THE UKRAINE CRISIS: SPECULATING ON WHAT’S AT STAKE

By Ronald Fox

New Note:  Sometimes Feedburner sends out previous posts on its own with no instruction from us.  I noticed this March 29 post was somehow re-sent last night.  I apologize for the redundancy.

 

(This post is a continuation, or Part II, if you like, of yesterday’s post, The Ukrainian Crisis and the Resurgence of the Neocons.  NOTE:  It's risky to speculate on events while they're unfolding.  I have no crystal ball.  My hope here is to stimulate an exchange of thoughts about where the Ukrainian crisis is heading and what Americans can expect.)

 

At stake in the Ukraine crisis is not only Ukrainian democracy and the territorial integrity of internationally recognized borders in the region, but the future of U.S.-Russian relations as well as the broader dynamics of international relations.  It could be we are witnessing the onset of a new Cold War, with its demonization of all things Russian and its many dysfunctions and dangers.  Worse yet, if the situation escalates into a shooting war, things could spin out of control with consequences too horrible to contemplate. Perhaps we should be grateful Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994, though now they probably wish they hadn’t.

 

Already the confrontation over Ukraine and Crimea has jeopardized, if not doomed: diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict in Syria; achieve a satisfactory outcome to the Iran nuclear weapons issue; attain future U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms reductions (in fact, expect the events to encourage both countries to build up their nuclear arsenals, and possibly withdraw from existing arms control treaties); and, strengthen nuclear non-proliferation (who fools with a nuclear power?).  Prospects for future Washington-Moscow peace-making initiatives (which I wrote favorably about in a December 13 posting: After Iraq and Afghanistan: Will the U.S. be Less Inclined to Use Military Force Abroad?), such as in the fight against international terrorism and managing relations with North Korea, appear dead in the water.  Neocons and fellow hawks won't mind these consequences since a lack of progress in these areas will open up opportunities for the use of American force that could lead to the Pax Americana they want to establish.  For those who desire a world based on respect for human rights, the rule of law, and the peaceful settlement of disputes, however, there is good reason to dread a neocon future.     

 

SCIENCE FICTION FILMS OF THE 1950s: OR HOW I LEARNED TO START WORRYING AND HATE THE BOMB

By Ronald Fox

 

Like many youngsters in the 1950s, I watched science fiction movies. I don’t remember being very scared by the monsters and aliens, but what I do recall is that the films got me, an inquisitive kid for my age, thinking about atomic security—or more correctly, atomic insecurity. I wondered why our glorious A-bombs, which were supposed to protect us from evil, didn’t work so well against invading aliens, who always seemed smarter and more technically advanced than us. The aliens would dish out mass destruction, only to be thwarted at the last minute, not by our weapons, but by the brilliance of some scientist who figured out how to defeat them. This may have produced a happy ending, but it was little consolation for my skeptical mind. My lesson was to worry about our atomic future.

Throughout the early years of the atomic age U.S. security officials went to great lengths to convince the American public that nuclear supremacy would not only protect us from military attacks, but also enable us to control world events, large and small. We would be omnipotent. We were told that atomic weapons were a godsend, bestowed upon the United States, and not our enemies. This numinous quality would prove highly seductive, luring millions of Americans in the early post-World War II period to worship at the altar of nuclear power. In the tightly controlled and conformist Cold War atmosphere of the time, few dared to challenge the pro-bomb orthodoxy. Among the few, however, were science fiction film-makers.

DECEMBER 2013 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

So many absurdities surround in our lives, there's a whole body of philosophical thought called "absurdism."  In this spirit, Phronesis is starting a new award series we will call “The Bonehead Absurdity of the Month.”  Each month we will select a statement by a public figure that is, according to the dictionary definition of absurd, so  "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false" that it warrants recognition as our bonehead Absurdity of the Month.

We didn’t post our December 2013 winner because of the holidays, so this posting will present the December recipient of this distinctive award.

The December Award goes to Congressman Duncan Hunter, Jr., R-Calif. Who said in a C-SPAN interview on December 6 regarding Iran:

"I think if you have to hit Iran, you don't put boots on the ground, you do it with tactical nuclear devices, and you set them back a decade or two or three. I think that's the way to do it — with a massive aerial bombardment campaign."

Given that bombing campaigns have never proven their worth for the U.S., it's amazing the Right remains so affixed to them.  Our bombing and deployment of military force in the Middle East is accomplishing one thing: destabilization of the entire region.

Response to Yosarian's Question about Exaggerating Enemy Fighter Airplane Capabilities

Yossarian,

Thanks for your comment.  Yes I can give you an example.  To push the F-14 and F-15 programs, the Pentagon hyped the Russian Mig-25 "Foxbat."  It was portrayed as a super plane, with superior speed, range, and capability to what we currently had; that is until a defecting Russian pilot in 1976 landed his Foxbat in Hakodate,  Japan, where upon inspection we found it to be very ordinary.  It was made of steel instead of titanium (which made it unwieldy), almost incapable of close-quarters combat, electronically far inferior to U.S. fighters, and had less top speed and range than the Pentagon had claimed. Such exaggeration was common in U.S. Cold War assessment of the Soviet threat.

Yossarian, huh?  Figures.

FEBRUARY 2014 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

There were three Bonehead Absurdity candidates for February:

From Clint Eastwood:  "I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!"

Rocker Ted Nugent: Nugent called the President a "communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured, subhuman mongrel."

Richard H. Black, Republican state senator from Northern Virginia, said: a statue of Lincoln had no business going up to Richmond because it would be "sort of like putting the Confederate flag at the Lincoln Memorial."

Because Nugent is a well-known fascist, and Black a certified idiot, Phronesis decided their utterances, while absurd, were too typical to warrant the bonehead label (even Texas governor, Rick Perry, said about Nugent's venom: "That's just Ted").   Eastwood's seemed more bonehead worthy, so we have selected Clint Eastwood as our February winner.  

NOTE:  Should you hear or come across any bonehead absurdities, please send them to me.  Phronesis is always on the lookout for worthy candidates.



HIGH NOON: A FILM COMMENTARY

 

 

By Ronald Fox

I recently re-watched the 1952 film, High Noon, starring Gary Cooper.  I'd seen it before, years ago, but hadn’t remembered much about it other that it was introduced by a catchy tune sung by Tex Ritter and that the good guy, Cooper, prevailed in the end. The film won four academy awards, including a best actor for Cooper and a best song for Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darlin', which was written by Ned Washington from Dimitri Tiomkin's haunting melody.  It might have won more had it not gotten swept up in the anti-Communist hysteria of the time.  Watching it this time, I was able to apply a broader perspective that comes with age as well as insights drawn from many years of studying and teaching post-World War II cultural history. There’s much more to this film than I originally realized.

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL: FOLLOW THE MONEY

 

By Ronald Fox

In an earlier post, Chuck expressed shock that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there are some politicians, think tanks, “scientists,” and average Americans who still aren’t convinced that global warming is real and human caused (see: The Climate Change Saga: Oh My, What is Wrong with Us?) This skepticism challenges the consensus opinion of 97% of climate scientists as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which gives a 95% guarantee of human causation of global warming, a rare consensus among scientists on any natural phenomena.

 

Just 63% of Americans believe climate is changing, and of these only 47% of believe the change is human caused (this represents a decline of 7% since 2012). These numbers stand in contrast to IPCC findings as well as public opinion in European nations, where governments have made far more significant strides in phasing out fossil fuels. Why do so many Americans disregard climate change science? Why are so many indifferent to a global crisis of such monumental proportions?