If Bush wins, "within ten or 20 years, there will be no life on the planet . . ."
Speculation that if Bush wins then Havana will be bombed, that seemed maybe a possibility but mostly what you could call "over the top". Then I read a story on world leaders in science and religion getting together to remind us of the nuclear disaster and DR. HELEN CALDECOTT says, "My prognosis is, if nothing changes and Bush is re-elected, within ten or 20 years, there will be no life on the planet, or little."
I do not want to fear-monger, but it looks bad. On Monday, March 8, 2004, world leaders in science and religion got together to make a statement on the likely future of Earth and the people of Earth. Why all this seems to come down on one George W. Bush, maybe that's unfair or irrelevant. Dr. Caldecott qualifies the alarm with "if nothing changes" --- probably meaning things continuing more or less like they are going now. But still we could hope that "W" will change and become enlightened? I mean, that's probably more possible than that he will lose the election. And then again, maybe we could ALL of us in this U.S. of A. become enlightened enough to vote Nader in. Something has to give. I do not feel comfortable with the old SNAFU philosophy (Situation Normal All Fucked Up).
From www.commondreams.org, published on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 by OneWorld.net, by Jim Lobe:
An international group of religious and scientific leaders Monday launched an appeal to the United States and all other nuclear states to pledge never to use nuclear weapons and re-affirm their commitments to achieving total nuclear disarmament.
Since the Bush administration took power in 2001, however, the U.S. has been ambiguous on the question, while its opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--seen as a key step toward eventual disarmament--has fanned concerns that Washington does not intend to follow through on its earlier commitments.
Adding to these concerns are the administration's efforts to reverse a unilateral 1993 ban on research and development of low-yield atomic weapons, such as "mini-nukes" and bunker-busters" which Bush officials insist would provide greater flexibility in dealing with small-scale conflicts, such as last year's war in Iraq, or with terrorists holed up in remote regions. Such weapons could destroy small targets with much less damage in terms of blast and radiation, according to their proponents.
Democrats in Congress tried to prevent the administration from going forward by denying funding for development, but the administration succeeded in prying loose $7.5 million for the project late last year.
Scientists and weapons specialists who signed the Appeal stressed that the administration's insistence on retaining a nuclear arsenal and developing new weapons not only risked undermining the NPT and global non-proliferation efforts, but also made little military sense in an era when smaller, more precise conventional weapons using sensors and other systems are available.
"Military leaders don't see any military utility for making these weapons," according to Ivan Oerlich, a nuclear physicist at the Federation of American Scientists. "It's the civilians who want them," he said. "There is no military mission that cries out for nuclear weapons. These are weapons in search of a mission."
Monday's appeal, however, is based more on questions of morality than on utility, according to its signers, who also include Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Nuclear Policy Research Institute who shared the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
"My prognosis is, if nothing changes and Bush is re-elected, within ten or 20 years, there will be no life on the planet, or little," she said. "It's good to use the words 'sin' and 'evil' (in this context)," she added. "It is true that it is evil to have power to destroy life on Earth."
Marie Dennis, who serves on the executive committee of Pax Christi International, noted that U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference recently endorsed a global ban on nuclear weapons as a policy goal and called on the U.S. to issue a no-first-use policy on their use. As recently as one year ago in the run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration refused to do so.
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article