Wednesday, September 23, 2015

The Nuclear Re-arming of NATO

Germany's ZDF public television network reports that the U.S. will bring into Germany 20 new nuclear bombs, each being four times the destructive power of the one that was used on Hiroshima.

A former Parliamentary State Secretary in Germany's Defense Ministry, Willy Wimmer, of Chancellor Merkel's own conservative party, the Christian Democratic Union, warns that these “new attack options against Russia” constitute “a conscious provocation of our Russian neighbors.”
"With the new bombs [Type B61-12]  the boundaries blur between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons," criticizes Hans Kristensen of the Nuclear Information Project (Atomic Scientists) in Washington.

German Economic News also reports on Chancellor Merkel's decision to allow these terror-weapons against Russia: "The Bundestag decided in 2009, expressing the will of most Germans, that the US should withdraw its nuclear weapons from Germany. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel did nothing.”

And now she okays the U.S. to increase America's German-based nuclear arsenal against Russia.

The Bundestag decided in March 2010 by a large majority, that the federal government should 'press for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany.' Even the coalition agreement between the CDU and FDP, the German government in 2009 had promised the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from B├╝chel. But instead there will be these new bombs

Other European locations of US nuclear weapons as the air bases in Incirlik in Turkey and Aviano in  Italy to be modernized and to be retrofitted with new nuclear bombs of the type B 61-12.

the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimates that it contains about 4,700 active warheads.  That includes a range of bombs and land-based and submarine-based missiles. If, for instance, a single Ohio Class nuclear submarine -- and the Navy has 14 of them equipped with nuclear missiles -- were to launch its 24 Trident missiles, each with 12 independently targetable megaton warheads, the major cities of any targeted country in the world could be obliterated and millions of people would die. Indeed, the detonations and ensuing fires would send up so much smoke and particulates into the atmosphere that the result would be a nuclear winter, leading to worldwide famine and the possible deaths of hundreds of millions, including Americans (no matter where the missiles went off).

The Obama administration is planning for the spending of up to a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to modernize and upgrade America's nuclear forces. Given that the current U.S. arsenal represents extraordinary overkill capacity -- it could destroy many Earth-sized planets -- none of those extra taxpayer dollars will gain Americans the slightest additional “deterrence” or safety. For the nation's security, it hardly matters whether, in the decades to come, the targeting accuracy of missiles whose warheads would completely destroy every living creature within a multi-mile radius was reduced from 500 meters to 300 meters.


In 2012, a report from a high-level committee chaired by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright concluded that “no sensible argument has been put forward for using nuclear weapons to solve any of the major 21st century problems we face [including] threats posed by rogue states, failed states, proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism, cyber warfare, organized crime, drug trafficking, conflict-driven mass migration of refugees, epidemics, or climate change. In fact, nuclear weapons have on balance arguably become more a part of the problem than any solution.”

SOURCES
http://www.countercurrents.org/zuesse220915.htm

0 comments: