Why is Bush considered a greater threat to world peace than other presidents in the past, when clearly he has less nuclear missiles than any president since Dwight Eisenhower?
I mean, theoretically, if all of the presidents had wanted to reak as much destruction as absolutely possible, Bush would be less able to do this than any president since the 1950s. Eisenhower had 99% of the nukes in the world, Bush only has about 52%.
And yet, Bush is always hyped as the greatest threat to world peace in American history!
Well the Bush administration has been pretty soft on nuclear nonproliferation issues, with the exception of North Korea and a few other states. After refusing to spend on decommissioning old Soviet nukes under the Nunn-Lugar Act (AKA Cooperative Threat Reduction Program) in 2002, they’ve got it in the budget again this year. It’s not yet obvious that they’ve overcome ideological objections to the program to the extent that the money will actually be spent on keeping those nukes out of the hands of terrorists.
Sorry that this is so sketchy, but I haven’t been a nonproliferation wog since back in the cold war days.
It’s not just about the capability to wreak destruction–and keep in mind, there are other kinds of “destruction” besides launching missiles at targets–but also the desire to.
Post Berlin Wall, there’s no MAD. Can’t compare before with after. Bush can do pretty much as he likes - and is doing pretty much as he likes - in many regions of the world.
Also, it’s not just what he does, it’s what he provokes others to try and do in order to repel US policy/the empire - it doesn’t have to make sense to us, only to them.
Unless the magic anti-missile shield has been perfected in secret, MAD is as alive today as it was in the Cold War, though the sabers aren’t rattled as much. During the Cold War, both sides had many times the number of warheads that they actually needed to destroy each other and end civilization as we know it. Even today the number of warheads possessed by the US and Russia is far, far more than would be needed to do this. Whether the exchange involves 19,200 warheads (2002) or 64,000 warheads (1986) is a moot point. Either way, every city in both countries becomes radioactive cinder.
The hype that Bush is the greatest threat to world peace in American history has to do with his actions, not the number or percentage of nuclear warheads at his disposal.
No single political entity is a danger to world peace.
Only hostile combinations of mutually antagonistic polities are dangers to world peace.
In the October 1980 edition of NEXT magazine (long defunct) which is still on a shelf of my quite large garage, is an article by Warren Borosen and David P Snyder discussing the outcome of a Delphi Poll of the main experts of that period in history.
The conclusion of the 1980 Delphi poll?
The main dangers are:
1 Israel-Arab Block
2 Pakistan-India
the least likely third alternative was something called the US and USSR conflict.
I’m not sure what the USSR is or was. But the prediction of 23 years ago for what was perceived to be the main dangers is quite interesting.
That there’s no MAD doesn’t worry me when the superior power is a democracy. Nuclear first-strike wasn’t ever really an option for the US, so mutually-assured destruction didn’t really help.
And I never really understood the benefit of living in a world where the “or else” was total annihilation. I’d prefer a world where total annihilation, the worst-case scenario, was completely precluded. To rephrase, I’d rather that some mechanism was in place to prevent mutual destruction, thus ensuring some survival. In a MAD world, there exists the power to “destroy all human and animal life” as Doc Strangelove might say (boy I wish we had ourselves one of them Doomsday Machines!) In a non-MAD world, that power isn’t present, so the worst-case scenario is significantly less bad.
So in the position of a risk-averse party (as democracies tend to be) threatened by risk-favorable parties (as tyrannies tend to be), we’re better off without MAD.
I would say that Bush’s ignorance along with the blind capitalist bullrush of his administration make things dangerous. They are unable to focus on the pros and cons of issues because of their singular ‘agenda’ of satisfying big business demands. Thus they miss many issues of disease, foreign policy, long-term economic health, nuclear blackmarketing, and even, ironically, terrorism.
Ignorance cloaked with lies and defended with a bully pulpit is what makes Bush so dangerous.
Well for the first time in US history we have attacked another nation without any real provable provocation. (Iraq FYI) Another large part of our army is stuck in Afganistan. Much of the rest of the world does’nt support our actions in Iraq. Bush has brought to a head the frustration and anger of the muslim population of the world.
China is threatening to invade Taiwan if they declare independence.
India and Pakistan could go ballistic (ha! pun intended) at any time.
As I mention in the first paragraph our forces are busy with other problems. If the second two threats to world security are to foment it would be due in large part to the current administrations inability to see the global picture; thats global picture as opposed to the corporate picture.