On Thursday, 5 December 1996, retired U.S.A.F. Gen. Lee Butler joined with some 60 former generals and admirals from around the world in calling for the near elimination of nuclear weapons. Butler is a retired 4 star general, and is a former CINCSAC, or Commander in Chief of the Strategic Air Command -- the U.S. Air Force nuclear strike force. Among those signing the appeal to reduce existing arsenals to 'the lowest verifiable levels' were Russian President Boris Yeltsin's ousted security chief, Alexander Lebed; Boris Gromov, former commander of Russian forces in Afghanistan; Charles A. Horner, the American commander of coalition air forces during the 1991 Persian Gulf War; and Michael Carver, a former chief of Britain's defense staff.
In anticipation of the appeal's release, on Wednesday 4 December, Butler was joined by retired Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster, a former supreme allied commander in Europe, at an address to the National Press Club on the dangers of nuclear war. 'A world free of the threat of nuclear weapons is necessarily a world devoid of nuclear weapons,' declared Butler…
The joint statement was organized by Goodpaster, co-chair of a group that promotes U.S.-European relations, retired British Brig. Michael Harbottle and former senator Alan Cranston (D-Calif.). Signers include Gen. John R. Galvin, another former supreme allied commander in Europe, and Gen. Horner.
Butler is the most distinguished military figure in recent memory to propose the abolition of nuclear weapons. He describes his conversion from being a committed supporter of maintaining a nuclear arsenal as a 'long and arduous intellectual journey.' He made it clear that his intimate acquaintance with the realities of nuclear weapons was instrumental in leading him to his present position. 'Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, militarily inefficient and morally indefensible,' Butler says now.
After spending the last 27 years studying every aspect of America's nuclear policy, Butler said he became deeply troubled by its staggering cost -- which he put at more than $4 trillion -- the 'grotesquely destructive' war plans and the immense risks associated with routine daily operations.
Afgezien van de Amerikaanse oorlog in Vietnam en de aanval van de Sovjet-Unie op Afghanistan is de Koude Oorlog, van 1949 tot 1989, misschien wel de vreedzaamste periode die de moderne mensheid gekend heeft. De diepste oorzaak daarvan is de kernbom.
Henk Hofland. De Groene Amsterdammer. 19 februari 2014
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
The court replied that 'the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally
be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict,
and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law…'
The court replied that 'There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and
bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its
aspects under strict and effective international control.'
Het Internationaal Gerechtshof. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. 8 juli
1996.
De Amerikaanse politiek bleef sterk anti-kolonialistisch… totdat het anticommunisme de overhand kreeg.'
Geert Mak. Reizen zonder John. Op zoek naar Amerika. 2012
Het opmerkelijke van de mainstream-intellectueel is de hoge mate waarin hij zichzelf en zijn publiek kan bedriegen. Hij is zo ideologisch gehersenspoeld dat hij zijn eigen ogen niet gelooft, en al helemaal niet datgene accepteert wat deskundigen uit eigen ervaring hebben meegemaakt. Laten we beginnen met Geert Mak, de bekendste onder de Makkianen. Met een verwaande stelligheid beweert hij dat de 'Amerikaanse politiek sterk anti-kolonialistisch [bleef].' Wikipedia geeft de volgende omschrijving van kolonisatie.
Bij kolonisatie is er sprake van uitbreiding van het grondgebied van een soevereine staat. Afhankelijk van de houding van de kolonisator werd er over de inheemse bevolking beslist, werd deze verplaatst of zelfs uitgeroeid.
Met andere woorden: 'anti-kolonialistisch' betekent dat een staat tegen de 'uitbreiding van het grondgebied' is wanneer dit 'de inheemse bevolking' ernstig benadeelt. Heeft in dit opzicht de Verenigde Staten in zijn geschiedenis een 'sterk anti-kolonialistische' politiek gevoerd? Nee, geenszins, integendeel zelfs. Door het uitroeien en in reservaten opsluiten van de Indianen heeft de VS zijn grondgebied almaar uitgebreid. Dat duurde tot 4 september 1886, toen de laatste Apache-strijders, onder aanvoering van de legendarische Geronimo hun wapens inleverden bij het Amerikaanse leger.
Na de overgave werden de Apaches gedeporteerd naar Florida, om vervolgens in 1894 te worden overgebracht naar Oklahoma, waar ze ‘heetten’ vrij te zijn. Geronimo sleet daar zijn laatste jaren als boer en als verkoper van souvenirs aan toeristen. In 1909 overleed hij aan een longontsteking, nadat hij van zijn paard was gevallen en een hele nacht in een greppel had gelegen. Op zijn sterfbed zou hij alle namen van zijn krijgers hebben opgenoemd.
Geronimo bleef 'maar liefst 28 jaar lang strijden, en zelfs toen hij nog slechts 36 medestrijders had, moest het Amerikaanse leger, onder leiding van Kolonel Nelson Miles, nog een troepenmacht inzetten van maar liefst 5000 man.
Zo kwam een einde aan de blanke, christelijke genocide van de Indianen en de verovering van hun land, die begon met Columbus. Na in 1492 voet aan wal te hebben gezet werd Columbus begroet door de
Taino Indians with unimaginable hospitality. Columbus reported to his queen: 'So tractable, so peaceable, are these people, that I swear to your Majesties there is not in the world a better nation. They love their neighbors as themselves, and their discourse is ever sweet and gentle, and accompanied with a smile; and though it is true that they are naked, yet their manners are decorous and praiseworthy.'
Volgens de 'ontdekkingsreiziger' gaven de Tainos
willingly everything they owned... They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. They would make fine servants... With fifty men we would subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.
Met de zogeheten 'ontdekking van Amerika' begon
an era of genocide, cruelty, and slavery on a larger scale than had ever been seen before. We must finally learn to look at that past with open eyes. We must dare abandon our comfortable but false myths, for the sake of our children and their children,
aldus de Amerikaanse auteur Hans Koning in zijn boek Columbus: His Enterprise. Exploding the Myth. Slaven en goud waren zijn drijfveren. Omdat, in zijn woorden:
gold is the most excellent, gold is treasure, and who has it can do whatever he likes in this world
Om zo snel mogelijk rijk te worden maakte hij de Indianen tot slaaf en liet hen de handen afhakken als ze het door hem vastgestelde quotum goud niet haalden. Het resultaat van zijn terreurbewind was volkerenmoord. Howard Zinn:
from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines... Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas.
En op zijn beurt concludeerde de Amerikaanse historicus, schout-bij-nacht, Samuel Eliot Morison, die een Pulitzer Prijs kreeg voor zijn biografie van Columbus:
The cruel policy initiated by Columbus and pursued by his successors resulted in complete genocide.
De Zuid-Amerikaanse auteur Eduardo Galeano beschrijft in zijn fameuze trilogie Kroniek van het Vuur. Vijf eeuwen economische exploitatie van Latijns-Amerika de continuïteit van de gewelddadige blanke cultuur die de al even blanke elites in Latijns-Amerika gebruikt
als louter instrumenten van het internationale kapitalisme, welvarende onderdelen van het wereldwijde raderwerk dat het bloed van de koloniën en semi-koloniën uitzoog.
En nog steeds past het Westen onder aanvoering van politieke en economische elite in Washington en Wall Street de bekende doctrine toe van 'Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far,' zoals we ook sinds 2001 hebben gezien in Irak en Libië, en nog steeds zien in Afghanistan, Syrië en Iran, want
the idea of negotiating peacefully, simultaneously threatening with the 'big stick', or the military, ties in heavily with the idea of Realpolitik, which implies an amoral pursuit of political power that resembles Machiavellian ideals.
Maar omdat Geert Mak, die door de mainstream wordt gezien als de grootste nog levende 'historicus' uit de polder, een eurocentrisch wereldbeeld heeft waarin alleen blanke christenen van historisch belang zijn, kan hij de Indianen volledig uit zijn geschiedenis wegschrijven. Zij behoren tot de diffuse groep van 'unpeople,' zoals de hedendaagse Britse historicus Mark Curtis de miljarden individuen betitelt die geen rol van betekenis spelen in de geprivilegieerde wereld van de elite, en van wie het leven gezien wordt 'as expendable in the pursuit of economic and political goals.' De 'onmensen' maken geen geschiedenis, ze ondergaan haar slechts. En dus kan Mak met een rascistische zelfgenoegzaamheid beweren dat de 'Amerikaanse politiek sterk anti-kolonialistisch [bleef].' Zijn publiek wordt geconfronteerd met een autisme dat grenst aan krankzinnigheid. Hetzelfde geldt voor het mainstream-publiek van Henk Hofland, de nestor van de polderjournalistiek, wanneer hij beweert dat de 'diepste oorzaak' van 'misschien wel de vreedzaamste periode die de moderne mensheid gekend heeft' de 'kernbom' is, oftewel de doctrine van de Mutual Assured Destruction-doctrine van de nucleaire holocaust. Ook deze bewering is zo absurd en onbewijsbaar dat Hoflands stelligheid alleen maar verbijstering kan oproepen over de grenzeloze stupiditeit en onwetendheid van de zelfbenoemde Nederlandse 'politiek-literaire elite.' Dit wordt nog eens duidelijk wanneer men het vraaggesprek met Noam Chomsky leest dat op 5 april 2014 werd gepubliceerd door de Amerikaanse onafhankelijke journaliste Jane Ayers en dat met de volgende vraag begon:
General Lee Butler, the former commander in chief of the Strategic Air Command, retired his post in 1996, calling for the worldwide abolition of nuclear weapons. I interviewed him at the time, and he emphasized his concern about the fragility of the world’s nuclear first alert systems, and especially with Russia. At that time he called for total abolition of nuclear weapons, yet now years later promotes a responsible global reduction of nuclear dangers. Are you concerned about the fragility of the first alert systems?
Chomsky: Yes, he also pointed out that the 1960 U.S. Nuclear War plan, called the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), was the most outrageous document in human history, except perhaps for the Russian counterpart, which we knew nothing about. This U.S. nuclear war plan, if our first alert system had alerted a Soviet strike, would have delivered 3200 nuclear weapons to 1060 targets in the Soviet Union, China, and allied countries in Asia and Europe. Even with the end of the Cold War, because of the ongoing superpower nuclear arms race, Gen. Butler bitterly renounced the current nuclear programs/systems as a death warrant for the species.
Q: In his address at the National Press Club in February, 1998, Gen. Butler referred to 'the grotesquely destructive war plans and daily operational risks' of our current nuclear systems, and emphasized 'a world free of the threat of nuclear weapons is necessarily a world devoid of nuclear weapons.' He also referred to the 'mind-numbing compression of decision-making under the threat of a nuclear attack.' Do you think these concerns are still valid today?
Chomsky: Yes, General Lee Butler recanted his whole career, and gave elegant speeches about the numbers of nuclear missiles devoted to nuclear deterrence being an abomination. Yes, the current nuclear dangers still remain quite high.
Volgens de Amerikaanse voormalige minister van Defensie McNamara is de mensheid alleen al tijdens zijn ministerschap tot drie keer toe op het nippertje aan een nucleaire holocaust ontsnapt. Bovendien wees generaal Lee Butler in 1999 erop dat
it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation (Israel. svh) has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations to do so.'
In dit verband waarschuwde de Amerikaanse geleerde Noam Chomsky dat
During the 1950s, leading figures of Israel's governing Labor Party advised in internal discussion that 'we will go crazy (nishtagea') if crossed threatening to bring down the Temple Walls in the manner of the first 'suicide bomber,' the revered Samson, who killed more Philistines by his suicide than in his entire lifetime.
Israel's nuclear weapons may well harm its own security, as Israeli strategic analyst Zeev Maoz persuasively argues. But security is often not a high priority for state planners, as history makes clear. And the 'Samson complex,' as Israeli commentators have called it, can be flaunted to warn the master (de VS. svh) to carry out the desired task of smashing Iran, or else we'll inflame the region and maybe the world.
The 'Samson complex,' reinforced by the doctrine that 'the whole world is against us,' cannot be lightly ignored. Shortly after the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which left some 15,000 to 20,000 killed in an unprovoked effort to secure Israel's control of the occupied territories, Aryeh Eliav, one of Israel's best-known doves, wrote that the attitude of 'those who brought the "Samson complex" here, according to which we shall kill and bury all the Gentiles around us while we ourselves shall die with them,' is a form of 'insanity' that was then all too prevalent, and still is.
U.S. military analysts have recognized that. As Army Lieutenant Colonel Warner Farr wrote in 1999, one 'purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their ''use'' on the United States,' presumably to ensure consistent U.S. support for Israeli policies — or else.
De Joods-Israeli Martin Levi van Creveld, hoogleraar militaire geschiedenis aan de Hebreeuwse Universiteit, verklaarde in 2002 tegenover het weekblad Elsevier over de uiteindelijke zionistische standpunt ten aanzien van de Palestijnse burgers dat als het moment rijp is alle Palestijnen uit de zogeheten 'Joodse staat' en de bezette gebieden zullen worden verdreven, aangezien, volgens hem, 'wanhopige tijden leiden tot wanhopige maatregelen.' De vraag 'Denkt u dat de wereld zo’n etnische schoonmaak zal tolereren?' beantwoordde hij als volgt:
Dat ligt eraan wie het doet en hoe snel het gebeurt. We hebben enkele honderden kernkoppen en raketten om ze overal op te gooien, misschien zelfs op Rome. Met vliegtuigen zijn de meeste Europese hoofdsteden zelfs een doelwit.
Elsevier: Dan wordt Israël dus een schurkenstaat?
Ik zal generaal Moshe Dayan citeren: 'Israël moet als een dolle hond zijn, te gevaarlijk om aan te raken.' Ik heb het over een wanhopige situatie. We zullen het uiteraard proberen te vermijden als het ook maar even kan. Maar ons leger is niet nummer 30 in de wereld, het is nummer 2 of 3. Wij hebben de mogelijkheid de wereld mee te slepen als we ten onder gaan. En ik kan u beloven dat voordat Israël wordt vernietigd, we dat ook zullen doen.
Israeli prisoners of war in Syria
Op de tweede dag van de Oktober-Oorlog in 1973:
Israel's defense minister Moshe Dayan told prime minister Golda Meir to consider making preparations for the use of nuclear weapons, according to an interview with a ministerial aide now being published for the first time.
With Israel taken completely by surprise, Syrian tanks streaking across the Golan Heights and the IDF's armored divisions in the south losing ground, Dayan returned from the northern front for a meeting at the Prime Minister's Office visibly shaken, and suggested readying the nuclear option, claims Arnon Azaryahu, an aide to another minister in the war-time security cabinet, Israel Galili, in the video-and-text interview.
The interview, which was conducted several years ago by nuclear historian Avner Cohen, was formally made public late Thursday on the website of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. It is emerging 40 years after the Yom Kippur War — and precisely as the world focuses attention on Iran's rogue nuclear program, which Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the UN General Assembly this week is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran has tried to deflect international scrutiny of its nuclear program by pointing at what Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif recently claimed were Israel's '200 nuclear warheads.'
(The full length interview can be found here.)
http://www.timesofisrael.com/dayan-pushed-pm-meir-to-consider-using-nuclear-weapons-in-1973/
Op 16 september 2002 berichtte Richard Sale, 'Terrorism Correspondent' van het persbureau UPI:
Yom Kippur: Israel's 1973 nuclear alert |
During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel came close to making a nuclear preemptive strike when it seemed to be facing defeat at the hands of Syrian armor, according to a half dozen former U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials familiar with the still-classified incident.
On Oct. 5, Yom Kippur, -- the Day of Atonement and the holiest day of the year for Jewish people -- the armies of Egypt and Syria attacked Israel from two directions and made rapid gains.
According to a former senior U.S. diplomat, by Oct. 8, Israel's northern front commander, Maj. Gen. Yitzak Hoffi, had informed Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan that he couldn't hold out much longer against the 14,000 Syrian tanks rolling through Israeli defenses on the Golan Heights.
The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Dayan was 'attacked by acute panic' and declared to advisers: 'This is the end of the Third Temple.'
But if Israel was to perish, it would take Damascus and Cairo with it.
According to a former senior CIA official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, Dayan sought an urgent meeting with Prime Minister Golda Meir and secured her authorization to arm 13 intermediate-range Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads. Eight F-4 Phantom fighter aircraft were also to be given nuclear arms, former senior U.S. officials said.
The meeting took place close to 'the Bor,' Israel's huge underground war complex, these sources said…
The Israelis demanded an emergency airlift of weapons and spare parts from the United States to support an all-out war effort. And they accused then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger of deliberately withholding the re-supply in order to allow the Arabs to gain ground…
What followed then was just possibly more frightening than anything else that has happened since World War II, according to former U.S. officials. 'Israel played a very, very dangerous game, and we came close to a nuclear war,' said a former very senior State Department official with detailed knowledge of the incident.
Israelische krijgsgevangen lopen richting Egypte.
Doordat Israel dreigde met een nucleaire aanval zag de VS zich gedwongen om via Nederland met hoge spoed grote hoeveelheden van de allernieuwste Amerikaanse wapens naar de zionistische staat te sturen. De enige politiek verantwoordelijke die toestemming hiervoor had gegeven, was minister van Defensie Vredeling die zijn eigen kabinet hierover niet informeerde en daarmee fundamentele regels van de democratische rechtstaat schond. Nederland werd voor zijn steun aan Israel gestraft met een olieboycot.
Kort samengevat, Hoflands stelling dat dat de 'diepste oorzaak' van 'misschien wel de vreedzaamste periode die de moderne mensheid gekend heeft' de 'kernbom' is, oftewel de doctrine van de Mutual Assured Destruction-doctrine van de nucleaire holocaust, is slechts op één gegeven gebaseerd, en dat is de mazzel dat de uitroeiing van de mensheid nog niet heeft plaatsgevonden. De bewering dat de kernbom tijdens de Koude Oorlog vrede heeft gebracht is daarentegen een absurde veronderstelling, die op geen enkele manier door feiten wordt ondersteund. Integendeel zelfs, zoals de hier geciteerde deskundigen aan de hand van hun kennis en ervaringen, hebben aangetoond. Meermaals 'we came close to a nuclear war.' Zowel tijdens het Cuba Conflict als in de Oktober-Oorlog van 1973. Maar ondanks deze feiten kan de opiniemaker H.J.A. Hofland onweersproken door de polder-intelligentsia zijn publiek met leugens opzadelen. Net als in het geval van Mak worden ook Hoflands lezers geconfronteerd met een autisme dat grenst aan krankzinnigheid. Ook hier zijn de slachtoffers onzichtbaar gemaakt. Ze hebben geen stem en geen gezicht. Er is alleen de macht, waarvoor hij oog heeft. De rest bestaat niet. Later meer daarover.
De vragen die Hofland zich niet stelt als grootste Nederlandse journalist van de twintigste eeuw:
A New Examination for Missile Launch Officers and the Rest of Us
Sunday, 06 April 2014 09:56By David Krieger, Truthout | Op-Ed
The USS Barry launches a Tomahawk cruise missile from the ships bow. (Photo: DVIDSHUB)The top brass in the US Air Force have indicated that they were shocked and outraged to discover that missile launch officers have been cheating on their examinations and that their superior officers have turned the other way, allowing the cheating to go on. The Air Force has viewed the cheating as a moral failure and has suspended more than 90 of these officers from their missile launch duties.
This raises important philosophical and practical questions with regard to morality and legality. Which is the greater moral failure: cheating on an examination or being willing to launch nuclear-armed missiles that could lead to the deaths of millions of innocent men, women and children?
What kind of society would give young officers the task of carrying out illegal orders to destroy cities, countries and even civilization, with all the attendant pain, suffering and death that would be caused?
The exams on which there was cheating were most likely technical in nature, aimed at finding out whether the missile launch officers understood the technical issues involved in launching their missiles, upon command to do so, and in preventing unauthorized launches. But shouldn't the officers in charge of launching also be tested on the legal and moral implications of what they are being asked to do in a worst-case scenario?
With these larger legal and moral issues in mind, a more pertinent examination could be developed that would include True and False questions like these:
1. You are a cog in a nuclear threat system that could lead to tens or hundreds of millions of deaths and bring about the catastrophic destruction of civilization.2. The nuclear-armed missiles you are responsible for launching would indiscriminately kill men, women and children, which is illegal under international humanitarian law.3. Nuclear weapons cause unnecessary suffering, which is illegal under international humanitarian law.4. It is illegal under international humanitarian law to launch a reprisal attack that is disproportionate to an initial attack.5. The effects of nuclear weapons detonations cannot be contained in space or time.6. US political leaders are failing to pursue negotiations in good faith for nuclear disarmament, as legally required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.7. US political leaders are failing to pursue negotiations in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, as legally required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.8. The defense of following orders by Nazi officers was not accepted as a legitimate defense for criminal acts at the Nuremberg trials.9. The Nuremberg trials after World War II held the Nazi leaders and officers to account, and some were given death sentences for committing crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.10. You are not required to carry out illegal orders from a superior officer, and an order to fire your missiles with the consequence of indiscriminately killing men, women and children would be an illegal order.
These are examination questions not only for missile launch officers to ponder, but for every member of our society to consider. The missile launch officers are only cogs in the US nuclear apparatus of death and destruction. They are not the only responsible parties, but they are instrumental parties to planning and preparation for indiscriminate murder and perhaps the death of all.
The key responsible parties are political leaders and the people themselves. Only our political leaders, with pressure from the people, can assure that the United States plays a leadership role in pursuing the legal and moral path to achieving the globally necessary number of Nuclear Zero.
The answers to all the above exam questions are True.
DAVID KRIEGER
David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. His latest book is Zero: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition. Find out more about Nukes Are Nuts at nukesarenuts.org.
