Thursday, January 10, 2008

Britain to go nuclear

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Theodore Roosevelt

It's no secret that the Bush administration is hell bent on inventing pretexts for a military confrontation with Iran. This is cause for great concern. When two belligerent, theocratically-based regimes of different sects collide, the results are rarely pretty.

The main fake pretext for militaristic posturing against Iran is that country's nuclear program, which it claims is designed to provide energy to its exploding population. Washington counters that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons. I'm not sure if this is true but even if it is, can you blame them? Nuclear weapons are the only proven deterrence to Bush administration belligerence. Contrast the different fates of Iraq and North Korea.

That the nuclear question is a fake pretext is pretty transparent. Take the British government recent decision to give the green light to a new generation of nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom. They even tried to couch it in environmentalism by invoking green buzzphrases.

Britain's energy minister told Parliament: "Nuclear power has provided us with safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century. It is one of the very few proven low carbon technologies which can provide baseload electricity. Nuclear power currently provides us with around 19% of our electricity. Nuclear power will help us meet our twin energy challenges - ensuring secure supplies and tackling climate change."

In fact, the minister said that limiting the amount of power produced via the nuclear route "would not be consistent with [Britain's] long term national interest."

This drew no reaction at all from Washington.

It's in Britain's national interest that it have nuclear power but a threat to world peace if Iran does.

It's in America's national interest that it have nuclear weapons but a threat to world peace if Iran might... even though the only country ever to use nuclear weapons against a civilian population was not Iran, but America.

And yet many are still under the delusion that "they hate us because we're free."

Whew! I'm glad it's not the hypocrisy.


Aside: this really raises an interesting question. Pro-gun types contend that if everyone had a gun (or several), the world would be safer because there would be so much 'deterrence' from reckless or aggressive use. According to this logic, wouldn't it stand to reason that the world would be safer if every country had nuclear weapons?

No comments: