ToryNews week International

Recommendations

Info

Periscope WAR the obstacles are. The information gives you an understanding of why it has changed so little over the last half-century and where the possible points of leverage might be. If, as you say, the nuclear weapons system is “criminally insane,” how did you, as one of the original planners, morally justify it back then? And are people still thinking the way you did? Clearly they are. I’m not pointing fingers and saying you must be some sort of monster to have been participating in this. What I have learned is that very ordinary people are capable of promoting monstrous actions. It doesn’t take unusually evil people to do terrible things. In the case of building up a doomsday machine, the purpose was to deter an enemy that was supposedly far ahead of us. We were told to see the USSR as Hitler with nuclear weapons. You talk about what happens to people who enter the system on one side and come out on the other—like President Obama. Late in his second term—after receiving a Nobel Prize for his anti-nuclear position and speaking at Hiroshima, calling for the abolition of nuclear “We would win. We’d still be here. But Korea—North and South—would be gone.” weapons—Obama agreed to spend more than a trillion dollars to upgrade them. How much of that transformational process has to do with supporting the industry that developed around nukes? I now see that this system was a massive subsidy to the aerospace industry, to prop it up. It was not that [aerospace companies] were doing what the Pentagon needed; it was that the Pentagon was rationalizing what Boeing and Raytheon and Lockheed needed in the way of sales to the government. And that warped everything: [Members of Congress acted] in favor of what their constituents and the corporations needed, [as well as] what their careers needed. And they didn’t see a conflict of interest because they could not imagine a conflict of interest between the U.S. and Lockheed. And that remains blatantly true now. You describe the predicted effects of nuclear war to be the extinction of all species and almost all humanity. If that is the outcome, what is the definition of winning a nuclear war? Remember, we won a nuclear war, but it was one-sided. No war has been fought between two nuclear states. Right now, they are thinking of winning a nuclear war with North Korea. I am sure [national security adviser John] Bolton is thinking that. Well, we would win. We’d still be here. But Korea—North and South—would be gone. [We may lose] San Francisco. Or Los Angeles. You could say one side would come out surviving. But for the U.S. and Russia, that would not be the case; THE PAPER CHASE Ellsberg at a 1972 news conference when he was on trial over the Pentagon Papers, along with Rand Corp. colleague Anthony Russo, to his right. CLOCKWISE FROM LEFT: GEORGE BRICH/AP PHOTO; BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/GETTY; STR/AFP/KCNA/KNS/GETTY; POPPERFOTO/GETTY 10 NEWSWEEK.COM MAY 11, 20 18
there would be no survivors. With India and Pakistan, also no survivors. BOMBS AWAY Clockwise, Ellsberg rallying with anti-war activists in 2006; North Korea’s Kim Jong Un; in 1951, the A-bomb is tested for the first time during troop maneuvers, 75 miles from Las Vegas. Who are the five people in the world you would most want to read Doomsday Machine? The first name that comes to mind is [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel. I think she’s in a position to realize that she could exercise world leadership on this issue with great effect. We instituted first-use threats for Germany, and she could renounce that and say we do not want to be under anybody’s nuclear umbrella. The next person, maybe even No. 1, is Xi [Jinping] in China. I would like to see China’s world leadership on this issue. They have had a relatively sane policy since 1964, and Xi does eat chocolate cake with Trump. China has had no pretense to be able to disarm another superpower or to attack first. The world would be enormously safer if all the superpowers did that. After that, [British Labour Party leader] Jeremy Corbyn. He wants to denuclearize Britain. Corbyn would be reassured that he is right. Finally, the Democrats. I would like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and the other progressive leaders to read it because they don’t have this problem in their minds. I’m surprised that you didn’t mention President Trump—or any Republicans for that matter. [Defense Secretary] James Mattis, absolutely. I have some real hopes there. Mattis is a Marine like me, and that means he has never had anything to do with nuclear weapons. I can imagine Mattis would allow a study to be made of the effects of nuclear winter. The Pentagon has never done such a study, asking what would our bombs do to the world. They don’t have any plan other than doomsday. NEWSWEEK.COM 11
Page 2 and 3: © 1986 Panda symbol WWF ® “WWF
Page 4: GLOBAL EDITOR IN CHIEF _ Nancy Coop
Page 7 and 8: KOREA SUMMIT PRESS POOL/GETTY NEWSW
Page 9 and 10: CLOCKWIZE FROM TOP: MOHAMMED ABED/A
Page 11: “This is so insanely stupid. It
Page 15 and 16: FROM LEFT: PHILIPPE HUGUEN/AFP/GETT
Page 17 and 18: CLOCKWISE FROM TOP: JOHN MOORE/GETT
Page 19 and 20: HARRY CAMPBELL/THEISPOT Zello, a mu
Page 21 and 22: ★★★★★ “Journalism I don
Page 23 and 24: y YASMIN ALIBHAI-BROWN NEWSWEEK.COM
Page 25 and 26: CLOCKWISE FROM TOP LEFT: THOMAS D.
Page 27 and 28: HARRY’S WAR Clockwise: The prince
Page 29 and 30: SAMIR HUSSEIN/WIREIMAGE/GETTY PUBLI
Page 31 and 32: THE ROYALS origin…. Just 10% said
Page 33 and 34: WAR ON ITS SOIL—THIS ONE BETWEEN
Page 35 and 36: SYRIA line that both countries are
Page 37 and 38: CLOCKWISE FROM LEFT: SERGEI BOBYLEV
Page 39 and 40: 4 2 1 3 6 9 10 5 8 13 14 7 11 12 15
Page 41 and 42: INVENTION Super Delayed Gratificati
Page 43 and 44: iting surfaces of the front teeth.
Page 45 and 46: FACT AND FICTION Jake Tapper on his
Page 47 and 48: DREAM STREAM Celebrity gamers playi
Page 49 and 50: inordinate amount of public attenti
Page 51: Tinalbarka wants to be a lawyer. Sh

ToryNews week International

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?