THE DEBATE OR LACK OF DEBATE OVER THE FIRST-STRIKE USE OF NUCELAR WEAPONS

OBAMA IS BACKING DOWN FROM HIS PLEDGE TO ACHIEVE THE EVENTUAL ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR ARMS, PUT FORWARD IN HIS 2008 CAMPAIGN. HE IS APPARNETLY RULING OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF RENOUNCING A FIRST-STRIKE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The argument, as the NY Times points out in its article “Obama Unlikely to Vow No First Use of Nuclear Weapons” is that such a vow will “embolden” Russia and China and also send a signal of weakness to our allies such as South Korea. Nowhere in the article is there mention that failure to do so encourages a nuclear arms race. And nowhere in the article is there discussion of the heinous scenario in which the U.S. unilaterally employs nuclear weapons. What would such a scenario look like? Again, the corporate media, while giving the appearance of objectivity, is not telling the whole story.  

The article does state that the Federation of American Scientists, a private group in Washington, released a study “showing that Mr. Obama had dismantled fewer nuclear warhead than any other post-Cold War president.” The article also says “Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has said little this year about her nuclear plans, and Mr. Trump has argued for a major military buildup.”

This is an additional reason to include the two main third-party candidates in at least one of the presidential debates. Who is raising the real issues that are of concern for the U.S. public?

Jill Stein, for instance, states unequivocally “WE DON’T NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXYd7On8d5s