>
5:16 pm - Saturday May 24, 7902

Congressman Tim Walberg, Gaza, and the low threshold of the US nuclear option:

Congressman Tim Walberg, Gaza, and the low threshold of the US nuclear option: the urgent need for a crash project to develop African nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Mesfin Arega

“We shouldn’t be spending a dime on humanitarian aid (in Gaza). It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Get it over quick. The same should be in Ukraine.  Defeat Putin quick. Instead of 80% of our funding being used for humanitarian purposes, it should be 80%, 100% to wipe out Russian forces.(Tim Walberg, Republican Congressman from Michigan)

“If Canada someday ever attacked Buffalo, I’m sorry my friends, there would be no Canada the next day.” (Kathy Hochul, Democrat governor of New York) 

The threshold for nuclear option of USA (the severity above which USA will employ nuclear weapons) is so low that, if someday Mexico does to USA a tiny fraction of what Ukraine has done and is now doing to Russia, it will surely be incinerated by a nuclear inferno and there will be no Mexico the next day.  The same applies even for the closest ally of the United States (Canada), and Ms. Hochul in the above quote was not bragging but merely expressing what she knows as the governor of the most important state bordering Canada, New York.

The only reason why the US didn’t use nuclear weapons in Vietnam was its fear of equivalent retaliation by the USSR and China, why it didn’t nuke Iraq was because nuked Iraq would be off limits for expropriation by US-based oil giants like Halliburton of Dick Cheney, and why it didn’t opt for the nuclear option in Afghanistan was because using nuclear weapons here and there on such a mountainous, scarcely populated country would be very inefficient, if not prohibitively expensive.  

 In short, the low threshold for the nuclear option of the US means the US can conventionally attack or invade any country under any pretext, but if that country tries to resist and if its resistance is even nominally stiff, the US will nuke it out of existence, unless, of course, that country has its own nuclear weapons and delivery systems like Pakistan and North Korea or has security guarantee by a nuclear armed state like that of Belarus with Russia.  Africa is so big that the anti-colonialist Russia and China cannot give it security guarantee (nor should they do!) against the neocolonialist west which has ever been waiting for the most opportune moment to recolonize Africa.

The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience … The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge anymore.” (Boris Johnson, former prime minister of England). 

Africa can be sure of frustrating Johnson’s neocolonialist dream only when it is able to guarantee its own security by its own military might, and, judging from the situation in Gaza, it does not have that much time to do so. Hence, the urgent need for a crash project to develop African nuclear weapons and delivery systems enough to deter “the old colonial powers” from even thinking, let alone trying, to recolonize Africa. If sadistic German colonizers decimated an entire tribe in Namibia using conventional weapons, it is scary even to think what their neo-Nazi children would do, armed with American nuclear weapons.   If non-nuclear England massacred tens of thousands of Africans in a single African country (Kenya) during a single anti-colonialist rebellion (the Mau Mau rebellion), it is frightening even to think what a nuclear-armed England would do to the whole of Africa if, as Boris Johnson said, Englishmen “scrambled once again in her direction.”

I do not admit that a great wrong had been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia by the fact that a higher-grade race has come in and taken their place.”   (Winston Churchill, former prime minister of England)

The US made the first atomic bomb through basically what amounted to slave labor of world scientists concentrated in a maximum-security camp called Los Alamos under a crash project dubbed the Manhattan project.  Ever since, the US has readily used (or threatened to use) atomic/nuclear weapons whenever and wherever it deems its military objectives cannot be met with minimal American casualties, or whenever it wants to send a strong message to would be challengers of its world hegemony. 

  President Truman’s alibi for bombing the hell out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “to bring the war to a speed end and save American lives.”  The same Truman threatened to use nuclear weapons in Korea, only because Korean resistance to American forces appeared to be bit stiffer than he expected. President Eisenhower was quick to pull the nuclear card the moment things seemed to get a bit out of America’s control during the Taiwan Strait Crisis of the 1950s.  During the Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962), President Kennedy almost initiated a nuclear Armageddon solely because America’s missile deployment in Turkey (right on the border of Soviet Union) was countered by Soviet missile deployment in Cuba, more than 90 miles away from the US border.  A sure proof way for American presidents or presidential hopefuls to boost their polling numbers is threatening to nuke the heck out of any actual or potential challenger of the US imperialistic hegemony.

America’s openly stated objective in Ukraine is “strategic defeat” of Russia. However, it has become increasingly apparent that this objective cannot be met by conventional means and that, rather than helping America in strategically defeating Russia, Ukraine itself may very well be heading for total and comprehensive defeat, making Russia much more powerful and much more self-reliant, and, therefore, much more sanction resistant, than it was before the onset of the Ukraine war. Add to this the new comprehensive partnership between reinvigorated Russia of huge natural resources and technologically powerful China of huge manpower, a partnership forced by the unprecedented sanction imposed on Russia, the world may very well see a totally defeated America instead of a strategically defeated Russia.  

In trying to breakup Russia, as it has broken up Yugoslavia, America (the “indivisible one nation under God”) itself may very well breakup; in trying to take Ukraine out of Russian sphere of influence, it may very well loose Alaska to Russian sphere of influence.  Finding itself in such a dire, if not hopeless, situation, America may very well be mulling, if not seriously considering, its “quick” nuclear option to “wipe out Russian forces” and “defeat Putin quick”, as clearly stated by Congressman Tim Walberg, knowing full well that this option can only mean World War III with nuclear weapons – the end of the world, the last and final Armageddon before the coming of Christ, so to speak.  

Imperialist US is so narcissist that it would rather take the entire world (including itself) to hell via nuclear Armageddon than see her hegemony chipped even by a tiny bit. Its narcissist leaders and statesmen sadistically glamorize nuclear weapons as “quick” means of ending war, taking their cue from none other than the well-known sadist Winston Churchill.  That is, the very Winston Churchill who openly lauded early in 1898 (nearly 50 years Hiroshima and Nagasaki) the vicious massacre of Africans by the then weapon of mass destruction (the Maxim machine gun which could fire 600 rounds per minute) making Africans, not the Japanese, the first victims of WMD. 

“Thus ended the battle of Omdurman—the most signal triumph ever gained by the arms of science over barbarians. Within the space of five hours the strongest and best-armed savage army yet arrayed against a modern European Power had been destroyed and dispersed, with hardly any difficulty, comparatively small risk, and insignificant loss to the victor.”  (Winston Churchill, The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan])  

Indeed, Winston Churchill has openly, clearly, and loudly told the entire world what a white supremacist sadist he really was. Nevertheless, though not surprisingly, he was hailed by the Anglo-Saxon dominated west as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, bulwark of freedom, democracy, and human right. This alone clearly shows what the Anglo-Saxon dominated west means when it talks about freedom, democracy, and human right vis-à-vis the non-western world. After all, expecting genuine freedom, democracy, and human right from the very countries built solely and exclusively on genocide, colonialism, and slavery is akin to expecting a pigeon from a serpent’s egg; it will never materialize.   

Though the Anglo-Saxon dominated west is hypocritically inconsistent regarding freedom, democracy, and human right, it can never, ever be accused of inconsistency in its unwavering belief that might is right, and the victor is saint. The west dominated the world by employing the most devastating war machines at its disposal freely, effectively, and, above all, mercilessly, without qualms. It colonized Africa, and Asia, and fully owned America and Australia by wiping out hundreds of millions of natives and calls itself the master race for its horrendous feat. It has happily used WMD (weapons of mass destruction) in Africa and Asia and has openly stated, rather bragged about, its intention to readily use WMD whenever and wherever its hegemony is threatened, even slightly.  

Regarding Africa, Boris Johnson has clearly stated that “The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction.”  It follows that, for the colonially genocidal west presently occupied with the extermination of Palestinians using 1000-pound-dumb-bombs dropped on densely populated areas, tiny Gaza is the prelude to huge Africa. The white beast’s insatiable thirst for colony via genocide means, what is happening to helpless and defenseless Gaza is sure to happen to Africa in the near future, that is, if the west also found Africa to be helpless and defenseless.  

“Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable …. from Israel’s perspective I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up” (Jared Kushner, son-in-law and senior advisor of President Trump)

  If, as per senior adviser of President Trump, the waterfront property of tiny Gaza is sufficiently valuable for the west to ethnically cleanse Gaza (“to move the people out and then clean it up”), it would not be difficult to imagine what the west has planned for Africa with its huge natural resources and unparalleled beauty.  While the west is actively and deeply involved in the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, it at the same time is constantly judging the reaction of the non-western world, especially the nuclear powers Russia and China, to the genocide. (Caste-conditioned, subservience-prone India is inherently opportunistic, especially when lead by a Hindu nationalist leader like Modi, and, therefore, can easily be bought by the west, if it is not already bought.)  

If the reaction of the non-western world to the genocide in Gaza is no action but mere condemnation, in particular if the west opts for the nuclear option to “quicken” the genocide in Gaza (as suggested by congressman Tim Walberg) and is not nuked in return by Russia or China or both, the west will interpret this as a green light to do the same in Africa and will do so in due time, using the flimsiest of pretexts, fabricating one if necessary.      

The ongoing militarily unopposed Gaza genocide has clearly shown that Africa cannot rely on the UN or, for that matter, on the nuclear powers China and Russia, to avoid the fate of Gaza. The only sure way for Africa to avoid the fate of Gaza is to rely on its own might, making the sadistic genocidal west clearly know that it cannot nuke Africa without being nuked in return, assuring mutual destruction. For example, now that Pakistan and India are nuclear armed, England would never ever dare think about, let alone try, recolonizing them, explaining why Boris Johnson urged the “old colonial powers” to once again scramble towards Africa and not towards Asia. Hence the urgent need for developing up-to-date African nuclear weapons and delivery systems, stationed at every corner of Africa and able to strike even the farthest parts of would-be re-scramblers of Africa. 

Given Africa’s enormous potential in human and natural resources and considering the present information age, urgently developing first-rate African nuclear weapons and delivery system on crash program should not be a difficult undertaking. All it requires is a sense of urgency coupled with willingness and determination. If tiny Pakistan and North Korea can do it, there is no way huge Africa (especially Sub-Saharan Africa) can’t, especially if all (or most) Sub-Saharan countries pull their resources together under the auspice an umbrella organization.  After all, nearly all of the Uranium used for the very first atomic bombs (dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) was mined in a small mine in Congo (in the province of Katanga) called “Shinkolobwe” where ores yield typically 63% Uranium, as opposed to a maximum yield of about 0.03% for ores in US and Canada.    

As an Ethiopian, I would have suggested Ethiopia as one of the countries for the development and stationing of African nuclear weapons and delivery systems, if only for its strategic location in east Africa. However, unfortunately, Ethiopia is now being led by an extremely vicious, Oromo tribalist stooge of the west called Abiy Ahmed who has been ethnically cleansing the Amhara (arguably, the most anti-colonialist of all Ethiopians) ever since he came to power six years ago, and was awarded the west’s Nobel Peace Prize, in addition to several other prizes, for his unparalleled savagery against the Amhara.  Nevertheless, in recognition of Ethiopia’s scintillating victory over European colonialists at Adwa, and its crucial role in the decolonization the whole of Africa as well as to send a strong message to any would be re-colonizer of Africa, I suggest that (analogous to “project Manhattan” for the first atomic bomb of the Whiteman) the project for the first atomic bomb of the Blackman be named “project Adwa”, wherever in Sub-Sharan Africa that project is to be located, be it in South Africa, Ghana or Rwanda.     

 

Mesfin Arega

mesfin. arega@gmail.com

Filed in: Articles & Opinions