RSS
Consider it a marriage made in hell. Start with the groom, Donald Trump, the man who once wondered why in the world we make nuclear weapons if we can’t use them; who wouldn’t rule out using nukes, even in Europe; who insisted that a president should be “unpredictable” on the subject; who suggested that it might not be “a bad thing for us” if Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea all became nuclear powers; who threatened North Korea with “fire and fury like the world has never seen” before he became a chummy correspondent with its dictator; and who called for a nearly 10-fold increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal (among many other, often contradictory, comments he’s made on nuclear matters).
Now, think about the bride, National Security Advisor John Bolton, a “statesman” who never saw a nuclear agreement he didn’t want to nuke. Those included President Richard Nixon’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, President Bill Clinton’s Agreed Framework with North Korea, President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal (all of which he helped to deep-six), and most recently President Ronald Reagan’s Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty (a pact that had actually resulted in thousands of ready-to-use nuclear weapons being scrapped). With the help of his neocon bro, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Bolton recently succeeded in sticking a knife directly in the back of that treaty. He’s undoubtedly now eying the New START treaty, which put limits on long-range nukes and is up for renewal in 2021. (The president has already called it “one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration.”)
As TomDispatch regular and former Boston Globe columnist James Carroll points out today, the first new member of Trump’s and Bolton’s nuclear family, a “low-yield” nuke, was only recently born and given the less-than-apocalyptic name, W76-2. It looks as though, in nuclear terms, they are headed for a grim version of connubial bliss. To mix a metaphor or two in the fashion of our president, you might even think of that first progeny of theirs as a minute hand on a ticking clock heading for midnight. nuclear
- Doomsday Redux
The Most Dangerous Weapon Ever Rolls Off the Nuclear Assembly Line
James Carroll • February 12, 2019 • 2,300 Words
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Like cleaning the litter box, I repeat: why does Mr. Engelhardt enjoy the privilege of having these introductions published separately from the article of the, as he vainly reminds us, “TomDispatch regular”? Mr. Carroll’s article is on another page, with its own place for comments; so to the extent people want to discuss these things, we’ll have commenters literally talking past each other, diminishing one of the best aspects of TUR.
Assuming (very) hypothetically that TomDispatch or its parent The Nation wanted to amplify a TUR article written by, say, Linh Dinh or C. J. Hopkins, it’s hard to imagine Mr. Unz requesting, much less receiving, such an annoying little soapbox.
Dude,
Give it up. Why do you clutter this comment field with your bot text?
Who gives a shit what Tom Engledipshit does or says?
I come here to read the specific comments about the specific writing, not to see over and over again your complaint.
You complained. You have a point. Done. Just stop.
You are starting to sound like an unhinged whiner. Somone who is actually worse than Tom E.
I’m trying to improve this already excellent website.
Mr. Engelhardt is at the front of the parade leading antiwar dissidents away from any effective opposition to the Empire, to an NPR-level, knee jerk opposition to President Trump. (His practical silence about Helsinki last summer was revealing, as I’ve previously commented.) The snarky DTS and ClimaPanic introductions probably prevent people from getting to what has been written, whether good or bad, by the “TomDispatch regular.” Why he’s allowed to do so is baffling, and I intend to keep asking about it until our host tells me that he’s heard enough.
In the meantime, please consider that repetition works. My “bot text” observations about the pronoun propaganda of Mr. Buchanan and the Establishment RussiaGate line of Mr. Napolitano seem to have eventually helped some people to read them more critically.
Thanks for your time and consideration, which may help to bring this admittedly tiresome issue to a head.
Although I can relate to your frustration, If one took the time to read Mr. Unz’s articles, one would realize that he is in favor of most things associated with The Left’s Ideology. This doesn’t bother me at all. There are writers from every persuasion that are permitted/invited to this Clearing House for ALL Ideologies. This is what makes this site unique because everyone is invited to read or watch Videos that espouse many, various ideologies. He has some of the greatest writers AND commenters available, in my opinion.
The idea that each visitor to this site may freely express their opinions, regardless of the subject is refreshing to most. One may chose to read an analysis that elicits criticism and the criticism is permitted without getting banned.
If you wish to voluntarily cloister your self with “your own kind,” you have the choice of signing up with various other sights wherein you’ll find comfort in an echo chamber. One doesn’t even have to “sign up”, here.
This is just my opinion…not a criticism of you or anyone else that wishes to “shew” away the opposing view.
Articles and Comments, here, are good, bad, and everything else in between and beyond the expected extremes and extending to the the far reaches of extremes in both directions…it’s known as “discussion”…discussion without censorship is one of our last freedoms to be cherished.
What I enjoy, here, is the privilege to read an opposing view without obstructions, expanding my vocabulary by reading articles and comments that employ $5 words, learning history and economy and politics from renown experts, and enjoying the humorous banter. I’ve learned to relax and “enjoy the show” as our current Political Leader suggests.
Both Pat & Napolitano richly deserve criticism, as does Englehardt. But you are not cricitizing Tom’s writing as you do with the others.
You are harping on the method of presentation. That’s just petty. Tom chooses to introduce the authors he chooses to feature. This is done by many other blog posters and is totally common in magazines and even newspapers. It may be conceited, but then all the others that do it are, too.
Ron runs Tom’s stuff straight from Tom’s blog and that’s the way things are presented there.
You hardly make any points at all by repeating over and over again that Tom has the style that he has on his own blog, reproduced faithfully on Unz Review.
It denigrates your other criticisms because it reveals you to be just a petty crank.
Once again, stop that. Criticize the writing and the point of view, not the artifice used to present them.
“just a petty crank”
I strongly disagree. I think he makes some of the most thoughtful, interesting, stylish, and well-informed comments that appear on Unz. One can argue against the specific point about repetition, sure, but “petty crank” is not accurate.
Your reaction seems increasingly disproportionate, but I won’t be telling you to stop.
I’ve explained my view, considered yours, and intend to continue complaining about these distracting teasers being published apart from the articles.
Re-read my comment.
I did not comment on any other comment than this robotic repeat word for word nonsense on a style of presentation, instead of his other comments on substance. It is not thoughtful. It is uninteresting. It is lacking in style. There is nothing well-informed with repeating 10 times in a row the exact same complaint about someone doing an introductory to the articles that he presents under the Unz banner.
It is petty. It is being a crank.
Please understand that what I’m whining about here is Mr. Engelhardt using others’ work to have a cheap introduction published every two or three days as an Unz Review columnist. I agree about the value of divergent views.
Our nuclear arsenal has been outdated – it was made in the 1960-70s. This is an upgrade that’s been needed for 30 years for basic modernization purposes and always been put off by various fools.
Now that it’s actually in production we can recycle and tear down the old stuff and maintain what we want to maintain with modern technology.
Essentially it’s a non-issue.
And as for the treaties, if other people aren’t following them, why should we?
“Our … we … we … ”
Are you an employee of Uncle Sam? If not, why identify with him?
Far too many Americans unthinkingly root for the USGov, especially its military forces. Some even feel honored when the names of their kids go up on the green signs along the potholed roads here in Exceptionalia.
What part of what I explained to you did you not understand? This is what editors do!! They introduce the work of their blog writers. Unz is just posting Tom’s blog.
Are you stupid? This is the 2nd time you’ve had to have it explained to you. It’s a common style. Just because you have not seen it in others or in other blogs only means you are narrow.
I think it’s time for you to fuck off now.
You never had to explain a thing. As to seconds, “I’ve explained my view, considered yours, and intend to continue complaining about these distracting teasers being published apart from the articles.”
Gee, have we met?
We seem to be of the same mind on Mr. Engelhardt’s latest.