Bush's Next War May Very Well Be Nuclear

by James Glaser
November 17, 2003

George Bush has learned that helicopters falling out of the sky with troops aboard will hurt his poll numbers. While their were relativity low casualties in Afghanistan, the climbing numbers of American dead and wounded in Iraq are hurting the Presidents poll numbers now and any loss of American lives will cost him votes in the next election. Afghanistan is dragging on and the war in Iraq should be over with already

So how can we have a war that is fast and the same time not lose any of our Troops? Nuclear weapons of course.

This month Congress some how put $7.5 million aside for research on nuclear "bunker-buster" bombs and $10.5 million to plan for nuclear facilities to produce triggers for new nuclear bombs, in an Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. Congress passes funds this way, so that no one can say they were trying to vote funds for Weapons of Mass Destruction, but that is exactly what they are doing.

"Nuclear programs are a cornerstone of US national security posture." Said Congress' Armed Service Committee, which just gave $400 billion for national defense next year. That is more money than almost all the rest of the world spends on defense, but they think just to be safe we should build some new nuclear weapons. We have over ten thousand nuclear bombs and warheads now, but can you ever have enough?

Nuclear weapons are so scary, that we are totally concerned because just maybe North Korea might have one or two. However there is no concern at all that Israel has two hundred Nukes. Democracies can have as many Nuclear Weapons as they want. Russia and China get a free pass. In fact if you can build some of these weapons before anyone finds out, you are home free and get to join the Club, but must promise not to use them and try to stop any other country from getting new ones.

Last year the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which monitors nuclear weapons worldwide, moved their Doomsday Clock up two minutes. It is now at seven minutes to midnight. They made the move because of the Bush administration's failure to change the US nuclear-alert practices and for starting to work on new nuclear arms.

George Lopez, chairman of the Bulletin said, "Terrorist efforts to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons presents a great danger." He went on to say, " But the U.S. preference for the use of pre-emptive force rather than diplomacy could be equally dangerous."

On Sunday President Bush was talking to a British writer about his trip to England next week and said again, "War is my last choice." I don't know why he keeps repeating drivel like this, after all, almost the whole world asked him to wait a while longer to attack Iraq so that inspections for Weapons of Mass Destruction could be completed. If George Bush really made the choice for war his last choice, about twenty thousand Iraqi civilians and soldiers would be alive today along with over four hundred of our own Troops that have died so far.

Yes I know conventional wars are messy and they do hurt a President's popularity, but I don't think Nuclear weapons are any cleaner. They call them Weapons of MASS Destruction because they do kill so many. We know this because we are the only country to ever use them and we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians with just two tiny ones, by today's standards.

Senator Diane Feinstein said, "By seeking to develop new nuclear weapons, the United States sends the message that nuclear weapons have a future battlefield role and utility. That is the wrong direction and in my view, will only cause America to be placed in greater jeopardy in the future."

The Bush administration is looking at "nukes" as a way to wage war without the messy use of troops. One plane, one bomb, and bingo we have won another war. See how easy it will be?

William Arkin, of John Hopkins University, and a arms control expert said, "What you're seeing is a thoughtless strategy being pursued under cover of the war on terrorism, by people who always wanted to do this, Now they are in a position to seize their chance"

I hope by now there is little doubt that George Bush and who ever is pushing his buttons, wants to take over the whole world, under the pretext of making people free and bringing democracy to the rest of the world.

Now don't get me wrong, I love democracy, heck without it we wouldn't have any chance of getting rid of George. If we don't vote this mad man out of office next fall, we could have a Nuclear War in his next term. Maybe we won't start it, it could be that our new buildup of atomic weapons will scare some other country into shooting first. Just building a new arsenal of these weapons tells the world we are looking to use them. I say Bush won't use atomic weapons until his next term, because he still has Iraq and Afghanistan to deal with. It would be hard to come up with a valid excuse to start using nukes now in either country, but Iraq or Syria could be targets.

With our Troops stretched so thin, George might say there was no other way to defend ourselves and Atomic Weapons were the only way to save lives. Sure that sounds real dumb, but a lot of things George says, sound dumb. Remember according to President Bush, the more American Troops getting killed in Iraq, the better we are doing. The more Troops getting wounded is a sign that the enemy is desperate. So dropping "the Big One" to save lives would fit right in.

In the Toronto Star newspaper there is a report about Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington based Arms Control Association saying, "there is a creeping respectability of nuclear weapons. What Bush has done is emphasize that there are not only bad weapons out there, but bad people with bad weapons. Then the line becomes blurred, because he's implying that responsible states are entitled to possess and even use the same kinds of weapons. In fact, these are all weapons of mass terror, and we should never forget that."

BACK to the Politics Columns.