1,000 nuclear points of light

I am going to say, “I told you so.” Again. This time, concerning the issue of nuclear force reduction. When I ran for the presidency against Obama and that cipher John McCain, this item was in my electoral contract (item #10 of 47):

QUOTE:

TEN:  On August 6, 2012, our total nuclear stockpile will be no greater than 1,000 warheads or else I will refuse, after that date, to allow the United States to use its nuclear weapons under any circumstances. I will also disallow the use of predelegated nuclear weapons release authority, thereby absolutely preventing the use of these weapons in any offensive or defensive capacity.

:UNQUOTE.

Background

I was the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to offer a written political contract in exchange for votes. This contract listed the campaign promises I would fulfill once elected, with failure on my part causing me to lose my office. The mechanism for my removal would be impeachment, which is my reply when people say, “A politician can’t be held to his word in a court of law.” That much is true, but I’m not talking about any court keeping me honest. The threat of impeachment would be sufficient and effective.

Of course, I could only list promises in my contract which I (and only I, acting alone) could fulfill. For instance, item #4 of 47: “I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress if it has any provision for any type of aid or loan to Israel or Egypt.” You see? That type of contractual item would be exclusively within my power, not needing approval from Congress or anybody else.

In plain English, according to the plain language of number TEN (above), after August 6, 2012, the United States would be unable to use its nuclear weapons under any circumstances if the number of warheads in our arsenal exceeded 1,000. Of course, that sounds drastic. But I reasoned as follows:

If the American people had actually elected me based on this contract, which contains this item number TEN, that would mean the American people were saying, “We want this done.” Then, with this mandate in hand, I could use the bully pulpit with Congress and the rest of the military-industrial complex to say, in effect, “You heard what the American people want: Nuclear force reduction. So you’d better get cracking and dismantle all except 1,000 warheads.”

Anyway, that was my plan. But … Obama won, and this is what happened instead:

RE: The recently ratified START treaty:

QUOTE:

Tikkun Editor’s Note: In order to achieve this “deal,” the media told us for months, Obama “had to agree” to tens of billions in new funds for “modernizing” the US nuclear armaments. Feel safer?

:UNQUOTE*.

QUOTE:

[START was finally ratified] after unusually-involved negotiations with Senate Republicans…These negotiations resulted in extensive commitments by the Administration to new spending and upgrades to U.S. strategic armaments…Just this week, and on top of announcements of two major increases in nuclear weapons spending, President Obama promised four senators…that nuclear weapons complex spending would be exempt from any future fiscal austerity measures that might otherwise apply ...

:UNQUOTE**.

On August 31, 2008, I posted an article titled “Nuclear Disarmament: 1,000 points of light,” of which I’ll quote portions after this paragraph. As for the “I told you so” part: You elected Obama and he (once again) sold you out; though if I’d been elected, you would have had more security with fewer of your dollars going to the weapons industries.

Selected quotes from my 2008 essay “1,000 points of light: QUOTE:

My ultimatum to the US Congress:  After I am elected US President, I will present to the US Congress a mandate: On August 6, 2012, our total nuclear stockpile will be no greater than 1,000 warheads or else:

"If by August 6, 2012, the mandate of 1,000 points of light has not been met, then I will refuse to engage the United States in nuclear combat under any circumstances." [In laymen's terms this means, I will not "push the button."] Nor will I allow for the possibility of others, by means of existing predelegated nuclear weapons release authority, to "push the button" for me.

Note: I chose August 6 in honor of the memory of the victims of the Hiroshima atomic-bombing (Aug. 6, 1945).

Pre-emptive response to my critics:

What my critics might say: "What!? Are you saying that our nuclear arsenal must be reduced, without any expectations that the Russians reduce theirs? Are you also saying, if Congress doesn't go along with you on this, you're willing to expose the US to a nuclear attack by announcing in advance that you wouldn't retaliate?"

My response in, three parts:

·       First of all, there's the little matter of me getting elected. If I'm not elected, lots of good things won't happen: Business proceeds as usual. However, if I am elected, that can only mean one thing: The American people support me in this historic initiative. If I can persuade them that this massive reduction in force is the single most important action we can take in the War on Terror (in its broadest sense), they will give me that support.

·       I can be impeached and removed from office well in advance of my August 6, 2012 deadline. Oh, one more thing: My vice president can also be impeached well before that deadline. Why is that important? Once I'm removed from office, who's to say what my vice president would do? To play it safe, Congress would move swiftly to remove both of us from office so the Speaker of the House (a Good Old Boy/Gal, who could be counted on to push the button if necessary) could be sworn in as president.

·       Even if I were to announce right now that I would never consider pushing the button, the United States would not be in jeopardy. How can I say this? Isn't it true that the President of the United States is the only one who can authorize the use of our nuclear weapons? Consider: The following statement "goes without saying" (though it is, in fact, incorrect): POTUS initiates but the Secretary of Defense must concur. This, however, is the reality: Nuclear weapons release authority exists (in both offensive and defensive capacities) which not even the US president can control - though this is vigorously denied by all authorities within the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex. [More on this last statement in a bit.]

1,000 Points of Light: Origin and meaning

My proposal is a practical path toward substantial nuclear disarmament - though I wish I could guarantee "total world-wide nuclear disarmament." I call my initiative 1,000 points of light in an attempt to "one up" President George H.W. Bush who had famously declared, back in 1988: "I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good."

The 1,000 "points" of light I'm referring to are the 1,000 nuclear warheads which will remain in our arsenal on and after Aug. 6, 2012. Relatively speaking, each warhead (if it remains unused) is a "point" of light compared to how it would look once it's detonated. I also think of these 1,000 points as being figurative candles such as are used at prayer vigils to signify an expression of hope. By unilaterally opting to scale down to "only" 1,000 warheads, I will be sending a clear message to our enemies (real and imagined!) that we are willing to act on our own without demanding (or even hinting) that they also reduce their arsenals.

My message is: The United States is no longer a country run by fearful little men who think that more and bigger bombs will mean greater security.

I draw my inspiration from the following position statement issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/):

QUOTE [This is step #4 of a 10-step program, dated April 2008]:

Promptly and unilaterally reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 warheads, including deployed and reserve warheads. The United States would declare all warheads above this level to be in excess of its military needs, move them into storage, begin dismantling them in a manner transparent to the international community, and begin disposing - under international safeguards - of all plutonium and highly enriched uranium beyond that required to maintain these 1,000 warheads. By making the endpoint of this dismantlement process dependent on Russia's response, the United States would encourage Russia to reciprocate.

:UNQUOTE.

I beg to deviate: Look at the preceding sentence. Here's where I differ from the Union of Concerned Scientists' proposal: I am proposing that we not only "dismantle" our excess warheads, but that we destroy or recycle them - regardless of what Russia does. We won't have to encourage Russia to reciprocate. They will simply be amazed that we aren't even hinting that they follow our lead, especially once I make clear:

·       My opposition to including Georgia and Ukraine in NATO.

·       My opposition to increasing the size of NATO by including any additional countries as members.

·       My opposition to building a missile defense system in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic.

I am telling the Russians that I am not a neo-con crazy who thinks the Cold War should be continued and passed on as a legacy to our children. The Cold War is over; now it's time to build that better world we all dreamed about as children.

Who really controls our nuclear arsenal?

I need to clarify this statement I'd made above: "Nuclear weapons release authority exists (in both offensive and defensive capacities) which not even the US president can control..."

I will start by offering this analysis by Bruce Blair, President of the Center for Defense Information:

QUOTE:

...the president's supporting command system is not actually geared to withhold retaliation in the event of enemy missile attack, real or apparent. It is so greased for the rapid release of U.S. missile forces by the thousands upon the receipt of attack indications from early warning satellites and ground radar that the president's options are not all created equal. The bias in favor of launch on electronic warning is so powerful that it would take enormously more presidential will to withhold an attack than to authorize it. The option to "ride out" the onslaught and then take stock of the proper course of action exists only on paper. That is what presidents never learn during their tenures. Their real control is illusory. What's more, the truth has been kept from the presidents intentionally.

Military nuclear commanders designed the hardware and procedures of emergency decision-making to ensure that no president would actually deliberately opt to ride out a Soviet nuclear attack, even though U.S. nuclear policy endorsed second-strike retaliation - assured destruction - as the essential element [my emphasis - Steve Searle] of U.S. deterrent strategy.

:UNQUOTE [Feb. 16, 2004 at www.cdi.org/blair/launch-on-warning.cfm ]

Admittedly, Mr. Blair's statement does not address my contention concerning who has nuclear weapons release authority in an offensive capacity. Even though I can't cite any source whatsoever proving that rogue forces within our military or CIA could start WWIII without us even being threatened by attack, we would be wise to assume this fate is at least possible. And with so many weapons in our arsenal, many of which are still on hair-trigger alert, this fate is more than "at least possible."

There are too many people not asking enough questions concerning who controls our nuclear fate. And "too many people not asking enough questions" is not a good way to run a democracy. At least our situation isn't as bad as it is in Israel, where the electorate has no idea (nor asks) who controls Israel's nukes - for the simple reason that their government neither admits nor denies it has them. For the record, it has them.

My belief is: It's about time We-the-People took control of our fate and started asking some hard questions and insisting on a reduction to those 1,000 points of light I'm proposing.

The Wild Card

Establishment types don't generally like alternative thinkers - calling us names like "loose cannons" and "leftist loonies." If I were to actually be elected president, they would stay up nights thinking: "What's this guy going to do?"

As August 6, 2012 draws nearer and nearer, they might worry about how I might go about shutting down our nuclear launch capability. [Let's assume for the sake of argument that they don't actually impeach me, though that of course would be their best option.]

Would they worry that I would order all nuclear armed submarines into port and order their crews to enjoy unlimited shore leave? Or maybe I would ground all of our nuclear bombers. Maybe I would order all of our nuclear systems' Generals to meet in the White House - and stay for an indefinite period of time.

I could order all these steps simply by virtue of being Commander in Chief - without needing any other authorization.

Or maybe military commanders might fear the worst - loss of command. As president, I could fire any - and all - generals and admirals. It's true that I could not appoint their replacements without approval by the US Senate, but there's even a way around that! Here's the "worst case" scenario:

I could actually decide to keep a General in his command but order him to issue no orders of his own; instead, he could only issue orders from me through someone I would "deputize" for this purpose - perhaps someone as low ranking as a Colonel. While it's true that what I'm describing is definitely not Standard Operating Procedure, it is a legal option. And I wouldn't care one whit if the military brass or other Powers-that-Be liked it or not.

My personal opinion? Too often, our military's top commanders behave like they are the tail wagging the dog. One thing they must never forget: They are under civilian control. Perhaps they need someone to remind them. John McCain is not up to this task, nor is the "I think and I believe" candidate.

Could a Buddhist launch our nukes?

I am a Buddhist, so it might be a good idea to ask me: "Since Buddhists are supposed to be non-violent, would you just sit on your hands and never - under any circumstances - launch our nuclear weapons, since that might violate your faith?"

My answer: "I'm a Buddhist alright. However… I'm not your regular homespun Buddhist. I will answer the question directly by saying: "Yes, I could push the nuclear button." For those who think that's inconsistent with my faith, I invite you to ponder these words of wisdom from the Buddhist "bible:"

QUOTE [These words were spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha]:

When living beings witness the end of a kalpa and all is consumed in a great fire, this, my land, remains safe and tranquil, constantly filled with heavenly and human beings....My pure land is not destroyed, yet the multitude see it as consumed in fire, with anxiety, fear and other sufferings filling it everywhere.

:UNQUOTE [source: Lotus Sutra (page 230 in the Burton Watson translation)]

This means simply that our material world won't last forever - that there are realms that transcend it and overlap it. Actually, no material thing lasts forever - that's the basic idea behind the Buddhist concept of impermanence. However - and this is the beauty of impermanence - even though no particular material thing lasts forever, the entire universe does (which is made of a lot more than just material things). In other words, the nations of planet earth could commit mass suicide by indulging in nuclear war - thereby "killing" the Gaia we all know and love. However, Gaia will be reborn - even after suffering a seemingly irreversible nuclear death.

My aim is to see to it that Gaia, in her present incarnation, lasts as long as humanly possible. And it is for that reason that I offer my 1,000 points of light option, and my bid for the US presidency.

A few concluding quotes, and my conclusion

·       "As of January 2008, the U.S. stockpile contained an estimated 5,400 nuclear warheads" - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April, 2008

·       "An additional 15-percent reduction will be achieved by 2012 leaving a stockpile of nearly 4,500 warheads" - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April, 2008

·       "A group of 95 scientists - [including] 23 Nobel laureates and 10 National Medal of Science winners - unveiled a statement outlining a series of unilateral steps that the US could take to reduce the global threat of nuclear weapons....As far as I am aware only one major newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, even mentioned [this statement], giving it just four sentences" - Lawrence Krauss at http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/newscimay7.html

How sad! Through some mystic process, the issue of reduction of nuclear arsenals never made it into the campaign debate. None of my opponents addressed this issue: Hillary didn't, Mac III didn't, Obama didn't...none of them! To be fair, though, even I didn't address this issue until just now. Oh, well, better late than never, yes? And it's still not too late to elect me as your next president.

:UNQUOTE.

Conclusion

Yes, I will say, “I told you so,” though perhaps it would be less grating to hear it put this way instead: “It’s useful to think of what might have been had an also-ran ended up winning.”

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Unlike the infamous movie character Dr. Strangelove, I never managed to stop worrying and love the Bomb. Couldn't quite stop worrying about It. Couldn't quite love it. Maybe that's a good quality in a prospective president" - Steve.

   * The “Tikkun Editor’s Note” preceded the text of the article by Greg Mello, referenced below.

 ** SOURCE: Article by Greg Mello titled: “New START Ratification Likely End of Obama’s “Disarmament Vision,” and of Arms Control Era, as New Political Alignments, Fresh Crises Loom.”