|Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds 8/2/2016 at 19:19:17
(Page 1 of 7 pages)
Abstract: It has become clear that nuclear weapons are only a symptom of an all-pervasive malignancy of the spirit of the world and of humankind. Some Japanese have an expression for this period of human history in which we find ourselves; they call it “the era of nuclear madness.” We propose here a workable moral strategy that would put “everyone” back to work; bring peace and stability; end war-sacrificed lives; and ensure corporate profits, growth, and cooperation; and would allow people to return to peaceful opportunity-laden homelands.
The sun was rising, only a few clouds; prospects for a good day ahead; but August in Japan”..this was likely to be a hot day. With quiet thoughts to themselves and of family members in Hawaii and on the American west coast, some, very hungry, were optimistically expecting the war to end soon.
That Day: August 6, 1945, 8:15 AM: In the center of Hiroshima, just above Shima Hospital , it seemed like the sun had descended to the earth, followed by the sky blasting down in a Richter-10 cosmic quake from the gods, “rattling the earth’s axis,” scorching, searing, roasting, irradiating, blasting, and crushing everything and everyone below. The sun touched Hiroshima, a blazing inferno with no escape; nuclear radiation made people’s bones radioactive, blast winds in excess of 200 mph. The blast overpressure blew out ear drums and forced eyeballs out of their sockets (exophthalmos), hurled and slammed people into walls. Scorched blistered skin sloughed and peeled off their bodies and dragged on the ground as they tried to escape. The retinas of eyes looking up were burned. Stone and concrete buildings were fire-gutted to their cores, the shatter-blasted glass window fragments sharply tearing into the bodies of those within, and without.
This happened to Hiroshima citizens within seconds on August 6. Birds and butterflies never had a chance. On August 7 the Mayor and whoever else he could find, had to deal with 70,000 dead under their crushed burned homes and heaped and strewn all over the streets, bridges, and river banks of Hiroshima. Over the next two weeks more people would die, day and night, average, 160/hour. Radioactivity was all over the center of the city. Thirteen square kilometers of homes, stores and shops destroyed. One small and primitive nuclear bomb, the equivalent explosive power of 16,000 tons of TNT detonated over the city of 350,000, emitting a huge flood of nuclear radiation. By Dec 31, 1945 the death toll was about 140,000 and the counting could not stop then.
Three days later, August 9, 21,000 tons destroyed Nagasaki and its people. By hindsight and knowledge later gained, neither bomb was necessary. Friend Sumiteru Taniguchi, age 16 in 1945, was the only one of 28 postmen in his group to survive. He was a mile away from the hypocenter.
It has become clear that nuclear weapons are only a symptom of an all-pervasive malignancy of the spirit of the world and of humankind. Some Japanese have an expression for this period of human history in which we find ourselves; they call it “the era of nuclear madness.”
Since 1945 there have been no world conflicts which could have justified the use of nuclear weapons. Are there any American politicians, any “decision makers” or “deciders” that you would trust with the responsibility of using nuclear weapons? Could you trust anyone in the world with this responsibility? Is there anyone qualified to make such a decision? It might be best to remove from human minds the necessity for such decisions.
There are people who consider nuclear bombs to be useable weapons of war; after all, in 1945 the Allies actually used two, which many believe ended that war. Sure, they’re usable! During the 1946 Bikini nuclear tests in the South Pacific, U.S. congressmen, invited to witness the tests, were located so far away (for their safety) that many came away naively expressive. “Like a giant firecracker,” said one. Another, “In the next war I hope we don’t have to throw atomic baseballs…” And in Nevada, American G. I.’s advanced under the fallout of mushroom clouds to immediately test themselves near radioactive ground zero. Later, a team of American congressional investigators concluded, “The greatest irony of our atmospheric nuclear testing program is that the only victims of United States nuclear arms since World War II have been our own people.”
Constant Conflict, “There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.” (Major (P) Ralph Peters of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 1997, where he was responsible for future warfare (retired as Lieutenant Colonel in 1998).
Dwight D. Eisenhower: “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can; only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”
The people of the world plead for peace, plead for an end to the killing and suffering, the destruction and displacement, and their leaders cannot achieve it, don’t even seriously try. If it were not so damned serious it would be laughable; that the great majority of all people of the earth want peace and a better life so badly, and their leaders seem powerless and sufficiently witless to obtain it for us. What I wish to ask of all members of the United Nations is, “How many more centuries are you going to continue to allow the ‘stupidity’ and atrocities of wars? Do we need to find minds wiser? Look at the ‘Purposes of the UN.’ Read what you all signed onto.”
Of all the excellent plans for world peace created by knowledgeable brilliant world scholars and statesman, why have none ever been discussed and implemented at the international level? Is there a blockage, a structured impediment that prevents or subverts such efforts? Is it likely that the required wisdom will be found in today’s politically directed diplomats?
Carroll Quigley: “The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching [plan], nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.”
I ask “Who authorized that? What has resulted? ”
Albert Einstein: “The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature.
Einstein again: “Unless by common struggle we are capable of new ways of thinking, mankind is doomed. At present we are bound by political thinking, much of which seems dictated by private financial interests, not human or necessarily moral interests.”
Let us attempt some “new ways of thinking,” based upon human and moral interests!
Consider the following: It must be true that in an ideal peaceful world, a world without the conventional weapons of war, without tanks, missiles, bombers, warships, drones, there would be no need for nuclear weapons, so-called weapons of mass destruction, weapons that treat people like matter. A world without conventional weapons of war, and thus no need for nuclear weapons, could that be achieved?
A subtle driving force behind the huge US military budgets is the fear of a nuclear attack upon our cities. The U.S. military policies established by Congress and the President are impelled by external forces of fear and terror and undoubtedly by internal forces of greed.
Rather than the myopic focus mainly on nuclear abolition with its nettlesome concerns of nuclear breakouts, nuclear terrorisms, and distrusts, we should develop the courage to aggressively follow a path which circumvents and defuses terrorists’ and renegade nations’ continuous regional threats, terrors, and wars.
The world initiatives for action needs to be stripped away from the war mongers with their insidious subversions, their mythological belief in their superiority and destiny to rule the world. World initiatives need to be directed toward peace, not war, for all those nations which are ready for peace, ready for the promised advances of the 21 st century.
We will propose here a workable moral strategy that would solve many problems facing the world, including the war problem. It is an alternative that creates advantages for the working people of the world and at the same time provides advantages to the social, industrial, financial, and defense complexes of world nations, and it does so without “damaging” such complexes. This workable strategy provides a remedy to unemployment throughout the world. We will show that the strategy will put back to work the original creators of the world’s wealth, initially well more than a million of them, half in the United States, for starters. It will create useful peacetime employment for multiple millions in the “Less Developed World”. It will reestablish worldwide markets for peacetime products manufactured by all participating nations. In all nations seeking peace the strategy will provide for creativity and peaceful advantageous productivity. It will effectively isolate war mongering people and nations.
This workable moral strategy seems the only approach, for decades or centuries to come, by which people of the “Less Developed” world, in peace, without war, can become their own masters, can create the sensible path to their own destinies, as so many other nations have done, and live to enjoy some of it.
This workable moral strategy exports no United States’ or other nation’s money; it fosters the expressed desires of all people and nations seeking peace, justice, opportunity, and a better life. This strategy has been referred to by one as “brilliant”. Well, certainly; the strategy incorporates ideas advocated by J. Robert Oppenheimer, Philip Morrison & Kostas Tsipis, Albert Einstein, and James C. Warf, some very bright fellows. What will be described and recommended is a workable moral strategy that Barack Obama might well refer to as the “incentivization” of world peace.
Our workable moral strategy will put a rather unprecedented twist onto thoughts from Albert Einstein who stated: “In view of these evident facts there is, in my opinion, only one way out. 1) It is necessary that conditions be established that guarantee the individual state the right to solve its conflicts with other states on a legal basis and under international jurisdiction. 2) It is necessary that the individual state be prevented from making war by a supranational organization supported by a military power that is exclusively under its control. Only when these two conditions have been fully met can we have some assurance that we shall not vanish into the atmosphere, dissolved into atoms, one of these days.”
Would you and your family be nuclear-dissolved? Our strategy will reinterpret “one way out.”
All nuclear weapons states and nuclear would-be states have contracted this cancerous nuclear malignancy; it is deadly in many ways. There is a practical cure for this disease which would make the possession of nuclear weapons a counterproductive unnecessary burden and hindrance. J. Robert Oppenheimer, “father” of the United States’ atomic bombs, told us in 1946: “Wars might be avoided by: universal disarmament; limited national sovereignties; provision for all people of the world: of a rising standard of living, better education, more contact with and better understanding of others; and equal access to the technical and raw materials which are needed for improving life”.
A Pro-Active Workable Moral Plan Creating Over 1,000,000 Jobs
The late Hiroshima physicist Naomi Shohno believed that it was the responsibility of the United States to lead the world in the direction of peace. To him, no other nation will, no other nation could. Who would even try? Russia? United Kingdom? China? Japan? Does the United States really want to lead the world in the direction of peace, or of “constant conflict”?
The forces in support of war have caused the United States to spend over a trillion dollars in one year, paying for wars; peace has not come, but constant conflict has. “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them,” said Albert Einstein.
Those of the military-industrial-congressional-complex advocate the application of military force as solutions to world problems. They also keep us worried enough so that we will dispose of our hard-earned wealth by putting more money into arms, super-drones, spy-satellites, nuclear weapon revisions, and surging boots on the ground, rather than using our wealth to eliminate the real threats without preemptive murderous wars and destructive attacks and battles. It was the United Nations that was established to lead the world in the direction of peace.
What shall be proposed: would put “everyone” back to work; bring peace and stability; end war-sacrificed lives; and ensure corporate profits, growth, and cooperation; and would restore people to their peaceful homelands.
The United States announces a strategy, that starting one year from now it will revise the manner by which it provides aid to all other nations and particularly to those of the “Less Developed” world, provides aid using American taxpayers’ wealth. It will no longer be direct aid. All other Developed nations are encouraged to similarly participate so that they can also obtain the benefits which will accrue to them just as benefits will accrue to the United States.
Henceforth, rather than direct aid, the United States will provide the United Nations with $165 billion per year in “credit chits” (promissory notes) for use by “Less Developed” nations. Other developed nations are invited to contribute in total an additional $165 billion in “credit chits” to the UN; more if they wish. No actual money leaves any nation. The credit chits originating in the U.S. will only be redeemable for cash at the United States Treasury by American businesses and industries. With cooperation from other nations it means $330 billion or more per year of development to the “Less Developed” world, very roughly 10 times what is now provided by the U.S. alone, a great deal of which we know under the current system is wasted, corrupted, or spent on tools of war .
Affordable? On April 10, 2009 the small nation of Japan, not at war with anyone, announced a $150 billion government stimulus package. In 2009 Japan thought it could afford to do this. I can hear a conservative United States Congress shouting that we cannot afford to do something like that. But financial resources are always found for wars. We can be smart enough to find them for a peace which eliminates wars and the costs of wars. This proposed strategy will have a stimulus unlike others with which the United States has briefly experimented.
We will show that this workable strategy will lead to more than 500,000 U.S. peacetime manufacturing jobs in the first year, and more than 500,000 other peacetime jobs throughout the world.
The United Nations makes the “credit chits” available to peaceful democratic nations of the “Less Developed” world. To help them along the way, chits will also be very cautiously offered to those nations which are verifiably peacefully evolving toward equitable nondiscriminatory constitutional democracy.
Democratization is essential; can you imagine the people of any truly democratic nation, participants in this moral strategy, choosing going to war when it would be obvious that there are alternative non-military diplomatic and economic approaches to solving critical international conflicts?
The chits are made available to “Less Developed” nations on the basis of solicited application of: development proposals from them, verifiable need, and guarantees against misuse or corruption.
These chits to be issued by the United Nations may be utilized only for social and economic development, six specific self-sufficiency goals:
1) Modern appropriate agriculture, food, and fresh pure water production.
2) Good housing and its basic amenities, including electricity, plumbing, sewage.
3) Health care, with hospitals and well-trained doctors.
4) National wealth creation and infrastructure from their own natural and human resources.
5) Civilian security.
6) Education and training at all levels to support items 1-5.
All chits must be used for peacetime goods and services. None of these credit chits can be used to pay off loans or obligations nations may have from other nations or institutions such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank. Nor may these chits be used by the United Nations to service this program. The solicited development proposals submitted to the United Nations by “Less Developed” nations will be carefully evaluated, in terms of the proposed societal, cultural, economic, and environmental impact, and in terms of protection against abuse and corruption. Unacceptable proposals shall be returned for revision until they are in line with this UN sanctioned strategy. The UN will aid revisions.
The United Nations, administering this program, will not grant chits to nations where war exists or is likely or where violations of rights: gender, religious, human, or ethnic, are active or not being remediated. Repressive and military governments and martial law governments will not qualify for participation in this program, nor will any nation, chit donor or receiver, regardless of its power and influence, which is not fully and actively transparently participating and cooperating in the worldwide elimination of: armaments of war, nuclear weapons, terrorism, and the illicit drug trade. In democracies seeking peace and advancement what will the people choose?
The above is the essential specification to this workable moral strategy for achieving and preserving world peace. There are three additional “recommendations,” below.
When a proposal is accepted and to be funded, the United Nations awards the fund amount in “Developed World credit chits” for peacetime goods and services. The chits must make their way back to their origin nation within two years of issue, and may pass through or transfer among several nations; all must be on the approved list of democratic nations which abide by the United Nations Charter and all Covenants and are participants in this program.
“Less Developed” nations receiving credit chits can expect constant on-site verification and audit by United Nations inspectors, comptrollers, and visitors. The “Less Developed” nations can also expect international news and local news reporting the progress of their projects, and their failures or lack of progress. The UN understands the how, when, and why of failed development projects. They will be responsible for avoiding such errors and failures in this workable moral strategy.
Preference in the allocation of development credit chits will be given to those nations:
1) Which are able to demonstrate a continuing reduction or lack of “war armament”.
2) Which are part of a multination cooperative regional development with other democracies.
3) Preference will be given to nations which have instituted United Nations recommended and appropriate educational programs designed to lead their nations peacefully through the 21st Century.
The UN educational programs will teach ways to peace, support, and cooperation, not ways to conflict and war.
When the chits arrive back in the developed nation of origin they do not go to the national treasury. They go to the origin nation’s makers and suppliers of the peacetime goods and services. Upon verified delivery of those goods and services and verification of their proper installation and successful continuous operation, the chits may then becashed in by the goods and services creators and suppliers at the origin nation’s treasury, thus enhancing wealth, productivity, and employment in the nation of chit origin. This flow chart illustrates the process.
In a year’s time $165 billion or more will flow from the U.S. Treasury into the U.S. economy as wages and salaries and production costs. The U.S. creators and suppliers pay their workers and they replenish their supplies from U.S. sources whenever possible. In the U.S. workers’ pay their income tax, Medicare and Social Security tax, college tuitions, and make payments on their home mortgages. Everyone works, everyone benefits as was meant to be in the US. It would be more than foolish for a creator and supplier nation to supply goods created outside their nation.
The chits can be converted to money only in the chit origin nation, the money going to the workers and their industries. Wherever possible the chits should be put to work in donor nation geographic regions where there is greatest unemployment, e.g., Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Nevada, Michigan, Illinois, D.C., California, etc.
There will be great advantages to all nations who make chit deposits into this program, and considerable disadvantages to those who can, but do not. The more chits deposited, the greater economic value accrues to the depositor nation. It should be obvious.
Also, since each “Less Developed” nation will be creating new productive businesses and industries, they too can become suppliers of goods and services outside their nation. However, their main goal is satisfying the needs of their own people, and that may well include establishing external trade relationships.
Each “Less Developed” nation, recipients in this program, will keep an appropriate size national militia trained for natural and other disaster service and for maintaining civil order in times of need, but not for the burden of war. With the war burden gone in the “Less Developed” world, their former expensive and burdensome military costs will now provide peacetime labor costs within these “Less Developed” nations. Factories, offices, homes, schools, hospitals, roads, farms, shopping centers, etc., must be built and staffed. Great changes could be obtainable in two years rather than twenty, and in twenty years rather than 200. It is expected that this program could be phased out after 20 or 25 years, after one generation.
The only way life can improve in the “Less Developed” world is for those nations to increase their own productivity of their lives’ necessities; they need to create their own wealth, their own future as India, Sierra Leone, and China are doing in this century.
Each Less Developed nation should insist on themselves creating “added value” to their natural resources (with due consideration to the societal and environmental impact) by processing such resources at home, rather than simply shipping only raw and crude materials abroad: phosphates, copper, chromium, aluminum, lithium, rare earths, diamonds, uranium, oil, minerals, etc. By this means greater wealth is created in each “Less Developed” nation, and will allow them much greater freedom and economic power, e.g., for additionalnon-military imports from developed nations, like the U.S., Japan, China, India, Germany, Russia, etc. And the “Less Developed” nationsmust plan ahead for when their natural resources are depleting.
Each year this workable and moral program will see returned to the nonmilitary economies of the developed nations, in total, some US$330 billion or more, to be used solely for peacetime goods and services! Hence, this proposed program should greatly reduce unemployment in any nation participating, supplier or receiver.
This program will put workers, the original creators of wealth, back on the job. I would estimate that the first year could create in the U.S. alone some 500,000 or more jobs, and at least that many outside the U.S. Where do we get such an estimate of the number of jobs to be created or restored? David Swanson in Roots Action, Sept. 9, 2011; Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). ( click here)
Consider, compare, what the 3,500,000,000 people of the “Less Developed” world do not have, and who is capable of supplying it! There are abundant opportunities for all! This is “The Incentivization of World Peace.”
An exchange can be made:
— With self-sufficiency and self-defined but true democracy growing in the “Less Developed” world and the virtual elimination there of poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, disease, neocolonialism, rights deprivation, indebtedness, exploitation, and slavery;
— The entire world could have full economic recovery, elimination of the possibility for international nuclear catastrophe, and the practical elimination of war.
— In a world at peace the refugee problem is solved. The killing stops and solutions toworldwide problems can be found. The basic tool is cooperation and proper incentives, not sanctions, boycotts, and deadly threats; justified benefits, not penalties; advantages for all. As promised, no money would leave any nation or pass through the UN, and the credit chits never pass through the World Bank, or any bank, or the International Monetary Fund.
The Developed World and the UN would be signaling to all: we will no longer support wars. To those nations that wish to make peaceful advancement we are here to provide guidance and support.
With nations in full peacetime production and without threats of war, national debts should be payable. Workers with money in their pockets would stimulate other domestic industries which would not be dependent upon the chit payouts. New ventures in energy production, medical instrumentation, nano-electronics, transportation, communications, homes, their furnishings and appliances, etc., could proceed without chit payout funds.What effect would a thriving well-managed economy have on social problems? Would it make them solvable? If the economies and opportunities in Central American nations were thriving, without drug lords and their gangs, would Latinos still wish to migrate to America for menial jobs?
Boulders in the Road
Regrettably, at present, not all nations seem to wish to live in peace with their neighbors. For a temporary period, there must be assembled, trained and integrated , a United Nations multinational force, armed if necessary, the principle function of which shall be to immediately aid any nation which abides by the United Nations Charter and all Covenants when it is nationally or physically abused or attacked by another . The attacking nation must face opposition from all other 193 (at present) United Nations. That should give pause about even considering international aggression. United Nations Charter Articles 41 and 42 speak to this.
That would not mean that war begins. Support for the unjustly attacked nation can come in many forms. For instance, if a nation considering such an attack realized that should its attack commence: that all of its assets held outside its borders would be frozen; that its borders would be closed; that its harbors and airports would be blocked, nothing would come in or go out; that its communications systems would be closed down; etc.; would that nation still carry out an attack? If it did, then that aggressor, clearly violating its signed obligations under the United Nations Charter, will be penalized, shall pay the UN Multinational Force costs and reparations; and likely experience an enforced remedial governance change toward democracy. Their weapons lost in warfare will not be allowed to be replaced, a step which should cause great hesitation about even considering armed aggression.
This writer’s book, Nuclear War: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and A Workable Moral Strategy for Achieving and Preserving World Peace,employing “new ways of thinking,” speaks to two specific “boulders” in the road to peace: (1) Palestine/Israel, and (2) the Senkaku/Diaoyu/Tiaoyutai islands.
Three further Recommendations:
Recommendation 1. To further assure and advance self-determination, development, and confidence for the people of all nations it is necessary to establish government and private international exchange programs involving 10,000 to 30,000 people per year, students, teachers, workers, farmers, artists, government officials, scientists, athletes and upper-bracket bureaucrats; for the purpose of finding friendships, and creative new approaches to cooperation and development for mutual and world benefit.
Recommendation 2. The “Sister Cities Program” should be greatly expanded to include the poorer nations of the world. Does Timbuktu (in Mali) have a sister city in the “Developed World”? Does your town have a sister city in the Developing World? Why not?Shall we soon be able to have sister cities in North Korea? How about Kimhyonggwon county in the DPRK (North Korea)?
Recommendation 3. The United Nations needs to decide when and how it can intervene in the internal affairs of a “nation.” The United Nations’ inability to act over past years has sanctioned the deaths of millions. Consider Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, and now in 2016: Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and eastern Ukraine, etc. The United Nations needs to come to grips with the fact that United Nations actions “which were possible in 1946 at the creation of the UN” are woefully inadequate and much too late for events of the modern electronic and high speed world. The Cold War has ended; greater United Nations activity without vetoes should be possible with minds more wise. What shall be done about civil wars and “ethnic cleansings”? How many need to be killed, imprisoned, or tortured, before the United Nations shall act: 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000? What was the 2006 year-end death toll in the Sudan? Syria’s is now over 400,000 and the DRC 6 million! What shall be the limit before a nation is dismissed from the United Nations until its leadership is replaced, perhaps by the United Nations, and the oppressed people are empowered? Clearly, under the world conditions being proposed by this workable moral strategy which would lead to modern-day democratic nations, such repression and civil wars would be highly unlikely.
Lastly, the United Nations needs to specify the penalty for any nation that employs a nuclear weapon in offense or defense. It is absolutely clear that such use would be a crime against humanity. There will be people to be found guilty. From ignorance, nuclear nations are susceptible to committing nuclear atrocities. I can envision the world’s non-nuclear nations not letting anyone get away with it next time.
Greater security for all nations can be obtained by worldwide reduction of the weapons of all nations rather than increasing and improving arsenals everywhere, as we are doing, as has been done for past centuries. You see the results. The next world nuclear war will likely kill more people than all the wars preceding it.
This proposal is probably the only approach, for decades or centuries to come, by which people of the “Less developed” world, in peace, can become their own masters, can create the sensible path to their own destinies as so many other nations have. Who will hold them back?
How Do Enemies Become Friends? I have come to the firm belief that in contrast to past policies, if a nation wishes to be at peace, the most effective use of any nation’s “defense” budget, consists of not resorting to murderous war, but by some safe and equitable means, engaging in the proactive conversion of existent or potential enemies into friends, all working for a peaceful world with justice and fairness for all. Historical evidence proves it can be done. Too difficult? But what do we have now?
Justification: A Moral World View— Does the developed world and its people have any responsibility for the conditions of poverty, starvation, slavery, disease, displaced refugees, rights deprivation, war and killing, and illiteracy, etc., as they now exist in the former colonial and the “Less Developed” world, in Africa , in Asia and the Middle East , in Latin America ? The answer depends in part on whether you and your nation have taken selfish advantage of people of the “Less Developed” world. Over past centuries has the developed world exploited the people of the “Undeveloped World”? If so, does the developed world have any unfulfilled moral obligations to the former colonial world?
World Peace is Possible Now. Indeed, in 2001, the World Bank and the United Nations stated the reasonableness of our workable moral strategy: “Afghanistan needs about $9 billion during the next five years to rebuild after 20 years of war, the United Nations and World Bank have calculated.” That is only $1.8 billion per year for five years, only 0.45% of a U.S. Annual $400++ billion military budget. And via our workable moral strategy half of this cost would have been contributed by all other developed nations. Why was the $9 billion not used first for the people of Afghanistan instead of destruction? By April, 2004, donors had already pledged $8.2 billion. Some Afghan regional lords were asking for about $25 billion.
Exploitation leads to wars. When nations and their people, and regions are at peace, helping one another, they advance! It is obvious!
[Adapted from the book Nuclear War: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and A Workable Moral Strategy for Achieving and Preserving World Peace, by Raymond G. Wilson. There is a “Caution” on the cover. The PDF book download is available at no cost at,http://sun.iwu.edu/~rwilson/PNDclass.html .]
OpEdNews Member for 512 week(s) and 2 day(s)
3 Articles, 3 Quick Links, 9 Comments, 0 Diaries, 0 Polls
Articles Listed By Date List By Popularity
Tuesday, August 2, 2016 (6 comments)
Revealed: A Workable Moral World-Peace Plan We propose here a workable moral strategy that would put “everyone” back to work; bring peace and stability; end war-sacrificed lives; and ensure corporate profits, growth, and cooperation; and would allow people to return to peaceful opportunity-laden homelands.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
A Bailout for You and Me There is a better bailout proposal that would solve most of the problems we face.
Sunday, August 3, 2008 (3 comments)
To Be Atom Bombed Nuclear war: What is it like? Is there a remedy? Read on.