T-minus 32 days until the birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.
Posted on 02/10/2003 3:04:28 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
On March 10, 2002, The New York Times had a front page article outlining the new American nuclear weapons strategy. The Times reported that the American government is in the process of "a broad overhaul of American nuclear policy; a secret Pentagon report calls for developing new nuclear weapons that would be better suited for striking targets in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya."
The New York Times obtained a full copy of the report. It calls for the development of new earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy heavily fortified underground bunkers, including those that are used to store chemical and biological weapons. It argues that the United States may need to resume nuclear testing.
One of the most sensitive portions of the report is a secret discussion of contingencies in which the United States might need to use its "nuclear strike capabilities" against a foe. ...The Bush administration seems to see a new role for nuclear weapons against the `Axis of Evil' and other problem states....
Among Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Libya none has nuclear weapons... "Significantly, all of them have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Washington has promised that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty unless those countries attack the United States or its allies "in alliance with a nuclear weapon state."
Remember, the United States is the only country in history to use nuclear weapons against another country. President Truman unleashed atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki— killing over 100,000 people with one shot. Personally, I never understood why it was necessary for the US to drop the second atomic bomb in Nagasaki, since they had shown to the Japanese the power of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
Declassified government documents in the U. S. show that John F. Kennedy considered a pre-emptive atomic weapon strike against the Russians in East Germany in 1961. Richard M. Nixon also suggested to his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, the possibility of using atomic weapons in Vietnam. Today, the Bush administration is suggesting to the world that in the future the US will use nuclear weapons on pre-emptive nuclear strikes. The US government will treat, in the future, the use of nuclear weapons as just one more instrument or tool that it has available in its arsenal.
The entire world knows that the US means business when it comes to using arms of mass destruction. We all know that when the US government implies that it will use nuclear weapons, you can count on it. I would like to make just one more point on this subject: the US never used atomic weapons against a white/Caucasian state including the Russian Evil Empire and Nazi Germany, but the US used the atomic bomb against another race—Japan a yellow/oriental state.
If race again becomes a major factor in the consideration of where the US will drop an atomic bomb, then matters will become more complicated in the war against Islam—the range of race in Islam and the Muslim world is as wide as in the human race because it includes white, black and yellow people.
Last Resort No More
Since the attack on Nagasaki in 1945, there has been an international understanding that the ultimate weapons of terror (nuclear weapons) would remain weapons of last resort, as they were up to now. There was also an understanding that a nuclear weapons country would never use such a weapon against a non-nuclear weapons country.
Since the break up of the Soviet Union in 1989, the world became a much more dangerous place in terms of the proliferation of nuclear weapon states—the Soviet Union split into various nuclear weapon states. The other problem is that since the 1960's, many other states became nuclear weapon states such as France, China, South Africa, Israel, India and Pakistan.
These are some of the states that have been reported in the press as the new states that have been able to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities since 1960. How about the states which we don't know! The nuclear weapons genie is out of the bottle, and the current US change in policy and strategy reflects that fact. The US is adapting its policies and strategies to be able to handle the new nuclear weapons reality around the world.
Information released by the US State Department regarding this subject indicates that the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) was concluded in 1968 and became effective in 1970. Fear of nuclear weapons proliferation in the 1960's motivated 187 countries to sign that treaty. Only India, Israel, Pakistan and Cuba remain outside that treaty.
The significance of the NPT lies in the fact the five nuclear-weapon States defined in the Treaty—that is, the USA, the Russian Federation, Great Britain, France and China—are not permitted to transfer their nuclear weapons and that all other States Parties (the so-called non-nuclear-weapon States) are allowed neither to receive the transfer of these—thus gaining control of nuclear weapons—nor to develop nuclear weapons themselves. I am not going to bore you, the reader, with further details of this Treaty since the Treaty has become obsolete!
The idea of a country's sovereignty was developed in Europe over the last 400 years. It is a concept closely associated with the rise of the nation-state system from the ashes of the feudalism system of the Middle Ages. Jean Jacques Rousseau in his major work The Social Contract gave us the idea that sovereignty resides in the people (one of the earliest expressions of democratic thought and ideas) rather than with the monarchy.
Sovereignty implies the concept of power, both internal and external: internal sovereignty is the ability of the nation-state to demand obedience to the laws of the nation-state within its borders; external sovereignty governs the relations between nation-states, and implies the premise that these states are theoretically equal under international law.
Modern international law recognizes the concept of nonintervention. The concept of nonintervention has been codified over the years in many treaties and international agreements. Nonintervention means that sovereign states have the right to be free from interference by others in their domestic affairs. This concept is part of the United Nations Charter.
For a political community to be sovereign, it must meet some specific criteria; it must have the following qualities: 1) territory, 2) population, 3) effective rule over that territory and population, and 4) recognition of the other nation-states.
Sovereignty
Brazil needs nuclear weapons to protect its claim of absolute sovereignty over its territory and population. Today, the more a state has the capability to use violence at will, the greater is its contempt for sovereignty, that is, for the sovereignty of other states. We can see all over the world this contempt for sovereignty and international law.
There is one fact which is obvious for any one who is not brain dead—you can't count on your allies to come to your rescue when your country is under attack—unless there is some ulterior motive for the assistance, such as your country is a major oil producing country.
A recent example brings this point to our attention and also can serve as a guide to the future, as to why any country shouldn't rely on old allies to come forward and put everything on the line to help them when they are under attack by a foreign power. When the US attacked Serbia and destroyed that country's entire infrastructure, Russia, a long time ally of Serbia, did not came to its rescue. Instead the Russians barked a few times on behalf of Serbia, then they rolled over and played dead. These events also highlighted to the world how far Russia has declined and how they lost all their clout and weight in international affairs.
If you don't understand that many parts of what is considered international law and treaties have been trashed lately, then you have been living in La-La land. For example, in May 2002, the United States decided to renounce formally any involvement in a treaty creating an international criminal court and has officially "unsigned" the document signed by the Clinton administration. As reported in The New York Times on May 5, 2002, "in doing so the US simultaneously "unsigned" the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a 1969 pact that outlines the obligations of nations to obey other international treaties. Article 18 of the Vienna Convention requires signatory nations like the United States to refrain from taking steps to undermine treaties they signed, even if they do not ratify them."
US Bad Example
I was surprised to find out how simple the process is to repudiate a treaty which a country has signed. How easy it was for the United States to withdraw from the International Criminal Court Treaty—the Bush administration officials just notified the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on May 6, 2002 that the United States was withdrawing from the International Criminal Court Treaty.
The United States, as one of the leading countries in the world, set the example to everyone how simple and easy it is to "unsign a treaty" which is no longer wanted by that country. The United States actions make it clear to the world that treaties are made to be broken and that treaties just have a certain useful purpose. After any treaty ends its useful life it becomes obsolete and has to be scrapped—as in the case of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty.
In another example of worthless treaties, the United States and the Soviet Union signed treaties in the past decades in which they agreed to stop research and production of chemical and biological weapons. Neither country honored any of these treaties, and both countries continued in a clandestine way the development of new chemical and biological weapons.
By definition, any sovereign country must have the right to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if that country so desires for their national defense. If countries are not allowed to produce these modern weapons to protect themselves, then we can't consider these countries as having actual sovereignty. These countries should receive a new class rating in a new international sovereignty rating system; they should be classified as a third rate class of countries with a semi-sovereignty status.
The world has changed drastically in a very short period of time. Today we live in a much more dangerous world, and many of the old international rules have changed since September 11, 2001.
Brazil and the Bomb
Without nuclear weapons Brazil will never be taken seriously by the major countries of the world. India or Pakistan will be considered ahead of Brazil to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. They will not even bother considering Brazil, without a Brazilian nuclear weapons capability.
As a sovereign country, Brazil does not need authorization from any other country if it decides to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for defense purposes. If there is any obstacle, such a treaty, it is easy to "unsign" such a document.
Which country should help Brazil develop such weapons? The answer is very simple. France should help Brazil. You might be asking yourself: what connection there is between France and Brazil, and why should France be interested in helping Brazil?
The French had a major impact on Brazilian culture since 1555 when Villegaignon established a French colony in Brazil close to where Rio de Janeiro is located. The greatest French influence on Brazilian culture came as a result of the French Revolution. José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva, the architect of Brazilian independence from Portugal, was studying in Paris at the Royal School of Mines in the years 1790-1792. José Bonifácio had direct exposure during this period to the best intellectual minds of that time who were having a major impact on the events of the French Revolution.
In 1808, when Napoleon's army invaded Portugal, the Portuguese Royal Family moved to Brazil and they stayed in Brazil until 1821. This move by the Portuguese Royal Family had a very positive impact on Brazil. In 1823, the Andrada brothers (José Bonifácio, Martim Francisco and Antônio Carlos), with their leadership, had a major impact on the Constituent Assembly.
They guided the proceedings of the process of framing the first Brazilian Constitution. This Constitution was effective December 13, 1823. They used as a model the French Constitution of 1816, which is also referred to as the "Lamartine Constitution".
French culture had a major impact on Brazilian culture; to this day many Brazilian company executives know Paris much better than they know New York City, and they can speak French and not English. The Brazilian legal and judicial system is based on Roman law and the Napoleonic Code. The French should once more reaffirm their close ties to Brazil by helping Brazil on its new nuclear weapons development endeavor!
Yep.
The USA is also a sovereign nation, and we'll overthrow any government that even thinks about threatening us.
The President of Brazil is a Marxist and an admirer of Castro. I'm glad we have a president who remembers the Cuban Missile Crisis and understands the threat that Castro and Cuban Communism still pose to us.
ESPECIALLY in a world where Second Powers learn, "If you have Nukes, you are Sovereign".
The whole point of this war with Iraq is to send the message that any of our enemies who try to get nukes are not going to have any sovereignty at all living under a US military occupation.
You may not love France and Germany, but they love you're balance of power idea. Anything is better than the US leading the world.
T-minus 32 days until the birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.
Beats me.
We had a war with Mexico back in the 1800s.
And more recently, Argentina had that spat with Britain over the Falklands.
But other than that, I can't think of any wars that Central or South American countries have had with each other.
Oh, they've had plenty of revolutions, civil wars and insurgencies, such as when Panama gained independence from Colombia, or the guerrilla war they had in Nicaragua. But I don't think I can come up with any actual military conflicts between two established and somewhat stable nations.
I could be wrong.
You can drop her on me anytime ;-)
Will that do?
I do carry a loaded question. I am permitted to do so in the course of my duties.
Brazilian authorities say they are not dismissing the possibility that the accident that killed 21 Brazilian space technicians in the Alcântara Space Base was an act of sabotage. Who would benefit from this crime? The US and its allies. No one has the right to think Brazil is a country of inept technicians.
Carlos Chagas
After being thought and spoken hypotheses cannot either be forgotten by the brain that thought it out or silenced by the voice that pronounced it. They don't belong to their creators anymore and they become a patrimony of society, little mattering if for better or for worse. What have they thought and told the press, the Science and Technology Minister, Roberto Amaral and Brigadier Tiago da Silva Ribeiro, general coordinator for the launching of the Brazilian rocket that exploded in Alcântara, state of Maranhão, killing 21 space technicians? That they don't dismiss the hypothesis of sabotage in the incident?
The world sabotage was also used three years ago when the first rocket also exploded the same way as this one, sidetracked apparently by radio signals sent nobody knows by whom or from where. The Brazilian Air Force intelligence service had been investigating for two weeks new and unknown radio signals, which prompted the postponement of the launching.
As dangerous and explosive this reasoning might be, we need to go ahead and investigate the hypotheses raised by the Minister and the Brigadier. If they don't dismiss the idea of sabotage it's because they admit its possibility. Who would be interested in sabotaging the Brazilian rocket euphemistically called "satellite launcher", but in reality a missile with a reasonable range?
All you need is to add two and two. This would interest the powers that detain the most sophisticated missile technologies and that watch over time how more and more nations enter this little club they would love closed for ever. There's special mention to the hegemonic power, which has become alone and absolute in its domination of the planet, imposing its interest by all means it can line up. The more other countries are able to have missiles, the more vulnerable they and their allies will be.
Russia, Ukraine, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea forced the door of the club where France, England and others had, under the US presidency, titles of athlete members.
Why not present Brazil, the country where placidity was imposed by force? In the early 1990s they forced then President Fernando Collor de Mello to renounce any nuclear tests, signing non-proliferation treaties that they will never sign themselves. The humiliation was even worse. Collor had to go to Serra do Cachimbo, with an ample and embarrassed retinue of attendants, to symbolically seal with cement a chimney that could be used for underground explosions.
They knew the Navy was working in the field and they compelled the government to abandon every thing. Who did it? Ironically and in writing, it was then President George Bush, father of the present White House tenant.
The Government Should Investigate
In the missiles case, the situation is more complicated. How can you coerce in the open a country so that they won't launch their own artificial satellites, an absolute must for the century that just began? This way, sabotage, turns up as a solution if the rocket, with small alterations can be transformed into a defense or attack missile.
It will be as hard to prove sabotage in Alcântara as it is to believe that the recent attack to the UN compound in Baghdad was the work of the unknown and histrionic group "Mohammad's Soldiers." Saddam Hussein's followers may be fanatic, but stupid they aren't. Why would they attack the UN headquarters precisely under the high commissioner's window, knowing that he was in favor of the withdrawal of the invading coalition troops and their replacement by other nations' soldiers?
We need to ask the question asked in detective stories: who would benefit from this crime? Who wins and who loses with the inevitable delay in our space program after the explosion of the second rocket? No one has the right to think Brazil is a country of inept, amateurish and irresponsible technicians. Quite the contrary, if we show capacity in a number of other sectors, from agriculture to industry, it would be ludicrous to imagine that we are stupid in the aerospace sector, despite the natural economic-financial difficulties that put the First World in the vanguard.
To the powerful the backyard must continue backyard. A mere region to export raw material, destined to receive the crumbs of obsolete technologies. In decades past we became one of the largest producers of weapons, selling tanks to Libya, the Middle East and Far East countries. Where did our rising war industry end up if not strangled by the big powers? We are faced with conjectures that cannot be silenced. If our authorities admit sabotage in Alcântara, the least we can do is try and investigate it.
For years I would not get on one of their Brazil-made aircraft unless I had to do so. Too many of the early models went down, some right in the Sao Paulo city area with numerous fatalities. Now they are of better quality and one local airline uses them for short hops to nearby cities. I have yet to fly with them as their nickname is Scare West.
With the return of democratic civilian rule, Brazil and its historic rival Argentina jointly renounced the manufacture of nuclear weapons and set up a mutual inspection system. But the Brazilian program continued secretly, and when a new government came to power in 1990, it found and destroyed a 1,050-foot-deep shaft built by the Air Force in the heart of the Amazon that scientists said had all the characteristics of a nuclear test site.
In addition, the Brazilian Navy has long been working on a program to build nuclear-powered submarines, which would require a degree of enrichment higher than that needed for a power plant.
During the presidential campaign he won last year, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva criticized the Nonproliferation Treaty as unjust, saying it favored countries that already have nuclear weapons.
Then, during the new government's first week in office in January, Mr. Amaral caused a furor when he argued that Brazil should acquire the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon. He backed away from that position after he was severely criticized here and in Argentina.
This month Mr. Amaral publicly criticized the I.A.E.A.'s position on spot inspections as "idiotic" and "foolish."
That investigation revealed, however, that the military had sold eight tons of uranium to Iraq in 1981. It is also reported that after Brazil's successful ballistic missile program was ended, the general and 24 of the scientists working on it went to work for Iraq. There are reports that with financing from Iraq, a nuclear weapons capability has been covertly maintained contrary to directives from the civilian democratic leaders.
Mr. da Silva has said Brazil should have nuclear weapons and move closer to China, which has been actively courting the Brazilian military. China has sold Brazil enriched uranium and has invested in the Brazilian aerospace industry, resulting in a joint imagery/reconnaissance satellite.
A big war when Paraguay attacked and defeated Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. (It was a costly victory.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.