John Pilger

Rather shows his attitude towards Israel in this one phrase:

There is only one rampant nuclear power in the Middle East and that is Israel.

I agree that Israel is the only nuclear power between the Med and Pakistan: but "rampant" seems a little over the top really.

I also find it really rather amusing that while he\’s such a fan of international law he failes to mention an interesting point. Iran has signed the IPT, meaning that if it is developing a bomb (and I personally have no doubt that it is trying to, there is no other reason to pursue highly enriched uranium other than that) then they are in breach of their treaty committments. Israel has not, so, however much one might not like the fact that it has nuclear weapons, it has every legal right to have them.

11 thoughts on “John Pilger”

  1. A friend of mine who used to work at ETH in Zurich claimed that Switzerland had “the bomb”, and that it had told the countries whom it wished to deter.

  2. Alas, he didn’t know, johnb, but guessed that the intention was that the Red Army bypass Switzerland as it drove west. We had a chat about how much you could deter anyone by claiming that you had a bomb when you didn’t. My view was that no-one would believe you if you hadn’t tested it. His view was “but would you bet on that?”

  3. jophn b, Switzerland has always adopted the hedgehog strategy. It tells people that it would be far too difficult to invade so why bother… In the nuclear age, obviously they would have to evolve a suitable strategy. However, given that Switzerland is well-equipped with nuclear bunkers and that it has housed numerous extremely brilliant people, my bet is that it was covered both ways; it could survive a nuclear attack and could probably launch one itself.

  4. and John b, perhaps you might look at history. At various times Switzerland has been invaded by parts of what are now called Germany, France and Italy.

  5. The length of time it takes a technologically sophisticated economy like Switzerland to create a usable fission weapon (assuming they have or can obtain the fissile material) is n+1 months: n months prevaricating in secret committees about whether to build a bomb, and then one month building it.

  6. That was mostly a genuine, rather than a rhetorical question.

    I thought Napoleon’s army was the only one to occupy Switzerland since about 1200 (the Italians kicking the Swiss out of Milan doesn’t really count) – when were the others? And using a nuclear bomb against France has fairly obvious disadvantages for a company that borders France…

  7. The only problem with this idea is that if the Red Army were charging torwards Switzerland a Swiss nuke is hardly going to stop them when the threat of 20,000 US nukes hasn’t?

  8. It doesn’t need to stop them, Matthew, only divert them. It’s presumably for the eventuality that the Yanks have funked using nukes, at the risk of losing Washington etc, just to protect a bunch of Frogs and Krauts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *