Media coverage of the Indian and Pakistani nuclear bomb tests worries us all, but this worry is mostly misdirected. It's extremely unlikely that India or Pakistan would use nukes on each other, or anyone else.[ See PBS TV: *NUCLEAR WAR BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN Show # 1230 America's Defense Monitor, 1779 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington DC 20035 1-800-CDI-3331 www.cdi.org ] Nukes are suicide devices rather than mere weapons dimply because any nuclear attack invites devastating retaliation. These new nukes function less as weapons than as deterrents - they inhibit military action. Even a slight chance of nuclear devastation demands our attention.[ See the many sources such as the *FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS and *BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS.] The reader is advised to go beyond the arguments presented here and review main line views as presented in *NUCLEAR SOUTH ASIA, feature section in the December 1998 *CURRENT HISTORY

The nuclear powers devote money, time and attention to monitoring the proliferation of nuclear, as well as chemical and biological `weapons of mass destruction', WMDs. For example, the US buys nuclear weapons material from former Soviet Republics such as Kazakstan.[ The deal has been held up because our government recently privatized the Nuclear Enrichment Corporation. Compelled by market forces, NEC directors hold out for further enrichment from more taxpayer funds because the world market price of nuclear materials is steadily dropping.]

History shows that no civilized nation would ever - hardly ever - use nuclear weapons on human beings, especially not on civilians. Of the many military actions since WWII, none has been against nations that have nuclear weapons, no matter how communistic.

The most compelling reason for limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons beyond our nuclear oligopoly is to limit deterrence by weapons of mass destruction.

This policy - keeping the ultimate power in the hands of the First World - is crucial for the maintenance and progress of the Global Economy. The prosperity of the developed First World nations depends on the continuing development of the poor nations, called the "Developing Nations" or "Third World". Thus, our basic foreign policy is to protect our investments and to keep these Thirds open to continuing development by the multinational corporations, MUNCs.[ . A few hundred multinational corporations own more than half of the world capital and resources. Development of the Global Economy increases as does the concentration of wealth and power in hands of these corporations, with the support of their national governments and international organizations which represent them.]

Although sanctions of various sorts - along with military aid and covert action as needed - are usually adequate to maintain control, a secure and progressive GLOBAL ECONOMY rests upon the threat and occasional use of military force.[ The United States has economic sanctions against over sixty nations, mostly to assist the corporations against local competition.]

Imagine what would occur if some nation interfered with First World control of petroleum profits. The issue is not access, it is the profits that make most of us rich.

What might happen if India or Pakistan threaten the expansion of the Global Economy? Pakistan might inhibit the oil pipelines from the Caucasus. India might inhibit the likes of Union Carbide from further investments.[ In 1994 at Bhopal, India, Union Carbide plant at Bhopal, India, spilled cyanide gas that killed 3500 to 8000, and injured tens of thousands. Union Carbide settled for $400,000,000, tied up in endless (*BLEAKHOUSE) litigation. The Bhopal disaster killed thousands, yet little has been done to compensate the survivors or prevent further `accidents'.] What if Latin America takes Fidel's advice and organizes a Debt Cartel?[ Debt Cartel would wipe out the governmental and private debts owed by the Third World to the Firsts. It would devastate the economies of the wealthy nations and surely bring military wrath.] What if Japan refuses to sell us any more of their currently low priced banks, and other financial assets? Moves like these would severely stress the Global Economy.

Nations who go too far, Iran and Libya, and most of all Iraq, are called "Rogue States" - they ask too much, they take too much. They undermine the progress of the GLOBAL ECONOMY.[ The conservative magazine, *LONDON ECONOMIST, weakly refers to the `Global Economy' as the `American Economy' - because we own more of it than the British do. They lost it to us in the two World Wars.]

The destruction of Iraq could not have happened if they had possessed a nuclear deterrent.[ Common comment is that Iraq would still be in Kuwait if they had possessed a deterrent. Rarer comment is that they would not have lost their Kuwait to the British half century ago, if they had possessed adequate deterrence then.] Elimination of the country's weapons of mass destruction protects the Global Economy. Destroying the infrastructure of this desert nation is extreme punishment. Severe Sanctions also support the price of oil in a glutted market, and lower the buy-out price as soon as Saddam's government collapses.

Look to the future. What if financial crisis in South East Asia develops into a political crisis? Mr. Habibi of Indonesia, who replaced our man Suharto, has asked his people to fast (diet) in order to save rice for export as well as to lower their cholesterol. The wealth of this oligarchy is more than the IMF provides - enough to rescue his foreign loans and protect his control over his people. He prefers that the Indonesian people carry the IMF debt burden while we help him protect his private property. Since such debts are unlikely to be paid, the US taxpayer carries them.

Should Indonesia find itself with a reformist - not to say socialist - government, the vast resources of Royal Dutch Shell and Freeport McMoRan would take a hit. Reformists could tax our corporations and squander some of this income on Indonesia's own development - for public health, water supplies, education or other means of improving the quality of life. Any such action would transfer wealth from the Firsts to the Thirds and invite severe retaliatory measures.

Millions of people have been killed by military actions in the recent half century. The destruction of Iraq, the carpet bombing of Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia, and several other actions would not have occurred if these hapless nations had possessed nuclear weapons.

The United States consumes about a quarter of the world's resources - Europe and Japan another half. Wealth flows from the productive Third World to the consuming First - because we own it, the productive capital. Economists explain that people are poor because they don't have money. As the disparity increases between rich and poor, between Firsts and Thirds, the stress also increases. Therefore the means to control it must increase. As blossoming technology expands production, the money and information required to control increasing tension also expands.

Thus, non-proliferation of weapons of mass deterrence is crucial to our wealth and security. The stability of the Free World and the Global Economy demand that political and military control remain in the hands of our Free World.

Is the media going to continue to indulge our paranoia and embellish our self-serving fears by touting the threats of the Indian or Pakistani nukes? What if the media were to look instead at the actual suffering of real people, and disclose the plight of most of the world's inhabitants and the ecosystem that supports us all? Or will the media continue to entertain and sustain our delusions by its perpetuation of PERVASIVE PSYCHOTIC MYTHS p.?

< ENHANCEMENT OF INVESTMENT, There's Money to be Made

Chapters   Essays

TWENTY FIRST CENTURY, Prospects and Priorities >

Copyright © 2024 Earl Williamson. All rights reserved.

Feedback

Last updated Monday, April 9, 2018 05:43 UTC