|
|
Vertaal:
              De de defensiesecretaresse van de V.S. breidt preventieve oorlogsdoctrine uit om kernstakingen te omvatten
Zaterdag, 1 November, 2008 Door Alex Lantier |In een opmerkelijke toespraak over kernbeleid 28 dat Oktober bij de Schenking Carnegie voor Internationale Vrede (CEIP) wordt geleverd, schilderde de Secretaresse van de Defensie van de V.S. Robert Gates een ontzettend portret van internationale zaken en debatteerde dat Washington de doctrine van preventieve oorlog zou moeten uitbreiden die door het beleid van Bush wordt geformuleerd mogelijke kernstakingen te omvatten. Men kletst wijd dat, in de waarschijnlijke gebeurtenis dat de Democraat Barack Obama de presidentiële verkiezing wint van de V.S. van volgende week, Obama Poorten als defensiesecretaresse zal houden. De toespraak van poorten', die in de afnemende tijd van het voorzitterschap van Bush wordt gegeven, heeft het karakter van een beleidsverklaring van de volgende Amerikaanse regering. De poorten begonnen door uitgebreide en onheilspellende parallellen tussen de wereldsituatie vandaag en dat te maken die bij het oprichten van het Instituut Carnegie in 1910, vier jaar vóór de uitbarsting van Wereldoorlog I heersten. Tegelijkertijd, nam van hij nota, ging Wall Street door de paniek van 1910-1911 over en zag een kredietcrisis onder ogen, hadden de V.S. onlangs insurgency in de Filippijnen ten koste van het 4.200 Amerikaanse leven neergezet, vergelijkbaar met de de doodstol van vandaag van de V.S. in Irak, en „Europa bewapende zich aan de tanden en vormde een reeks allianties de waarvan implicaties aan iedereen duidelijk waren wie gaf te kijken.“ De poorten debatteerden dat de pacifist illusies die door CEIP stichter Andrew Carnegie worden bevorderd? een het staalmagnaat van de V.S. bij het wisselen van de 20ste eeuw, beroemdst in de arbeidersklassebeweging voor de brutale afschaffing van de staking van 1892 Hoeve tegen zijn bedrijf?? geen Washington van de planning van bredere oorlog zou moeten afschrikken. Hij nam van, „in Augustus 1913 nota, zei Carnegie dat? de enige maatregel die vandaag voor het behoud van wereldvrede is wordt een overeenkomst tussen drie of vier van de belangrijke beschaafde bevoegdheden… die ertoe verbinden vereist zich om tegen disturbers van wereldvrede samen te werken. ' De“ poorten wezen erop dat, schrijvend vier jaar later aan President Woodrow Wilson, die in 1916 op een platform van het wegblijven van de V.S. van de wereldoorlog was verkozen, „zelfde Andrew Carnegie de voorzitter in de sterkste termen aanmoedigde om oorlog te verklaren, omdat, hij schreef? Er is slechts één rechte manier van regeling. '“ Wat betreft de V.S. kernbeleid, bovengenoemde Poorten, „zolang anderen kernwapens hebben, moeten wij één of ander niveau van deze wapens handhaven zelf: to deter potential adversaries, and to reassure over two dozen allies and partners who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security?making it unnecessary for them to develop their own.” This comment gives a sense of the highly tense and unstable character of international relations, and the paranoia of US officials. Gates’ fears about the spread of nuclear weapons are not limited to existing programs of “potential adversaries,” among which Gates included “rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, or Russian or Chinese strategic modernization programs.” His fears extend to the nuclear policy of all states, including current US allies. Gates later repeated this point: “We simply cannot predict the future. [...] our adversaries and other nations will always seek whatever advantages they can find. Knowing that, we have to be prepared for contingencies we haven’t even considered.” Gates’ list of US-friendly states that have chosen not to develop nuclear weapons was significant: South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, and Libya. Two of the most obvious such countries?ex-World War II enemies Japan and Germany?were not included. Gates did not explain what political factors induced him to omit them. Gates then issued a remarkable threat: “As long as other states have or seek nuclear weapons?and can potentially threaten us, our allies and friends?then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the US in the nuclear arena?or with other weapons of mass destruction?could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response. According to Gates, the US must be able to credibly threaten a nuclear holocaust against any state that “challenges” the US in the nuclear arena or with other “weapons of mass destruction.” By his own words, such a challenge does not require a nation to threaten to attack the US. It does not even require that a nation possess nuclear weapons or other WMD. It is enough for a nation merely to “seek” such weapons for it to become a potential target for a preemptive “overwhelming, catastrophic response” from the United States. Such a doctrine has immense implications not only for US nuclear weapons programs, but for the totality of US foreign policy. It stipulates that every foreign power in the world must believe that attempting to develop nuclear weapons invites US nuclear attack. Thus, the US would arguably be obliged to attack with nuclear weapons countries which it accused of developing nuclear weapons?such as Iran and North Korea?lest the rest of the world conclude that the US will not carry out its threats. Gates is filling out the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war?announced in advance of the unprovoked invasion of Iraq based on lies about supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?with the proviso that a US first-strike can involve the large-scale use of nuclear weapons. In his speech, he called for a substantial increase in nuclear weapons spending, including the possible resumption of nuclear weapons testing. “There is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program,” he declared. Citing a “bleak” prognosis for overcoming technical and staffing problems of US strategic nuclear weapons programs, Gates explained that his policies involved the largest and most powerful US weapons: “The program we propose is not about new capabilities?suitcase bombs or bunker-busters or tactical nukes. [...] It is about the future credibility of our strategic deterrent.” Gates also addressed concerns about the command structure of the US Air Force’s nuclear forces, sparked by his June 5 sackings of several top Air Force officials after it was discovered that US nuclear missile parts had been shipped to Taiwan. At the time, the World Socialist Web Site raised the question of whether the shipment to Taiwan had been part of an unofficial foreign policy carried out by rogue sections of the US military. However, the bourgeois press accepted official explanations that this had been a simple technical oversight. But Gates’ proposals centered not on fixing technical problems with Air Force shipping protocols, but rather on controlling Air Force policy. He announced measures to centralize “nuclear policy and oversight,” including a new headquarters office at the Air Staff and a Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base, which is to be tasked with “clearing up ambiguous chains of command that have created problems in the past.” Gates closed by listing several types of attack that the US might use “deterrence,” nuclear or otherwise, to prevent. He spoke of developing “appropriate” responses to cyber-attacks on US computer systems, to deterring attacks on US communications satellites (which could be carried out only by countries with technologically advanced militaries) and of developing “new technologies to identify the forensic signature” of nuclear material, which would allow the US to “hold any state, terrorist group, or other non-state actor or individual fully accountable for supporting or enabling terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction.” It should be pointed out that several of these types of attack?especially cyber-attack and terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction?are by their nature difficult to track, and leave open the possibility of manipulation by Washington. This is perhaps best shown by the 2001 anthrax attacks, which were carried out using spores from a US Army lab at Fort Detrick and ultimately blamed on a US civilian scientist working at Fort Detrick, but which the media long blamed on Muslim terrorists. In assessing the significance of Gates’ remarkably bellicose comments, it should be noted that Gates’ justification of pre-emptive nuclear war is not isolated. In April, then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that if Iran attacked Israel, the US would respond by “obliterating” Iran. These comments are further evidence that the US ruling class will pursue an even more aggressive foreign policy after the 2008 elections than before. Have Your Say: US defense secretary expands pre-emptive war doctrine to include nuclear strikes Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. Related News
|
Ye Olde Get Stuck Inn Last post by Nostalgia @ 12:38 AM Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
Air Force: Nuke missile silo fire went undetected Last post by Unregistered @ 12:25 AM The Torturer's Tale Last post by Unregistered @ 12:06 AM Parties and Politics - Get Informed Before You Vote! Last post by ZingPao @ 11:51 PM Vote Third Party Last post by ZingPao @ 11:50 PM Republican Bailouts-Without-End are as Big Government as it Gets Last post by ZingPao @ 11:49 PM Please do not try this at home. Last post by ZingPao @ 11:39 PM A campaign for the ages, tilting toward Democrats Last post by ZingPao @ 11:30 PM McCain, Obama Advisers Get Secret Afghan Briefing Last post by Nostalgia @ 11:15 PM Climate change at the poles IS man-made Last post by Nostalgia @ 11:03 PM  Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More World News  Archive |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
