Question: Weapons of Mass Destruction...

[Tracey]

Question:

Why is it that the US...Europe...and Israel nations are allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction while everyone else must abandon...scrap...or turn in anything associated with the potentiality of being able to produce them??

What other countries aside from these 3 are allowed to harbor such weaponry?

I wonder what would ensue if these countries were forced or even asked to abandon these weapons along with everyone else around the globe?

[Bantu_Kelani]

The answers to those questions will point to who are the clearly the terrorists------->the American Empire and its allies today and the United Nations which allow killings to justify the balkanization of third world countries under forces and mercenaries armed and sustain by the clone Bush administration. Western powers have NO policy that automatically positions them to take action against any country because it isn't democratic and may or may not have weapons of mass destruction. The illegitimate attack on Iraq means big business for big oil constituents and this isn't a new moral and ethical high ground, this is annihilation. Iraq probably had nuclear weapons that were beyond the U.N guidelines, which I think they were actively destroying.

The US has more nuclear, chemical and biological weapons than other nations and has used them! Why hasn't any country challenged the United States or go so far as to threaten invasion if they don't disarm? Obviously, because the US is the most powerful nation in the world, for now. And every fool that has drunk of its wine will claim: They are justified with their action. Of course there are exceptions, but those happen because the truth is hidden. The American Empire and its allies today decide who to kill and when to kill it, they have media they own to brainwash people. Know why things happen, the reign of the beast is taking hard grip of his last days.

Bantu-Kelani.

[Bantu_Kelani]

A New U.S. Nuclear Weapon?

Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr. USN (Ret.), Vice President, ecarroll@cdi.org

A number of sources are now generating arguments in favor of the United States developing a new low-yield nuclear weapon with earth penetrating capability. As always in nuclear matters, there is more going on in the Pentagon, Congress, White House, and U.S. nuclear laboratories than is revealed in this rather bland proposal for one new nuclear weapon design. An extract from a commentary which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on July 14 provides some context.

"The U.S. Senate is preparing to take a major step to abandon all pretense that U.S. nuclear forces exist only to deter war. An amendment to the pending Defense Authorization Act for 2001 would lead to the development of a new nuclear weapon designed expressly for fighting."

The new weapon is to be a low-yield device with earth penetration capability, intended to destroy deeply buried bunkers. Paul Robinson, Director of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., which would build the device, is a strong advocate of it. Robinson apparently favors a new, low-yield device because U.S. leaders presumably would be more ready to employ smaller weapons than to use the larger city- and silo-busting high-yield weapons in our current arsenal. He considers large weapons "self-deterring."

Not only is the Senate's action a throw-back to those unlamented days of preparing to prevail in nuclear war, but it also is a flagrant repudiation of a solemn pledge the United States made in May at the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York. We joined with Britain, France, China and Russia in a commitment to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament.

Regrettably, this action is merely one more blatant signal that the United States is determined to pursue nuclear dominance indefinitely through enhanced readiness to fight a nuclear war. Additional preparations include the decision to resume production of tritium and plutonium pits for thermonuclear weapons, continued subcritical explosive testing in Nevada, and rejection of Russian proposals to reduce nuclear numbers 75% below START II levels. The thinking behind all of this was revealed by then Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre when he said in March: "Nuclear weapons are still the foundation of a superpower...and that will never change."

It is the conflict between the true believers in U.S. nuclear supremacy and America's obligation to work for nuclear disarmament that should stimulate resistance to producing a new, "more usable" nuclear weapon. The low yield strategy must be blocked or our nation will affirm its adherence to a nuclear warfighting doctrine and thereby weaken the entire global non-proliferation regime. A new weapon design would also strengthen the voices of those in our nuclear laboratories who continue to agitate for resumption of explosive nuclear testing.

In short, design and production of a new warfighting weapon would weaken every element of restraint embodied in current restrictions on U.S. nuclear programs. At the same time, coupled with U.S. failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and plans to deploy a National Missile Defense system, it would send a clear signal to the world that America is actively preparing for nuclear war. This signal might well ignite a new nuclear arms race and end non-proliferation efforts globally. Far from increasing national security, a new weapon would imperil the safety of all Americans.

http://www.cdi.org/weekly/2000/issue35.html

[Tracey]

Indeed...here is an article flipping the script on the mighty U.S


The Case For Regime Change
by Ted Rall  

Making the case for United Nations intervention against the United States, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami told the organization yesterday that military action will be "unavoidable" unless the U.S. agrees to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

In a much-anticipated speech to a special session of the U.N. General Assembly held in Brussels, Khatami launched a blistering attack against American leader George W. Bush, accusing him of defying U.N. resolutions and using his country's wealth to line the pockets of wealthy cronies at a time when the people of his country make do without such basic social programs as national health insurance.

"Nearly two years ago, the civilized world watched as this evil and corrupt dictator subverted the world's oldest representative democracy in an illegal coup d'etat," said Khatami. "Since then the Bush regime has continued America's systematic repression of ethnic and religious minorities and threatened international peace and security throughout the world. Thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Basic civil rights have been violated.

This rogue state has flouted the international community on legal, economic and environmental issues. It has even ignored the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war by denying that its illegal invasion of Afghanistan--which has had a destabilizing influence throughout Central Asia--was a war at all."

Khatami said the U.S. possesses the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, weapons "that, when first developed, were used immediately to kill half a million innocent civilians just months after acquiring them. No nation that has committed nuclear genocide can be entrusted with weapons of mass destruction."

"Bush has invaded Afghanistan and is now threatening Iraq. We cannot stand by and do nothing while danger gathers. We can't for this tyrant to strike first. We have an obligation to act pre-emptively to protect the world from this evildoer," Khatami said.

As delegates punctuated his words with bursts of applause, Khatami noted that U.S. intelligence agencies had helped establish and fund the world's most virulent terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, and the Taliban regime that harbored them. "The U.S. created the Islamist extremists who attacked its people on September 11, 2001," he stated, "and Bush's illegitimate junta cynically exploited those attacks to repress political dissidents, make sweetheart deals with politically-connected corporations and revive 19th century-style colonial imperialism."

Khatami asked the U.N. to set a deadline for Bush to step down in favor of president-in-exile Al Gore, the legitimate winner of the 2000 election, the results of which were subverted through widespread voting irregularities and intimidation. "We favor not regime change, but rather restoration and liberation," he said. In addition, Khatami said, the U.S. must dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, guarantee basic human rights to all citizens and agree to abide by international law or "face the consequences."

Most observers agree that those "consequences" would likely include a prolonged bombing campaign targeting major U.S. cities and military installations, followed by a ground invasion led by European forces. "Civilian casualties would likely be substantial," said a French military analyst. "But the American people must be liberated from tyranny."

Khatami's charges, which were detailed in a dossier prepared by French President Jacques Chirac, were dismissed by a representative of the American strongman as "lies, half-truths and misguided beliefs, motivated by the desire to control a country with oil, natural gas and other natural resources." National Security Minister Condoleezza Rice denied that the U.S. maintains weapons of mass destruction and invited U.N. inspectors to visit Washington to "see for themselves that our weapons are designed only to keep the peace, subject of course to full respect for American sovereignty."

The U.N. is expected to reject any conditions for or restrictions on arms inspections.

Experts believe that the liberation of the United States will require a large ground force of European and other international troops, followed by a massive rebuilding program costing billions of euros. "Even before Bush, the American political system was a shambles," said Prof. Salvatore Deluna of the University of Madrid. "Their single-party plutocracy will have to be reshaped into true parliamentary-style democracy. Moreover, the economy will have to be retooled from its current military dictatorship model--in which a third of the federal budget goes to arms, and taxes are paid almost exclusively by the working class--to one in which basic human needs such as education and poverty are addressed. Their infrastructure is a mess; they don't even have a national passenger train system. Fixing a failed state of this size will require many years."