Scott Ritter

Nuclear disarmament is not a pipe dream


Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter discusses the newly assertive U.S. role in relations with Israel, how ending nationalism-inspiring threats against Iran will allow a moderate government to take hold, Israel’s inability to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities without U.S. help, how missile defense provokes nuclear proliferation and why nuclear weapons can and should be abandoned in our lifetimes.

MP3 here. (42:45)

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. He is the author of numerous books, including Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement and Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change.

14 thoughts on “Scott Ritter”

  1. According to former Trident missile engineer Bob Pentagon aims to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability. And according to Bob Aldridge the US Navy can track and destroy all enemy submarines simultaneously. Please see the article by Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy” in the 2006 March/April issue of Foreign Affairs. Minuteman-3s and Trident-2 D5s linked to NAVSTAR obtain a CEP of 30-40 metres, enough to destroy any hard target. A First-Strike Capability won´t be complete without the missiles in Poland to shoot down any surviving Russian missiles. Even if it´s only for blackmail, the Russians may have no choice but implementing Launch On Warning.

  2. I am not sure I follow the logic of either Sott Horton or Ritter when Horton contends that America can unilaterally disarm from all its nuclear weapons because its conventional forces are strong enough to destroy any potential enemies country. In that case, all an enemy has to do is nuke America and vaporise their armed forces either in America propper, or, on their way over to destroy them.

    Am I missing something here, Scott?

  3. Ritter has been making the rounds for three years now defending Iran against an Israeli-interest attack on “its nuclear ambition”, claiming that there has never been any evidence to suggest that Iran has or intends to go beyond commercial nuclear power and into nuclear weapons. However, you have to really wonder if after 3 straight years of being threatened with a nuclear attack from the US-Israeli cabal, if Iran is being irresponsible in not building a nuclear deterrent to these bullies.

  4. Scott: I don’t know if you read the comments, and I left this reference on an earlier thread, but the best book about the history of the nuke and it’s role in militarizing all U.S. foreign policy is House of War by James Carroll. It’s a must read.

  5. I like Scott Ritter…but he’s wrong to assume the US doesn’t want to attack Iran. In fact the war party – i.e. the ONLY political power in the Whore House since before WWII – would like nothing better. They merely lack the political capital at the moment.

    First hint that war is Still the primary objective: the same lying Zionist shills that helped bring you Iraq and Af-Pak, are Still on the payroll.

    Second hint: “two month limit” on so-called “diplomacy”. That’s more than enough time to convince the “left” Obamabots to support another “good war”.

    The Messiah can do no wrong – a quick scan of DailKos, HuffPo, DU, and the other sheople grazing pastures are proof of that. The toothpaste ad that would be king is an empty suit, a blank slate for the melon-heads to fantasize over and deify, and a blank cheque for the Zionist war party to continue their pipe dreams of global hegemony.

    The other factor delaying the war is the prospect of losing two carrier groups in the Gulf – the West Point bed-wetters and Naval Academy pillow-biters running the Pentagon are frantic – they couldn’t care less about losing troops, but aircraft carriers? That’s another matter entirely.

    When Senator Bobble Head was coronated Emperor-in-Chief i predicted war in Somalia, Congo, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Georgia chapter II, and possibly North Korea. Half of that prediction is currently ongoing or in the process…i see no reason to amend.

    Obamabot still has almost two full terms to make it happen. Then we will get another blinking automaton to write the final chapter of the “new American Century”: all-out global nuclear war by 2020 at the latest. Frankly, i’m past the point of giving a shit anymore. By then i will have retired to some sunny island in the south with nothing of strategic importance to bomb – besides me and my hammock of mass indifference.

    What i find alarming is that intelligent people like Scott Ritter, and many others on Antiwar and other places still believe future wars can be avoided. Have we learned nothing since the end of WWII? The US has invaded, either directly or by proxy, some 70 countries in that period! Americans in general still think they live in a democracy – nothing could be further from the truth. The two-headed war party has been playing good cop/bad cop with you for over 60 years. Either way, they’re both still cops, and they ain’t your friend.

    You’d think after six decades of taking it in the ass, they’d wise-up?

  6. Always, Very interesting views of Mr. Ritter to hear, watch or read
    We would like to have the full typed text fi the speech if it is at all possible.

  7. Ritter seems to be making up whole cloth his “belief” that the US foreign policy has changed one iota. Read NSC 68. There is no deviation. A trigger ready first strike is still ON THE TABLE.

    His Obama make-over just doesn’t jibe with reality. Does Obama have some tactical differences from the previous administration, apparently there is some minor evidence, but the fundamental policies are the same as they’ve been for 60+ years, with a step up in US imperial aggression with the end of the “Cold” War.

  8. It is depressing how Scott explains the difficulties of Obama managing to establish a healthy realtion with Iran. He speaks of the israeli influence of the senate and congress as a matter of fact written in stone.

    Like a cancer that have gone on too long and is too deeply rooted to remove, is that really the case? can we not rid the government of foreign influence that only hinders our strategic and diplomatic ambitions?

  9. Read: Tomgram: Pepe Escobar, Welcome to Pipelinistan

    This article helps pull together how the insatiable diet of oil and natural gas
    drives the war games: whose got it, which powers own or are negotiating for seats
    on which pipeline routes.
    This will help to answer where and who fights for global energy control,
    who invest in arms (and the entire nuke game) and the US Congress interests in sharing the taxpayer wealth with banksters, car manufacturers, etc.

    I suggest a course in Ponzi 101 for those who can’t keep up.

  10. As an Iranian Expat I try not miss articles by Scott Ritter, Gareth Porter and Gordon Prather. The rest are great contributers to this web site, but I just don't have the time to read most. However, I always try to avoid the garbage by Patrick Buchanan.

    I found the response by Mr Duncan-Idaho interesting and more or less agreeable. Just a small correction for Mr Duncan: Unless you are a Sunni Arab with delusions of grandeur, whom are forgiven for inherit ignorance, please refer to the Persian Gulf by its correct name.

    Referring to the Persian Gulf by any other Arab-invented name is an insult to every single Iranian.

  11. Shahriar, that was just short form – I have always understood it to be the Persian Gulf, and nothing but…

    …for the same reasons I usually refer to the Zionist Entity as Zionist Occupied Palestine: one should always use words that actually Mean something whenever possible 🙂

    Unfortunately, English is such a horribly confused and bastardized language that no one ever knows what the fuck anyone else is talking about unless you surround your verbs and adjectives with HUNDREDS of pronouns and articles to convey the simplest of thoughts – and this is coming from someone who has a degree in English literature!

    That’s why in the “west” shysters get paid so much, and politicians can lie so much, and get away with it.

    Thank god i speak other languages.

  12. I think that nuclear weapons could be usefull in some situations;

    1. To take out the enemies’ nuclear weapons
    2. To deter your enemies
    (3. And perhaps to destroy a comet making its way towards earth!)

    It’s a political weapon; by having nuclear weapons states can threat others into submission, and if some have got them other will want them to have them too, and we will eventually see an arms race. I do think that Scott is being right when arguing for disarming, but at the same time I appreciate the concern for states like North Korea or Iran. This is however not a big problem; the US armed forces knows where North Korea is. It would be no match for them to deal with whatever threat North Korea might pose with what? One, maybe a couple of Hiroshima type bombs or so. They would still need have a delivering capability which they do not probably have, so they might blew one up in the undeground testing areas…

    Some are familiar to the Security Dilema. The issue with the missile defense system in Poland etc. and Russias response to put missiles in Kalininggrad (near my home country Sweden), is a school example of this theory. US says that the system is guarding the West (and Israel) from missiles from Iran, North Korea or whatever. If that were the case wouldn’t it be better to use US submarines to shoot the missiles down, for example, NorthKorean or Iranian missiles over North Korea and Iranian territory respectively? Why wait until they reach the Israeli border or Europe? From Russias point of view, this system is being seen as a threat to their security. Ritter is right pointing out the fact that Russian military and politicians have to take this into acount when forming their policies. That is why putting missiles in Kalininggrad ever came into question.

    This is the essens of the security dilema; Actor A (The USA) wants to feel more secure and makes the nessecary steps to do so, while telling actor B (Russia) that it has nothing to do with them. Actor B:s uncertainty of the true purpose of actor A causes B to take preventive actions, and then A will do the very same. This goes on and on with small steps which eventually lead to an incident or worse; war. And this doesn’t happen over night. It happens gradually without anyone realizing it, until it’s to late to do anything to stop it.

    / Thanks for a great radio show
    / M

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.