78 Years After Hiroshima, We’ve Forgotten What Little We Learned

78 years ago today, The United States set the bar for justifying the use of nuclear weapons at “It shortened the war and helped save lives.” If you think this justifies our killing over 200,000 civilians (in Hiroshima alone, not counting Nagasaki), then it should by extension justify any other nuclear-armed nation involved in a protracted war.

I sometimes feel the fact that Russia has not merely thousands of nuclear weapons comparable to the ones used by the U.S. against Japan, but thousands of weapons that are a thousand times more destructive, tends to get overlooked. It wasn’t always thus. Once we looked for ways to lessen the amount of nuclear weapons other countries possessed, even if it meant signing treaties that forced us to limit the quantity of nuclear weapons we could manufacture. All in all, not a bad arrangement.

For decades, it has been a driving force in U.S. policy to prevent other nations, especially ones we did not consider our allies, from acquiring nuclear weapons. The theory behind it was that if a country like Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it would make them much more powerful and dangerous. You simply couldn’t bully a country around if the threat of a nuclear response was not out of the question.

That’s the reason we spent over a decade using weapons inspectors to clear out the worst of the weapons of mass destruction Iraq had before we invaded the country, ironically using the lie that they had weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for the invasion. Scott Ritter, one of the weapons inspectors actually in Iraq, was brave enough to tell the truth, that the inspections were working and Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein may have been a monster, but he was willing to get rid of weapons in order to save his own skin, if not the lives of over a million Iraqis from sanctions and war with the U.S. Saddam complied, and Saddam died.

In 2003, in part in reaction to U.S. sanctions, Libya renounced its WMD programs and welcomed in international inspectors to verify that it was following through on its promises. In 2004, Assistant Secretary of State Paula A. DeSutter said: “We must do our best to ensure that Libya’s decision stands as a model for other proliferators to mend their ways and help restore themselves to international legitimacy.” She wanted the world to see that the way to a peaceful world and security for individual nations was through the relinquishing of weapons of mass destruction. 7 years later, Libya’s government fell to the power of internal dissenters, imported terrorists funded and armed by the U.S., and NATO bombardment. Its leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the person who renounced his country’s WMD programs, was murdered by anal rape with a bayonet. I don’t think this was the sort of message DeSutter wanted to send to the rest of the world.

Two years after Libya was thrown into chaos and destruction and slave markets, Syria — with the assistance of Russia — agreed to get rid of its chemical weapons as a means of (allegedly) assuring that the U.S. would not topple its government. A great many weapons were removed and destroyed, but the same foreign ISIS and Al-Qaeda-related fighters used in Libya continued to be armed and funded in Syria by the United States. Syria was later accused of using chemical weapons and bombed for it. Curious that Syria would give up so many chemical weapons if they would be willing to use a few and therefore justify the very U.S. involvement they worked so hard to avoid. More curious, too, that they would do so when they had turned the tide of battle without the need for them. It worked in favor of the U.S. agenda, but not their own. 10 years later, U.S. is still in control of a third of Syria. The third with the oil, in case you were wondering.

A lesson has been learned by leaders of countries around the world, but it is not the one DeSutter was hoping for. The lesson learned is NEVER surrender your weapons of mass destruction in exchange for peace, because it will just make it easier for the United States to attack you and install a government that takes orders from Washington. The threat of retaliation using seriously powerful weapons is the only thing holding the U.S. back from attacking any country that is not obedient to empire. Little Boy and Fat Man would not have been dropped on Japan if Japan had similar presents to bestow upon San Francisco and Los Angeles in return. Government leaders resistant to having sharp items inserted into their rectums, take note.

In prior decades, when it came to nuclear-armed nations, the U.S. recognized the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy, understanding that nobody wins in a nuclear war. The U.S. didn’t have to like another nation, but it did have to realize they had enough weapons to blow up the planet, and so relied on things like dialogue, treaties, and recognition of another nation’s right to existence and self-determination. I wouldn’t say it worked well, but we did manage to avoid any messy nuclear altercations.

But then a strange change took place. Where once the United States admitted that it was madness to threaten and provoke countries that possessed the most deadly of WMDs, it now seems to go out of its way to flick the nose of other nuclear-powered nations. Putting aside the idea that there is only one planet that we all must share, the U.S. decided it could dictate terms to all other nations. And while it worked when confronting nations like Iraq, Libya, and Syria, to name a few, it is yet to be seen how it will work against nuclear-armed countries. The next year or two should prove instructive. There is a very real chance that some genius like Victoria Nuland, Antony Blinken, John Bolton, or their Russian equivalent, might miscalculate and escalate the situation beyond control.

But we really shouldn’t worry. There has only ever been one country evil enough to use nuclear weapons on another country, at least so far. Surely Russia, or China, or North Korea would never do such a thing, right? After all, it wouldn’t fall within the parameters of the rules-based order.

That’s all I have time for tonight as I must get some rest before going to work. Sleep soundly, all of you, knowing your country is in the capable hands of the most benevolent people the world has known. Trust to their wisdom and all will work out for the best.

Sweet dreams.