Food for Nukes, the Answer for Brazil

Originally published on June 2003.

“Food for Nukes, the Answer for Brazil”

The big lesson from the Iraq fiasco to all nations around the world is: if you don't have nuclear weapons to defend your country, then you are out of luck. Brazil should learn this lesson and withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Brazilians should exchange food for North Korean nuclear weapon know-how.

By: Ricardo C. Amaral

On April 27, 2003, The New York Times had an article in the section Week in Review titled: "American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super." The article said: "Stealth drones, G.P.S.-guided smart munitions that hit precisely where aimed; antitank bombs that guide themselves; space-relayed data links that allow individual squad leaders to know exactly where American and opposition forces are during battle—the United States military rolled out all this advanced technology, and more, in its lightning conquest of Iraq. No other military is even close to the United States. The American military is now the strongest the world has ever known, both in absolute terms and relative to other nations; stronger than the Wehrmacht in 1940, stronger than the legions at the height of Roman power. For years to come, no other nation is likely even to try to rival American might.

"Which means: the global arms race is over, with the United States the undisputed heavyweight champion. Other nations are not even trying to match American armed force; because they are so far behind they have no chance of catching up. The great-powers arms race, in progress for centuries, has ended with the rest of the world conceding triumph to the United States. Now only a nuclear state, like perhaps, North Korea, has any military leverage against the winner."

In my opinion, that New York Times article is full of hot air. "…The American military is now the strongest the world has ever known, both in absolute terms and relative to other nations;…stronger than the legions at the height of Roman power." I don't think so! The Romans had real power on their day. I wonder what kind of damage a few Russian nuclear warheads would do to the US, if they landed on US soil. The US has an undisputed power today? Not as long there are other countries armed with nuclear weapons.

North Korea is a country slightly smaller than Mississippi, and has a total population of 22 million people including 15 million people in the age range of 15-65 years. The male population age 15-65 is estimated to be around 7 million people. The question is: can the United States beat starving North Korea if they go to war? I just want to remind the readers that the United States wasn't able to win the first Korean War in the 1950's.

I don't know why The New York Times inflated the United States victory in Iraq so much. In the end, what is amazing to me; is the fight that the Iraqis were able to give to the United States with such a small army and so little resources. I believe that the war against Iraq was the equivalent of an undisputed heavyweight champion, such as Mike Tyson or George Foreman, beating up a 5-year-old kid and afterwards having the illusion that he had a great victory.

As I mentioned on other articles, the war against Iraq was about oil. There is no question about that anymore. The first thing that the US armed forces secured, as soon as the war started, was the oil fields.not only in the North, but also in the South of Iraq. The oil fields were priority number one in the US agenda.

The Wellington Effect

On May 2003, the Atlantic Monthly magazine published an article saying: "…Two German political scientists, Ralph Rotte and Christoph Schmidt, looked at 625 battles from 1600 to 1973 to determine how much influence each of several key factors has on the outcome of military engagements. Having the advantage of surprise, for instance, turns out to be a strong determinant of "battle success," adding 15 percentage points to the likelihood of victory.

"And whereas superior training doesn't appear to give much of a competitive edge, superior intelligence does: it has a marginal impact of 25 percent on the likelihood of victory….But Rotte and Schmidt's central finding is that although there are individual exceptions (for instance, breech-loading rifles helped Prussia to defeat Austria at the Battle of Koniggratz, in 1866), technology has generally not affected battle outcomes: surprise, morale, logistics, and intelligence are all far more important….So what is the most important factor in determining victory in battle?

Leadership: its marginal effect is nearly 50 percent."

When Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, on June 18, 1815, he had only an 18 percent chance of winning that day. Had the Duke of Wellington not commanded the British forces that day, Napoleon, the authors calculate, would have had a 79 percent chance of winning at Waterloo.

The Coming North Korean War

Why is this war inevitable? The North Korean government would be gone in no time if they give up on their nuclear arms capabilities.

Washington is discredited in many ways in the international arena. They make only empty promises, they don't follow-up on their promises, and look at the mess that the US created in Afghanistan, and now in Iraq. Washington doesn't care even about its own people. They just passed major tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and did not give a dime or any help to 4 million long-term unemployed Americans. The government left them out in the cold. Can anyone trust such a government?

Are today's policies in Washington any different of North Korea's, when it comes to its starving population? I don't think so. It is a disgrace what is going on in Washington these days. There is no room for negotiation with North Korea; either the United States would have to accept North Korea as a nuclear power or take military action to stop it. It will be very foolish of the North Koreans to give up or negotiate away the only thing that will keep them independent.

The nuclear plant that forms the heart of North Korea's nuclear program, is located in the town of Yongbyon in North Korea. Only 60 miles north of North Korea's capital Pyongyang, the Yongbyon nuclear complex might be the target for a United States pre-emptive attack.

The reason to go to war against Iraq was the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was accused of having in massive quantities. Since the US has not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the US has lost the little credibility that the US had around the world before the war.

A genuine powerful United States would have sent the Stealth bombers to destroy the North Korean nuclear complex and proved to the world of its real power. In the same manner that Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear threat in the early 1980's.

Seems to me that the United States is afraid of taking action against the North Koreans. The new tactic being used in Washington is to say that everything that the North Korean government is saying is a mistake of translation. Suddenly to avoid war against North Korea, everything in Washington becomes a mistranslation and miscommunication.

Is Washington having second thoughts about a confrontation with North Korea? Why the United States is so afraid of poor and starving North Korea? After all they have only a few nukes. Are these few nukes enough to scare the United States?

Let's see what these warmongers in Washington are made of. Let's see if they have the guts to go to war against a country armed with nuclear weapons. Let's see if George W. Bush will reach a new low, and becomes the first American president to bring the US to the limit—a nuclear war.

Brazil, North Korea and Food for Nukes

I have a feeling that the North Koreans will be able to keep their nuclear capabilities; after all they don't have much oil. Without oil there is no incentive to the United States to go to war and take them over such as was the case in Iraq. But Iran should watch out, because Iran also has lots of oil.

Here is a golden opportunity for Brazil to make a deal with North Korea. This is not about a political point of view; it is strictly a business deal. The North Koreans get something from Brazil that they need:lots of food. And Brazil get something in return from North Korea that they need:the know how of building nuclear weapons.

Let me clarify one point, before anyone start thinking that I am suggesting that Brazil should adopt some obsolete communist ideology. Please don't mixture politics with trade; after all during the cold war, a capitalist country such as Brazil, still traded with the Soviet Union. This transaction will not be about ideology; this will be about a fair trade that will meet the needs of two sovereign countries.

Since January, North Korea has become the first country to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they have restarted a plutonium-producing reactor. Now, Brazil should also withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and make the agreement with the North Koreans: food for nukes. This will be a win/win situation for both parties.

The North Koreans will get what they need very badly: food to feed its starving population. In the other hand, Brazil will get the nuclear weapons capabilities that will provide Brazil and the investment community with a sense of security against any foreign invasions. Brazilians have a short memory, but a foreign country has invaded Brazil at least three times in the past.

The world should take a good look at what is happening in Iraq and North Korea today, and I hope they learn an important lesson. If your country doesn't have nuclear weapons to defend it, then your country doesn't have actual sovereignty. If anything, the events of the last few months show to most countries around the world the necessity of a country having a strong nuclear weapons program.

This article was originally published on Brazzil magazine in June 2003.
The article was also published on “The Brasilians.”

Copyright © 2003 All rights reserved.
By: Ricardo C. Amaral
Author / Economist

brazilamaral@yahoo.com

.

"We Need the Bomb - Part II"

Originally published on February 2003

“We Need the Bomb - Part II”

The Brazilian government is finally on the right track, regarding its defense strategy. It is time for Brazil to unsign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. North Korea just announced that they are unsigning from that treaty. In 90 days, it is a done deal!

By: Ricardo C. Amaral

Mr. Roberto Amaral, Brazil's new Minister of Science and Technology, told a reporter of the BBC on January 5, 2003 that it will be a priority of the new administration for Brazil to get the expertise in the areas of space and nuclear technology. He also said that Brazil will get the knowledge necessary to build nuclear weapons.

On March 10, 2002 The New York Times had a front page article outlining the new American nuclear weapons strategy. The Times reported that the American government is in the process of "a broad overhaul of American nuclear policy; a secret Pentagon report calls for developing new types of nuclear weapons that would be better suited for striking targets in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya.

The New York Times obtained a full copy of the report. It calls for the development of new earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy heavily fortified underground bunkers, including those that are used to store chemical and biological weapons. It argues that the United States may need to resume nuclear testing. One of the most sensitive portions of the report is a secret discussion of contingencies in which the United States might need to use its "nuclear strike capabilities" against a foe.

The Bush administration seems to see a new role for nuclear weapons against the `Axis of Evil' and other problem states.... Among Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Libya, none has nuclear weapons... Significantly, all of them have signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Washington has promised that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that have signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty unless those countries attack the United States or its allies "in alliance with a nuclear weapon state."

When the United States made public its new nuclear weapons policy as described in The New York Times article, the result was that the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, in force since 1970, became obsolete overnight in 2002. The United States started a new nuclear weapons arms race with the other countries of the world.

Today, the Bush administration is suggesting to the world that in the future the U.S. will use nuclear weapons in pre-emptive nuclear strikes. The U.S. government will treat, in the future, the use of nuclear weapons as just one more instrument or tool that it has available in its arsenal. The entire world knows that the U.S. means business when it comes to using arms of mass destruction. We all know that when the U.S. government implies that it will use nuclear weapons, you can count on it.

Year 2002 - The Turning Point

Since the attack on Nagasaki in 1945, there has been an international understanding that the ultimate weapons of terror (nuclear weapons) would remain weapons of last resort, as they were up to now. There was also an understanding that a nuclear weapons country would never use such a weapon against a non-nuclear weapons country.

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989, the world became a much more dangerous place in terms of the proliferation of nuclear weapon states—the Soviet Union split into various nuclear weapon states. The other problem is that since the 1960's, many other states became nuclear weapon states such as France, China, South Africa, Israel, India and Pakistan. These are some of the states that have been reported in the press as the new states that have been able to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities since 1960. How about the states that we don't know!

Now, we all know that North Korea also has nuclear weapons. The next countries to acquire such a capability should be Brazil and probably Argentina. The truth is the nuclear weapons genie is out of the bottle, and many countries around the world will adjust to the new U.S. change in policy and strategy. In 2003, there is a new nuclear weapons reality around the world. That's why Brazil needs nuclear weapons to protect its claim of absolute sovereignty over its territory and population.

Today, the more a state has the capability to use violence at will, the greater is its contempt for sovereignty, that is, for the sovereignty of other states. We can see all over the world this contempt for sovereignty and international law.

In 2002 the United States, recognized by the world community as the only surviving super power, started the trend of unsigning international treaties.

For example, in May 2002, the United States decided to renounce formally any involvement in a treaty creating an international criminal court and has officially "unsigned" the document signed by the Clinton administration. As reported in the New York Times on May 5, 2002, "in doing so the U.S. simultaneously "unsigned" the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a 1969 pact that outlines the obligations of nations to obey other international treaties. Article 18 of the Vienna Convention requires signatory nations like the United States to refrain from taking steps to undermine treaties they signed, even if they do not ratify them."

I was surprised to find out how simple the process is to repudiate a treaty which a country has signed. How easy it was for the United States to withdraw from the International Criminal Court Treaty—the Bush administration officials just notified the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on May 6, 2002 that the United States is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court Treaty.

The United States, as one of the leading countries in the world, set the example to everyone how simple and easy it is to "unsign a treaty" which is no longer wanted by that country. The United States actions make it clear to the world that treaties are made to be broken and that treaties just have a certain useful purpose. After any treaty ends its useful life it becomes obsolete and has to be scrapped—as in the case of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty.

The world has changed drastically in a very short period of time. Today we live in a much more dangerous world, and many of the old international rules have changed since September 11, 2001.

Brazil's Nuclear Program

As a sovereign country, Brazil does not need authorization from any other country, if Brazil decides to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for defense purposes. If there is any obstacle, such a treaty, it is easy to "unsign" such a document, or change the Brazilian Constitution to accommodate the new rules of the game.

Brazil needs to be self sufficient in terms of defense. Brazil can't count on other countries to come to its rescue if that case ever arises in the future. Brazil has to develop nuclear weapons today to protect the future Brazilian generations. Most people are short-sighted and they believe that the world will stay the way which is familiar to them.

The world is changing very fast, and we have to prepare Brazil for the future and adapt Brazil to the new world reality. I would tell my fellow Brazilians: "Please, wake up and look around the world; even poor countries such as India, Pakistan, South Africa, and North Korea have nuclear weapons".

Maybe we should also add "Cuba" to this list. On November 22, 2002, I was watching a television program on PBS called "Now with Bill Moyers," Mr. Moyers was interviewing a historian, James Blight—he wrote a book about the 1962 Cuban Nuclear Missile Crisis. It was an enlightening interview. The professor was saying that only recently, (in the last ten years) the U. S. learned a lot of new information about the Cuban missile crisis that the United States did not know at the time.

He said that the U. S. intelligence thought that Fidel Castro had no nuclear warheads on his island in 1962. Since 1992 the U. S. learned that, in fact, the Soviets had put 162 nuclear weapons in Cuba. Fidel Castro had been cleared and had all the authorization necessary from the Soviets to use the weapons.

If the United States had attacked Cuba in 1962, the invading force would have been annihilated by these weapons. I am glad that that crisis was resolved with diplomacy. I know that we don't learn lessons from past history, but that particular crisis is a very good example of what we don't know can hurt us in a big way.

Usually when I see lists of countries that have nuclear weapons in the newspapers, the lists never list Cuba as being a nuclear weapons country. Since the U. S. was not aware that Cuba had such a large number of nuclear weapons on the island in 1962, is it possible that Fidel Castro still has many of these weapons in Cuba? Why should Castro return any of his 162 nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union at that time, when the United States was not aware that he had all these weapons? I will not be surprised in the future when we find out that Cuba had all these weapons on that island during all these years.

The New Iraq War

The world should take a good look at what is happening in Iraq and North Korea today, and I hope they learn an important lesson. It is simple—if your country doesn't have nuclear weapons to defend it, then your country doesn't have actual sovereignty.

I can't see the United Nations sending inspectors to go around and doing anything they want, and spying everywhere on countries that have nuclear weapons such as the United States, UK, France, China, Russia, Israel, Cuba or even North Korea.

If anything, the events of the last few months show to most countries around the world the necessity of a country having a strong nuclear weapons program.

As I wrote in prior articles, the decision to go to war with Iraq has been made long ago. It is pathetic the BS that we see on the news every day regarding the inspectors, the UN and everything else related to Iraq. Are we all so stupid and naive?

We know that Sadam is not going to walk away into the sunset and retire into a country that would give him a safe place to stay. It is childish to even consider such an option. We all know that as soon as he gives up his power, Sadam and his generals would be tried by the international court for crimes against humanity (after Sadam was demonized in the press for so long this is the only option left).

Sadam's generals will do everything that they can to protect him, because most of his generals know that they also are going to end up in the same place as Sadam—in prison. Sadam and his generals don't have an alternative option other than fight a war as hard as they can. It does not matter what information they give to the inspectors; all the information and findings will be irrelevant! The decision to wage war on Iraq has been made long ago.

This war on Iraq by the U. S. serves two major purposes: 1) the obvious one is the U. S, will control the oil reserves of Iraq, and 2) this war will serve as a diversion to the major economic problems facing the U. S. economy, the coming deflationary spiral and a new economic depression.

The Coming Economic Depression

We are in the beginning of a deflationary cycle; that means that prices will decline. The economies of Japan and Germany are already suffering because of this deflationary spiral. Today, various sectors of the U. S. economy are beginning to be affected by deflationary pressures as well.

The truth is the world is overdue for a new economic depression. Historically we had a depression in the world once every 55 to 60 years. The last world depression was over 60 years ago.

As the stock market is collapsing, a number of corporate scandals emerge such as Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Adelphia Communications, Conseco, UAL (the second largest airline in the U. S.), Arthur Anderson and many others. As the debt load reaches new highs in the economy, the result is a record-breaking number of personal and corporate bankruptcies, as is the case in the U. S. today.

Reuters news services, on December 30, 2002, had an article "Companies set record bankruptcies." The article said: "U. S. public companies have shattered bankruptcy records for a second straight year as accounting fraud and the last decade's debt spree brought down corporate giants, and experts are bracing for more such woes.

"All told, 186 public companies with a staggering $368 billion in debt filed for bankruptcy in 2002.... That is the largest asset total ever, sweeping past last year's record $259 billion. The wreckage included five of the 10 largest bankruptcies ever....Bankruptcy experts are bracing for a new crop of failures by companies that depended on companies that went bust.

"...The downfall of so many once-mighty companies has eroded investor confidence around the globe...the biggest fallout is the difficulty caused to companies that do business with large companies in Chapter 11, whether vendors, suppliers, landlords or lenders. The larger the Chapter 11 case, the larger the domino effect".

Remember that on the other side of these Chapter 11 cases are companies that will not receive the moneys, which are due to them in the amount of over $630 billion dollars just in the last two years alone. Many of these companies in turn also will land in trouble themselves as a result of this money predicament. As an example, to just mention one case, think of the economic ramifications of the United Airline Chapter 11 filing—the impact that UAL will have on their vendors from airplane leasing companies all the way down the line.

As deflation gets under way in the United States even more companies will have trouble paying their debts. This bankruptcy record is only the beginning of a very rough economic ride which is around the corner for the U. S. economy.

On January 7, 2003, Reuters had another article entitled "Record Home Foreclosures," which said : "A record level of U. S. mortgage holders lost their homes to foreclosure in the third quarter of 2002...U. S. home loans in foreclosure edged up to a new high in the third quarter last year as job losses due to the weak economy squeezed more mortgage holders out of their homes."

How can anyone be optimistic about the U. S. economy when personal and corporate bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures are all breaking new records and there is no light at the end of the tunnel?

There are many countries around the world whose economies are in a state of deep economic depression such as Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Paraguay, Venezuela, Uruguay, and also most African countries. This is just a small list of countries in deep economic distress.

We can add to this list of economies in distress, not only the U. S. economy with its $8 trillion dollars of cumulative government debt (and continuing to grow), but also the local economies of most states in the United States. The most important states in the U. S. economy are California and New York, and their economies are in shambles.

It is estimated that the states in the United States will have a combined budget deficit between 70 to 85 billion dollars during the year 2003.

Most states are required by law to balance their yearly budgets. Most states will have only bad options to balance their budgets including: increase taxes, increase all kind of fees, layoff state employees and reduce services.

California is the state with the largest budget deficit in the U. S.. I have no idea how Californians will correct their budget predicament. To put it in perspective, today if California was an independent country, its economy would be collapsing in the same manner as the Argentinean economy.

There are signs that deflation is already affecting various areas of the U. S. economy. Many articles have been published in newspapers and magazines regarding this issue. In Business Week magazine dated February 3, 2003 the cover story article asks: "Is Your Job Next?" White-collar work is moving overseas. How worried should Americans be? Can America lose these upscale jobs and continue to prosper? This is an article about disappearing jobs in America and deflation.

The article says: a new round of globalization is sending upscale jobs offshore. They include chip design, engineering, basic research, accounting and even financial analysis. Business Week estimates that over 3.3 million upscale jobs are being transferred overseas.

The article gives an idea of the possible salary savings to the major corporations if they transfer American jobs overseas, the savings by area of expertise are as follows: Aerospace Engineer—offshore salary $650/month and U. S. counterpart $ 6,000/month, Chip Design—offshore salary $1,000/month and U. S. counterpart $7,000/month, Architect—offshore salary $250/month and U. S. counterpart $3,000/month, Accountant—offshore salary $300/month and U. S. counterpart $5,000/month, Info-Tech Support—offshore salary $500/month and U. S. counterpart $10,000/month, Financial Analyst—offshore salary $1,000/month and U. S. counterpart $7,000/month.

The article also said: "In 2000, senior software engineers were offered up to $130,000 a year, says Matt Milano, New York sales manager for placement firm Atlantis Partners. The same job now pays up to $ 100,000. Entry-level computer help-desk staffers would fetch about $55,000 then. Now they get as little as $ 35,000.

In the U. S. a project manager for software can earn $100,000 per year. In India, "Gaurav Daga's $11,000 salary per year is a pricely sum in a nation with a per capita annual income of $500, where a two-bedroom flat goes for $125 per month.

This major deflation in American salaries which is under way will have a major economic impact on the U. S. economy. Lower salaries means lower tax collections for the federal and state governments. It also means a large loss in purchasing power in the American economy, because people can't afford to buy things as before. It will affect the entire economic structure of the things that people spend their money and credit on, such as rent, mortgage, buying a car, and everything else that people spend money on.

These trends will drag all kinds of prices down in the American economy—from rent to property values, from corporate income to stock prices; in other words, it is called first deflation and later an economic depression. Even as the prices and values are going down we turn to the media and the hype will be there such as; this is the right time to buy stock, property and everything else. That is a given and part of the game—buy, buy, buy! It is always a good time to buy. It is your last chance! Don't miss this opportunity of a life time. Blah, blah, blah.

I have been right about my prior predictions such as in October 1999 when I wrote that the stock market was going to collapse. I was off by a few months, but the prediction was right on the money. In November 2001 when gold was trading at $295/oz and the Euro was trading at $.85 cents to US$ 1.00 dollar, I predicted that both gold and the Euro would gain in value in terms of US dollars. Today, gold is trading at $ 372/oz that translates into a gain of 26 percent, and the Euro is trading at US$ 1.09 to Euro$ 1.00, that translates into a gain of 29 percent so far.

The Silver Bullet Program

As I mentioned in a prior month's article, the problem with the pension system in the U. S. is a very serious problem. The pension under funding is so great that many of the most prestigious American corporations have no other alternative than to cut the benefits that they promised their employees in the past. This will have a deflationary effect on the income of many retirees.

It is worthwhile mentioning one more time, The Silver Bullet program because of its impact on the future of the United States. The number one New York Times bestseller, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" by Robert T. Kiyosaki, was published in 1997. Some information in this book regarding pension caught my attention; from page 137 of the book, I quote the following:

"Cyril Brickfield, the former executive director of the American Association of Retired People, reports that private pensions are in a state of chaos. First of all, 50 percent of the workforce today has no pension. That alone should be of great concern. And 75 to 80 percent of the other 50 percent have ineffective pensions that pay US$ 55 or US$ 150 or US$ 300 a month."

The book also mentions that, "In his book The Retirement Myth, Craig S. Karpel writes: " I visited the headquarters of a major national pension consulting firm and met with a managing director who specializes in designing lush retirement plans for top management. When I asked her what people who don't have corner offices will be able to expect in the way of pension income, she said with a confident smile:

"The Silver Bullet."

"What", I asked, "is The Silver Bullet?"

"She shrugged, if baby boomers discover they don't have enough money to live on when they're older, they can always blow their brains out."

The above information about pensions describes a very serious problem that will have a very negative effect on the American economy. I hope that "The Silver Bullet" program does not become the major US government program designed to take care of the baby boomer generation; when Social Security and Medicare run out of money.

I am not surprised that George W. Bush's economic proposal of 2003 left over 1.5 million unemployed Americans out in the cold. This is the worst job market in the U. S. in the last 50 years—but George Bush did not care about his own people and cared enough to give them a new extension of unemployment. These people most needed the help at this time. These 1.5 million Americans are hurting very badly and they need U. S. government help to be able to survive this very bad storm. If the U. S. government doesn't give a damn about its own people, would it be realistic for anyone around the world to expect any better treatment from the U. S. government? The only option George W. Bush has to offer for these 1.5 million unemployed Americans is: The Silver Bullet program.

George W. Bush's current economic policy is a sure bet to lead the U. S. economy to a new depression. If you want another indication that we are headed for a new economic depression in the U. S.—I want to remind you that the Republican Party controlled the Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives and the White House from 1921 to 1931, the result was the Great Depression of the 1930's.

Today, once again the Republican Party controls the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House. Is this another recipe for disaster? Have we learned anything from the past, or does history just repeat itself?

In the past, a major war was the way out of a economic depression. Maybe that solution will be used by the U. S. one more time to restart its economy—a major war contributes to ending the depression phase, and leads the economy to the first phase of the cycle once again. The major war has to be started somewhere—even in Iraq.

This article was originally published on Brazzil magazine in February 2003.
The article was also published on “The Brasilians.”
Copyright © 2003 All rights reserved.
By: Ricardo C. Amaral
Author / Economist

brazilamaral@yahoo.com

.

"We Need the Bomb"

Originally published on May 2002.

“We Need the Bomb”

The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, in force since 1970, became obsolete overnight in 2002. It's time for Brazil to wake up and join the nuclear weapons club. As a sovereign country, Brazil does not need any authorization to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

By: Ricardo C. Amaral

On March 10, 2002, The New York Times had a frontpage article outlining the new American nuclear weapons strategy. The Times reported that the American government is in the process of "a broad overhaul of American nuclear policy; a secret Pentagon report calls for developing new nuclear weapons that would be better suited for striking targets in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya."

The New York Times obtained a full copy of the report. It calls for the development of new earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy heavily fortified underground bunkers, including those that are used to store chemical and biological weapons. It argues that the United States may need to resume nuclear testing.

One of the most sensitive portions of the report is a secret discussion of contingencies in which the United States might need to use its "nuclear strike capabilities" against a foe. ...The Bush administration seems to see a new role for nuclear weapons against the `Axis of Evil' and other problem states....

Among Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Libya none has nuclear weapons... "Significantly, all of them have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Washington has promised that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty unless those countries attack the United States or its allies "in alliance with a nuclear weapon state."

Remember, the United States is the only country in history to use nuclear weapons against another country. President Truman unleashed atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki— killing over 100,000 people with one shot. Personally, I never understood why it was necessary for the US to drop the second atomic bomb in Nagasaki, since they had shown to the Japanese the power of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

Declassified government documents in the U. S. show that John F. Kennedy considered a pre-emptive atomic weapon strike against the Russians in East Germany in 1961. Richard M. Nixon also suggested to his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, the possibility of using atomic weapons in Vietnam. Today, the Bush administration is suggesting to the world that in the future the US will use nuclear weapons on pre-emptive nuclear strikes. The US government will treat, in the future, the use of nuclear weapons as just one more instrument or tool that it has available in its arsenal.

The entire world knows that the US means business when it comes to using arms of mass destruction. We all know that when the US government implies that it will use nuclear weapons, you can count on it. I would like to make just one more point on this subject: the US never used atomic weapons against a white/Caucasian state including the Russian Evil Empire and Nazi Germany, but the US used the atomic bomb against another race—Japan a yellow/oriental state.

If race again becomes a major factor in the consideration of where the US will drop an atomic bomb, then matters will become more complicated in the war against Islam—the range of race in Islam and the Muslim world is as wide as in the human race because it includes white, black and yellow people.

Last Resort No More

Since the attack on Nagasaki in 1945, there has been an international understanding that the ultimate weapons of terror (nuclear weapons) would remain weapons of last resort, as they were up to now. There was also an understanding that a nuclear weapons country would never use such a weapon against a non-nuclear weapons country.

Since the break up of the Soviet Union in 1989, the world became a much more dangerous place in terms of the proliferation of nuclear weapon states—the Soviet Union split into various nuclear weapon states. The other problem is that since the 1960's, many other states became nuclear weapon states such as France, China, South Africa, Israel, India and Pakistan.

These are some of the states that have been reported in the press as the new states that have been able to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities since 1960. How about the states that we don't know! The nuclear weapons genie is out of the bottle, and the current US change in policy and strategy reflects that fact. The US is adapting its policies and strategies to be able to handle the new nuclear weapons reality around the world.

Information released by the US State Department regarding this subject indicates that the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) was concluded in 1968 and became effective in 1970. Fear of nuclear weapons proliferation in the 1960's motivated 187 countries to sign that treaty. Only India, Israel, Pakistan and Cuba remain outside that treaty.

The significance of the NPT lies in the fact the five nuclear-weapon States defined in the Treaty—that is, the USA, the Russian Federation, Great Britain, France and China—are not permitted to transfer their nuclear weapons and that all other States Parties (the so-called non-nuclear-weapon States) are allowed neither to receive the transfer of these—thus gaining control of nuclear weapons—nor to develop nuclear weapons themselves. I am not going to bore you, the reader, with further details of this Treaty since the Treaty has become obsolete!

The idea of a country's sovereignty was developed in Europe over the last 400 years. It is a concept closely associated with the rise of the nation-state system from the ashes of the feudalism system of the middle Ages. Jean Jacques Rousseau in his major work The Social Contract gave us the idea that sovereignty resides in the people (one of the earliest expressions of democratic thought and ideas) rather than with the monarchy.

Sovereignty implies the concept of power, both internal and external: internal sovereignty is the ability of the nation-state to demand obedience to the laws of the nation-state within its borders; external sovereignty governs the relations between nation-states, and implies the premise that these states are theoretically equal under international law.

Modern international law recognizes the concept of nonintervention. The concept of nonintervention has been codified over the years in many treaties and international agreements. Nonintervention means that sovereign states have the right to be free from interference by others in their domestic affairs. This concept is part of the United Nations Charter.

For a political community to be sovereign, it must meet some specific criteria; it must have the following qualities: 1) territory, 2) population, 3) effective rule over that territory and population, and 4) recognition of the other nation-states.

Sovereignty

Brazil needs nuclear weapons to protect its claim of absolute sovereignty over its territory and population. Today, the more a state has the capability to use violence at will, the greater is its contempt for sovereignty, that is, for the sovereignty of other states. We can see all over the world this contempt for sovereignty and international law.

There is one fact which is obvious for any one who is not brain dead—you can't count on your allies to come to your rescue when your country is under attack—unless there is some ulterior motive for the assistance, such as your country is a major oil producing country.

A recent example brings this point to our attention and also can serve as a guide to the future, as to why any country shouldn't rely on old allies to come forward and put everything on the line to help them when they are under attack by a foreign power. When the US attacked Serbia and destroyed that country's entire infrastructure, Russia, a long time ally of Serbia, did not come to its rescue. Instead the Russians barked a few times on behalf of Serbia, then they rolled over and played dead. These events also highlighted to the world how far Russia has declined and how they lost all their clout and weight in international affairs.

If you don't understand that many parts of what is considered international law and treaties have been trashed lately, then you have been living in La-La land. For example, in May 2002, the United States decided to renounce formally any involvement in a treaty creating an international criminal court and has officially "unsigned" the document signed by the Clinton administration. As reported in The New York Times on May 5, 2002, "in doing so the US simultaneously "unsigned" the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a 1969 pact that outlines the obligations of nations to obey other international treaties. Article 18 of the Vienna Convention requires signatory nations like the United States to refrain from taking steps to undermine treaties they signed, even if they do not ratify them."

US Bad Example

I was surprised to find out how simple the process is to repudiate a treaty which a country has signed. How easy it was for the United States to withdraw from the International Criminal Court Treaty—the Bush administration officials just notified the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on May 6, 2002 that the United States was withdrawing from the International Criminal Court Treaty.

The United States, as one of the leading countries in the world, set the example to everyone how simple and easy it is to "unsign a treaty" which is no longer wanted by that country. The United States actions make it clear to the world that treaties are made to be broken and that treaties just have a certain useful purpose. After any treaty ends its useful life it becomes obsolete and has to be scrapped—as in the case of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty.

In another example of worthless treaties, the United States and the Soviet Union signed treaties in the past decades in which they agreed to stop research and production of chemical and biological weapons. Neither country honored any of these treaties, and both countries continued in a clandestine way the development of new chemical and biological weapons.

By definition, any sovereign country must have the right to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if that country so desires for their national defense. If countries are not allowed to produce these modern weapons to protect themselves, then we can't consider these countries as having actual sovereignty. These countries should receive a new class rating in a new international sovereignty rating system; they should be classified as a third rate class of countries with a semi-sovereignty status.

The world has changed drastically in a very short period of time. Today we live in a much more dangerous world, and many of the old international rules have changed since September 11, 2001.

Brazil and the Bomb

Without nuclear weapons Brazil will never be taken seriously by the major countries of the world. India or Pakistan will be considered ahead of Brazil to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. They will not even bother considering Brazil, without a Brazilian nuclear weapons capability.

As a sovereign country, Brazil does not need authorization from any other country if it decides to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for defense purposes. If there is any obstacle, such a treaty, it is easy to "unsign" such a document.

Which country should help Brazil develop such weapons? The answer is very simple. France should help Brazil. You might be asking yourself: what connection there is between France and Brazil, and why should France be interested in helping Brazil?

The French had a major impact on Brazilian culture since 1555 when Villegaignon established a French colony in Brazil close to where Rio de Janeiro is located. The greatest French influence on Brazilian culture came as a result of the French Revolution. José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva, the architect of Brazilian independence from Portugal, was studying in Paris at the Royal School of Mines in the years 1790-1792. José Bonifácio had direct exposure during this period to the best intellectual minds of that time who were having a major impact on the events of the French Revolution.

In 1808, when Napoleon's army invaded Portugal, the Portuguese Royal Family moved to Brazil and they stayed in Brazil until 1821. This move by the Portuguese Royal Family had a very positive impact on Brazil. In 1823, the Andrada brothers (José Bonifácio, Martim Francisco and Antônio Carlos), with their leadership, had a major impact on the Constituent Assembly.

They guided the proceedings of the process of framing the first Brazilian Constitution. This Constitution was effective December 13, 1823. They used as a model the French Constitution of 1816, which is also referred to as the "Lamartine Constitution".

French culture had a major impact on Brazilian culture; to this day many Brazilian company executives know Paris much better than they know New York City, and they can speak French and not English. The Brazilian legal and judicial system is based on Roman law and the Napoleonic Code. The French should once more reaffirm their close ties to Brazil by helping Brazil on its new nuclear weapons development endeavor!

This article was originally published on Brazzil magazine in May 2002.
The article was also published on “The Brasilians.”
Copyright © 2002 All rights reserved.
By: Ricardo C. Amaral
Author / Economist

brazilamaral@yahoo.com

.