| The above image is a scan of a piece of Trinitite. This is desert sand that was underneath the explosion of the world's first Atomic bomb in New Mexico as part of project TRINITY, hence the name Trinitite. The heat from that blast melted the sand into a green glass, not unlike the Fulgurites that result when lightning hits sandy soil. Now, imagine an entire nation looking like the above sample, melted into green glass. Buried in the green glass are the charred remains of the people of that nation. It's not an idle fantasy. The US spent $5 trillion dollars (back in the 1950s, when a trillion dollars was REALLY a lot of money!) building a nuclear deterrent capability that can actually do that; melt any nation and it's people into a giant slab of green glass. The USSR knew it, the world knows it, Saddam knew it. The government of Iran knows it. Even if Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction (which we now know they did not), and even if Iraq had the long range ICBMs to reach across the Atlantic with (which we know they did not), Iraq would still not have been a threat to the US because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide. Those that insist that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were a threat that justified invasion are in essence claiming that the US Government took $5 trillion of your money (over $17,000 from each of you alive today) in a gigantic swindle, because the $5 trillion nuclear deterrent isn't a deterrent after all, that it doesn't work, that nobody is really afraid of it, because they all know it was just a hoax to soak the American taxpayer for another several thousand dollars. Was it all a hoax, Mr. Bush? Did the American people foot a $5 trillion bill in 1950s dollars for a deterrent system that isn't really a deterrent? Either the deterrent works or it does not. If it doesn't, then the American taxpayers have been defrauded on a grand scale. But if the nuclear deterrent does work, then Iraq can have all the weapons of mass destruction they want, they just won't dare use them. Maybe they can put them in a museum or something. But they won't dare use them against the United States because they don't want to end up like that piece of green glass at the top of this article. There is no need to invade over the issue of weapons of mass destruction. There never was. Of course, the issue has shifted. The UN inspectors have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. They found some documents ABOUT weapons of mass destruction, but documents are not a weapon of mass destruction (with the sole exception of the 1040 form). The UN inspectors found a bunch of old empty artillery warheads from 1988, but empty warheads are not a weapon of mass destruction, and tests show that these empties were never weapons. Soil samples have tested negative for chemicals or radioactivity indicating weapons development. Iraq has allowed the inspectors to pretty much go everywhere they want without hindrance, even into Saddam's home. Imagine the KGB demanding and getting permission to peek into every closet and drawer in the White House and you will get an idea of just how much Iraq is cooperating. The CIA gave the UN inspectors a list of sites they were convinced had weapons of mass destruction. Nothing. But Bush still got his invasion, and grabbed the oil wells. Now the target has shifted to Iran. And once again, we are being warned that Iran, while it does not actually have nuclear weapons, might be close to building one, and this justifies another invasion. The theory is that if Iran has a nuclear power station, they will build bombs with it. Iran hasn't planned to build bombs with it, and invites inspections (and now tourists) to prove that they are not making bombs, but the theory is that Iran will make bombs with their reactor and fool the inspectors, because, well, to be blunt about it, that's what Israel did at Dimona while they clandestinely built the world's 6th largest nuclear arsenal. Iran says they don't want a bomb. Personally, after Iraq proved to the world what the US does to oil-rich nations that do not have weapons of mass destruction I would rethink that position. But if Iran builds a bomb, so what? Maybe they can put it in a museum, or march it down the streets of Tehran in a parade like the Soviets used to do. But they won't use it against the United States. They won't dare. Even if Iran has a weapon of mass destruction (which we know they do not), and even if Iran has long range ICBMs to reach across the Atlantic with (which we know they do not), Iran would still not be a threat to the US because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide. You see, leaders of nations have huge egos. They are driven by that dream that future generations will admire their faces on statues and stamps and money. and that doesn't happen if you let your nation get destroyed. Simply having a nuclear weapon does not mean the nation that owns it will use it. Many nations possess nuclear weapons. And contrary to all the dire warnings the historical truth is that one and only one country has actually used nuclear weapons against the citizens of another nation and that country is the United States of America. For all the talk about the threat from Iraq and now the threat from Iran, it is the USA which remains the only country to have actually used a nuclear weapon. If Iran were to have a weapon of mass destruction and use it against the US, the US could just stand back and turn the entire nation into green glass just like that at the top of this article. That's what we all paid that $5 trillion for. And unless the US Government wants to admit that $5 trillion nuclear deterrent is a hoax, then we should use it as it was intended to be used, to deter an attack without having to invade a foreign attacker.
Why Iran's nuclear weapons don't matter. Only the whales and dolphins know where these submarines are when they are out on patrol. Not even the president knows their exact location. And we want our money back. |
See also: Iraq: The Words of Mass Deception
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment