Nexus - 1503 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

want to inflict massive casualties and that terrorists have the expertise to invent a wide range of attacks, including those involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological and even nuclear weapons... [E]xploding a small nuclear weapon in a major city could do incalculable harm to hundreds of thousands of people, as well as to businesses and the economy.” (US Congress, House Financial Services Committee, 21 June 2007) military agenda, which in a very real sense threatens life on this planet. The US-NATO doctrine to use nukes on a pre- emptive basis with a view to "saving the Western world's way of life" is not challenged in any meaningful way either by academics or by media experts in strategic studies. oo "Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War", The American Conservative, 1 August 2005). Dick Cheney's "contingency plan" was predicated on the pre-emptive war doctrine. Implied in the plan was the presumption that Iran would be behind the attacks. The Pentagon, in a parallel initiative, has finetuned its military agenda to the point of actually envisaging a "Second 9/11" scenario as a means to providing the US administration with a "credible" justification to attack Iran and Syria: "Another [9/l1l-type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets [Iran and Syria]." (Statement by a Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006; emphasis added) About the Author: Professor Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Montreal, Canada (http://www.globalresearch.ca). He is editor of and a regular contributor to GlobalResearch.ca, the group's online presence. He is the author of The Globalisation of Poverty (1997) and America's "War on Terrorism" (2005). His previous contributions to NEXUS are "The US Finances Ethnic War in the Balkans" (2001, 8/04) and "US Agenda for Global Military Domination (2005, 12/04). Most of the references relating to Professor Chussodovsky's article this issue can be accessed via hyperlinks at the web page http://www.globalresearch.ca/ index.php ?context=va&aid=8048. As far as sensitising public opinion to the dangers of a US-sponsored nuclear war is concerned, with a few exceptions there is a scientific and intellectual vacuum: no research, no analysis, and no comprehension of the meaning of a nuclear holocaust which in a real sense threatens the future of humanity. This detachment and lack of concern of prominent intellectuals characterises an evolving trend in many universities and research institutes in the strategic studies, the sciences and social sciences. Academics increasingly tow the line. They remain "mum" on the issue of a US- sponsored nuclear war. There is a tacit acceptance of a diabolical and criminal Meanwhile, the US Congress is concerned that an "American Hiroshima" could potentially damage the US economy: "What we do know is that our enemies 78 = NEXUS APRIL — MAY 2008 US-NATO Pre-emptive Nuclear Strike Policy Continued from page 17 www.nexusmagazi ne.com