It Takes a Nuke to Wipe Out a Village

By Scotty Reid, August 5, 2007

This past week has been full of attacks on Barack Obama from both the left and the right. It seems as if the majority of Democratic candidates have come to together a make an issue out of whether or not they would use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism. First, let me say that I think the question is a ridiculous one to ask. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Cia-da do not represent any country and represent nothing more than a network of thugs and criminals headed by former (possibly present) CIA assets. Although the question posed no specific scenarios, like if Osama Bin Laden were known to be in an isolated area, would you consider using nukes to kill him or if he were known to be in a heavily populated area would you consider using nukes to kill him. We know former President Harry Truman had no problems with killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians to spare the US military and it soldiers from having to fight hard battles to finally put an end to the conflict with Japan. Harry Truman even went as far as to boast about the atom bomb when he stated,

“The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness.”

Whether the nuclear attacks were the deciding factor in Japan’s surrender is still debated, but what is not a subject of debate is that the nuclear attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed an overwhelming majority of civilians and claimed yet more lives in the decade that followed. It seems that Barrack Obama does not share that strategy or that blatant disregard for human life. The associated press reports that Obama states that he would not use nuclear weapons under “any circumstances”. As if taken by surprise with the question, Obama added, “involving civilians”.

Obama’s comments were pounced upon by his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton who suggested by her comments that Obama’s statements about the non-use of nuclear weapons were somehow irresponsible and that Presidents should never talk about them (nuclear weapons use). Hillary Clinton specifically states, “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace”. However since the nuclear holocaust unleashed merciless upon civilians in Japan, the United States has been directly involved in no less than 10 wars or military conflicts. That number does not include the many covert operations of the CIA that involved the overthrow of democratically elected governments like Iran which is reportedly under violent assault by elements of the US military and Pentagon backed dissidents in secret raids. How Hillary Clinton can claim the nuclear weapons keep the peace is beyond explanation. In fact, the United States nuclear weapons program, which is still active, does more to destabilize peace than it does to ensure it.

Going back to Clinton’s blanket statement about Presidents never discussing the nuclear option, President Bush and Clinton family friend, in 2006 commented on reports that his band of Neo-Con thugs in the Pentagon were developing plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran, called the reports “wild speculation” to deter it from moving forward on its plans to develop nuclear technology for peaceful means. Absent from the record is any such rebuke of Bush by Hillary Clinton who is sometimes described as “Bush-lite”. In fact Bush was also in the hypocritical Obama bashing mood as he called Obama’s remarks about using conventional weapons to take out Al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan as “unsavory”. This from a man whose Administration reportedly threaten to bomb Pakistan back to the stone ages and in 2006 made similar comments to those made by Obama about Pakistan.

Speaking of Iran and its pursuit of developing nuclear energy for civilian purposes, Israel announced on Friday that it was considering building a nuclear power plant. One can only wait and see how US official react to this announcement by the Israelis who are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as is Iran but somehow Iran is the country that is expected to abandon its rights as a signatory. Israel is also widely held as a country possessing non-declared nuclear weapons and because of that should be considered a rouge state along with Pakistan and India. Israel is a country that has conducted espionage against the US and has been accused again in documents related to the case of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. The question that should be asked of Clinton, Obama and all the other Presidential candidates, how long it would be if you were elected, to open public hearings discussing the sale of nuclear weapons to terrorist that involve possibly present and former personnel within our own government.