|
Home
Doomsday
Clock - Closer to Midnight?
Letter to The
Bulletin, from Larry Ross, October 13, 2005
Sir,
I have been researching nuclear war issues since 1945, when some 200,000
people were killed by nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Since then you have adjusted the hands of your Doomsday Clock 18 times
- closer or further from midnight and nuclear war. This depended on developments
in nuclear weapon technology, national policies and international threats
and crisis. The last time was in 2002 when you moved it from 9 to 7 minutes
to midnight. This was because the U.S. rejected a series of arms control
treaties and announced its withdrawal from the ABM treaty; nuclear weapons
proliferation to India and Pakistan and the so-called ' terrorist threat'.
It is now 3 years later and I suggest the threat of a nuclear war has
increased to the highest level yet for the following reasons:
- In spite of the end of the cold war, the
U.S., Russia and possibly other states, still maintain thousands of
nuclear missiles on a 'launch-on-warning' status. This hair-trigger
situation has brought the world within minutes of a nuclear doomsday
several times.
President Kennedy in 1963 warned the world about the increasing threats
of a nuclear war when he said:
" We all live under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the
slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident,
miscalculation or act of madness".
This perilous and continuing dance with global death could suddenly
end in a global holocaust anytime. It has been warned against many times
by eminent scientists, military experts and global statesmen. They have
campaigned and petitioned for nuclear missiles to be taken off alert
status, but to no avail. The threat has continued so long, most people
have become immune and no longer take it seriously. They have been brought
up with the 'nuclear sword of Damocles' and regard it as a fact of life
important for their security. People simply disregard or deny that the
world can end in an afternoon. It almost has several times. This shows
the limitations of the human psyche to perceive and take effective action
against this type of danger.
- The new strategy of the Bush Administration
is to incorporate the use of nuclear weapons, as recommended by field
commanders, into conventional war situations. The unspoken message is
that nuclear weapons are a military tool to be used as necessary, and
that the threat of escalation to a global holocaust is not a significant
factor. It is the Administration's attempt to change public perception
of the nuclear threat and in effect, deny all facts showing that the
threat of nuclear self-annihilation is increasingly real. People will
notice that the same technique is used by the Administration to deny
the facts of global warming. It is significant to note that the Bush
Administration has moved from U.S. strategy of nuclear weapons use as
a last resort, or a revenge nuclear retaliation after suffering a first
strike, to persuading the public that it is okay and perfectly normal
to incorporate nuclear weapons use into an option in conventional warfare.
Also, that it is okay to use nuclear weapons against those states the
administration claims might be harbouring terrorists. Proofs are not
needed.
Before the U.S. and UK invaded Iraq on the basis of lies, Bush and Blair
warned Saddam that if he used WMD in defence if Iraq, they would use
nuclear weapons against him. This is an excellent example of nuclear
conquest based on a framework of outright lies, against a state that
has not attacked anyone and had no plans to do so.
It is also an example of a few totally unprincipled people willing to
gamble with the fate of humanity to achieve their illegitimate objectives.
An actual attack on the U.S. is no longer needed before the Bush Administration
launches a war against a hypothetical enemy who the Bush Administration
claims, might, one day, develop WMD and attack the U.S.
- Pre-emptive nuclear wars have been added
to Bush's choice of war options against those he claims are potential
enemies.
- The use of the pre-emptive war strategy
has already been demonstrated with the U.S. illegal war on Iraq. This
was planned well before 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Osama
Bin Laden or al-Qaeda. It had no WMD or nuclear weapons. Yet the Bush
Administration, aided by the UK, Australia and a few other states, created
a litany of lies accusing Iraq of these crimes in order to justify going
to war. The strategy worked and the public was effectively deceived.
Most media supported the war and faithfully repeated Bush lies. Bush,
Blair and Howard were all re-elected after the event. This was a very
ominous demonstration of the power of war to frighten and befuddle people.
Also, that with the right kind of lies, endlessly repeated, and well-managed
by psywar experts, a dangerous and corrupt Administration faced with
a lacklustre opposition afraid to tell the truth, can fool enough people
to be re-elected.
What that means is that the fate of humanity is in the hands of war
criminals who have been richly rewarded
by the very people they have just deceived.
- The quagmire of Iraq is only the beginning.
Bush is making similar accusations about Iran and Syria, that he made
about Iraq before he attacked. Bush claims that Syria and Iran are aiding
Iraqi opponents of the illegal, deceitful U.S. invasion and particularly
cruel occupation of their country. Bush simply puts a label on all armed
opposition calling it "terrorists" etc, thereby licensing
the U.S. and allies to attack them. Any opposition to U.S. expansion
anywhere could become targets for pre-emptive war. Bush has already
warned the U.S. population that they faced an "endless war of terrorism".
- The psychological makeup and mindset
of Bush, his neocon Administration and the people he chooses to appoint
to high positions is conducive to war. Whereas previous Administrations
have had a modicum of balance in their top executives, this is lacking
in the Bush Administration. They are of like mind, mainly right-wing
extremists, fundamentalists, very ultra pro-Israel, and war contractors
like Halliburton. Many top people in the Bush Administration are neo-conservatives
who wrote a blueprint for U.S. conquest years before Bush was elected
in 2001. Their plan is now being implemented. A civil war in Iraq would
provide the U.S. with the additional justification it can use to stay
in Iraq indefinitely. They already planned to dominate the middle east
region. That's why the U.S. built permanent military bases in Iraq which
will also serve as launching pads for further conquest of neighbouring
states. Past performance and mutual reinforcement suggests that the
Bush Administration won't decide to abort their plans, especially as
they have already enjoyed such success. They are not the type to listen
to any rational arguments against their plans and would spurn evidence
of increasing risk of a nuclear holocaust. They seem intoxicated with
their own power and hubris. Their use of depleted uranium weapons in
Iraq and Afghanistan, shows that they are not worried about the lethal
long-lasting toxic effects of these weapons. They have a half life of
4.5 billion years.
- Accidental nuclear war is an increasing
risk as nuclear weapons proliferate to Pakistan, India and possibly
other states. There are now at least 8 nuclear weapon states. Bush's
new nuclear-use and pre-emptive war doctrines, and withdrawal from disarmament
treaties, will increase pressures for further nuclear proliferation
and arms research and manufacture. That in turn further increases the
risks. As well, other states will be encouraged to lower their own standards
of nuclear weapon usage by the new U.S. nuclear and pre-emptive war
strategy.
- Iran, seen by many expert commentators
as the next target on Bush's hit list, is much bigger and better prepared
for war than was Iraq. Iran also has nuclear weapon-equipped oil friends
such as China and Russia who would prefer that the U.S. not be allowed
to control Iran's oil, as it now controls Iraq's oil. So what military
choices are left to Pentagon plans for war on Iran? Already the Pentagon
is bogged down with much of it's conventional military in Iraq.
The Bush Administration may accuse Iran of being behind a new 'terrorist'
attack on the U.S. Whether this accusation is true or not, it would
be used by the U.S. Administration as a credible reason to make war
on Iran.
This may be a well planned nuclear attack, such as that Rumsfelt ordered
the Pentagon to prepare plans for.
There is just no way the U.S. could take on Iran and hope to win, without
using their huge nuclear weapon advantage. That, coupled with loud accusations
of Iran's culpability as justification for U.S. actions, may intimidate
China and Russia into not aiding Iran. If they did aid Iran the situation
would probably escalate into full scale nuclear war. Iran has had many
warnings of what's coming but claims it has the means to deter Bush.
But Bush, Blair and Howard took a similar but lesser gamble with the
Iraq war and it worked much better than they might have expected. They
are likely to take a similar gamble in the attempt to conquer Iran.
- Bush and many of his supporters and executives
in his administration, are Christian Fundamentalists who believe a nuclear
war would be a fulfilment of Armageddon - the final battle between good
and evil which they believe is promised by God in the Old Testament
Bible. Many believe that Bush is appointed by God to help 'bring it
on'. True believers will be raptured directly to heaven and unbelievers
will rot in hell. Thus they excuse anything...anything at all.... that
Bush may do which they believe will help bring this promise to fruition.
Millions of American believers of this nonsense would welcome this god-ordained
armageddon for themselves and children.
- Some insiders, psychiatrists, theologians
and informed commentators have commented on Bush's spasms of anger at
any criticism; his comments that God has chosen him to lead or instructed
him to do certain things including making war on Iraq; his fundamentalist
armageddon beliefs and how far they motivate him particularly in the
U.S. foreign policy area; his past alcoholism and the severe limitations
of recovered alcoholics that seem to effect Bush's behaviour. They make
informed predictions of Bush's possible future behaviour and reactions.
Bush is not a very sane, stable, intelligent, knowledgeable and wise
character that one might hope for in a very, very powerful leader that
can bring on a global Armageddon in an afternoon.
Bush is a very limited individual now caught in a web of lies, surrounding
himself with mediocre people whose main virtue is following Bush's instructions.
There are no Kennedy's or an Addle Stevenson to say no to Bush.
These are some of the multiple and related risks that tend to reinforce
and augment each other.
Many of them are new and very serious increasing
risks, and were not taken into account in your previous estimates. People
need to be shocked into remedial action to reduce these new and increasingly
magnified threats of human self-extinction, and that there is no second
chances after a nuclear holocaust.
Therefor I recommend that the hands of the
Doomsday Clock be advanced to between 1 and 3 minutes to midnight.
Yours sincerely,
Larry Ross,
Secretary/Founder(1980)
The New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemaking Association.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doomsday
Clock
by
Sean,
September 30, 2005
It's the 60th anniversary of
the Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists, which premiered in December, 1945,
just a few months after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The goal of the magazine has always been simple, if somewhat ambitious:
to save the world by working to minimize the threat of nuclear war. It
came out of a time when physicists were central players in questions of
international security. It came out of a time when physicists were central
players in questions of international security.
The most famous product of the
Bulletin is of course the Doomsday Clock, an iconic image that is far
more famous than the magazine itself. The minute hand on the clock moves
in response to the perceived danger of imminent global disaster. It's
fascinating to peek back at the timeline for the evolution of the clock,
as it bounces back and forth in response to world events.
Continue.....
|
|