Robert McNamara - Apocalypse Soon

[realFedUp]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2829

Apocalypse Soon
By Robert S. McNamara

May/June 2005

Robert McNamara is worried. He knows how close we’ve come. His counsel helped the Kennedy administration avert nuclear catastrophe during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today, he believes the United States must no longer rely on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. To do so is immoral, illegal, and dreadfully dangerous.


It is time—well past time, in my view—for the United States to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. At the risk of appearing simplistic and provocative, I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power—a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years. Much of the current U.S. nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years.
Today, the United States has deployed approximately 4,500 strategic, offensive nuclear warheads. Russia has roughly 3,800. The strategic forces of Britain, France, and China are considerably smaller, with 200–400 nuclear weapons in each state’s arsenal. The new nuclear states of Pakistan and India have fewer than 100 weapons each. North Korea now claims to have developed nuclear weapons, and U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that Pyongyang has enough fissile material for 2–8 bombs.

How destructive are these weapons? The average U.S. warhead has a destructive power 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. Of the 8,000 active or operational U.S. warheads, 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15 minutes’ warning. How are these weapons to be used? The United States has never endorsed the policy of “no first use,” not during my seven years as secretary or since. We have been and remain prepared to initiate the use of nuclear weapons—by the decision of one person, the president—against either a nuclear or nonnuclear enemy whenever we believe it is in our interest to do so. For decades, U.S. nuclear forces have been sufficiently strong to absorb a first strike and then inflict “unacceptable” damage on an opponent. This has been and (so long as we face a nuclear-armed, potential adversary) must continue to be the foundation of our nuclear deterrent.

snip

Preview of the Apocalypse
The destructive power of nuclear weapons is well known, but given the United States’ continued reliance on them, it’s worth remembering the danger they present. A 2000 report by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War describes the likely effects of a single 1 megaton weapon—dozens of which are contained in the Russian and U.S. inventories. At ground zero, the explosion creates a crater 300 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter. Within one second, the atmosphere itself ignites into a fireball more than a half-mile in diameter. The surface of the fireball radiates nearly three times the light and heat of a comparable area of the surface of the sun, extinguishing in seconds all life below and radiating outward at the speed of light, causing instantaneous severe burns to people within one to three miles. A blast wave of compressed air reaches a distance of three miles in about 12 seconds, flattening factories and commercial buildings. Debris carried by winds of 250 mph inflicts lethal injuries throughout the area. At least 50 percent of people in the area die immediately, prior to any injuries from radiation or the developing firestorm.

continued

[Postman]

1. US foreign policy is that akin to a paranoid schizophrenic.

any possible threat to their greed, no matter how infintesimal, is considered a "target"

Democracy my ass.

[tom_paine]

10. Don't forget that the Busheviks' Main Target is the American People

National Treasury.

They've already hit us dozens of times...and they'll be back to hit us again so that we don't threaten their One-Party Totalitalitarian Plans.

Count on it.

[dbeach]

2. bobbie mac still trying to get the limelite..

over 58,00 died in VN and they kept saying "stay the course..gotta save face..bring em democracy.."
Macnamara is a world stage villain and money grubber at World Bank same as his soul mate Wolfowitz..maybe his speech is psych-ops preparation for next terrist attacks..

'"nothing has changed .its still the same.
I got nuthing to say but its OK.
Good mornin good mornin" Beatles 1967

[unhappycamper]

3. This is a worthwhile read.

I remember * adding $$ into the budget for the mini-nukes described in his article.

<snip>
In addition to projecting the deployment of large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons far into the future, the Bush administration is planning an extensive and expensive series of programs to sustain and modernize the existing nuclear force and to begin studies for new launch vehicles, as well as new warheads for all of the launch platforms. Some members of the administration have called for new nuclear weapons that could be used as bunker busters against underground shelters (such as the shelters Saddam Hussein used in Baghdad). New production facilities for fissile materials would need to be built to support the expanded force. The plans provide for integrating a national ballistic missile defense into the new triad of offensive weapons to enhance the nation’s ability to use its “power projection forces” by improving our ability to counterattack an enemy. The Bush administration also announced that it has no intention to ask congress to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and, though no decision to test has been made, the administration has ordered the national laboratories to begin research on new nuclear weapons designs and to prepare the underground test sites in Nevada for nuclear tests if necessary in the future. Clearly, the Bush administration assumes that nuclear weapons will be part of U.S. military forces for at least the next several decades.
<snip>

Perhaps we should amend the No Child Left Behind act to man-date the old atomic attack practice of ducking under the desk & cover your head.

Found this link to "Survival Under Atomic Attack", published 1950 in the United States of America:

http://www.schouwer-online.de/technik/zivilschutz_atomicattack.htm

[loritooker]

4. When Robert "The Fog of War" McNamara is worried, ya gotta listen.

[Elidor]

6. Indeed

Who better than him to tell you you're dealing with the devil. He used to BE the devil.

"The United States and our NATO allies faced a strong Soviet and Warsaw Pact conventional threat. Many of the allies (and some in Washington as well) felt strongly that preserving the U.S. option of launching a first strike was necessary for the sake of keeping the Soviets at bay. What is shocking is that today, more than a decade after the end of the Cold War, the basic U.S. nuclear policy is unchanged. It has not adapted to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Plans and procedures have not been revised to make the United States or other countries less likely to push the button. At a minimum, we should remove all strategic nuclear weapons from “hair-trigger” alert, as others have recommended, including Gen. George Lee Butler, the last commander of SAC. That simple change would greatly reduce the risk of an accidental nuclear launch. It would also signal to other states that the United States is taking steps to end its reliance on nuclear weapons."

[d_b]

12. damn you for posting it first.

[teryang]

5. Very good article

Thanks for the post. Doomsday, alive and well, in bushworld.

[chlamor]

7. nominated-Needs one more it's worthy

even a war criminal is right sometimes.

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. Add to this the new Pentagon doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, the

statements that nuclear attacks will not be ruled out, and the extreme shortage of manpower in the armed forces, and you get a setup for catastrophe. Further add the desire of the Administration and their enablers for an excuse to declare martial law, their history of staging violence to promote their political agenda, and their constant lying in their insistence on war, their hubristic assumption that nothing can defeat them, and the overwhelming pattern of constant lying to support their violent agenda, and nuclear war doesn't seem far-fetched at all.

And they DO want Iran and other places. They are currently setting the stage to "justify" attack there, and I would not rule out a "defensive" nuclear strike. Other nations would not sit silently for this.



Recommended. What is more important than nuclear war warnings?

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. Here is what they plan - see this thread on Jerome Corsi's talk

that aired on CSPAN-2 today at 4 PM - DOES ANYONE HAVE A RECORDING???

Like Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter, Corsi says that Bush's "patience" with Iran will "run out" in June - that's the invasion time. And with troops spread so thin, why not nukes? He says he fully expects Iran to nuke the US, probably New York.

Absolutely horrifying, a look into neocon lies and plans. And they are planning a TV ad campaign. You can see the videos of the ad at Corsi's web site. The title of the ad: "Atomic 9/11." Thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1768708

[paineinthearse]

11. Related post in LBN - Freedom message penetrates Iran (Jerome Corsi)

Corsi is broadcasting his message into Iran by radio. Also organizing the freepers to march from Philly to DC.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1453414

[struggle4progress]

13. kick