Bedfellows to Oblivion

“The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

Five Western military leaders.

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Western rationality at its calculated finest:

We must stop others from having/using what we have - the ultimate means to literally holocaust massive numbers of people, totally destroy total environments and spread radiation for thousands of kilometers causing untold mutations and disease and eventual death.

How?

By using our weapons of mass destruction to literally holocaust massive numbers of people, totally destroy their total environment and spread radiation for thousands of kilometers causing untold mutations and disease and eventual death.

Nuclear annihilation to prevent nuclear annihilation. The use of weapons of mass destruction to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.

This passes for western reason? Western thought so bankrupt, so devoid of content that all it can muster up is massive killing to prevent the imagined future possibility of massive killing? But if this is what passes for western reason mustn’t that mean that western reason has past? I think it does. We’ve past ourselves by. We’re done with. We’ve nothing left to offer but rationales for the ultimate in destruction.

Western reason meets Judeo-Christian Zionism (because you just know where this is gonna play itself out right?): Bedfellows to Oblivion.

You gonna buy this nuclear annihilation excrement? Cause they’re doling it out and “they” are “five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists“.

To be fair, they are couching nuclear annihilation in terms of occurring only in the “quiver of escalation”. But when this quiver is reached (and it’s easy enough to see how false a quiver might be sold to justify such mass destruction) the West will lead the way. Why? What are the threats? “Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.”; “The ‘dark side’ of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.” Perhaps true but Paul Craig Roberts (The “Brutal World” - 01/23/08 - Information Clearing House) offers up some examples I imagine the Nato boys had not in mind:

By political fanaticism, do they mean the neoconservatives who believe that the future of humanity depends on the US establishing its hegemony over the world? By religious fundamentalism, do they mean “rapture evangelicals” agitating for armageddon or Christian and Israeli Zionists demanding a nuclear attack on Iran? By spread of nuclear weapons, do they mean Israel’s undeclared and illegal possession of several hundred nuclear weapons?

No. The paranoid military leaders see all the fanaticism, religious and otherwise, and all the threats to humanity as residing outside Western civilization (Israel is inside). The “increasingly brutal world,” of which the leaders warn, is “over there.” Only Muslims are fanatics. All us white guys are rational and sane.

There is nothing brutal about the US/Nato bombing of Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, or the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, or the genocide Israel hopes to commit against Palestinians in Gaza.

Take that you demented western-reason-christozioapologists!

James K. Galbraith (A Criminal Idea - 01/27/08 - Guardian) interprets these christozioapologists as holding:

that “the west” - meaning the nuclear powers including the United States, France and Britain - should prepare to use nuclear weapons, not to deter a nuclear attack, not to retaliate following such an attack, and not even to pre-empt an imminent nuclear attack. Rather, they should use them to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a non-nuclear state. And not only that, they should use them to prevent the acquisition of biological or chemical weapons by such a state.

He states that, “The generals’ doctrine would not only violate international law, it repudiates the principle of international law,” but I take this assertion of international law to be almost besides the point. I recognize the value and need for international law and to assert it and to work to have nations uphold it. Think of how things might look in Palestine, for example, were the world to have unrelentingly demanded that Israel actually uphold international law rather than continually violate it?

But doesn’t international law somewhat understate the objection to advocating nuclear annihilation ummmm, just because we don’t think other nations ought to have the very weapons we flaunt and use to intimidate and otherwise cause nations of the world to cower? So, we think it ok to wipe you out en masse? So much for the lessons of the Holocaust right? On the other hand no more pontificating about “never again”. It looks more like, again and again and again.

The problem isn’t that this advocacy for nuclear annihilation violates international law. The problem is that it is insane. We’re not talking about not following rules. We’re talking about thought having degenerated to the point of madness.

Which brings me to the only rational solution to this madness (you see it coming right?):

It is imperative that the non-western world be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the west to try and halt an ‘imminent’ nuclear attack against it. Western reason no longer exists. The Christozioapologists are salivating at the prospect of self-fulfilling their prophetic imaginations. This madness must be stopped. There is no other option.