[E-rundbrief] Info 1125 - Chomsky: The Next Hiroshima

Matthias Reichl info at begegnungszentrum.at
Fr Aug 10 21:56:35 CEST 2012


E-Rundbrief - Info 1125 - Noam Chomsky (USA): The Next Hiroshima. 
Reflections on current nuclear threats. Against Iran and the Middle 
East project of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all 
missiles - an Arab-Iranian objective since 1974.

Bad Ischl, 10.8.2012

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit

www.begegnungszentrum.at

================================================

The Next Hiroshima

August 6 provides a critical moment to reflect not only on the
terrible events of that day, but also on current nuclear threats.

By Noam Chomsky

August 7, 2012

August 6 should have been a day of somber reflection, not only on the
terrible events of that day in 1945, but also on what they revealed:
that in their dedicated quest to extend their capacities for
destruction, humans finally found a way to approach the ultimate
limit.

This year’s August 6 memorials to the victims of Hiroshima have
special significance. They took place shortly before the 50th
anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, “the most dangerous moment in
human history,” in the words of historian and Kennedy advisor Arthur
Schlesinger. Graham Allison writes in Foreign Affairs that Kennedy
ordered actions he knew would increase the risk of nuclear war, with a
likelihood of perhaps 50 percent, an estimate that Allison regards as
realistic. Kennedy took Chairman Khrushchev “right to the brink of
nuclear war and he looked over the edge and had no stomach for it,”
according to General David Burchinal, then a high official in the
Pentagon planning staff. One can hardly count on such last-minute
sanity forever.

Disaster was perilously close in 1962, and there have been extremely
dangerous moments since. In 1973, in the last days of the Arab-Israeli
war, Henry Kissinger called a high-level nuclear alert. India and
Pakistan have come close to nuclear war. And there have been cases
when human intervention aborted nuclear attack after false reports by
automated systems.

The events of October 1962 are widely hailed as Kennedy’s finest hour.
Allison offers them as “a guide for how to defuse conflicts, manage
great-power relationships, and make sound decisions about foreign
policy in general.” In particular, today’s conflict with Iran.

Allison joins many others in regarding Iran’s nuclear programs as the
most severe current crisis–even more complex than the Cuban missile
crisis, because of the threat of Israeli bombing. The attack against
Iran is in fact already well underway, including economic sanctions
that have reached the level of “undeclared war,” in the judgment of
Iran specialist Gary Sick, who served on the National Security Council
under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan.

Consider, for another example, the Flame virus, revealed in mid-July,
developed jointly by the United States and Israel, and used to
secretly monitor Iranian computer networks. The Wall Street Journal
reports that the Pentagon regards cyberwarfare as “an act of war” that
authorizes the target “to respond using traditional military force”
(though with the usual exception: not when the United States or an
ally is the perpetrator).

The escalation of the undeclared war against Iran increases the
possibility of a large-scale war being sparked, even accidentally. The
danger was illustrated when a U.S. Navy vessel, part of the huge
deployment in the Gulf, fired on a civilian fishing boat July 16,
killing one and wounding three. It would not take much more to ignite
a major conflict.

The Iran threat has recently been outlined by General Giora Eiland,
who Haaretz describes as“one of the most ingenious and prolific
thinkers the [Israeli military] has ever produced.” Of the threats he
cites, the most credible is that “any confrontation on our borders
will take place under an Iranian nuclear umbrella.” Israel might
therefore be constrained from resorting to force. Eiland agrees with
the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence, which also regard deterrence as
the major threat Iran poses.

One sensible way to avoid such dread consequences is to pursue, in the
wording of U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 of April 1991, “the
goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of
mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective
of a global ban on chemical weapons.” The U.S. and the U.K. invoked
those words in their effort to provide a thin legal cover for their
invasion of Iraq 12 years later. The goal has been an Arab-Iranian
objective since 1974, regularly re-endorsed. It now has near unanimous
global support, at least formally. An international conference to
consider ways to implement such a treaty may take place in December.
Progress is unlikely unless there is mass public support in the West.

Failure to grasp the opportunity will, once again, lengthen the grim
shadow that has darkened the world since that fateful August 6.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/ article/13626/the_next_ hiroshima

-- 

Matthias Reichl, Pressesprecher/ press speaker,
Begegnungszentrum fuer aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence
Wolfgangerstr. 26, A-4820 Bad Ischl, Austria,
fon: +43 6132 24590, Informationen/ informations,
Impressum in: http://www.begegnungszentrum.at
Spenden-Konto Nr. 0600-970305 (Blz. 20314) Sparkasse Salzkammergut,
Geschäftsstelle Pfandl
IBAN: AT922031400600970305 BIC: SKBIAT21XXX

--

Ausgezeichnet mit dem (österr.) "Journalismus-Preis von unten 2010"

Honoured by the (Austrian) "Journalism-Award from below 2010"






Mehr Informationen über die Mailingliste E-rundbrief