You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / Apocalypse Never: Read This Book or Die
Apocalypse Never: Read This Book or Die
By David Swanson
Tad Daley writes, in his new book, "Apocalypse Never: Forging the Path to a Nuclear Weapon-Free World," that he would like his book to have the impact of "Common Sense," "Uncle Tom's Cabin," or "The Jungle." Yeah, buddy, what author wouldn't? But Daley has a unique argument for the moral necessity of sharing his goal and promoting either his book or others like it: our only alternative is the annihilation of all life on earth.
By the time you've read this book, you will in fact be persuaded that if others do not grasp its central points, not just tyranny or slavery or unsafe workplaces will continue, but all trace of humanity and every other life form in the world will be eliminated.
One of those central points is this: we can either eliminate all nuclear weapons or we can watch them proliferate. There's no middle way. We can either have no nuclear weapons states, or we can have many. This is not a moral or a logical point, but a practical observation backed up with enough specifics to convince you of its certainty. As long as some states have nuclear weapons others will desire them, and the more that have them the more easily they will spread to others still. The number of nuclear states has jumped from six to nine since the end of the Cold War, and more are likely.
A second central point is that if nuclear weapons continue to exist, there will very likely be a nuclear catastrophe, and the more the weapons have proliferated, the sooner it will come. Once Daley recounts some of the incidents (there have been hundreds) that have nearly destroyed our world through accident, confusion, misunderstanding, and extremely irrational machismo, you will be amazed that you are currently alive and that anyone else is. And then you'll want to eliminate the chance of such a tragedy playing out in the future, not increase it to the point of near certainty, which is what proliferation does. And when you add in the quite real and increasing possibility of non-state terrorists acquiring and using nuclear weapons, the danger grows dramatically -- and is only increased by the policies of nuclear states that react to terrorism in ways that seem designed to recruit more terrorists.
The danger is increased again, and dramatically so, by the Bush-Obama era policy of nuclear first-strike against non-nuclear states, which encourages Iran to seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and which violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as of course does our failure to work for multilateral (not just bi-lateral) disarmament and elimination (not just reduction).
Daley is also persuasive that possessing nuclear weapons does absolutely nothing to keep us safe, so that there is really no trade-off involved in eliminating them. They do not deter terrorist attacks by non-state actors in any way. Nor do they add an iota to our military's ability to deter nations from attacking us, given the United States' ability to destroy anything anywhere at any time with non-nuclear weapons. They also don't win wars, and the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China have all lost wars against non-nuclear powers while possessing nukes. Nor, in the event of global nuclear war, can any outrageous quantity of weaponry protect the United States in any way from apocalypse.
However, the calculation looks very different for a smaller nation. North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons and put an end to bellicosity from the United States. Iran has not acquired nukes, and is under steady threat. Nukes mean protection to a smaller nation. But the seemingly rational decision to become a nuclear state only increases the likelihood of a coup, or civil war, or mechanical error, or fit of rage somewhere in the world putting an end to us all.
Daley lays out a framework for how the nations of the world could proceed toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. This would require, among other steps, allowing international inspectors access to search for nuclear weapons in any country, including our own. Such inspections were successful in Iraq, eliminated weapons, and would have prevented war had the United States complied with the UN Charter. Of course, international authority will be a major stumbling block and be denounced as a threat to national sovereignty. But Daley points out the stark choice we face:
"Yes, international inspections here would intrude upon our sovereignty. But detonations of atom bombs here would also intrude upon our sovereignty. The only question is, which of those two intrusions do we find less excruciating."
Of course the answer may be the former. But I think we can change that through greater awareness. Hence my promotion of this book.
I think Daley may fall short in one area, however, and miss the significance of his own logic. He claims to be an agnostic on the question of whether we can maintain nuclear energy plants while eliminating nuclear weapons. He holds this position even while recognizing that the plants are themselves weapons, easily detonated by state enemies or terrorists, and even while recognizing that possession of nuclear energy's technology and materials makes acquisition of nuclear weaponry much easier. Daley also understands the escalating exchange currently underway between the United States and Iran during which Iran is threatened and understood to see nuclear weapons as a powerful deterrent, Iran works to acquire nuclear energy, the United States is threatened by that and increases its threats toward Iran, which leads Iran to pursue nuclear energy (and possibly weapons) all the more, and on and on, back and forth. This cycle would not be possible in a world that was truly post-nuclear.
Nonetheless, Daley provides a sane and necessarily revolutionary vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, in which -- as he explains -- the cost in universal condemnation for acquiring nukes would be treated just as the similar cost for reinstituting slavery is imagined today. Daley points out that there are "rational" grounds for the United States to use its nuclear weapons now, such as to take over Cuba, that are not deterred by anything other than moral standards and the value of respect in the world community. Were a "rogue state" or a terrorist group to acquire nukes in a world otherwise rid of them, the response would come from the entire world. It could include the same unlimited military destruction of which the United States is capable today with non-nuclear weapons. And it could include universal boycott, sanctions, and criminal prosecution.
And, remember, we are no better able to defend against a terrorist with a nuke today because of our nuclear arsenal -- we're just more likely to encounter one. The man arrested for attempting to set off a bomb in Times Square last week is the son of a man who has been involved in guarding nuclear weapons in Pakistan. And Pakistan would not have nuclear weapons if we did not. Is that enough degrees of separation for you to sleep well?
Every time there's a hurricane or an oil spill, there are lots of I-told-you-so's. "Apocalypse Never" is the I-told-you-so for that moment when there's nobody left to tell. Consider yourself preemptively told.
--
David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book.
- davidswanson's blog
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
"all trace of humanity and every other life form in the world will be eliminated".
It's elementary, basic education.
BUT BEWARE: When people use this sort of argument in any way supportive of criminal U.S stance vis-a-vis Iran, then it's all a lie. Even if Iran was secretly working on development of nuclear weapons, it would be truly justified and would not expectably use such weapoms or even threaten use, EXCEPT for deterrence. Iran has grounds for wanting to deter attacks against it, but this does not mean that Iran has any nuclear weapons programmes. And the US is the greatest, most serious proliferator of all; esp. with its secret backing of proliferation by Israel and others.
It's BIG MONEY and that is what rules the U.S It doesn't pan-handle for petty change, a dinner, a place to sleep. It's about BIG MONEY.
That requires power, dominion! That "ultimately" requires war. Etcetera
It strategially requires brute force, for while some people might pacifistly accept subjugatiom, slavery, etcetera, NOT everyone will and they will do whatever they can to RESIST.
To defeat them, or to just try to do so, requires brute force, iow, Evil.
If we understand human nature, then the above is very simple, very basic logic, and it's simple to understand or realise that nuclear and atomic weapons are BAD. Most weapoms are bad, but "playing around" with nuclear and, therefore, atomic energy is very dangerous.
There is a different way of "playing around" with atomicity that is very dangerous in hands of humans. Look for videos with Nick Begich and otber people at Google Videos, and articles at, say, www.globalresearch.ca, f.e.
I hope that this is written in sufficiemt quality. I lost use of my right arm, but manage to use a finger, yet this is very difficult to write. This short post has takem me over 15 minutes to write, conservatiuvely speaking.
It's not even half a page and took me over a quarter of an hour, and that seriously is conservative. It probably took a half hour, or more, but I didn't set a timer, so only state a very low estinate; even if I think that "estinate" is an exaggeration. No, this post took closer to a half hour; not 15 minutes. But readers can believe what they want. People usually do.
I should try to guage how lomg it takes me to write, but I haven't started to do this. I just try to write. It never came to my mind to try to know how long it takes to write amythimg.
And, so, I will be writing much less than in the past.
"our only alternative is the annihilation of all life on earth".
Yes, but it's probably not likely to ever happen. Remember, "War is a Racket". What are rackets primarily about? Profit. No nuclear-armed gov't will likely ever use nuclear arms against another nuc.-armed gov't for doing so would end or severely diminish profits for the MIC profiteers and manufacturers, and they would not likely agree with this.
So while the nuc. industry is dangerous, and perhaps no aspect of it should exist, the Money Boys will try to be careful. The government's top deciders are the Banksters and they want power, but their goal is always profits.
Meanwhile, a lot of extreme crimes are and have, for a long time already, been going on, and a new and independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks continues to be denied and obstructed, and "left media", instead, wants to talk about hypothetical nuclear war that the for-profit elites would not likely permit because such war would spoil the "party" for them.
Even if right-wing luny media like Fox, f.e., did not provide air-time for 9/11 Truth speakers for good motives, having wanted to try to ridicule 9/11 Truth, the air-time was nevertheless provided and viewers could think for themselves and understand that there has always been and continues to be major gov't cover-up. Very few "left media" of the U.S. have been open about this cover-up. Amy Goodman seems to have been an exception. Even if she evidently had been very reluctant at first, she evidently did come to provide some appreciable air-time for 9/11 Truth research and for related reporting. I think to have read that she provided reporting for the many first responders who have developed very bad health conditions because of the extremely toxic air at "Ground Zero" that the Bush-Cheney admin. required the head of the EPA to claim to be safe to breathe when she was going to actually report the opposite. But Amy Goodman also provided some air time for 9/11 Truth research or analysis topics.
Mother Jones, The Nation, Counterpunch, CommonDreams, ... posted ridiculous crap about 9/11 Truth.
Left and right make no real difference if we are critically objective and fair, for being CO requires being unbiased and only looking for the truth. In Congress are people who are for 9/11 Truth, both Dem. and Repub. But while being a real Repub. for the Republic of the USA, which is officially for, of and by The People have a real need to make sure that the Republic is not hijacked, etcetera, this means that they must support the call for a new and fully independent, impartial 9/11 investigation, for the Republic and few Repubs are real Repubs. Most are not Repubs. Most are traitors.
Well, the same is true with Dems. Most are equivalent to traitors.
Only traitors can deny or oppose a new, thorough, independent 9/11 investigation and it must be funded by the gov't, for it is for the gov't of the Republic of the USA for, of and by The People. It is also for all of humanity because of what this "New Pearl Harbor" event has been and continues to be used for.
Why oppose 9/11 Truth, unless we know about evil doings we wish to try to help to keep hidden, "of course"? There is NO valid reason for opposing 9/11 Truth. We must have it. We already do greatly have it, for people who are active students on the topic, say. We know beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 officially is so full of lies that it is overflowing with lies, and overall 9/11 Truth, when putting aside false members, liars, idiots, etcetera, really does have proof that the attacks were an inside job; but there are also people who have claimed to be for 9/11 Truth and only or mostly acted or wrote, whatever, in ways that are ridiculous. Some of those people may've been actually working for the gov't, the guilty members of it.
It's important, iow, to be very careful about 9/11 Truth, for it's something that the gov't has been opposing since Day 1 and there are more traitors than anyone of caring soul would want to count.
But 9/11 [must] be reinvestigated and some or several of the original Commissioners could be part of this investigative team for several of them denounced the final report and Bush, Cheney, the CIA, the director of it I guess, and U.S. military brass for their obstructionism and lies. These former Commissioners were not the people who decided what the final report said or could say. They did not run their inquiry. It was many-times obstructed and they were blatantly lied to.
Of course that sort of reality is only going to happen when some more powerful people have incriminating information to hide.
Instead of worrying about hypothetical nuclear war some decades or centuries into the future, we need to focus on the here-and-now, and the "left media" is very "good" at ridiculing, mocking and ignoring this [need], but we must be able to think critically for ourselves!
I don't give a hoot care about hypothetical nuclear war. It is all more scaremongering distraction. Sure, I support the idea of nuclear disarmament, but I am not expecting any nuclear wars. Again, War is a Racket, rackets are for profit, and while scaring people with the image of unlikely hypothetical nuclear war can scare a lot of people, this might actually have a reverse consequence of causing some Americans to support their gov't working on more powerful nuclear weapons.
Such reverse consequences can be intentional or unintended; it depends on who the scaremongerers are and what they really aim for. It can happen when people's intentions are innocent, but they accidentally cause problems.
Nuclear war is possible, for we have the weapons for this, but I don't imagine that this is likely to happen. It'd be very bad for "business". But scaring people in ways that are profitable for "business", heh, it's profitable. If it helps to drive more business, then it's judged to be good.
Which is more right, the right or the left? The left bitches about the right, but is sometimes worse.
I'm neither. Instead, I prefer sound common sense reasoning and critical objectivity. Being left or right is biased and nonsense.
We need a new, thorough and independent investigation, and, furthermore, not only about 9/11. Instead, it's for 9/11, the 1995 OKC Bombing, and the 1993 WTC bombing or attack. There is also a lot about those two earlier attacks that requires full investigation and disclosure. Like with 9/11, those two earlier attacks did NOT happen as the federal gov't officially claimed, there are many witness acounts, including from people who were of the gov't and present, and much more information. 1995 and 2001 were clearly inside jobs. There are things about those attacks that could not be explained in any other terms; it would not have been possible, otherwise. 1993, from an article I read, might not have been an inside job, but if it wasn't, then I don't understand why, for the evidence describes, imo, inside job.
Why 1993 and 1995 though? Do gov't elites in the U.S. love heinousness so much that they think it's fun to kill U.S. citizens for practice, before killing many more foreigners? What the hell...; "Let's practice with massacring some of own chickens before killing more people over in ... this, that, and the other countries we're going to massacre. Like Henry (Kissinger) says, the citizens are just a bunch of dumb animals, so heh, guys, we can practice with killing citizens here, first". Is that the way these so-called elites think and act?
I don't think most people would care to know what my answer to that question is, but maybe it can be stated in a somewhat subtle way. They [are] psychopaths! They do not carry out the "dirty work" themselves, which probably most psychopaths we have read or heard about do. This is a worse, I guess, psychopath, because while they have dumb animals carry out most "chores", a lot more innocent people are damn cold-bloodedly murdered. Our "regular" psychopaths who cold-bloodedly murder 18 or 28 women and men citizens already cause a sort of permanent alert for me. The problem is that gov't is much worse.
That is not to say that all gov't employees are bad. NO, many are good, and some aren't particularly competent, but they need income and aren't really bad persons, so be kind in their regard. Politicians, like lawyers, judges (too many anyway), and military brass, well I have a volcano to use for disosing of this waste. No, not the volcano. The volcano is not waste.
But they are boss elite and if one chore worker becomes problematic, then another expert dumb animal can be hired to terminate the other. And we have all of this jack-ass dumb-animal crap going on, and once in a while, a dumb animal receives a little gift of light, some real intelligence, and then they can think they've been reborn, but there's a slight physical problem with that. We can not be and are not reborn, but some dumb animals finally wake up and stop being assassins, etc.
2001 was different, for me, because it is the "New Pearl Harbor" pretext for the wars launched since then, with an act of war against Haiti thrown in for "good measure", whatever, and AFRICOM. etcetera. But I don't know of the 1993 and 1995 false flag attacks having directly served any foreign "mission" of the U.S elites.
1993 and 1995 were NOT attacks the gov't did not have a hand in, and this is very evident from evidence that [is] available; but why? 2001 is clear. It is pretext for what has been happening, and not happening, like a real 9/11 imvestigation and the so-called left airheads supporting this, but they prefer to oppose and thereby stand with the war-makers. I'll give these left airheads my right anytime!
Well, 2001 is clear. What purpose did 1995 and 1993 serve? The gov't blamed 1995 on Tim McVeigh, who I have finally learned was truly involved, but far differentlty from what the gov't claimed; according to many witnesses, a state Rep. who tried all he possibly could to try to obtain a real inquiry or investigation for the Citizens' Grand Jury process that the citizens of the state constitutionally had the right to.
Tim McVeigh was then actively working with the U.S. army or military, but based on what an employee at the bombed building described of her brief passing with him says, I get an impression that he might have been under serious, intense brain-washing or mind-control.
Those are difficult topics, until correctly understood. Brain works based on electronics, in a sense. There are electrical aspect to how the brain works. There are atoms, which consist of electrons, protons and nuclei, whatever. This is what all electricity is based on. Nothing can happen if it does not consist of atoms, for everything that [materially] exists consists of atoms.
Brain or mind control is possible and is actually used. One or more Canadian doctors use this for trying to help patients. But whenever science can be used for good purposes, it can also be used for bad.
HAARP is electro-magnetic waves technology. It is real, very dangerous, and "left nedia" ignores this perhaps because the left is mostly licking the rear cheeks of the Clintons and Gore, Al.
A lot can be done when we start playing around with electro-magnetics. I did not pursue this science when accepted into related engineering studies, but I excelled in what I had learned of it, no school would've denied me access to full degree and more, but math was very appealing to me because of teachers I had had and through whom I experienced abstraction that boggles the mind so much that it had me nearly going throguh a nervous breakdown. A few women did highly well, but no guy did nearly as well. And I'm not a woman, so ... trouble. This math failed most males, but some of us got through. Math is where I should've stayed, but electrical or electronic physics was also an area of interest. Well, I did the do-do thing and switched to computer science, of which several courses were important, but also a lot of waste was added; but then that's probably true of most or all so-called higher-ed. A lot of bs, with some good mixed in.
Streets smarts are not found among academic decision makers, and they're like their gov't counterparts, a bunch of sh*ts who should work at McDonalds and flip burgers, but no consumer is so dumb that they frequent these garbage bins.
You're better off frequenting the garbage bin behind your local grocery store and hoping that it has not been locked. Good luck. Most are locked.
Only some aristocrats care about hypothetical nuclear war that the ruling Banksters would prevent if they have some basic reasoning skills.
Nuclear war is not going to happen and the so-called left has been evil on the question of Iran, which has been FALSELY accused and even if Iran developed nuclear weapons or secretly obtained them through Cheney, some other U.S. pols, or Israel, indirectly or directly, though of course secretly, what the hell do you think Iran would do with this? Iran will NEVER launch any attacks that the Iranian gov't could only know would bring in superpowers against them.
The Iranian leadership, and this is NOT President, for he is slave to the real leadership, they have been and sometimes continue to be unjust. They punish women for sex matters that even the women are first victims of. We have some quacky religious idiots who love money and power, and can't make themselves humble before God. They act as His equal, but are bunch of worms. Yet these worms are not foolish enough to f*ck with superpowers. However, these worms are or at least should be wise enough to realise that they need to develop a capability of deterence.
They should stop their stupid sexual, and anti-hashish ways though. Those state rulers are a little nuts. A woman who is raped is not guitly or dishonor. The rapist is. And hash is good.
Get me stoned on hash, or present a women to me, and then ask me if I wamt to go to war? Go ahead. I challenge you.
Oh, don't forget the hash, and if it isn't good, them I will smack you, so
SEE, life is not simple. It is not black and white. There is a lot that people, so-called left and right, really, evidently anyway, try to distract us from that it fills volumes See Keith Harmon Snow, www.allthingspass.com, and related Web videos, and see Rev. Kevin Annett's documentary "Unrepentant: ...", available at his website, www.hiddenfromhistory.org. And see real videos and articles about 9/11 and precedent history.
SEE, LISTEN to, learn. If we really do this, then it is very simple to realise that Jesus was right when he aggressively, and not pacifistly, threw the usurers out of the temple and that Jesus was enforcing Judaic law against usury.
Even if all of that religious story is fiction, we better live by it. It doesn't really matter if the story is fiction. Sure, we can use false statements by or from our neighbors, but if the false stories actually contain truths, then we must be careful to only eliminate the falsehoods. So let's let at the truth. I don't know that the Gospels figure of Jesus ever stated any falsehoods, but will just select a few of his *many) truths.
Troublesome guy he was, for he presented too many arguable, that is, supportable truths, and it's a real nuisance when someone is not easily debunkable. It makes for a nerve-wracking opponent, and it's always better when they are weak.
Anyway, this is all messy. We can have honest, innocent,... people. We can and often have half-assed people who don't really mean to lie, but are not intelligent enough to realise that they are lying, that is, telling falsehoods. And then we have Disneyland whatever liars and these schmucks really are lying, but while using dumb animals, that is, humans, to try to fool us.
I have the story. NOW, go tell the gov't to jump off of a cliff.
They are NOT going to get me any longer; neither so-called left or right matters.
Hit DEAD CENTER! The rest is bs. Forget future-hyothetical nuclear war. The rulers would find this to be awfully unprofitable venture and they like massacring people, sure, but blood must mean money for them.
We must remember, War is a Racket, and it's always that way.
One way or another, it's always RACKET.
I'm not going to try to split hairs. War is RACKET! NO gov't leadership, not even the so-called bad No. Korean gov't of which I know too little in terms of so far is a [little] scary, but nothing like the U.S.
We have some real problems here. A lot of people do not focus on the real and present problems. A lot of people talk about hypothetical problems. We need to focus on the present and real. And to do this requires a lot of serious investigation.
It's difficult to write, for I lost most use of my right arm. I have to make a lot of corrections and mostly have one finger to use, but I try nevertheless to write. We have a BIG PROBLEM. WE have to get back to 9/11.
Once we do that, then we should also go back further.