We Are All Becoming Cassandras

 "About three decades ago, climate change also became a major public issue, with scientists, politicians, and environmental organizations issuing prophetic statements about the extreme dangers ahead. Today, following a remarkable display of inaction, massive wildfires and floods sweep across nations, the polar ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, and millions of climate refugees are fleeing for their lives."

"Substantial majorities of people polled around the world also feel seriously endangered by climate change. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey of people in 26 nations in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa found that a median of 68 percent regarded climate change as a 'major threat,' 20 percent as a 'minor threat,' and only 9 percent as 'not a threat.' "

"When it comes to nuclear weapons, polls have shown that most people favor eliminating them. A 2018 public opinion survey in 21 nations worldwide found that large majorities in nearly all the nations supported the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Recently, public opinion surveys in Europe, Japan, and Australia reported similar results."

"The COVID-19 pandemic also sparked an exceptionally strong demand for remedial action. In late 2021, an Ipsos survey of people in 15 nations found overwhelming numbers intending to be vaccinated in a variety of nations, including Brazil (89 percent), Italy 85 percent), China (82 percent), Spain (82 percent), Mexico (80 percent), South Korea (80 percent), Canada (79 percent), Australia (78 percent), and Japan (74 percent)."

"Even so, governments have not taken adequate action to stave off the catastrophes of nuclear war, climate change, and disease pandemics. Why?"

"One key factor is the control of public policy by self-interested economic forces. Seeking lucrative military contracts from the U.S. government, giant corporations campaign relentlessly for the building of new nuclear weapons. In 2020. the major nuclear weapons contractors in the United States employed 380 lobbyists and spent $60 million on lobbying, with great success."

"Nor should we forget the immense role that wealthy fossil fuel corporations have played in sabotaging action to avert climate catastrophe. Although ExxonMobil and other oil companies knew decades ago about what their products were doing to the environment, they funded a massive misinformation campaign designed to deny the findings of climate science, subvert public opinion, and block international treaties that could curb greenhouse gas emissions. Thus far, they have been very successful."

"As for the giant pharmaceutical companies, they treat the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to reap vast profits. Public health, of course, is dependent upon the worldwide distribution of antiviral vaccines as quickly as possible. But the corporations manufacturing the vaccines, determined to maximize their income, refuse to waive their patent rights, thus preventing other companies or governments from producing or distributing the vaccine and, thereby, competing with them. In this scarcity, they sell the vaccines to the highest bidders among governments -- overwhelmingly those of the richest nations. Consequently, as if August 30, 2021, 57 percent of people in high-income countries had received at least one dose of the vaccine, while only 2 percent had received it in low-income nations."

"A second key factor behind the inadequate response to these crises is the absence of a system of global governance. Even when the baneful influence of a system of powerful corporate entities is overcome, on occasion, in individual nations, there is no structure that can take remedial action on a global basis."

"Consequently, until corporate influence is curbed and the United Nations strengthened, our modern Cassandras' warnings seem likely to go unheeded."

"Curiously, though, there is a major difference between the Cassandra of the Greek myths and her modern counterparts. In the myths, Cassandra was ineffective because she was simply not 'believed.' By contrast, most people 'do' believe our modern Cassandras and want action taken to avert catastrophe."

(Source: Rearranged excerpts taken from: Lawrence Wittner, "We are All Becoming Cassandras: Leaders Must Heed the People on Climate, Disarmament, and Pandemic ," History News Network.)

Ready, aim, fired: Can Biden rescue the Nuclear Posture Review?

When Leonor Tomero, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 5, 2021, she aroused the ire of Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), by explaining that her job was to coordinate the review process, consider the risks and benefits of current declaratory policy, assess alternative options, and not impose any personal views she might have. Cotton said he was 'now troubled by the direction' of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).The response of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was: "What kind of a 'robust' nuclear posture can supposedly deter World War III but not withstand some hard questions about whether all 3,800 nuclear bombs and warheads in the US stockpile (as well as as the 400 ICBMs, 280 SLBMs, 66 strategic bombers, and 14 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines that carry them) are vital to that mission, to say nothing of affordable?"

"The writing was on the wall back in January 2021, when Adm. Charles Richard, commander of US Strategic Command, told the Defense Writers Group that the objective of the NPR should be 'validation, that we like the strategy we have. ... [T]nation has had basically the same strategy dating back to the Kennedy administration. It's been repeatedly validated through multiple administrations. It would be useful to do that again. And then to be satisfied that the capabilities we have are able to accomplish that again.' For Richard, the most senior military officer with operational responsibility over the nuclear arsenal , undertaking any kind of serious, thorough evaluation of nuclear requirements, let alone exploring any potentially beneficial alternatives to a strategy that, in his words, hasn't changed for 60 years, was wholly unnecessary. The question now [for Biden] is whether he will accept an NPR that is likely to do far, far less or find a way to ensure he receives actual policy options to pursue, rather than a nuclear fait accompli that changes little or nothing."

"Back to basics. What would an honest and productive NPR look like? Rather than starting with the unquestioned assumption that all the weapons we have and everything we're already doing to upgrade them is essential and effective, it would go back to first principles to identify the fundamental national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States 'before' proposing a strategy for how nuclear weapons can help to achieve some of them. Next the review would identify specific military targets to support that strategy, targets to support that strategy, assess the best weapons for those targets, and determine the precise force posture and deployment numbers to hold those targets at risk. Finally, it would quantify the amount of money required to accomplish all of this -- including designing, building, testing, and maintaining the warheads and all the supporting infrastructure -- both today and well into the future. It would also be managed not just by the Defense Department but jointly with the State Department (to fully assess diplomatic and arms reduction concerns) and the Energy Department (to better include the perspectives of those charged with actually maintaining the nuclear warheads and the facilities that sustain them). And it would allow academics and non-governmental experts (including retired governmental and military officials) opportunities to contribute their knowledge and experience before any drafts are written.  

Failing to do that will continue to perpetuate the so-called nuclear triad based on the longstanding but unsubstantiated (and unprovable) belief it is absolutely necessary to our deterrent posture.

  

House Resolution to Hold Mark Meadows in Contempt

 To fulfill its investigative responsibilities, the Select Committee needs to understand the events and communications in which Mr. Meadows reportedly participated or that he observed.

"Mr. Meadows was one of the relatively small group of people who witnessed the events of January 6 in the White House and with then-President Trump. Mr. Trump was with or in the vicinity of then-President Trump on January 6 as he learned about the attack on the U.. Capitol and decided whether to issue a statement that could stop the rioters.

In fact, as the violence at the Capitol unfolded, Mr. Meadows received many messages encouraging him to have Mr. Trump issue a statement that could end the violence, and one former White House employee reportedly contacted Mr. Meadows several times and told him, '[you] guys have to say something. Even if the president's not willing to put out a statement, you should go to the [cameras] and say, 'We condemn this. Please stand down.' 'If you don't, people ae going to die.'

Moreover, Mr. Meadows reportedly spoke with Kashyap Patel, who was then the chief of staff to former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, 'nonstop' throughout the day of January 6, and among other things, Mr. Meadows apparently knows if and when Mr. Trump was engaged in discussions regarding the National Guard's response to the Capitol riot. 

Mr. Meadows exchanged text messages with, and provided guidance to, an organizer of the January 6th rally on the Ellipse after the organizer told him that '[t]hings have gotten crazy and I desperately need some direction. Please.'

Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to protect 'pro-Trump people' and that many more would be available on standby.

Mr. Meadows received text messages and emails regarding apparent efforts to encourage Republican legislators in certain States to send alternate slates of electors to Congress, a plan which one member of Congress acknowledged was 'highly controversial' and to which Mr. Meadows responded, 'I love it.' Mr. Meadows responded to a similar message by saying '[w]e are' and another such message by saying 'Yes. Have a team on it.'

Mr. Meadows forwarded claims of election fraud to the Acting leadership of DOJ for further investigation, some of which he may have received using a private email account and at least one of which he had received directly from people associated with Mr. Trump's election campaign.

He also reportedly introduced Mr. Trump to then-DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. Mr. Clark went on to recommend to Mr. Trump that he be installed as Acting Attorney General and that DOJ should send a letter to State officials urging them to take certain actions that could affect the outcome of the November 2020 election by, among other things, appointing alternate slates of electors to cast electoral votes for Mr. Trump rather than now-President Biden.

Mr. Meadows participated in meetings and calls during which the participants reportedly discussed the need to 'fight' back against 'mounting evidence' of purported voter fraud after courts had considered and overwhelmingly rejected Trump campaign claims of voter fraud and other election irregularities. He participated in one such meeting in the Oval Office with Mr. Trump and Members of Congress, which he publicly tweeted from his personal Twitter account shortly after. He participated in another such call just days before the January 6 attack with Mr. Trump, Members of Congress, attorneys for the Trump re-election campaign, and 'some 300' State and local officials to discuss the goal of overturning certain States' electoral college results on January 6, 2021."