Smith tells Wadhams that she can't have it both ways when talking about the danger with Pakistan and nuclear weapons. The only thing is that it is Shephard that is trying to have it his way. You can't go on air and blindly make people afraid without addressing the geopolitical realities on the ground.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Shephard Smith Badgers Caroline Wadhams Over Nukes And Pakistan
Posted by
Josh"Ing"Silverstein
at
5:24 PM
|
Labels: Caroline Wadhams, Center for American Progress, Fox News, nuclear weapons, Pakistan, Shephard Smith
Pakistan Matters
Forget Iran, this is the country we need to be paying attention to. While Bush continues to be friendly with a dictator, Pakistan is extremely unstable and now the house of cards might be falling. Canadian CBC News does a lengthy segment on the situation in what is termed "the most dangerous country in the world."
Posted by
Josh"Ing"Silverstein
at
10:40 AM
|
Labels: al-qaeda, George Bush, nuclear weapons, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf
Monday, October 29, 2007
Reason Versus Madness On Iran
When will the media stop feeding into right wing hype on Iran?
Posted by
Josh"Ing"Silverstein
at
4:13 PM
|
Labels: George Bush, Iran, Lindsay Graham, Mohamed ElBaradei, nuclear weapons, TPM, traditional media
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Nuclear Geo-Politics For Kids
The " End Of Ze World" video simplifies things a bit, but a little gory in the beginning, so cover those young eyes...or not:
Posted by
Josh"Ing"Silverstein
at
11:18 AM
|
Labels: End Of Ze World, geopolitics, nuclear weapons
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Flying Nukes: Accidental Or A Show Of Force
The media treated the story of the accidental transfer of nuclear warheads as an unfortunate mishap that thankfully did not translate into a global catastrophe. Of course I am glad that the plane did not crash or a cruise missile was inadvertently launched, obliterating anything in between Minot, ND and Barksdale AFB in Louisiana. Yet, this explanation of events felt weird to me, and it did so to Larry Johnson, who is far more qualified than me to talk about these things.
From TPM Cafe:
Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That’s like getting excited if you see a postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.
So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.
Then he told me something I had not heard before.
Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.
Hmmm. Are we trying to threaten someone with those WMDs?
Posted by
Josh"Ing"Silverstein
at
10:45 AM
|
Labels: B-52 bomber, Iran, Larry Johnson, nuclear weapons, Pentagon