If Trump Can't Help Puerto Rico Don't Look For Salvation In A "Zombie Apocalypse"

Artist's depiction of the "Zombie Apocalypse" : a generic term designed to embody all possible real apocalypses including from CMEs and extinction level asteroid strikes.

Devastation in Puerto Rico today - still 85 % without power, water after 4 weeks. How about waiting four YEARS for those essentials to arrive?

As the popular 'Walking Dead' series returns this Sunday, millions waiting with bated breath for Rick & Gang to hollow out the Saviors' skulls, the Zombie Apocalypse resumes once more.  Of course there is no actual possible apocalypse of that sort, i.e. with "walking dead" or  "biters" rampaging across the ravished terrain, though one sometimes wonders about the Trump followers. But we can acknowledge that the term kind of covers all generic end-of world scenarios in the sense of the remaining humans having to fend for themselves to survive day to day. 

In defining these I consider potential catastrophes that have the capability of halting all electric power, as well as water, not just for months - but YEARS. Given electric power can mean the difference between life and death - as we've seen in dozens of scenes from the island of Puerto Rico after Maria struck (mainly in hospitals), and water is essential for life (again as we've seen in Puerto Rico, i.e.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/miles-mogulescu/75740/trump-drowns-the-forgotten-men-and-women-in-swamp-water

this is a no brainer.  And not a Zombie no brainer either.  Is Puerto Rico an outlier? I don't believe so, and let's dismiss right now Dotard's giving himself a "ten" for dealing with the aftermath. No, this egomaniacal simpleton earns a '1' if that much (disallowing fractional ratings). He's completely blown it, e.g.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/lois-marie-gibbs/75744/hurricane-victims-don-t-have-the-complexion-for-protection

If we get struck with any of the major catastrophes in Trump's miserable term, you can basically phone it in, as in 'all over'.

The major takeaway of this year full of catastrophes - from Harvey, to Irma, to Maria and the California wildfires is that counting on your federal government to help save or rescue you is a lost cause. Not if the catastrophe is in the mega class, or if you have to live amongst a lot of brown or black people. But forget even those differences, I am convinced - after seeing the pathetic response in Puerto Rico - NO one will be rescued after a major catastrophe. 

And look, FEMA is overstretched now with the aftermath of 3 major hurricanes and major wildfires, how would they be able to handle a mega catastrophe that wipes out the nation coast to coast?  Over the past decade alone, FEMA's denials and reversals have generated uncertainty and anger in many communities, left others (like in Puerto Rico) at the mercy of water borne diseases, and led to long rounds of appeals in others.

What major catastrophes are we looking at? I list them now in the order of their likelihood:

1) Dotard goes ape shit and in a moment of manic pique punches in all the nuclear codes.

This is likely to happen if the Dotard's minders are unable to control his worst, most degenerate impulses after he loses it. After John Kelly's performance two days ago, I am convinced no one - no "adult" - exists to put a leash on this asshole and stop him from exercising his most depraved instincts..

If he punches in all the nuclear codes, a la Greg Stillson's fantasy in 'The Dead Zone',  we are looking at over 11,000 nuclear warheads landing in a matter of hours from China, N. Korea, U.S. and Russia, Israel. All electric power be out as in vamonos after the first strikes - probably within 1-2 hours - from multiple EMPs (electromagnetic pulses from air burst) across continents.  To get an idea of what this will be like for any survivors, go and watch the movie 'Threads'.

The film is about 1hr and 47 mins long, Brit-made but if it doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, you are either already: a) brain dead, or b) a zombie and amongst the walking dead.

'Threads' is set in the industrial city of Sheffield, UK, and to be sure one needs to get adjusted to the peculiar accent. But once one does, he or she will be granted an inside look at a future none of us want to face. (One U.S. reviewer said that "Threads makes 'The Day After' look like a day at the races".) Having seen both I concur.

Threads is not for the squeamish or faint-hearted but I do think all those yammering for war or confrontation with North Korea need to see it and let its message soak in. In fact, I think every critically-thinking red blooded citizen ought to see it, if for no other reason to be motivated to let reps know this thing isn't on - not now or ever. (In a recent poll, 46 % of Republican voters indicated they wanted Trump to launch a preemptive strike on North Korea)

Max. estimated time with no power or water: Up to 10 years.


2. Meridian- centered coronal mass ejection (CME)

The coronal mass ejection, such as shown in the image below:


is the ultimate plausible nightmare catastrophe. While it is true it's unlikely to cause the loss of life such as for (1) in the worst case scenario you will be looking at months or years without electric power or water. In other words, you will be in the situation of Puerto Rico after a massive Cat 5 hurricane - except there'll be no place to go for succor or help.

We narrowly dodged such a monster five and a half years ago. But let's not fool ourselves, the day is coming when we may not be so lucky and can't expect to continue to escape with a glancing blow or solar "wrist slap" -  as we have.

While it is true - as I noted in previous posts - that flare energy (as well as that to power coronal mass ejections) is limited by the magneto-hydrodynamic potentials available on a star like the Sun, this is not really much consolation if and when a major energy burst whacks us straight on broadside with 1 million amp field-aligned induction currents that have the potential to take out all our power grids in a cascade of failures. Space weather aficionados call such maxi-catastrophes "Carrington Events" after the signature original event that transpired in September, 1859, which incepted geo-magnetic currents so large that for days telegraph operators could actually disconnect their equipment from battery power and send messages solely via the emergent "auroral currents".

In our own current situation, we've become a more vulnerable society by constructing mammoth, interlocked  power grids which can crash if the right combination of factors is imposed. While we do have high voltage transformers that connect directly to the ground (zero or earth potential) to neutralize power surges from lightning strikes, these don't afford any protection against powerful geo-magnetic currents that are induced in the earth and flow upward into the grid. Then ...one such mammoth event, could spark calamity. Possibly no electric power for days, maybe longer ...over vast swatches of North America.

In addition, if a monster flare hurls a super stream of charged particles along with the CME we could expect adverse effects on all GPS positioning satellites. Bear in mind that GPS, besides providing directions for road users, allows synchronized cell phone conversations, as well as orchestrates air traffic not to mention 'date stamping' on most financial transactions and guiding the dynamic positioning of the majority of deep sea oil drilling and gas operations.

Imagine then the same deep sea operations and financial transactions (say if you wish to redeem mutual fund shares) occurring when erroneous GPS info is received because a monster flare's radiation has knocked the timing off by even 1 millionth of a second (given the geo-spatial positioning measures accuracy to a few billionths of a second accuracy)? The resulting hundred fold or more time divergence would have catastrophic consequences.

Given the preceding a proactive solution would be advance protection of our power grids from upward directed geo-magnetic currents. Many experts agree a simple solution would be to install large enough resistor -capacitor systems at critical locations (e.g. near power plants or major cities)  in order to sever any CME-driven upward field aligned current connection to the grid. (Recall from my basic physics blog, e;g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/introduction-to-basic-physics-electric.html     that resistors act to limit current and also capacitors can do the same by collecting charge.)

The problem? Major U.S. power companies don't want to assume the cost for any voluntary installations, which could run $100,000 per transformer. Hence, the grid remains unprotected against the rare - but potentially calamitous - Carrington event CME that smacks us broadside. (As opposed to the glancing blow.)

Even a bit of help could be available if we knew the direction of an oncoming powerful CME event and had some time to prepare. Right now such an entity exists: the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) satellite which can measure the intensity and magnetic orientation of any CME that sweeps by it. The problem is that ACE is nearly on its last legs and a replacement monitor is needed, lest we become "blind" to the killer CME with our name on it.

Fortuitously, a fully -ready space craft that can undertake ACE's duties exists.  This Deep Space Climate Observatory (or DSCOVR) could stand between us and utter catastrophe. The problem? The Repukes may want to cut its budget to let it become another useless piece of junk   like the solar satellite shot down as part of a missile test back in the Reagan era.

Max. estimated time with no power or water: Up to 2 years.

3. Asteroid strike:

Of course, the ultimate catastrophe would be  a Torino scale 9 impact, i.e. an "Earth sterilizing event".  Such a calamity would most likely come from an Apollo object, especially a massive Earth orbit crossing object - perturbed out of the asteroid belt.   For example, a  Gaspra (12.5 x 7 x 7.5 miles)  e.g.

impact would obliterate all life on Earth - never to arise again. The crater and blast effects alone would eliminate most of the population on the continent it struck. An ocean strike, creating tidal waves upwards of 2 miles in height, would be even worse. The debris, for its part, would block out most solar radiation for years and probably usher in massive extinction of plants.

The size of object needed is >> 1 km, and an Explosive release: >> 100,000 megatons TNT equivalent.

This is an extreme case and fortunately the odds are in our favor  However, a mass extinction event which could render the entire North American continent rubble is a lot more probable.  The relevant Torino scale would require an object 330' diameter to 1 km (3330') dia. Also an explosive release of  100 Megatons to 100,000 megatons TNT equivalent.

Max. estimated time with no power or water: Up to 10 years.

Let's make this really simple and easy to grasp: the failure to provide power and water access to Puerto Ricans by now - even after 4 weeks after Maria's strike - means there is zero chance the government will help you get through in the case of any of the preceding cataclysms.  And when I write 'you" I refer to anyone in North America and the U.S. in particular.

"Doomsday Clock" Moved Closer to Midnight

This morning at 10:00 Eastern time, in news that ought to send chills down ever citizen's spine, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the second hand of the Doomsday Clock another half minute closer to midnight. Hitherto it had been set at 3 minutes to midnight, since 2015.  The new setting marks metaphorically the acknowledgement of the highest danger facing the planet since 1953, when the U.S. and U.S.S.R. conducted multiple H-bomb tests in the atmosphere.

A global failure to fight climate change and concern over Donald Trump’s cabinet picks were cited as reasons for the increased threat to the planet. Of course, none of this ought to surprise the intelligent, high information citizen who is able to reason and discern fake news from the genuine form.

While the BAS historically has rejected that "one individual" can move the clock, it is clear to me that they have been alarmed following Trump's mid-December tweet that:

"We need to strengthen and expand nuclear capacity until the world comes to its sense regarding nukes."

As a number of strategic analysts had pointed out, including staff from The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the U.S. already has just under 5,000 nuclear warheads in its active arsenal and more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. This is more than enough to turn the world to ash about six times over.

Given that Russia, according to the same strategic sources, "has 400 more nuclear warheads than the U.S. does", one might assume that Trump - via his tweet - really meant overtaking the Russians. But to the scientists of the BAS it may also have meant tearing up the new START Treaty which limits strategic weapons to 1,550 each by February, 2018. At least these would be the possible interpretations IF one assumed Trump knew that the Russians had a 400 -nuke advantage and also knew what the START Treaty was. But since he doesn't even read his daily briefs, that's unlikely.

The only conclusion to draw from the BAS staff' reasoning for citing Trump's cabinet then is that they don't believe any of them possess the gravitas or wherewithal to influence Trump in any way - say to stay his hands from entering the nuclear codes if he felt the need to do so.  The BAS own words confirm this:

"We understand that Mr. Trump has been in office only days, that many of his cabinet nominees are awaiting confirmation and that he has had little time to take official action. But Mr. Trump’s statements and actions have been unsettling. He has made ill-considered comments about expanding and even deploying the American nuclear arsenal. He has expressed disbelief in the scientific consensus on global warming. He has shown a troubling propensity to discount or reject expert advice related to international security. And his nominees to head the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and the Budget have disputed or questioned climate change."

As I pointed out in the previous post, the man is out of touch with reality -hence certifiably insane by any sensible definition. His cabinet picks for EPA, Energy Dept. are not much better. Hence, the dire clock warning.   As the BAS statement continued:

"Last year, and the year before, we warned that world leaders were failing to act with the speed and on the scale necessary to protect citizens from the extreme dangers posed by climate change and nuclear war. During the past year, the need for leadership intensified but was met with inaction and brinkmanship."

Climate change, of course, enters as the more slow rolling form of human extinction. Indeed, in my Nov. 4 post from last year I cited Economic and psychology expert George Loewenstein, who was typical of the risk assessment experts consulted in an AP study. He called climate change "a problem that threatens the very existence of the human race and is already having devastating consequences around the world".

The results of the AP survey were similar to a larger survey of 750 experts conducted earlier last year by the World Economic Forum. Their Global Risks Report 2016 found that the five biggest global risks in terms of impact were: 1) climate change, 2) weapons of mass destruction, 3) water crises, 4) large scale migration, and 5) severe energy price shocks.

The contributors to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists also cited the threat posed to democracy by fake news and the influence exerted on elections as reasons for the new setting, according to a panel of scientists involved in the process.

The appropriate symbolic time is deduced each year by The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The new reading brings the threat closer to midnight than it’s been since the height of the Cold War – when it reached 11:58pm.

When asked what was the single biggest factor in moving the hands forward, Professor of Meteorology David Titley said the dissemination of facts and science expressed through a “verbal looseness” was a particular threat.

“Policy that is sensible requires facts to be facts,” one theoretical physicist added.

And, of course, "verbal looseness" is epitomized by Trump's reckless December tweet on nuclear capacity.  As I pointed out no sane person ought to be propounding nuclear policy via a cartoon language medium. The very choice to do so indicates that person lacks all his marbles. Hence, if I were the BAS I'd be hitting the panic button over Trump's verbal looseness too! Anyone who uses Twitter to bloviate on nuclear forces and capacity has several screws loose.

How would humanity actually hitting midnight look? The best fictional portrayal of such a catastrophe was probably in the 1983 movie 'Threads'. The film is about 1hr and 47 minutes long, Brit-made,  but if it doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, you are either already: a) brain dead, or b) a zombie and amongst the walking dead.

'Threads' is set in the industrial city of Sheffield, UK, and to be sure one needs to get adjusted to the peculiar accent. But once one does, he or she will be granted an inside look at a future none of us want to face. (One U.S. reviewer said that "Threads makes 'The Day After' look like a day at the races".) Having seen both,  I concur.

Threads is not for the squeamish or faint-hearted but I do think all those yammering for war or confrontation with Iran, North Korea or China (the Trumpies want to battle over the Spratley Islands) need to see it and let its message soak in. In fact, I think every critically-thinking red blooded citizen ought to see it, if for no other reason to be motivated to let reps know this thing isn't on - not now or ever.

Though based on a hypothetical Soviet-Russian invasion of Iran, which possibility is no longer - since the present day Russians have plowed enormous investment monies into Iran and its reactors, the projected invasion of a U.S. and NATO strike force is accurate to any unfolding future scenario. From the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the accidental exchange of 2 tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat.

The last segment of the film - following the timeline after the missile exchange and when nuclear winter occurs, discloses there are some prices that are simply too much to pay. Most graphic are the scenes of the sorry victims of radiation sickness in Sheffield, UK and the final scene when a young woman that manages to survive gives birth to an infant with a frog-like face, pointed furry ears, scales and rat nose. As she screams in horror at her mutant, grunting offspring, the film pans to black and the credits roll.

DO we really want this future? Then by all means we need to heed the warning conveyed by the Doomsday clock.

See also:

http://thebulletin.org/timeline

Excerpt:

'The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon.' That probability has not been reduced. The Clock ticks. Global danger looms. Wise leaders should act—immediately".

Obama Right In Targeting Iran Deal Opponents As Warmongers

As I've written multiple times, I'm not afraid to deliver kudos to the Prez when he's right on an issue, and brickbats when he's wrong (as on the TPP). In this case, he was right yesterday to go after the Iran nuclear deal opponents and basically paint them as warmongering agitators. He was emphatically correct in asserting there is only "one alternative:" to the deal and that is war - of some form - at some stage.

The Reeptard warmongers can deny it all they want but they're either lying or insane.  In this regard, evidently both John McCain and Lindsey Graham took umbrage at Obama's strong remarks and said in a joint statement (WSJ, today, p. A4):

"It is particularly galling to hear the President try to defend his nuclear agreement with Iran by claiming its critics also supported  the war in Iraq".

Ironic, isn't it - that both McCain and Graham actually DID support the war in Iraq.  And Graham, to be sure, has stated clearly that if people vote him in as President (a classically stupid move that's comparable only barely to voting for Trump) he would make plans to go to war with Tehran. So there you have it. Two peas in a warmonger pod (recalling how two years ago, McCain was singing 'Bomb bomb Iran' to the sound of the Beach Boys' hit, 'Ba-Bar- Bra- Ann'. e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRonG87eKw

Funny, but  war with Iran would not be a cakewalk like the Iraq conflict. Again, all these war mongers so het up to get it on really need to see the 1983 film 'Threads' - which makes 'The Day After' look like a walk in the park.

The other brilliant aspect of Obama's attack speech was in framing lawmaker's decisions on the Iran deal as potentially determining not only their own political fates but the future of a U.S. still recovering from more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq that has now cost more than $4 trillion. Enough to have not only funded a single payer health scheme, but a Mars trip and rebuilding our collapsing infrastructure.

Obama also delivered sound advice to the lawmakers, including on the Demo side, to "worry less about being labeled as weak, and more about getting it right." Sadly, over much of their palsied, poltroon history Dems have been much more concerned about their image and associated "optics" than getting a legislative position right.

Obama's jibes also made Bibi Netanyahu look like the warmonger he really is, itching to bomb Iran to pieces despite HE IS the one with over 200 nukes! And, of course, Bibi already dug himself into that hole with one of his earlier speeches, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-netanyahu-paranoid-warmonger-yes.html

But the part I loved the best, that had ol'  Mitch McConnell's panties in a twist, is when Obama pointed out the symmetry between the hardliners in both Iran and the U.S. Because just as the hardliners on the Right oppose the deal here, so do the hardliners on the Iranian Right oppose there. Moron Mitch then lost it and fulminated 'How dare the President compares us to those Iranians!" Well, dumb fuck, that 's because you ARE! But like the rest of his GOOPr ilk, he doesn't process the symmetry any more than he does the irony.

The main object for Obama, no matter how the Republicans pout, cry, stamp feet and play the victim, is to get the Dems on board. Once he has the Ds he doesn't have to worry about any votes against the deal by the 'pukes.  This is important, because it isn't just Iran and the U.S. in this deal, we have the UK, Russia, China, Germany and France too. So a defeat would have undesirable implications for all the parties.

Let us hope the Dem Senators pay close attention to Obama's nuclear physicist head of the DOE (Ernest Moniz) and don't stick their head up their asses like the Reepos have!

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/63346/which-u-s-senators-want-war-on-iran

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/63307/obama-s-pragmatic-appeal-for-iran-peace

Could Republicans Be Responsible for a Nuclear War?

The question posed in the header may shock many people, especially as the take in most of the corporo-media has been to treat the letter by 47 Senate Repukes to Iran as something of a political prank, a joke. But it's no joke, and blistering takedowns of these imps (led by one cotton-wool brained Sen. from Ark. named Tom Cotton) by the NY Times and Financial Times don't mince words on how subversive and dangerous an act it was.

Cotton is supposed to be a former vet, but by his reckless and stupid instigation, trying to disrupt careful negotiations with the Iranians, this idiot could be responsible for starting a nuclear exchange down the road which could quickly escalate.

Don't believe it? Then you don't know history, even recent history. You have zero clue of how escalation and a few blunders can set a path to the unthinkable. And this may well explain why a bozo like Cotton could act so precipitously and unthinkingly. Because former military or not he doesn't know jack about history.

Most of us at the time of the Cuban Missile crisis in October, 1962, didn't know it was a real crisis at the outset. While JFK had appeared on national television and presented images of Russian missiles under wraps, the general  media consensus and take from the military and Joint Chiefs is that these were 'dummies' - not armed.  (The meme had taken hold  that the Russian technicians didn't get a chance to mount the warheads).

Only 30 years later, did Robert McNamara learn (while attending a conference on the crisis in Havana) that more than 100 of the missiles were really armed with single megaton warheads and ready to launch.  He reported all this in the excellent documentary, 'The Fog of War'.  (Which every serious citizen needs to watch!)

What originally was intended to be a naval blockade of Russian ships could have quickly degenerated if the insane fool, Gen. Curtis Lemay, had his way and JFK had launched an invasion of Cuba. As McNamara learned much later, Castro was ready to order all missiles launched if that had occurred.  In the documentary, McNamara reports he asked Castro if he'd really have destroyed his country and started a nuclear war merely because of a U.S. invasion. Without hesitation, he affirmed, "Yes, I would!"

Those of us living then only learned later, with the release of the war room tapes (published in ‘The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis’, by Ernest R. May and Philip K. Zelikow , 1997, President and Fellows of Harvard College), how close we came to seeing the world blown to bits. And it would only have taken Kennedy obeying the demands of one loony tune crank general.  (One that LBJ idolized, btw, and developed backchannels with behind JFK's back.). As reported in the book:

"the Strategic Air Command moved from the general Defense Condition 3 to Defense Condition 2, the level just below general war. In addition to ICBMs and submarine-based ballistic missiles, every available bomber – more than 1,400 aircraft- went on alert. Scores of bombers, each loaded with several nuclear weapons and carrying folders for pre-assigned targets in the Soviet Union, were kept continuously in the air around the clock with shifts- refueled by aerial tankers."

While Repuke Sen. Tom Cotton is no Gen. Curtis Lemay, his rash actions in formulating and dispatching this subversive  letter to Iran could incept such collateral damage down the road that it potentially leads to as serious an outcome as we nearly had in Oct., 1962.  Think only of the consequences if the letter actually derails the peace process and ultimately leads to war with Iran, which both the 'pukes and Israel's Netanyahu desperately want.

And why should bomber strikes on Iran lead to nuclear war?  As a conceptual template, look no further than the excellent 1983 Brit film, 'Threads'.   What commences as localized military power plays in Europe - much as we're seeing now in Ukraine with NATO and Russia - quickly metastasizes to NATO-Russian confrontation in Iran (think oil!).

Once NATO and Russian forces appear in the same theater, events quickly deteriorate. From the initial strikes on a nuclear reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the deliberate exchange of two tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan).  You know that each misstep almost foretells the next and you sense the inevitable, even before the air raid sirens scream in Sheffield - immediately followed by an air burst - which delivers an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) that knocks out all electricity.

Within hours we then see the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) . By then there is  nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. Those not  incinerated in the initial multi-megaton blasts, face the agony of radiation poisoning and the horrific death that portends. By the end, only a few survive, and struggle to grow meager crops even ten years after the nuclear winter.

In the final scene we behold  a young woman of maybe 18, strapped to a filthy gurney and giving birth.  She writhes in pain, screams to 100 -plus decibel levels (no pain killers) and ultimately the  midwife presents her with an infant with a frog-like face, scales and small scaled horns. As she hysterically screams in horror at her mutant, grunting offspring, the film pans to black and the credits roll.

This is perhaps the film Tom Cotton and his cotton-pickin' moron Reepo colleagues ought to have watched before pulling their recent theatrics!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/61401/the-washington-post-will-kill-us-all


And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/61390/a-reasoned-response-to-a-washington-post-call-for-war-with-iran


Also:



http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/medea-benjamin/61367/tom-cotton-is-the-worst-bully-in-the-senate-here-are-10-reasons-why

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/61363/why-47-republican-senators-should-not-be-viewed-as-traitors

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-wellen/61359/republican-senators-letter-to-iran-has-some-invoking-the-t-word

Is Netanyahu A Paranoid Warmonger? Yes, Which Is Why He Needs To Be Ignored

Let us accept as a proposition that in the world we inhabit the laws and exercise of principles may never match ideals. Look no further than the ACA or "Obamacare" which ideally would have been in the form of a single payer system. But the version finally on offer is the best that could be attained given the political climate.   In a similar vein "waging peace" often requires nuanced steps and trade-offs, especially with a nation like Iran - which let us admit is not a palsied military pretender like Iraq (when we invaded in 2003).  Thus, the step-by- step current negotiations are more likely to have success than a precipitous response.

But the  latter is what we got from Benjamin Netanyahu two days ago in the Israeili warmonger's hysterical performance on Capitol Hill. Again, with fire-breathing rhetoric, "Bibi" blasted any deal apart from total Iranian nuclear disarmament and - effectively -  demanded the only alternative had to be war. Which is total insanity, and ought to be sufficient to see this moron taking a one way hike out of the leadership of his Likud party- hopefully in the wake of the Israeli election.

The Financial Times, in an article by Philip Stephens yesterday  ('The Answer for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu Is War Against Iran')  highlighted the total awkward impropriety of it all, in the form of traducing Obama with the Republicans. Of course, the Repugs would lap it up as they're always looking for wars as a means to ramp up deficits to decrease social spending. Call it their trademark. So we expected Boehner and his merry band of bellicose Teepees to certainly grovel and slaver as Netanyahu tried to give his best imitation of Winston Churchill. But most ''Murican historical numbnuts today forget Churchill gave his address at a time when the world faced a real threat in the Nazi Third Reich. As Stephens noted, it was bellicose hyperbole "indulged in by John Boehner" but on the good side (ibid.):

"At least he left out the crude diagram of the Iranian bomb he waved aloft at the UN in 2012."

What is most puzzling is how this unhinged Irsraeli jackass - who more and more resembles the 'boy who cried 'Wolf!' -  has any creds left  when the EU and most European states "shut him out" (according to Stephens) long ago. His rants became so predictable and the over the top rhetoric so absurd that they basically tuned him out. But not the warmongering Neocons in the U.S.

And as far as trying to upstage Obama, all that really happened is that it backfired in the minds of most sensible citizens. Because no matter the excuse, no one one- ups the President in terms of attending a speech that he never sanctioned, but which a troll Reepo congress did - just to get back at him for his executive orders on immigration.

Stephens also observed that Israel's own security and political establishment - including former generals and other officials- has been critical of the speech and believes its only effect is "a clear and present danger to Israel".  A take with which I agree.

While most rational people in the world of realpolitik understand that the only chance to curb Iran is the one now being followed by Obama, the irrational warmongers in Israel and the U.S. demand all out attacks a la Netanyahu. It seems two major conflicts in the last 14 years  aren't enough - they want the whole enchilada. Worse, they're prepared to even invoke the holocaust and in newspaper and mail ads - such as the one I got from AIPAC three days ago. But the hysterical rhetoric used is not designed to encourage thinking people of good will to side with them and so I tore up the AIPAC flyers and hurled them into the dustbin.

I've been a vocal and frequent critic of holocaust deniers and the Nazis (and neo-Nazis) but that doesn't mean I'm going to jump on a pro-war with Iran bandwagon when diplomacy is the only way we'll get a decent resolution.

Perhaps the most insightful and rational take on Iran was offered three years ago by U.S. intelligence specialist, Paul Pillar, in an essay in The Washington Monthly:

"More than three decades of history show that the Islamic Republic's rulers, like most rulers elsewhere, are overwhelmingly concerned with preserving their regime and their power....in this life and not some future one."

Israel, before it mounts its bombs to attack Iran might want to process that. They also might wish to look again at Principle VI under the Nuremberg laws, passed after the Nazis were brought to heel. Principle VI clearly states:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). "

The U.S. itself would commit total folly getting involved in another mid-East hornet's nest, given how it's already fucked up Iraq to a far-thee-well, destabilizing its secular government to the point the crazies like ISIS could enter and wreak havoc.  Leading to State Dept. spokesperson Marie Harf's observation (for which she's been pilloried by the Right):

"We cannot kill our way out of this war" 

Referring to the current conflict with ISIS.  Well, we certainly cannot if that means once more committing tens of thousands of ground troops - especially after we beheld how that worked out before. I mean, look,  as Einstein put it: "insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result."  So if we do follow Bibi's prescription for war, we have to be insane.

And yes, this is contrary to pseudo-Indy columnist Kathleen Parker's recent jibes: "It sounded silly" and  "it needed 12 pages of context to sound rational". In truth, it only needed a memory of recent history of how we totally fouled up Iraq by removing Saddam and ended up with over 4400 dead and  $4 trillion in debt - when all the medical costs are toted up. 

Do we want to go through all that shit again? 

As for making war on Iran, any nut or warmonger that entertains that fantasy needs to see the movie 'Threads' which concerns a U.S. and NATO strike force  invasion of Iran in response to a perceived Russian threat. Though the initial trigger may differ it is possible the rest may well materialize.

From the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the deliberate exchange of two tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat and your ears tuned to the Siren sounds of would-be warmongers..

It should also give you nightmares and motivate you to scream down all the jingoist twits in this country with a boner to pick a fight. One might also include the Israelis in this as well, since any attacks by them could easily escalate and generate unintended consequences.

The last segment of the film - following the timeline after the missile exchange and when nuclear winter occurs, discloses there are some prices that are simply too much to pay. Most graphic are the scenes of the sorry victims of radiation sickness in Sheffield, UK and the final scene when a young woman that manages to survive gives birth to an infant with a frog-like face, scales and small scaled horns. As she screams in horror at her mutant, grunting offspring, the film pans to black and the credits roll.

DO we really want this future? Then by all means let's take Netanyahu's solution to the Iran nuclear problem! If not, we'd best ignore him and relegate him to the ranks of other crackpots in the past - like Barry Goldwater, and Gen. Curtis Lemay - the guy who demanded we nuclear bomb Russia after WWII, after they helped us to prevail.

Warmongering, paranoid crackpots will always be around. But that doesn't mean we have to pay them any serious attention.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/61233/netanyahu-censored-voices-and-the-false-narrative-of-self-defense

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/61228/congress-cheers-netanyahus-hatred-of-iran

And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/05/americas_war_fever_is_rising_how_fear_bloodlust_are_bringing_americans_together/

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/lets_all_pity_netanyahu_and_the_gop_israel_iran_irrational_thinking_and_thomas_friedmans_usual_muddled_nonsense/

Anxious to Start a War with Iran? See THIS Film FIRST!

Well, you can hear the saber -rattling again just like in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and occupation. You hear over and over either that the Israelis are poised for a strike on Iran's nuclear sites, or the U.S. is considering assisting them - even with massive "30,000 lbs. TNT equivalent" bunker busters, or the U.S. plans its own invasion. Even no less than Pentagon PR pundit Barry McCaffrey has forecast a U.S. initiated war within 90 days, and already "briefed NBC execs" on such, e.g.:

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/gen_mccaffrey_privately_briefs_nbc_execs_on_war_with_iran/singleton/
If there are really and truly so many at the Pentagon or in the Elite punditocracy with a hard-on for war with Iran, I strongly suggest that they back up, cool their sabers off ....and take a good long look at this 1984 movie first:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023790698427111488

This movie, 'Threads', is about 1hr and 47 mins long, Brit-made but if it doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, you are either already: a) brain dead, or b) a zombie and amongst the walking dead.

'Threads' is set in the industrial city of Sheffield, UK, and to be sure one needs to get adjusted to the peculiar accent. But once one does, he or she will be granted an inside look at a future none of us want to face. (One U.S. reviewer said that "Threads makes 'The Day After' look like a day at the races".) Having seen both I concur.

Threads is not for the squeamish or faint-hearted but I do think all those yammering for war or confrontation with Iran need to see it and let its message soak in. In fact, I think every critically-thinking red blooded citizen ought to see it, if for no other reason to be motivated to let reps know this thing isn't on - not now or ever. If we could contain the Soviet Union with its 12,700 ICBMs for over 40 years, we ought to be able to contain Iran.

Though based on a hypothetical Soviet-Russian invasion of Iran, which possibility is no longer - since the present day Russians have plowed enormous investment monies into Iran and its reactors, the projected invasion of a U.S. and NATO strike force is accurate to any unfolding future scenario. From the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidential sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the accidential exchange of 2 tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat.

It should also give you nightmares and motivate you to scream down all the warmongers in this country with a boner to pick a fight. One might also include the Israelis in this as well, since any attacks by them could easily escalate and generate unintended consequences, especially if the current Russians believe their own interests are threatened. (A Russian Defense Minister already warned two months ago that any "extreme actions" would be met with responses in kind).

This plausibly makes all of us wish to hell our political and military leaders had more brains, or at least as much as JFK had, when he resisted the call from the Joint Chiefs in October, 1962 to bomb and invade Cuba when Castro had 93 IRBMs aimed at U.S. cities.

The last segment - following the timeline after the exchange and when nuclear winter occurs, discloses there are some prices that are simply too much to pay. (As if our vast deficits aren't enough already, to go initiating another ruckus for whatever reason.)

Let us hope our vaunted leaders learn those lessons after watching this film! If they need to, maybe re-run the last 30 minutes several times!