On The Media

I would just like to thank OTM and its guest from MIT, James Walsh, for pointing out that nuclear weapons need not be detonated to be used. When the top officials of a nuclear state like the USA threaten to use nuclear weapons against a specific state -- even when such a threat is oblique and indirect -- nuclear weapons are in use. And, as James Walsh indicates, such threats can be irresponsible and dangerous.

Many previous threats by the US government to use nuclear weapons were described by Daniel Ellsberg in his writings and speeches following the Vietnam War. In the cases he documented, the other side always backed down, or the necessary conditions for a strike did not arise. But nuclear blackmail is a form a gambling; a day will come when the other side will not back down.

Clearly, this subject deserves more attention. The perceived need for a "credible" nuclear threat is one of the factors fueling the development of new nuclear weapons under the current Bush Administration.

Sincerely,

Steve Kasner

Portland OR USA

I was very moved by James Walsh's insightful comments about the danger of American politicians talking loosely about nuclear options being put "on the table" in his interview with Brooke Gladstone in the radio program "On the Media" this past weekend. While appearing to be macho, this genocidal rhetoric, which is increasingly being used by both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, contributes to the "Age of Terror" that we are quickly sliding into. If even the appearance of WMD's was considered justification for the Bush Administration to attack Iraq and topple the regime of Saddam Hussein, can American citizens make a citizen's arrest of American politicians to the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court challenging their suitability for elective office for threatening to use nuclear weapons as a form of genocide against the people of any country which they feel are represented by politicians who threaten America's dominance in the world? Like the proverbial child in Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor Has No Clothes", this action, in keeping with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty signed by previous Administrations in the US, may be necessary to restore respect for human life and world peace that seems to have vanished in these belligerent times that more and more resemble the recent dystopia, "Children of Men".

I'd like to comment on this story in light of the recent announcement that Russia will resume nuclear bomber flights. Pre-911 there were some who lamented the "end of history," and longed for a time of clear enemies. The language of our leaders also effects the world. "Shock and Awe" first began as someone's thought. When Russia announced that it was resuming bomber flights, the White House had a muted response: something like: "that's what nations do to defend themselves." So if its okay for the US in everyday parlance to threaten to nuke Iran, who is okay for Russia to threaten? And if we do attack Iran, why shouldn't Russians threaten and attack someplace as well. Perhaps all this language is only posturing but it appears to also lead to behavior, or make certain kinds of behavior more possible. How about a cold war and a war on terror? All of this talk by brave politicians contributes to a more complicated less stable world