Author: Brandon

What a shock. I honestly didn’t see this coming. What happens when you design a “missile defense”, which might, someday, be able to stop all missile attacks, and thus nullify the ability of any nation in the world to respond to a US attack? This is what happens;

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Tuesday that Moscow was creating a nuclear weapon capable of thwarting any defense system in the world, Interfax news agency reported.
“There is not now and will not be any defense from such missiles,” the news agency quoted Ivanov as saying.

Noam Chomsky has been pointing out that opponents of the missile defense were arguing incorrectly that the missile defense doesn’t work, when it’s far more dangerous if it appears that it might work. If that’s the case, then the US can attack any nation in the world with total impunity. And certainly the US has not given the rest of the world any reason to fear attack, has it? …

The US congress has certainly come a long way since the days of John C. Calhoun and John Quincy Adams. Amy Goodman and Jackson Thoreau have both reported that congressman Sam Johnson (R-Texas) has called on president Bush to nuke Syria. Thoreau quotes Johnson as having said (at a church gathering, of all places – are these our old pals the Fundies?);

“Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on ’em and I’ll make one pass. We won’t have to worry about Syria anymore.”

Thoreau says the church crowd “roared with applause”. Now, I’m sure the administration is not seriously thinking about dropping the bomb on Syria, and that Johnson can’t possibly be the homicidal maniac he sounds like here. But this is still extremely inappropriate language for any US Representative to be using at this particular moment. What are the Syrians supposed to think?
And shame on this allegedly Christian (I’m assuming it’s some branch of Christianity) crowd for cheering Johnson. Do you suppose Christ would have cheered?

Gary Leupp, writing in Counterpunch;

Before Bush’s Tribunal of Freedom and Godliness, Syria stands guilty until proven innocent. The sentence on its regime was pronounced even before this Year Four, as was the sentence on Iran. The plan is to execute both before Year Five. “This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous,” declared Bush in Europe. “Having said that, all options are on the table.” Indeed all the cards are on the table, they are all ridiculous, because they’re all in the same suit, all marked: “Attack!”

(emphasis mine)

William Rivers Pitt has a flawed, but compelling analysis of American Empire (posted at truthout.org), which he sees as having taken place in three stages;

There have been three stages of American empire since the creation of this nation. Each has fed the other, and each has been established and fortified by war. More importantly, each has been fortified by the vast profits derived by the few in the making of war. The first two stages did not collapse, so much as they were absorbed by the next iteration, carrying over all circumstances and attendant difficulties. We exist today within the third stage of empire, one that is sick at the core.

I would have to disagree with Pitt on his view of Fundies, or ‘Movement Conservatives’, as he calls them. Since when have these whack jobs wanted to roll back the New Deal? They talk a good game about limiting government and so forth, but the Fundie is the biggest socialist of all. And which entitlement programs have been “gutted”? Did Reagan gut any entitlement programs?

From orbiting lasers to metal rods that strike from the heavens, the potential to wage war from space raises startling possibilities—and serious problems

SHOULD THE UNITED STATES, or any nation for that matter, weaponize space? The answer depends not simply on the capabilities and limitations of proposed space weapons but also on the military objectives. The Rumsfeld commission laid out three objectives in which space weapons might play a role: to defend existing military capabilities in space; to deny adversaries the military benefit of space; and to attack adversaries from or within space.

The last objective is perhaps the most alluring: the prompt and deadly projection of force anywhere on the globe. The psychological impact of such a blow might rival that of such devastating attacks as Hiroshima. But just as the unleashing of nuclear weapons had unforeseen consequences, so, too, would the weaponization of space. What’s more, each of the leading proposed space weapons systems has significant physical limitations that make alternatives more effective and affordable by comparison.

Also, check out Noam Chomsky’s talk at MIT about this subject.

A Turning Point for the Anti-War Movement?

One of the barriers to counter-recruitment activism in colleges and universities has been a set of laws known as the Solomon Amendments, which since 1997 has threatened campuses with the loss of federal funds if they ban recruiters and ROTC. A parallel law was implemented in 2002 to stop high schools from restricting recruiter access to students and student lists. Multiple lawsuits challenging the college-related law were introduced in 2003, and on November 29, 2004, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the Solomon Amendments violated the plaintiffs’ free speech rights (see also the district court victory in Burt v. Rumsfeld, the case brought by Yale). The Justice Department indicated that it will appeal the appellate ruling to the US Supreme Court, and has asked for a stay from the Third Circuit.