In the early 1980s, around 1983 a movie aired on TV called The Day After. It was a dramatization of what would happen if there was a nuclear war. After the who was over the networks aired a two hour of scientists led by Carl Sagan which discussed what would happen if there was a nuclear war. They concluded that all humanity would be wiped out due to nuclear winter. This was the first time that the notion of nuclear winter was presented to the public.
It was a scary idea, but a very unpopular one with a tiny group people in the Air Force, Pentagon, and Casper Weinbergers office(the secretary of defense) who believed that the US could win a nuclear war. One of Weinbergers chief staff people - a man named Richard Perle - called up reporters the next day to tell them that he had information that Carl Sagan was a communist agent and a homosexual. Why would he do that?
He was working on contingency plans to launch a first strike against the Soviet Union and believed that we could win a nuclear war if we launched first, because he believed that the Russians wouldn't have enough time to counterstrike. He was probably correct, but if nuclear winter would happen it would be a useless strategy because the world would be ruined as a result. So he decided that he would attempt to discredit the idea of nuclear winter by trying to discredit its messenger. It didn't work. The press didn't pick up his allegations. Guess they didn't believe it.
He went on to become Ronald Reagan's head of his "star wars" task force. When Reagan left office Perle went on to work in Washington think tanks were he wrote studies advocating the creation of two classes of space weapons. One class would be space lasers which could be used to destroy the satellites of other nations and the second class would be space based nuclear weapons which could launch and hit their targets in a space of few minutes - fast enough to completely wipe out the enemy without giving them a chance to do anything about it. In other words more first strike fantasies.
Richard Perle is now the chairman of George Bush "Defense Policy Board" where he acts as the number two man for secretary of defense Donald Rumsfield and is the main architect of Bush's so called "missile defense." The fact that he is behind Bush's missile defense helps to tell us what it is really about and why every other country in the world - including our closest NATO allies such as Britian are opposed to it.
To the general public "missile defense" consists of space lasers and defensive missiles which would be used to destroy any enemy missiles that would attack the United States. They also know that there are no studies, tests, or research, that prove that a successful missile defense system can be created to stop a nuclear attack. In fact the consensus is that missile defense won't work. Bush even says that it might not work, but we are better off having something that might work than nothing at all.
There are several main points that critics of "missile defense" use. One that point out that there are no "rogue nations" which have the capability to launch a missile at us. The only one that can is the Soviet Union and they have so many missiles that it would be impossible to stop them. Any nuclear attack would come as a terrorist operation. Someone just walking into DC with a nuclear briefcase, not a missile attack. So they say it is just a waste of money and a kickback to defense contractors.
They miss the point. The goal of "missile defense" is not defensive. It is an offensive weapon. Part of Bush's plans are proposals to create offensive space lasers and a nuclear platform just like Pearle advocated before. This isn't a coincidence because it is Perle's program. The real goal of "missile defense" is to get control of space. When Perle worked for think tanks he wrote papers claiming that space would be the next high tech battlefield in which satellites would battle each other and nuclear platforms would reign on the earth. He claimed that whoever controlled the space battlefield would have the ability to rule over the earth through brute terror and nuclear blackmail. His earlier fantasies of winning a nuclear war now morphed into ruling the world through ruling space.
So this is why all every other nation in the world is opposed to "missile defense." They see it correctly as an attempt upon th Bush administration to militarize space. We are the only nation with the capability and resources to launch a program to put enough weapons up there to control it.
One might argue that this is a good thing for the United States. The problem is that Bush has myopically focused his entire foreign policy program on "missile defense." Every foreign policy initiative Bush has launched has been subsumed by "missile defense" and this has had negative consequences for our standing in the world community. It also is damaging to our national interests.
To give one example. Look at China. China has an arsenal of 1/2 dozen nuclear missiles which are capable of going to Japan, Moscow, and Australia. They were all built in the late 60s and early 70s and none of them can reach the United States. China has been angered by "missile defense" and said that if Bush went through with it they would build up to 20 more nuclear missiles all of which could hit the United States in order to defend themselves. You see building "missile defense" and militarizing space is an escalation of weapons that causes other nations to build weapons to defend their own interests. How does Bush respond? He tells China that is find and gives them a green light to build a nuclear arsenal that can hit the United States and in return China says they won't complain about missile defense. Up until now we have opposed any attempts by China or any other nation to build long range nuclear weapons with the threats of trade boycotts and international condemnation. Now Bush has abandonded that policy so that he can pursue "missile defense."
In the end Bush will put enough weapons in space to control it, but at what cost? Is it worth the costs? Is it worth it the price of having China have the capability to launch nuclear weapons at our country so that Bush can have a nuclear space platform and the ability to blow up other country's satellites? What is the point of militarizing space? Why should we be the first to do that? There is no need. If someone else were to start then we could quickly build our own program that would dwarf theres. Plus we can prevent them from starting just as we've worked to stop the construction of nuclear weapons programs in China and other countries - until now.
There is an interesting article in this week's Time Magazine about all of this. There is opposition inside of the Bush administration to "missile defense" and it comes from Colin Powell. The article talks about how The Secretary of Defense, Perle, and Bush NSC advisor Rice, have worked to keep Powell away from Bush. And Powells role has shrunk in the administration. He is not on the same wave length. There is speculation in the Time article that Powell plans on retiring if Bush gets reelected. Others in the article say that he is just biding time. The comment is made that Powell said that Bush is operating in a dreamworld and when he realizes the costs of "missile defense" he will turn to his advice. Powell isn't going to retire. Right now he sees his role as that of being a countervoice to Perle and Rice and being the voice of sanity in the administration. It is an irony that during the election Bush deflected attacks on him that he knew little about foreign affaris by trumpeting the fact that Powell would be his main advisor. Now instead Bush is surrounded by some people with dangerous ideas while Powell is left to languish in the State Department. If you were wondering why you haven't seen much of Powell on TV now you know.
The problem with Bush is that in foreign and domestic policy he seems to focus on one single program and then does everything he can to get it carried out no matter what the costs or damage done. I guess he thinks if he gets his program passed he is then a success. Bt I wonder if this is a symptom of not having much knowledge about foreign policy or economics.
The economy is a case in point. Bush came in to office with two goals. Give kickbacks to oil companies - who were his main campaign funders - and pass a tax cut. He's given tax cuts and federal funds to oil companies. Do you think your tax money should go to a private business?
The tax cut is fine. Any tax cut is good. But the problem here is how he has implemented it. Bush did not accompany the tax cut with cuts in government spending. In fact he proposed spending increases. So his tax cut has wittled away the budget surplus and the Congressional Budget Office - projects that they'll be deficits in a few years. Why is this bad? Well, one effect the budget surplus has had during the past 10 years is that it has helped to lower long term interest rates. If long bond yield's go up long term interest rates will rilse and stifle economic growth. In the end we have a good progam, that turns into a bad one because Bush won't take the political heat needed to cut spending.
In a way Bush has made the same mistake with economic policy that he has done with foreign policy of pushing away the good advisors and listening to the kooks. During the campaign Bush hled up Lawrence Lindsey as his main economic advisor. Lindsey served on the Federal Reserve Board in the early 1990s. Is a strong conservative who advocates tax cuts and paying off the budget deficit. He also is extremely smart. He predicted the stock market crash and saw it coming. He doesn't believe in the "new economy" fraud and believes that the goal of the Federal Reserve is to maintain a low inflation enviroment - not bail out international bankers like Greenspan has done. He is a good Greenspan critic and counterpart the disaster that has taken place at the Federal Reserve. The problem here though is that Lindsey has been pushed out and Bush has been listening mainly to his Treasury Secretary who has no program at all. All he does is run around and say that tax cuts and Greenspan have saved the economy. In other words he is a yes man who is strongly supported by Karl Rove - Bush's political guru. Rove focuses on the polls and getting Bush relelected. Rove knows tax cuts get strong poll numbers and thus the Treasury Secretary is given a prominent place in the administration because he supports the programs that Rove thinks will get Bush relected. Just like in foreign policy - potential critics like Lindsey get pushed aside and are left to dwindle in their offices.
Bush is going to be in trouble over the next year. The economy is not going to quickly recover and with a falling dollar there is a potential for a rise in inflation and interest rates by the second half of next year. Bush has absolutely no plan to deal with the economy.
Right now Bush is leaving the US with two legacies. A new arms race and an economy with no recovery program. He is surrounded by kooks and yes men and critics in his administration have been stifled. This is a disaster waiting to happen. The question is what will happen when it comes and how will Bush respond? Will Bush give his critics - who have real answers - in his administration a prominent role or will he shrink and get defensive? Play politics and blame others for his mistakes? Or just sit at his ranch and play? The answer will tell us what kind of President we have and whether he'll get relecteded or will have to be replaced. |
