| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
None So Blind: If Our Leaders, Media Elites Continue to Fail to Illuminate The True Nature of the Nuclear Threat We Face, Americans Will Remain Blind to the Most Realistic Means for Extinguishing Those Threats
Dr. Brad Lyles / Canada Free Press
Americans no longer possess the visceral understanding of nuclear warfare possessed by inhabitants of the ‘60’s, ‘70’s and ‘80’s. Gone too are the days of Dr. Benjamin Spock climbing over nuclear facility fences preaching unilateral disarmament. The current generation of Americans, not seeing, not understanding, do not know they risk everything.
The Complicit Press and D.C. politicos share the blame in this. Following Mr. Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, not one commentator addressed in a substantive or meaningful way the implications for the U.S. and the world were Iran to detonate a nuclear device over a major city such as New York, D.C., or Tel Aviv.
Most Americans do possess a vague intuition about the realities of nuclear warfare, but they do not feel the realities.
In contrast, during the 1960s through 1980s, most Americans survived despite the background radiation of almost constant discussion of and controversies about nuclear warfare. Was nuclear war survivable? Could there be a “winner?” Should we disarm unilaterally? How powerful should our weapons be? How many should we have? How many people would be killed? Would MAD, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, keep us safe? Would the Soviets develop technology that might prevent us time to react? How dangerous would enduring radioactivity prove to be? And so on.
Everyone lived their lives afflicted with the reliable knowledge that at any time their whole world might end, and with no more than fifteen to thirty minutes’ warning, i.e. the time required for a Soviet-launched missile to reach the United States.
Those of us fifty-five and older have directly experienced innumerable debates on these topics, over years and years. We just haven’t experienced them in a long time. Younger generations haven’t experienced them at all.
In the absence of a legitimate national dialogue about the nuclear threat, our political leaders and their acolytes in the media feel free to speak glibly about Iran’s inevitable construction of nuclear weapons, as if that were the end of the matter, as if inevitability signified acceptability. They trivialize the need to address the true risks of a 40-kiloton nuclear strike (the likely limit of Iranian yield) over Tel Aviv or New York City.
Such a strike would kill 200,000 on the first day and 400,000 in the following days and weeks. If any of our leaders or media pundits gave serious thought to these numbers, or merely a passing thought, the idea of a full-scale invasion of Iran – to prevent such a catastrophe – would no longer seem so outrageous.
Of course, this requires taking the threat posed by Iran seriously. Obama’s indelible narcissism, however, constrains him from acknowledging the threat. Instead, because of collusion between our brain-challenged leaders and the Complicit Press, intentional or no, the Obama regime feels no pushback when it claims partial success in negotiating a ten-year delay in Iran’s ability to create a nuclear weapon. Iran’s leaders’ own words betray any agreed upon delay, however. The nature of Iran’s leaders precludes any lessening of its threat regardless in which ten year period they obtain the bomb.
It is obvious to anyone even marginally conscious that a negotiated delay is no better than no delay at all. Iran must never be permitted to possess a nuclear weapon, with or without delay.
Read more at CFP:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/70463
We and Israel are much more of a nuclear danger to anyone than Iran ever will be. The only workable idea is intelligence and continuous surveillance, not more stupid military adventures to try to knock out a threat that may never be. What are we going to do – bomb every developing country to obliviion every three years? Oh, wait, we are already doing that.