Overkill and excess


Posted: Tuesday, September 03, 2002

I write in support of my neighbors objecting to the Bush Administration's conduct of the War on Terrorism.

I, too, assert that we should all live threatened by the problems of freedom rather than be enslaved by the necessities of heavy security. Compulsively taking forceful revenge for evil - saying it is just and "humane" - is masking the naked barbarism that creates and powers the very evil that took 3,000 lives last Sept. 11.

So witness the incredible government deceit in replacing the overused "menace of communism" with the new menace of terrorism - just to continue compelling the obedience and tractability of the American people.

Since its beginnings, civilization has suffered from forms of terrorism - motivated by prejudice or avarice - like a dog suffers fleas. What do you think prompted the idea of government to start with?

And here is the worst of it. Our country is now economically addicted to the consequences of becoming the foremost manufacturer, seller and possessor of means of murder and mass destruction in the history of the world.

Our military-defense budget now exceeds most of the rest of the world combined (except Russia whose budget is now less than half of ours). For decades, this condition has naturally enabled America to back economic domination of others with the threat of force. And just like any bully, lack of respect and running into opposition or another bully, prompts hysterical reaction. Hence, a vicious circle is born - ever more violence prompting ever more manufacture of tools of violence, making the U.S. even more economically dependent on this industry.

How absurd can it get? The U.S. just withdrew from the SALT II treaty to build the missile defense system and to improve our nuclear arsenal of 3,000 devices (with another 7,000 "dismantled").

Military public relations brags that our average (!) nuclear device is at least 1,200 times the power of the bomb dropped in 1945. Based on the destruction visited on Hiroshima, that means each device would take out everything within a conservative 3,000 square miles. The collateral damage zone would be even larger. With modern bombs like that, we could incapacitate all our "enemies" and any former "enemies" who object with about 150 actual hits.

So we could, allowing for poor defense contractor work, conquer the world with 300 nuclear devices. Yet the government insists we need more than 10 times that for our "image" as the foremost world power and "national defense." Just who has rocks for brains?

Stuart Thompson

Auke Bay

Trending this week:


© 2017. All Rights Reserved.  | Contact Us