空軍の報告によるとそういったケーブルなどの修理に不適切なダクトテープ（ビニールの強力なガムテープ）
が、使われていました。核の専門家でシンクタンクGlobalSecurity.orgのジョン・パイク氏は「核爆弾にダクトテープの
ばんそうこうを貼るという発想にはがっかりだ。ほかにどれだけずさんな管理がされているのかわからない。」
と告げました。
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2008/081116-nuclear-silo-fire.htm
なかなかパスできない
今月の19日の”Rachel Maddow Show”という番組で、2007年、B-52軍用機が誤って6発の核ミサイルを搭載し、
ノースダコタからルイジアナまで米国を縦断した事件の続報が出ました。
着陸後数時間たつまで、核ミサイルの事実に気がつきませんでした。
12月に安全査察の検査に落ちて、次の査察にも落ちました。核ミサイルを守るべき時に携帯でゲームをしていたことと
なんらかの関わりがあるようです。
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33396815/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
他にも、間違って台湾に核ミサイルの起爆装置が運ばれたり、ヨーロッパで入って9ヶ月の新人の米軍人が核爆弾の警護を
していたりとかが、去年のデモクラシー・ナウ！の報道でありました。
あとは、アメリカはイラン（核拡散防止条約、NPT加盟国）の核施設の危険は主張するけども、イランが仮に核武装するとして、
その原因である、
アメリカから世界最大の軍事支援を受け続けるイスラエル（NPT非加盟国）への査察はしりぞけるということ。
イスラエルは核保有を公表していませんが、否定もしません。
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSTRE58H3QW20090918?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604
おかげで中東は、非核地帯になりません。
アフリカ連合もアフリカを非核地帯にしたかったのですが、ディエゴガルシア島住民を、追い出してイギリスの所有地であり、
住民を追い出して、アメリカに軍用地として貸し出しているので実現しません。
オバマの「核なき世界」の演説を受けてできたとされる国連安全保障理事決議1887は、内容を読むと、地域にとって
脅威となっているアメリカ、イスラエルと、レーガン政権下アメリカの支援を受けて核開発したパキスタン（NPT非加盟）
と、今、実質アメリカの核開発の支援を受けているインド（NPT非加盟国）に向けられている。
（ノーム・チョムスキー10月2日の講演より、http://www.vimeo.com/7194947）
*この投稿は2009年11月25日にfacebookに掲載したものです。
In Japan some people are raising voice to have Nuclear weapon, saying they want to feel confident about their country unless they have nuke and threatening themselves with the nukes of China.
I don't think their was not a one anti-nuke voice ever heard. But due to regime change from being Bush-friendly in Japan, we happened to become a just little safer country.
It's late but may be I should be telling this why I'm against possessing nuke on this Thanks Giving Day occasion.
Because we can come so close to the danger of nuclear war without knowing about it.
Most dangerous moment that might have caused nuclear war was at the Cuban Missile Crisis according to Noam Chomsky.
They found out about this incident in 2002, 40th anniversary summit meeting of Cuban Missile Crisis in Havana, attended by key participants from Cuba, Russia, and the United States.
"The fact that we survived the crisis was a miracle.
We learned that the world was saved from possible nuclear devastation by one Russian submarine captain, Vasily Arkhipov, who countermanded an order to fire nuclear-tipped torpedos when Russian submarines were attacked by U.S. destroyers near Kennedy's "quarantine" line.
Had Arkhipov agreed, the nuclear launch would almost certainly have set off an interchange that could have "destroy[ed ] the Northern hemisphere," as Eisenhower had warned." (Noam Chomsky, Interventions p21)
According to late Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara the military officer has only 2-3 minutes to decide whether nuclear attack alarms are real or not and there are many false alarms:
"the commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC) carried with him a secure telephone, no matter where he went, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The telephone of the commander, whose headquarters were in Omaha, Nebraska, was linked to the underground command post of the North American Defense Command, deep inside Cheyenne Mountain, in Colorado, and to the U.S. president, wherever he happened to be. The president always had at hand nuclear release codes in the so-called football, a briefcase carried for the president at all times by a U.S. military officer.
The SAC commander’s orders were to answer the telephone by no later than the end of the third ring. If it rang, and he was informed that a nuclear attack of enemy ballistic missiles appeared to be under way, he was allowed 2 to 3 minutes to decide whether the warning was valid (over the years, the United States has received many false warnings), and if so, how the United States should respond. He was then given approximately 10 minutes to determine what to recommend, to locate and advise the president, permit the president to discuss the situation with two or three close advisors (presumably the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), and to receive the president’s decision and pass it immediately, along with the codes, to the launch sites. The president essentially had two options: He could decide to ride out the attack and defer until later any decision to launch a retaliatory strike. Or, he could order an immediate retaliatory strike, from a menu of options, thereby launching U.S. weapons that were targeted on the opponent’s military-industrial assets. Our opponents in Moscow presumably had and have similar arrangements. "
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2829
And Russia and China may not even have that 2-3 minutes. (Noam Chomsky, Failed State p14)
So in order not to threaten Russia and China and receive unnecessary nuclear attacks we should never have nuclear weapon.
Thank God world is slightly safer because of Obama administration continuing from Bush administration to reduce nuke especially from Europe. Where they probably don't have time at to evaluate but only to react.
But Obama administration is causing unnecessary economic sanction against Iran (affiliate of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) with no reason of attacking Europe.
And stopping nuclear inspection of Israeli facilities who is not NPT affiliate along with India and Pakistan, all U.S. allies.
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSTRE58H3QW20090918?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604
And stopping Africa to become nuclear weapon free zone because of U.S. military base of Diego Garcia.
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSTRE58H3QW20090918?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604
核ミサイルを持つべきでない理由：知らないうちに核戦争になる恐れがある
アルキポフという男が世界を救った
キューバミサイル危機と呼ばれるものが、人類が核戦争に近づいた最も危険な事件と言われていて、
邦題で『博士の異常な愛情』という映画もできましたけど、
なかでも、最も危険な事態が起きたのが、１９６２年１０月２７日、２００２年の、キューバ、ロシア、アメリカが参加した、
キューバミサイル危機４０周年記念首脳会議であきらかになりました。
われわれがキューバ危機を乗り切ることができた事実は奇跡であった。この首脳会議であきらかになったように、
世界はロシアの潜水艦士官ワシーリー・アルキポフによって、核による惨禍の危険性から救われたのである。
アルキポフは、ロシアの潜水艦がケネディの「臨検ライン」付近でアメリカの駆逐艦から攻撃されていたとき、
核弾頭を搭載した魚雷を発射せよとの命令を受けたが、それを退けたのだ。もしアルキポフが命令に従っていたら、
その核魚雷発射は、ほぼ確実に核戦争の勃発を招き、アイゼンハワーが警告していたように、「北半球が破壊される」
にいたっただろう。（ノーム・チョムスキー著『お節介なアメリカ』、ちくま新書、p39）
故ロバート・マクナマラ元米国防長官によると、米国ではもし核攻撃の警報があると、司令官は2，3分で、
事実かどうか決定しなければなりません。誤報がたくさんあります。
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2829
ロシアや中国には、その2，3分も無いかもしれません。（ノーム・チョムスキー、『破綻するアメリカ壊れゆく世界』、p25-6）
ので、個人的には、日本は核武装して、ロシアや中国の標的になるべきでないと思います。
ばんそうこうをはるなんてがっかりだよ
去年の５月２３日コロラド州の発射準備された核ミサイルの、無人格納庫で、火事が起きました。
米空軍は5日後の5月28日にその事実を知りました。
原因はバッテリーの充電器だとされています。
この事件は10月30日に報道され、充電器は全米国ミサイル発射地で取り替えられたと伝えられました。
次の10月31日、訂正が報じられました。「火事の原因となった充電器はまだ全部取り替えられていません。」
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6153938
火事の事実は、ミサイルに接続されたケーブルの問題を見に行った係員によって発見されました。
米空軍の報告によるとそういったケーブルなどの修理に不適切なダクトテープ（ビニールの強力なガムテープ）
が、使われていました。核の専門家でシンクタンクGlobalSecurity.orgのジョン・パイク氏は「核爆弾にダクトテープの
ばんそうこうを貼るという発想にはがっかりだ。ほかにどれだけずさんな管理がされているのかわからない。」
と告げました。
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2008/081116-nuclear-silo-fire.htm
なかなかパスできない
今月の19日の”Rachel Maddow Show”という番組で、2007年、B-52軍用機が誤って6発の核ミサイルを搭載し、
ノースダコタからルイジアナまで米国を縦断した事件の続報が出ました。
着陸後数時間たつまで、核ミサイルの事実に気がつきませんでした。
12月に安全査察の検査に落ちて、次の査察にも落ちました。核ミサイルを守るべき時に携帯でゲームをしていたことと
なんらかの関わりがあるようです。
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33396815/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
他にも、間違って台湾に核ミサイルの起爆装置が運ばれたり、ヨーロッパで入って9ヶ月の新人の米軍人が核爆弾の警護を
していたりとかが、去年のデモクラシー・ナウ！の報道でありました。
あとは、アメリカはイラン（核拡散防止条約、NPT加盟国）の核施設の危険は主張するけども、イランが仮に核武装するとして、
その原因である、
アメリカから世界最大の軍事支援を受け続けるイスラエル（NPT非加盟国）への査察はしりぞけるということ。
イスラエルは核保有を公表していませんが、否定もしません。
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSTRE58H3QW20090918?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604
おかげで中東は、非核地帯になりません。
アフリカ連合もアフリカを非核地帯にしたかったのですが、ディエゴガルシア島住民を、追い出してイギリスの所有地であり、
住民を追い出して、アメリカに軍用地として貸し出しているので実現しません。
オバマの「核なき世界」の演説を受けてできたとされる国連安全保障理事決議1887は、内容を読むと、地域にとって
脅威となっているアメリカ、イスラエルと、レーガン政権下アメリカの支援を受けて核開発したパキスタン（NPT非加盟）
と、今、実質アメリカの核開発の支援を受けているインド（NPT非加盟国）に向けられている。
（ノーム・チョムスキー10月2日の講演より、http://www.vimeo.com/7194947）
*この投稿は2009年11月25日にfacebookに掲載したものです。
登録:
投稿 (Atom)