Skip to content

Empty blah


“There is no way to peace; peace is the way.”A.J. Muste

It seems the world’s most powerful nuclear armed nations have pledged to ‘avoid’ nuclear war. That’s reassuring. But I’d be a bit more reassured if they hadn’t spent the last half century refusing to follow the leads of China and India and pledge ‘no first use‘ of nuclear weapons.

What the US, UK, Russia and France have just said is “We promise to avoid nuclear war but we don’t promise not to start one”.

While nuclear weapons still exist any pledge to avoid using them is empty anyway. If they break their promises there will be no-one to hold them to account.

From → unclassified

  1. monica permalink

    Isn’t it ironic that while countries aspire for peace, they spend obscene amount of money on the military? It reminds me of a quote I heard once: “Harmony is when what you say matches what you think and do.”
    No wonder no other intelligent life wants to get in touch with us.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. The song from Michael Franti comes to my mind “Say we can chase down all our enemies
    We can even bring them to their knees
    We can bomb the world into pieces
    But we can’t bomb it into peace…

    Sending light and all good things ~ hedy 🤍🕊💫

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.”

    George Orwell

    Liked by 1 person

  4. No doubt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. …

    Although Ronald Reagan may have been correct in his observation that “Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong”, I have long wondered what may have historically come to fruition had the U.S. remained the sole possessor of atomic weaponry. There’s a presumptive, and perhaps even arrogant, concept of American governance as somehow, unless physically provoked, being morally/ethically above using nuclear weapons internationally.

    After President Harry S. Truman relieved General Douglas MacArthur as commander of the forces warring with North Korea — for the latter’s public remarks about how he would/could use dozens of atomic bombs to promptly end the war — Americans’ approval-rating of the president dropped to 23 percent. It is still a record-breaking low, even lower than the worst approval-rating points of the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.

    Had it not been for the formidable international pressure on Truman (and perhaps his personal morality) to relieve MacArthur as commander, I wonder, could/would Truman eventually have succumbed to domestic political pressure to allow MacArthur’s command to continue? How can we ever know for sure?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Are you sure those remarks were public at the time? My understanding is MacArthur publicly denied wanting to use nukes during the war, only to change his story in an interview with sympathetic journalists several years later. Truman, OTOH, had made conflicting public statements about using nukes in Korea and seemed to think they should stay on the table in case things got desperate for UN ground forces.

      I’m pretty sure Truman dismissed MacArthur for seeking direct political, public and diplomatic support for crossing the Yalu to invade China. The British were particularly disturbed by indications the US military was seeking to bypass the civilian government to initiate a wider conflict and said as much.

      So basically you had an unpopular president dismissing a WWII hero (with a substantial PR arm behind him) due to what many Americans perceived was diplomatic pressure from a left-leaning UK government to keep his hands tied regarding strategic decisions during wartime. So it’s not surprising Truman’s approval rating took a hit. The public was yet to learn of MacArthur’s plan to turn part of China into a Cobalt-60 radioactive wasteland to deny it land access to Korea for centuries.


      • Sorry for my belated reply.

        I’ve looked into my computer files (which are lengthy, on various topics), but I cannot find the source of the information (likely a website or WordPress blog post) I used for my post. I tend to save so much material, almost all of which are my own writings, that I normally have to rely on Word-file Find/Navigation searches to locate specific material. I’m now concerned about the accuracy of the post; I’ll have to look further into it. Thanx.


    • I think the US has always been the country most likely to start a nuclear war and remains so.

      There’s always been a body of opinion there that nuclear war can be won or kept limited. I suspect we’ve got the nuclear apocalypse sci-fi of the 50s and 60s and 1980s movies like The Day After and Threads to thank for maintaining public opposition to nuclear warmongering.

      But I think the US empire is on its last legs and the country is entering a period of sustained economic and political decay. Trump was probably a harbinger of even more unstable leadership to come.

      I think we’re approaching an era of looming nuclear annihilation unprecedented since the 1960s.


      • Increasingly it seems that what humankind may need to suffer in order to survive the long term from ourselves is an even greater nemesis (a figurative multi-tentacled extraterrestrial, perhaps?) than our own politics and perceptions of differences — especially those involving skin-color and creed — against which we could all unite, attack and defeat.

        During this needed human allegiance, we’d be forced to work closely side-by-side together and witness just how humanly similar we are to each other. (Albeit, I have been told that one or more human parties might actually attempt to forge an allegiance with the ETs to better their own chances for survival, thus indicating that our wanting human condition may be even worse than I had originally thought.)

        Still, maybe some five or more decades later when all traces of the nightmarish ET invasion are gone, we will inevitably revert to those same politics to which we humans seem so collectively hopelessly prone — including those of scale: the intercontinental, international, national, provincial or state, regional and municipal. …

        Also, I’ve heard that, before non-white people became the primary source of newcomers to North America, thick-accented Eastern Europeans were the main targets of meanspirited Anglo-Saxon bigotry. As a thick-accented/broken-English 1950s Eastern-European immigrant to Canada, my (now-late) father experienced such mistreatment.

        Thus, hypothetically, if Canada were to revert back to a primarily-white populace, if not some VDARE whites-only utopia, I wouldn’t be surprised if Eastern Europeans with a thick Slavic accent would inevitably again become the main target of the dominant Euro-Canadian ethnicity.


        • Seems to me the chances of encountering ETs with war-making capacities similar enough to our own to make war a possibility (rather than a joke) would be slim to non-existent.

          However inventing non-existent enemies is a well honed human talent. I’m sure we’ll come up with something.

          Also, I’ve heard that, before non-white people became the primary source of newcomers to North America, thick-accented Eastern Europeans were the main targets of meanspirited Anglo-Saxon bigotry.

          In the 1850s the most reviled white-sklnned people in the US were the Irish. There was even a major political party devoted to expelling them (the American Party, also known as the ‘Know Nothings’). The main outcome was a powerful East Coast Irish mafia that eventually took over the NYPD and Tammany Hall.

          Thus, hypothetically, if Canada were to revert back to a primarily-white populace, if not some VDARE whites-only utopia, I wouldn’t be surprised if Eastern Europeans with a thick Slavic accent would inevitably again become the main target of the dominant Euro-Canadian ethnicity.

          Only if they complete the genocide of Canadian Native Americans first.

          Liked by 1 person

      • “I think the US has always been the country most likely to start a nuclear war and remains so.”

        Every culture/nation has its own propaganda and core beliefs, true and false; though some culture/nations — usually the biggest, most powerful — are much more corrupt and brutal than the smaller, weaker ones. And western mainstream news-media are a significant part of this moral problem.

        One can still hear or read praise, or conservatives’ scorn, heaped upon The New York Times for their supposed uncompromised integrity when it comes to humanitarianism and ethical journalism. Yet, did they not help create the Iraq War, through then-U.S.-VP Dick Cheney’s self-citing via the Times’ website? That would be the same Cheney who monetarily benefitted from the war via Iraqi oil fields — a war I consider to have been much more like a turkey shoot, considering the massive military might attacking the relatively weak country.

        I recall reading that The Times had essentially claimed honest-ignorance innocence on the grounds that it was its blogger’s overzealousness that was/is at fault. But is it really plausible that The Times did/does not insist upon securing the non-publishable yet accurate identity of its writers’ anonymous information sources — in this case, a devious Cheney — especially considering that Cheney himself would then use that anonymous source’s (i.e. his own) total BS about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify a declaration of war that inevitably resulted in genuine gratuitous mass suffering and slaughter, both domestically and abroad?


        • I see the problem as a bit more sinister.

          The NYT published an editorial mea culpa about its Iraq War WMD coverage (the most misleading and dogmatic of which was written by its own national security reporter, Judith Miller) but at the very first opportunity started spreading similar guff about Gaddafi’s plans for a massacre in Benghazi to justify the destruction of Libya, then Assad using poison gas on his own people to justify bombing Syria.

          The truth is that except for a few years in the late 60s and early 70s the US liberal media have been huge supporters of US imperial warmongering and almost never factcheck the pro-war propaganda they get from officials before printing it uncritically. They’re doing the same thing now with regards to Russia and the Ukraine. In Manufacturing Consent Chomsky and Herman document a long history of that sort of behaviour and argue the liberal press is more crucial to building public support for US wars than the conservative press.

          You furnish the pictures. I’ll furnish the war.” – William Randolph Hearst to illustrator Frederick Remington on the eve of the Spanish-American War.

          Liked by 1 person

        • And, yet, such editors/journalists likely sleep well at night, nonetheless. …

          Another reason The New York Times jumped on the atrocity-prone Iraq-invasion bandwagon likely was the close proximity of the massive 9/11 blow the city took only a few years prior. There was plenty of that particularly bitter bandwagon going around in Western circles back then.

          Quite memorable was Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman’s appearance on Charlie Rose’s show (May 29, 2003), where he ranted about the war’s justification and supposed success. “… We needed to go to that part of the world; and what they needed to see [was that] American boys and girls going house to house, from Basrah to Baghdad, [and] simply saying, ‘suck on this’.”

          It’s as though they all decided: ‘Just to be on the safe side, let’s error in favor of militarily assaulting, invading and devastating Iraq’.


  5. 🇺🇦🙏🇺🇦

    Liked by 1 person

Over to you

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: