Month: April 2006

Jorge Hirsch writes:

“Together with 12 of the nation’s most eminent physicists, I recently wrote to President Bush to tell him that to plan for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran is gravely irresponsible. We asked him to publicly take the nuclear option off the table.

“President Bush has not responded. Perhaps he did not receive the letter, so we will bring it to him in person.

“On Wednesday, April 26, 5 p.m., at Lafayette Park across from the White House, I will read the letter in public, as well as a supporting petition by over 1,900 physicists repudiating the new U.S. nuclear weapons policies, and then deliver these documents to the White House.

“Please come and join us [.pdf] if you support this effort, and please help spread the word.”

The letter is reproduced below.

April 17, 2006
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:
Recent articles in the New Yorker and the Washington Post report that the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran is being actively considered by Pentagon planners and by the White House. As members of the profession that brought nuclear weapons into existence, we urge you to refrain from such an action that would have grave consequences for America and for the world.

1800 of our fellow physicists have joined in a petition opposing new U.S. nuclear weapons policies that open the door to the use of nuclear weapons in situations such as Iran’s. These policies represent a “radical departure from the past," in the words of Linton Brooks, National Nuclear Security Administration director. Indeed, since the end of World War II, U.S. policy has considered nuclear weapons “weapons of last resort," to be used only when the very survival of the nation or of an allied nation was at stake, or at most in cases of extreme military necessity. Instead, the new U.S. nuclear weapons policies have significantly lowered the threshold for the potential use of nuclear weapons, as clearly evidenced by the fact that they are being considered as another tool in the toolbox to destroy underground installations that are “too deep” to be destroyed by conventional weapons. This is a major and dangerous shift in the rationale for nuclear weapons. In the words of the late Joseph Rotblat, Nobel Peace Prize recipient for his efforts to prevent nuclear war, “the danger of this policy can hardly be overemphasized."

Nuclear weapons are unique among weapons of mass destruction: they unleash the enormous energy stored in the tiny nucleus of an atom, an energy that is a million times larger than that stored in the rest of the atom. The nuclear explosion releases an immense amount of blast energy and thermal and nuclear radiation, with deadly immediate and delayed effects on the human body. Over 100,000 human beings died in the Hiroshima blast, and nuclear weapons in today’s arsenals have a total yield of over 200,000 Hiroshima bombs.

Using or even merely threatening to use a nuclear weapon preemptively against a non-nuclear adversary tells the 182 non-nuclear-weapon countries signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that their adherence to the treaty offers them no protection against a nuclear attack by a nuclear nation. Many are thus likely to abandon the treaty, and the nuclear nonproliferation framework will be damaged even further than it already has, with disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world.

There are no sharp lines between small “tactical” nuclear weapons and large ones, nor between nuclear weapons targeting facilities and those targeting armies or cities. Nuclear weapons have not been used for 60 years. Once the U.S. uses a nuclear weapon again, it will heighten the probability that others will too. In a world with many more nuclear nations and no longer a “taboo” against the use of nuclear weapons, there will be a greatly enhanced risk that regional conflicts could expand into global nuclear war, with the potential to destroy our civilization.

It is gravely irresponsible for the U.S. as the greatest superpower to consider courses of action that could eventually lead to the widespread destruction of life on the planet. We urge you to announce publicly that the U.S. is taking the nuclear option off the table in the case of all non-nuclear adversaries, present or future, and we urge the American people to make their voices heard on this matter.

Sincerely,

Philip Anderson, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Michael Fisher, Wolf Laureate, Physics
David Gross, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Jorge Hirsch, Professor of Physics
Leo Kadanoff, National Medal of Science, Physical Sciences
Joel Lebowitz, Boltzmann Medalist
Anthony Leggett, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Eugen Merzbacher, President, American Physical Society, 1990
Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Andrew Sessler, President, American Physical Society, 1998
George Trilling, President, American Physical Society, 2001
Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Edward Witten, Fields Medalist

This absurdity (and here’s why it’s absurd) brings to mind an old nugget from P.J. O’Rourke:

Everybody wants to save the earth; nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes.

It’s a pity O’Rourke hasn’t applied that insight to the global democracy crusade…

Since you’re the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I figure you must be the appropriate person to address this to.

I have another piece of evidence to go into your articles of impeachment against George Bush and Dick Cheney:

“Drumheller, who retired [from the CIA] last year, says the White House ignored crucial information from a high and credible source. The source was Iraq’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, with whom U.S. spies had made a deal.

“When CIA Director George Tenet delivered this news to the president, the vice president and other high ranking officials, they were excited — but not for long.

“‘[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs,” says [former CIA analyst] Drumheller. ‘The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said ‘Well, what about the intel?’ And they said ‘Well, this isn’t about intel anymore. This is about regime change.'”

There’s nothing particularly earth-shattering here, except perhaps for the question of who exactly made up the “they” that blew this source off in such a manner. But it ought to serve well enough as another nail in the House’s indictment of this criminal administration.

This may also be an appropriate time for the last few people who still believe they weren’t deliberately lied into war to go ahead and take the opportunity to snap out of it.

According to the great libertarian journalist James Bovard, Americans have attention deficit disorder. Among his most disturbing conclusions is that most of us have absolutely no idea what the Bill of Rights says or means.

Here’s what little I can do about that:

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

“Mindless snark.” A “cheap shot.” That’s how Glenn Reynolds and his sorority sisters have characterized the following blog post by Jesse Walker of Reason:

The Past Is Another Planet

Glenn Reynolds, writing in Reason in 1999:

[O]ur current situation–with so many foreign troop deployments that even military buffs can’t keep track of them all and with wars initiated essentially on presidential whim–would have horrified the Framers.

The post has been updated since then, but this original morsel is what provoked hissy fits among the hawks. Um, where’s the snark? Where’s the cheap shot? If I squint, I can maybe see a slight smirk in the Reynoldsesque presentation, though if that’s what Walker was shooting for, he forgot to append the requisite “Huh,” “Heh,” or “Indeed.”

But our angry little Paduks can’t stand to have their words read back to them, even without comment.

Jesse Walker finds a Glenn Reynolds statement from 1999 that could easily appear on Antiwar.com:

[O]ur current situation – with so many foreign troop deployments that even military buffs can’t keep track of them all and with wars initiated essentially on presidential whim – would have horrified the Framers.

Reynolds huffs and puffs, but Walker could have quoted more. Here’s the passage above in broader context (scroll down):

During the 18th and 19th centuries, militia forces proved quite effective at their primary purpose: defense of local terrain against invasion and insurrection. (Militia-like forces are still good at this, even against professional soldiers, as the U.S. experience in Lebanon and Somalia illustrates.)

When it comes to projecting power abroad, militias aren’t as good. Part-time soldiers are less willing to go on such missions, and, as Temm rightly notes, preparation for such work requires more and different training than does the defense of familiar terrain. To the Framers, who feared not only standing armies but also the imperial ambitions they would bring, this unsuitability for foreign missions was not a flaw but a feature: A militia-based defense strategy was far less likely to produce foreign entanglements and wars. As Gary Hart correctly points out in the book I reviewed, our current situation – with so many foreign troop deployments that even military buffs can’t keep track of them all and with wars initiated essentially on presidential whim – would have horrified the Framers. A professional army is better suited to our current situation, but the militia system was meant to keep us out of the situation altogether.

For even more eye-openers, read Reynolds’ glowing review of Gary Hart’s The Minuteman: Restoring an Army of the People. Dig this:

Hart opens by noting that our current military posture could be described as “Eisenhower’s Nightmare”: a military-industrial complex so politically and economically powerful that it has taken on a life of its own. It is Eisenhower’s nightmare because the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about was a creature of the Cold War, but its present-day version has survived the end of that struggle almost intact. Despite the oddity of a huge military establishment with no plausible superpower foes, this fact is rarely remarked upon. That is because almost everyone in a position to care, from members of Congress fighting military base closings to flak-jacketed journalists addicted to covering war zones, has an investment in keeping the money flowing. As Hart says, “this great machine grinds grimly, ineluctably onward, searching for villains, whether stone-throwing tribesmen or desert quacks, to justify its existence.” (Compare this with what Framing-era writer Joel Barlow said about standing armies: “Thus money is required to levy armies, and armies to levy money; and foreign wars are introduced as the pretended occupation for both.”) …

Hart’s book is well-written and thoroughly anchored in both military and political realities. An America that followed his recommendations would probably be less apt to become involved in ill-considered foreign wars, more resistant to tyranny, and effectively impossible to invade. This prospect is reason enough to begin the national debate that Hart calls for. Whether that debate takes place will be an interesting test of whether Eisenhower’s nightmare is coming to an end.

Wow, you’d almost get the impression that imperialism and the military-industrial complex are bad things…

UPDATE: Corrected wrong link on “broader context.”