Friday, May 31, 2019

DAN – Manlio Dinucci -- « KRIGSKUNST » -- Et krigsskib til de nye Korsfarere


 
« KRIGSKUNST »
Et krigsskib til de nye Korsfarere
af Manlio Dinucci



25. maj 2019 var statsoverhoved Sergio Mattarella, forsvarsminister Elisabetta Trenta, minister for økonomisk udvikling Luigi Di Maio og de højeste militære myndighedspersoner til stede ved søsætningen af skibet Trieste, bygget af Fincantieri på Castellammare di Stabia skibsværftet (Napoli).


Trieste er den italienske flådes amfibiefartøj, som kan indgå i mange roller og funktioner, betegnet af Trenta som den "perfekte syntese af vores lands kapacitet inden for teknologisk innovation". Det er 214 meter langt og kan komme op på hastigheder på op til 25 knob (46 km/t). Det har et 230 meter langt start- og landingsdæk til helikoptere, F-35B jagerfly med kort startbane og vertikal landing og V-22 Osprey luftfartøjer. På dets garagedæk kan det transportere tankvogne, som kan dække en lineær distance på 1.200 meter. Det har et internt affyringsdæk, 50 meter langt og 15 meter bredt, hvilket gør det muligt for skibet at operere med NATO's mest moderne amfibiefartøjer.

I tekniske termer er det et skib, som er bestemt til at "projektere og støtte landsætningen af militære flådestyrker i kriseområder og den nationale kapacitet til projektion af forsvar fra søsiden". I praktiske termer er det et amfibiekrigsskib, som ved at nærme sig kysten på det land, som er målet, kan angribe det med jagerfly og helikoptere armeret med bomber og missiler, derefter invadere det med en bataljon på 600 mænd transporteret med deres tunge våben i helikoptere og landgangsfartøjer. Med andre ord er det et våbensystem projekteret ikke til forsvar, men til angreb i stor-skala krigsoperationer i forbindelse med langdistance USA/NATO "projektion af styrker".

Beslutningen om at bygge Trieste blev taget i 2014 af Renzi regeringen, som præsenterede det som et militært flådefartøj, som hovedsageligt skulle bruges til "humanitær assistance aktiviteter".

Prisen på skibet, som blev antaget ikke af forsvarsministeriet, men af ministeriet for økonomisk udvikling, blev vurderet til 844 millioner euro, i en budgetteret finansiering på 5.427 millioner euro for bygningen af ni andre krigsskibe samt Trieste. Blandt disse var to andre højhastigheds flåde patruljeenheder til specialstyrkerne i "operationer, som kræver diskretion", med andre ord, hemmelige krigsoperationer.

På tidspunktet for søsætningen blev prisen for Trieste vurderet til 1.100 millioner euro eller 250 millioner euro mere end den planlagte pris. Den endelige pris vil blive endnu højere på grund af budgettet for F-35B jagerflyene og helikopterne, der tages med ombord, og for de andre våben og elektroniske systemer, som skibet vil blive udstyret med i de kommende år.

Den tekniske innovation i den militære sektor - bekendtgjort af forsvarsministeriet - "må støttes med sikkerhed for finanserne". Dvs. den fortsatte og voksende finansiering med offentlige midler, hvilket omfatter ministeriet for økonomisk udvikling, som nu ledes af Luigi Di Maio. Ved søsætningsceremonien lovede han arbejderne, at der ville komme andre investeringer: sandelig, der er andre krigsskibe, der må bygges.

Søsætningsceremonien fik en anden betydning, da præsten for de væbnede styrker, Monseigneur Santo Marcianò, priste det faktum, at arbejderne havde sat et stort kors fast på skibets stævn, lavet af hellige billeder af folk, som de har en speciel hengivenhed for, hvilket omfatter pave Wojtyla og padre Pio. Monseigneur Marcianò priste "troens kraft" udtrykt af arbejderne, som han velsignede og takkede for "dette vidunderlige tegn, som I har sat fast på skibet".

Så blev det store krigsskib søsat, præsenteret som et eksempel på vores lands kapacitet for innovation, betalt af ministeriet for økonomisk udvikling med vores egne penge, på bekostning af produktions investeringer og sociale udgifter, velsignet med korsets tegn som i Korsfarernes og kolonialismens tid.

il manifesto, 28 maj 2019

Oversættelse: MV


«DICHIARAZIONE DI FIRENZE»
Per la creazione di un fronte internazionale NATO EXIT in tutti i paesi europei della NATO

NL -- Manlio Dinucci -- " DE KUNST VAN OORLOG " Een aanvalsschip voor de nieuwe kruisvaarders


 
" DE KUNST VAN OORLOG "
Een aanvalsschip voor de nieuwe kruisvaarders
door Manlio Dinucci




Op 25 mei 2019 waren staatshoofd Sergio Mattarella, minister van Defensie Elisabetta Trenta, minister van Economische Ontwikkeling Luigi Di Maio, en de hoogste militaire autoriteiten aanwezig voor de lancering van het schip Trieste, gebouwd door Fincantieri, aan de Castellammare di Stabia-scheepswerven (Napels).
De Trieste is het multifunctionele en amfibische vaartuig van de Italiaanse marine, gedefinieerd door Trenta als de «perfecte synthese van het vermogen van ons land voor technologische innovatie». Het is 214 meter lang en kan snelheden tot 25 knopen bereiken (46 km / h). Het heeft een 230-meter lang vliegdek voor helikopter opstijging, F-35B-jagers met korte start en verticale landing en V-22 Osprey-cabriolets. Op zijn garagedek kan het gepantserde voertuigen vervoeren die een lineaire afstand van 1200 meter kunnen overbruggen. Het heeft een intern lanceringsdek, 50 meter lang en 15 meter breed, waardoor het schip kan werken met de modernste amfibievoertuigen van de NAVO.
In technisch opzicht is het een schip dat is bestemd om te "ondernemen en ondersteunen, in crisisgebieden, de landing van de marine-strijdkrachten en de nationale capaciteit voor de landingen van Defensie vanuit de zee". In praktische termen, is het een amfibisch aanvalsschip dat, door de kust van een doelland te naderen, kan aanvallen met jagers en helikopters gewapend met bommen en raketten, en dan binnenvalt met een bataljon van 600 mannen vervoerd, met hun zwaar wapentuig, in helikopters en landingsvoertuigen. Met andere woorden, het is een wapensysteem dat niet wordt geprojecteerd als verdediging, maar als aanval op grootschalige oorlogsoperaties in het kader van de VS / NAVO-projectie van lange afstanden.
Het besluit om de Trieste te bouwen werd in 2014 genomen door de regering-Renzi, die het presenteerde als een marine-militair zeevaartuig dat voornamelijk gebruikt zou worden voor «humanitaire hulpactiviteiten».
De kosten van het schip, die vermoedelijk niet door het Ministerie van Defensie maar door het Ministerie van Economische Ontwikkeling werden aangenomen, werden gekwantificeerd als 844 miljoen euro, in het kader van de financiering van 5.427 miljoen euro voor de bouw van negen andere oorlogsschepen en de Triëst. Hiertoe behoren twee andere high-speed marine patrouille-eenheden voor de speciale troepen in «operaties die discretie vereisen», met andere woorden, geheime oorlogsoperaties.
Op het moment van lancering werden de kosten van de Trieste geschat op 1.100 miljoen euro, of 250 miljoen euro meer dan de geplande kosten. De uiteindelijke kosten zullen nog hoger liggen vanwege het budget voor de F-35B jagers en helikopters aan boord, plus dat van de andere wapens en elektronische systemen waarmee het schip de komende jaren zal worden uitgerust.
De technische innovatie in de militaire sector - kondigde het ministerie van Defensie aan - «moet worden gesteund door de zekerheid van de financiën». Dat wil zeggen de voortdurende en groeiende financiering met publiek geld, onder meer door het Ministerie van Economische Ontwikkeling, nu onder leiding van Luigi Di Maio. Bij de lanceringsceremonie beloofde hij de arbeiders dat er andere investeringen zouden zijn: inderdaad, er zijn andere oorlogsschepen die gebouwd moeten worden.
De lanceringsceremonie kreeg een andere betekenis toen de vicaris van de strijdkrachten, Monseigneur Santo Marcianò, het feit prees dat de arbeiders een groot kruis hadden bevestigd aan de boeg van het schip, bestaande uit heilige beelden waarvoor ze een speciale toewijding hebben, inclusief die van paus Wojtyla en Padre Pio. Monseigneur Marcianò prees de 'kracht van het geloof', uitgedrukt door de arbeiders, die hij zegende en bedankte voor «dit prachtige teken dat u aan het schip hebt bevestigd».
Zo werd het grote oorlogsschip gelanceerd, gepresenteerd als een voorbeeld van ons vermogen tot innovatie, betaald door het Ministerie van Economische Ontwikkeling met ons eigen geld, afgetrokken van productieve investeringen en sociale uitgaven, gezegend met het teken van het kruis zoals in de tijd van de kruistochten en koloniale verovering.
Il manifesto, 28 mai 2019
Nederlandse vertaling: Martien



«DICHIARAZIONE DI FIRENZE»
Per la creazione di un fronte internazionale NATO EXIT in tutti i paesi europei della NATO

EN -- Manlio Dinucci -- The Art of War -- An assault ship for new Crusaders

« THE ART OF WAR »
An assault ship for the new Crusaders
by Manlio Dinucci


On 25 May 2019, Head of State Sergio Mattarella, Minister for Defence Elisabetta Trenta, Minister for Economic Development Luigi Di Maio, and the highest military authorities, were all present for the launching of the ship Trieste, built by Fincantieri, at the Castellammare di Stabia shipyards (Naples).
The Trieste is the Italian Navy's multi-role and multi-function amphibious craft, defined by Trenta as the « perfect synthesis of our country's capacity for technological innovation ». It is 214 metres long and can reach speeds of up to 25 knots (46 km/h). It has a 230-metre flight deck for helicopter take-off, F-35B fighters with short take-off and vertical landing, and V-22 Osprey convertibles. On its garage deck, it can transport armoured vehicles which can cover a linear distance of 1,200 metres. It has an internal launch deck, 50 metres long and 15 metres wide, which enables the ship to operate with NATO's most modern amphibious vehicles.
In technical terms, it is a ship destined to « project and support, in crisis areas, the disembarkation  of the naval military forces and the national capacity for the projection of Defence from the sea ». In practical terms, it is an amphibious assault ship which, by approaching the coast of a target country, can attack it with fighters and helicopters armed with bombs and missiles, then invade with a battalion of 600 men transported, with their heavy weaponry, in helicopters and disembarkation vehicles. In other words, it is a weapons system projected not for defence but attack in large-scale war operations in the context of long-distance USA/NATO « force projection ».
The decision to build the Trieste was taken in 2014 by the Renzi government, which presented it as a naval military naval craft to be used mainly for « humanitarian assistance activities ».
The cost of the ship, to be assumed not by the Ministry for Defence but by the Ministry of Economic Development, was quantified as 844 million Euros, in the context of the financing of 5,427 million Euros for the construction of nine other warships as well as the Trieste. Among these are two other high-speed naval patrol units for the special forces in « operations which require discretion », in other words, secret war operations.
At the moment of launching, the cost of the Trieste was estimated at 1,100 million Euros, or 250 million Euros more than the planned cost. The final cost will be even higher, because of the budget for the F-35B fighters and helicopters taken on board, plus that of the other weapons and electronic systems with which the ship will be equipped in the years to come.
The technical innovation in the military sector – announced the Ministry of Defence - « must be supported by the certainty of the finances ». That is to say the continual and growing financing with public money, including by the Ministry of Economic Development, now headed by Luigi Di Maio. At the launching ceremony, he promised the workers that there were to be other investments : indeed, there are other warships which need to be built.
The launch ceremony took on a different significance when the Vicar of the Armed Forces, Monseigneur Santo Marcianò, praised the fact that the workers had attached a large cross to the prow of the ship, composed of sacred images for which they have a special devotion , including those of Pope Wojtyla and Padre Pio. Monseigneur Marcianò praised the « power of faith »  expressed by the workers, whom he blessed and thanked for « this marvellous sign that you have attached to the ship ».
So was launched the great warship, presented as an example of our country's capacity for innovation, paid for by the Ministry of Economic Development with our own money, subtracted from productive investments and social spending, blessed with the sign of the cross like in the time of the Crusades and colonial conquest.
il manifesto, 28 May 2019
Translator: Pete Kimberley 



«DICHIARAZIONE DI FIRENZE»
Per la creazione di un fronte internazionale NATO EXIT in tutti i paesi europei della NATO

SP -- Manlio Dinucci -- El Arte de la Guerra -- El barco de asalto de los nuevos cruzados

El Arte de la Guerra
El barco de asalto de los nuevos cruzados
por Manlio Dinucci

En presencia del presidente Sergio Mattarella, de la ministro de Defensa Elisabetta Trenta, del ministro de Desarrollo Económico Luigi Di Maio y de las más altas autoridades militares de Italia, el 25 de mayo de 2019 tuvo lugar en Nápoles, la botadura del navío Trieste, construido por la empresa Fincantieri.

El Trieste (L 9890) es una unidad anfibia multifunciones de la marina de guerra italiana, unidad que la ministro de Defensa Elisabetta Trenta describió como la «síntesis perfecta de la capacidad de innovación tecnológica del país». Con 214 metros de eslora y una velocidad de 25 nudos ‎‎(46 kilómetros por hora), el Trieste puede servir de pista de despegue a helicópteros y también a aviones de combate F-35B con capacidad de despegue corto y de aterrizaje vertical y a aeronaves V-22 Osprey [convertiplano]. También puede operar con los vehículos anfibios más modernos de la OTAN.

En términos técnicos, el Trieste es un navío destinado a «proyectar y apoyar, en áreas de crisis, la fuerza de desembarco de la marina de guerra y la capacidad nacional de proyección, desde el mar, del ministerio de Defensa». En términos prácticos, se trata de un navío de asalto anfibio. O sea, acercándose a las costas de un país, el Trieste puede atacarlo con aviones y helicópteros cargados de bombas y misiles y luego invadirlo con 600 efectivos aerotransportados que desembarcan, con armamento pesado, mediante helicópteros y vehículos de desembarco anfibio.

En otras palabras, el Trieste es un sistema de armamento que no está concebido para defender el país sino para operaciones de guerra en el marco de las políticas de «proyección de fuerzas» de Estados Unidos y la OTAN a grandes distancias del suelo italiano.

La decisión de construir el Trieste fue tomada en 2014 por el gobierno del entonces primer ministro Matteo Renzi, que lo presentó como un navío militar que se dedicaría principalmente a «actividades de ayuda humanitaria».

El costo de ese navío, que no salió de los fondos del ministerio de Defensa sino de los fondos del ministerio de Defensa, se había estimado en 844 millones de euros, es parte de un plan de financiamiento ascendente a 5 427 millones para la construcción de otros 9 barcos de guerra, aparte del Trieste. Entre los navíos incluidos en ese proyecto se cuentan 2 unidades navales de muy alta velocidad destinadas a las fuerzas especiales en «contextos operacionales que requieren discreción», o sea en operaciones de guerra secreta.

En el momento de la botadura, se indicó que el Trieste costó 1 100 millones de euros –o sea ‎‎250 millones más que lo previsto. Pero el costo final será todavía muy superior ya que habrá que sumar lo que van a costar los aviones de combate F-35B y los helicópteros que llevará a bordo, más el costo de otros tipos de armamento y el de los sistemas electrónicos que habrá que instalar en el barco durante los próximos años.

La ministra de Defensa subrayó que la innovación tecnológica en el sector militar «debe contar con el apoyo de las garantías de financiamiento». Lo cual significa que debe contar con financiamiento constante y creciente proveniente de los fondos públicos, incluyendo los del ministerio de Desarrollo, actualmente encabezado por Luigi Di Maio. En la ceremonia de botadura del Trieste, el propio Di Maio prometió a los obreros más inversiones… porque está prevista la construcción de más barcos de guerra.
La ceremonia adquirió una significación suplementaria cuando el obispo de los ejércitos de Italia, monseñor Santo Marciano, resaltó el hecho que los obreros fijaron en la proa del barco una gran cruz (ver foto), hecha con imágenes sagradas por las que sienten particular devoción, como las del papa Wojtila y las del Padre Pío. Monseñor Marciano alabó además la «fuerza de la fe» expresada por los obreros, a quienes bendijo y agradeció «el símbolo maravilloso» que habían emplazado en el navío. 
Asi se llegó a la botadura del gran navío que nos ponen como ejemplo de la capacidad de innovación de nuestro país, un barco de guerra pagado por el ministerio de Desarrollo Económico con millones sustraídos a los contribuyentes como usted y yo en detrimento de las inversiones productivas y de los gastos sociales, pero bendecido con el signo de la Cruz, como en tiempos de las Cruzadas y de las conquistas coloniales.

 il manifesto, 28 de mayo de 2019 


Fuente
Réseau Voltaire

Traducido al español por la Red Voltaire a partir de la versión al francés de Marie-Ange Patrizio




«DICHIARAZIONE DI FIRENZE»
Per la creazione di un fronte internazionale NATO EXIT in tutti i paesi europei della NATO

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

THE TRUTH-TELLER: FROM THE PENTAGON PAPERS TO THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE



THE TRUTH-TELLER: FROM THE PENTAGON PAPERS TO THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE
By Daniel Ellsberg|April 23, 2019
This interview was originally published by the Great Transition Initiative.
The growth of the military-industrial complex poses an existential threat to humanity. Daniel Ellsberg, peace activist and Vietnam War whistleblower discusses with Tellus Senior Fellow Allen White  the continuing existential threat posed by the military-industrial complex—and what needs to be done about it.
*********************
You became a pivotal figure in the anti-Vietnam War movement when you released the Pentagon Papers, a large batch of classified documents that revealed a quarter century of official deception and aggression. What inspired you to take such a risky action?
After graduating from Harvard with an economics degree and completing service in the US Marines, I worked as a military analyst at the RAND Corporation. In 1961, in that role, I went to Vietnam as part of a Department of Defense task force and saw that our prospects there were extremely dim. It was clear to me that military intervention was a losing proposition.
Three years later, I moved from RAND to the Department of Defense. On my first day, I was assigned to a team tasked with devising a response to the alleged attack on the US naval warship USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin by the North Vietnamese. This completely fabricated incident became the excuse for bombing North Vietnam, which the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had wanted to do for some months.
That night, I saw President Lyndon Johnson and my boss, Secretary McNamara, knowingly lie to the public that North Vietnam had without provocation attacked the US ship. In fact, the US had covertly attacked North Vietnam the night before and on previous nights. Johnson and McNamara’s claim that the US did not seek to widen the war was the exact opposite of reality. In short, the Gulf of Tonkin crisis was based on lies. I was not yet moved to leave government, though I had come to view US military action as ineffective, illegitimate, and deadly, without rationale or endgame.
By 1969, as the war progressed under Richard Nixon, I saw such evil in government deceit that I asked myself, “What can I do to shorten a war that I know from an insider’s vantage point is going to continue and expand?” When the Pentagon Papers were released in 1971, the extent of government lies shocked the public. The retaliatory crimes Nixon committed against me out of fear that I would expose his own continuing threats––including nuclear threats—ultimately helped to bring him down and shorten the Vietnam War. This outcome had seemed impossible after his landslide reelection in 1972.
Today, similar revelations do not occasion equal shock because in the current administration in Washington, lying is routine rather than exceptional. Whether we are headed for a turning point toward bringing liars to justice will become clear when the investigations of President Donald Trump’s administration are concluded.
Since then, you have been a vocal critic of both US military interventions and the continued embrace of nuclear weapons, an issue with which you had first-hand familiarity through your work at RAND and the Pentagon. How did your experience with nuclear policy contribute to your disillusionment with US foreign policy writ large?
At RAND, Cold War presuppositions dominated all our work. We were certain that the US was behind in the arms race and that the Soviet Union, in pursuit of world domination, would exploit its lead by achieving a capacity to disarm the United States entirely of its nuclear retaliatory force. We were convinced that we were facing a Hitler with nuclear weapons.
However, in 1961, I learned about a highly classified new estimate of Soviet weapons: four intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). At the time, the US had forty ICBMs, as well as thousands of intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Italy, Britain, and Turkey (compared to the Soviet Union’s total of zero). General Thomas Power, head of the Strategic Air Command (SAC), believed that the Russians had 1000 ICBMs. He was wrong by a factor of 250. This early mistaken belief signaled to me that something was very wrong with our perception of the world and, more specifically, with how we perceived the threat posed by the nation viewed as our most formidable adversary.
At the time, I regarded the erroneous “missile gap” as a misunderstanding or cognitive error of some kind. But, in fact, it was very much a motivated error—motivated in particular by the desires of the Air Force and SAC to justify their budget requests for huge increases in the numbers of US bombers and missiles. But why did we at RAND uncritically accept the wildly inflated Air Force Intelligence estimates, rather than the contrary estimates by Army and Navy Intelligence that the Soviets had produced only “a few” ICBMs? Again, a motivated error. Through self-deception, we viewed ourselves as independent thinkers focused exclusively on national security, assuming that our role as contractors on the Air Force payroll had no influence on our analysis.
In retrospect, it is clear that our focus and our recommendations would have been very different had we been working for the Navy. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” It was very important to us not to understand that our work was above all serving to justify the exaggerated budget demands by the Air Force.
My distrust of the wisdom of Pentagon planners was also aroused by JCS estimates of the death toll resulting from deployment of our nuclear weapons. I had heard that the JCS avoided calculating this figure because they didn’t want to know how many people they would be killing. To confront them, I drafted a question that appeared in a letter from the White House Deputy for National Security, Robert Komer, transmitted in the name of President Kennedy: “If your war plans were carried out as written and were successful, how many people would be killed in the Soviet Union and China?”
Within a week, I held in my hand a top secret, eyes-only-for-the-president document with an estimate of 325 million fatalities in the first six months. A week later, a second communication added an estimated 100 million deaths in Eastern Europe and another 100 million in our allied nations of Western Europe, depending upon the wind patterns in the aftermath of the strike. Additional deaths in Japan, India, Afghanistan, and other countries brought the total to 600 million.
That killings of this magnitude—100 times the toll of Jewish victims of the Holocaust—were willingly contemplated by our military transcended prevailing notions of crimes against humanity. We had no words—indeed, there are no words—for such devastation. These data confronted me with not only the question of whom I was working with and for, but also the fundamental question of how such human depravity was possible.
Your recent book, The Doomsday Machine, describes “a very expensive system of men, machines, electronics, communications, institutions, plans, training, discipline, practices and doctrine designed to obliterate the Soviet Union under various circumstances, with most of the rest of humanity as collateral damage.” How did this system come about?
World War II created a highly profitable aerospace sector upon which the US military relied for strategic bombing of cities, thereby setting the stage for the idea of bombers as a delivery mechanism for nuclear weapons. As orders precipitously declined by the end of the war, the industry was in dire financial straits, facing bankruptcy within a year or two. Accustomed to the guaranteed profits of the war years, they found themselves unable to compete with corporations experienced in building non-military products for the market, and demand for civilian aircraft on the part of commercial airlines was insufficient to replace the wartime military business.
The Air Force grew concerned that the industry would be unable to survive on a scale adequate to deliver military superiority in future conflicts. In the eyes of the government—and industry lobbyists—the only solution was a large peacetime (Cold War) Air Force with wartime-level sales to keep the industry afloat.
Thus emerged the military-industrial complex. Mobilization to confront a Hitler-like external enemy—a role filled by the Soviet Union—was viewed as indispensable to national security. Government military planning followed, essentially socialism for the whole armaments industry, including but not limited to aircraft production. With the benefit of hindsight, I now see the Cold War as, in part, a marketing campaign for the continual, massive subsidies to the aerospace industry. That’s what it became after the war, and that’s what we are seeing again today. The contemporary analog is the idea of China as an existential enemy, which, I believe, is the dream and expectation of the US Defense Department.
The threat of nuclear conflict persists as a near-term existential threat yet remains muted in political discourse and largely absent in public consciousness. How do you explain this glaring inconsistency?
Contemporary US media focuses on contradictions and conflicts between the two major parties. On the issue of nuclear weapons, little difference exists between them. They support the same programs and both receive donations from Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, among others. They both favor more aircraft than the Pentagon requests, itself an amazing situation given the existing level of spending. Right now, the F35, the largest military project in history, may end up costing $1.5 trillion (an incredible sum even by historical standards of lavish Pentagon spending), yet still unable to achieve the promised performance. This kind of massive pork program is used by senators and representatives to secure political advantage—a “jobs” program that often is a euphemism for a “profits” program.
Nuclear weapons and climate change are two quintessential planetary threats requiring a coordinated global response. Do you see potential for alignment and cooperation between the anti-nuclear movement and the climate justice movement? 
We, as a society, are conscious of the risk of the devastating impacts that could come from climate disruption. In contrast to the absence of public discourse around nuclear conflict since the end of the Cold War, climate has been a subject of intense public debate. Although the danger of the nuclear threat remains undiminished, the proposed $1.7 trillion nuclear modernization program in the US is not a matter of serious debate.
It is difficult to compare climate and nuclear threats. The climate catastrophe toward which we are moving, while uncertain in terms of timing and outcomes, is indisputable. We have survived the nuclear danger for seventy years, although we have come close to conflict more frequently than the public realizes. I am not talking about just the Cuban Missile Crisis; in 1983, for example, we were also at the brink of a nuclear exchange, and there have been other instances. The risk of conflagration remains continuous and potentially catastrophic.
It is true that climate change may totally disrupt civilization as we know it, but how many lives would it cost? Whatever the number, some form of civilization would probably survive. By contrast, a nuclear winter, which has a non-zero possibility of occurring, would occasion near extinction.
That being said, both climate and nuclear threats are existential in nature, even as the degree and type of destruction differ. And both share another critical feature: the role of corporate interests and influence in sustaining the threat. As we speak, a pristine Arctic snowfield is under threat of oil drilling. Will Exxon and the other corporations be content to leave their known oil reserves in the ground, as needs to be done? I think that’s as unlikely as Boeing eschewing military contracts.
To the question of alignment of the nuclear and climate movements, in my view, we cannot deal with the climate problem, globally or nationally, without massive government spending to speed up the production and lower the cost of renewables, and thereby accelerate the transition from a fossil-fuel economy to a renewable energy one. This will also require subsidies to the underdeveloped countries to ease their transitions. In short, we need a new super-sized Marshall Plan combined with government regulation to constrain the most damaging impulses of the fossil-based market economy embraced by Reagan, Thatcher, and other market fundamentalists. We need a national mobilization akin to that achieved during World War II. We confronted Hitler then as a civilizational threat. Climate disruption demands an equivalent response.
And here’s where the climate-nuclear nexus comes into play again. We cannot afford the wasteful and dangerous development of new nuclear weapons that “modernize” the Doomsday Machine at the same time that we need to apply vast sums to reduce the threat of climate disruption. In the face of imminent climate catastrophe, the $700-plus-billion military budget is both untenable and irresponsible. We must convert the military economy to a climate economy. We cannot have both. To do so, we must recognize that the risks posed by the military-industrial complex far exceed those posed by Russia.
 The Great Transition envisions a fundamental shift in societal values and norms. To what extent does eliminating the nuclear threat ultimately depend on such a shift?
Few would disagree that to activate plans for deployment of nuclear weapons leading to a nuclear winter—and thereby killing nearly everyone on Earth—is immoral to a degree that words cannot convey. It is a crime that transcends any human conception or language. But what about the threat of deployment? For many, propagating the threat of an immoral act is itself immoral. But in the nuclear era, the nuclear states have not accepted that as a norm. Our entire nuclear posture, and that of our NATO allies, is based on deterrence of a nuclear war and, if it occurs, responding with our nuclear arsenal.
Revisiting this norm is very difficult. It is deeply embedded in the mindset of the US, Russia, and other nuclear-armed states and reinforced by the interests of powerful corporations. When Reagan and Gorbachev agreed that nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought, they did not say that it cannot be threatened or risked. Both nations continued such preparations and do so to this day. We have been taught that nuclear weapons are a necessary evil. Without a shift in norms and values, this situation will not change.
The Great Transition depicts a hopeful future rooted in solidarity, well-being, and ecological resilience. Given the dystopian scenarios you outline in The Doomsday Machine and your other work, where do you see the basis for hope?
My intention in addressing the threat of nuclear annihilation is that it will at least open up the possibility of change. While such a shift in values and norms would be almost miraculous, miracles can happen, and have happened in my lifetime. In 1985, the falling of the Berlin wall a mere four years later would have seemed improbable, if not impossible, given decades of nuclear tensions and near conflicts. But then it happened. And Nelson Mandela coming to power in South Africa, without a violent revolution, was impossible. But it happened.
So, unpredictable changes like these can happen, and their possibility inspires my commitment to continue my peace activities against long odds. My activity is based on the belief that small probabilities can be enlarged and that, however remote success may be, it is worthwhile pursuing because so much is at stake.
My experience with the Pentagon Papers showed that an act of truth-telling, of exposing the realities about which the public had been misled, can indeed help end an unnecessary, deadly conflict. This example is a lesson applicable to both the nuclear and climate crises we face. When everything is at stake, it is worth risking one’s life or sacrificing one’s freedom in order to help bring about radical change.


manlio

Normandy format summit

Joint news conference following a Normandy format summit

https://tributetoapresident.blogspot.com/2019/12/joint-news-conference-following.html

Joint news conference following the Normandy format summit.

brics

irmãos de armas


Subtitled in PT, RO, SP

Click upon CC and choose your language.



Imagem

PT -- VLADIMIR PUTIN na Sessão plenária do Fórum Económico Oriental

Excertos da transcrição da sessão plenária do Fórum Económico Oriental

THE PUTIN INTERVIEWS


The Putin Interviews
by Oliver Stone (
FULL VIDEOS) EN/RU/SP/FR/IT/CH


http://tributetoapresident.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-putin-interviews-by-oliver-stone.html




TRIBUTE TO A PRESIDENT


NA PRMEIRA PESSOA

Um auto retrato surpreendentemente sincero do Presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin

CONTEÚDO

Prefácio

Personagens Principais em 'Na Primeira Pessoa'

Parte Um: O Filho

Parte Dois: O Estudante

Parte Três: O Estudante Universitário

Parte Quatro: O Jovem especialista

Parte Cinco: O Espia

Parte Seis: O Democrata

Parte Sete: O Burocrata

Parte Oito: O Homem de Família

Parte Nove: O Político

Apêndice: A Rússia na Viragem do Milénio


DANIELE GANSER

contaminação nos Açores



Subtitled in EN/PT

Click upon the small wheel at the right side of the video and choose your language.