On my daily walks (painfully slow 3-4 miles nowadays) I usually listen to two or sometimes three podcasts—always the NY Times Daily, often Ezra Klein or Heather Cox Richardson and occasionally Radio Atlantic or The New Yorker Radio Hour. They are all good, and yesterday they all had programs on the election, which will be two weeks from today.  Here were the major themes from these podcasts:

• The margins are razor thin and the races in the seven Battleground States remain too close to call. The election remains a tossup.
• Trump is becoming more and more unhinged, incoherent, vulgar, and off topic. The Arnold Palmer locker room obsession on Sunday was perhaps a low point, but no day goes by without a gaff, insult, or rant that would doom almost any other candidate. Yet so far there is no indication that he is losing much, if any, support.
• Harris is running a smart and impressive campaign, and the Democrats have the stronger ground game, more money, more energy and more enthusiasm. Yet so far, the needle has not budged.
• Three factors will determine the outcome for the Harris Walz ticket —turning out the Democratic base, convincing uncommitted/undecided voters to vote for Harris, and attracting moderate, traditional Republicans and those fearful of the right to life movement in the Republican Party.

Turning out the Democratic base, of course, is hugely important and from all I can tell we Dems are doing pretty well in reaching out to Democratic voters. I know several people who are canvassing in North Carolina and other battleground states. Embry is spending next week there canvassing with her niece, May. Our nephew, Alex, has already written over 70 letters to registered Democrats in Pennsylvania who rarely vote. He aims to complete over a hundred letters and will be canvassing there the final week.

The challenge of reaching uncommitted voters is more unsettling because the message in both podcasts I listened to yesterday was that a majority of uncommitted voters appear to be leaning toward Trump. I listened to several interviews with people who rarely vote or think much about politics, all of whom were working class people living in Nevada or Arizona. The Times reporter said that the more than  100 persons she had interviewed  fell into three groups– those who will sit this election out, those who may vote for Trump with some reluctance and those who will enthusiastically vote for him. Few people she talked to in those states said they were going to vote for Harris.

To compensate for the diminished working class vote the Democrats will need to convince some  college-educated voters in the Republican Party to vote for Harris and Walz. The major targets would be women who are opposed to the Republican’s strict anti abortion policies, the traditional Republicans who can’t stomach Trump’s  personality,  Republicans who value a strong foreign policy, free trade, and balanced budgets and those who are appalled by Trump’s character and totalitarian instincts.

It seems quite likely that if the Harris Walz ticket does win, the election deniers will make another robust effort to overturn the election results. Both Trump and Vance continue to argue that the 2020 election was rigged. They will argue that the 2024 election was also stolen and take action. Get ready for another January 6-type rebellion—this one on steroids and better organized—with pressure on Republican election officials and others to change the outcome.

The perplexing question is why almost half of the United States voting population appears to be ready to vote for a fundamentally flawed human being, who intends to take the nation down the rabbit hole of authoritarianism. How could this be happening?

The most enlightening thing for me from the NY Times interviews with working class people who used to be Democrats but have changed parties or dropped out was how tough their lives have been starting with Covid. The main culprit, of course, is inflation. When you are living paycheck to paycheck, the increase in the cost of gas, milk, rent, utilities and most of life’s necessities gets your attention. While this year the increases have moderated, in their thinking it is too little too late. This happened during the Biden years. They are holding the Democrats accountable.

But could Trump do any better? Many seemed to think so. They cited what they thought were Trump’s strengths—that he was a “successful businessman,” that he always “speaks his mind,” that he won’t let anyone shove him around and, most unsettling, that Trump is a “strong man” and America needs a strongman. These are some of the same arguments that you would have heard if you had been living In Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

We do not know how this movie will end and probably won’t know until days after election day. But if nothing else the fact that it is a cliffhanger should be a warning call that all is not right in the United States of America. Beginning in the 1980s the gap between the rich—and very rich—and the rest of the country has only gotten wider. Those with incomes much below the median income –in other words about half the country—are struggling to make ends meet while the top 10 percent are pulling away from the rest of the pack faster and faster. A country can get away with this for a while but not forever. This has happened on the watch of both Republicans and Democrats. There is plenty of blame to go around. But somehow, we have got to fix this before it does us in. If Trump were to get elected, it will be too late.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit me on Substack!
Subscribe to my Substack!

This is my second recent anti-nuke post, prompted by an article I read this past Sunday (October 13). I opened The New York Times to the “Sunday Opinion” section where I found the headline noted above. The caption below the title read “The U.S. military is spending mightily to overhaul the nation’s outdated nuclear arsenal. Why are we back here?”

What?

The United States will be spending almost $2 trillion over a thirty year period to replace and expand our nuclear arsenal! Good heavens, I had no idea! Yet this spending spree started in 2010 as reported by The Times. The new nuclear arms initiative has fallen behind its original goal of  completion by 2042 and so far is way over budget.

I was taken aback. There has been little, if any, reporting—at least that I am aware of–on this massive, under-the-radar nuclear buildup by the United States military. This article comes only a few months after the publication of Annie Jacobsen’s new book, Nuclear War, which scared the bejesus out of me but did not include material about this massive nuclear weapons buildup. Why hasn’t this been a big issue? And whatever happened to the idea of nuclear disarmament? I thought that following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s we were on a course to get rid of these weapons of mass destruction, not to increase them. What happened? Who is responsible?

Friends, this is insanity!

From Jacobsen’s book, we know that the 5,000 “outdated” nuclear weapons at our disposal still have the power to destroy our adversaries many times over and to alter the climate of the planet Earth.  A nuclear winter could last for years and possibly decades. We currently have 14 nuclear submarines, which continuously cruise deep beneath the surface of the ocean and cannot be detected. Given orders to attack they could respond within seconds with enough warheads to destroy any adversary on the planet. So even if the United States got hit by surprise attacks from Russia, China or North Korea which destroyed most of our nukes that are  in silos, they would still pay the price of being annihilated. Yes, the United States would be devastated, but so would they. This is, of course, the premise of MAD– Mutually Assured Destruction. And it has worked so far.

In other words, even if our nuclear arsenal is old, we still have the capacity to strike back. Why would replacing and expanding our nuclear arsenal change that fact?

There are two major reasons why this initiative is insanity. First, it is costing a huge amount of money that could be put to better use by reducing budget deficits, leveling the economic playing field in the US, and addressing human needs here and around the world. Second, it could bring us closer to a nuclear war, which would mean the end of life on the planet Earth as we know it.

The Cost Issue

Here are some of the facts listed in the Times article:

• The current spending on our nuclear weapons buildup amounts to an average of $57 billion per year or $108,000 per minute and will continue for at least two more decades.
• Each day more than 110,000 scientists, military personnel, and contractors are currently involved in expanding and updating the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Yet because of labor shortages, the initiative is way behind schedule and is experiencing excessive cost overruns. The article points out that many more workers are needed in the effort, and the main government contractor, General Dynamics, is even teaching classes at the elementary and high school level to attract people when they finish school. They also are advertising heavily to recruit more workers.
• While the nuclear weapons in the silos located around the nation are being replaced or upgraded, the biggest investment is for expanding the nuclear submarine fleet. We currently have 14 of these monsters, which are 550 feet long and currently cost $11 billion per ship to build. Operating costs are also high since each sub has a crew of 100 sailors. Every sub carries up to 20 long range nuclear missiles, each of which can carry multiple warheads. The plan now underway calls for building one new sub every year along with two new attack submarines. At the end of the redevelopment period the fleet would increase from 14 to at least 35 nuclear subs. The nuclear missiles would increase from around 300 to over 500. If these subs were given orders to fire their missiles, they could destroy any adversary several times over.
• The best case scenario is that the missiles never get fired, which means that $1.7 trillion has no benefits other than providing jobs and avoiding a holocaust, which one could argue may be worth the cost—if there is certainty that the MAD theory will work forever. But what if it doesn’t?

The Nuclear Holocaust Issue

The impetus for modernizing and expanding our nuclear capability is due, I presume, to classified information regarding what China, Russia and North Korea are doing with their nuclear military programs. The Pentagon analysts must have concluded that if we do not keep up with what our enemies are doing, we will fall behind and lose our MAD deterrent capability. In other words, if our enemies conclude they can knock us off before we can respond, they will do just that. However, just as we spy on them, they also spy on us; and if they conclude that our buildup gives us the edge, they will have no choice but to expand their nuclear capacity. This is what happened during the Cold War, resulting in at least 70 thousand nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Soviet arsenals. This was followed in the 1980s and 1990s by several nuclear disarmament treaties, which eventually reduced the weapons to about 5,000 for both the Soviet Union (and Russia) and the U.S. Other countries, however, have now joined the nuclear club—the U.K., France, Israel, India, Pakistan, China, and North Korea.

Does anyone think that these weapons will never be used? Ever? What are the odds given that from time immemorial we humans have used whatever weapons we have to defeat our adversaries? We surely did in 1946. I do not doubt that we would do it again if we believed our country’s survival was threatened and we determined we would not suffer the consequences if we used our nukes.

So, MAD has worked so far, but will it always work? What are the chances of a miscalculation or a mistake? There have already been several close calls when we thought Russia was launching weapons but were able to correct the error minutes before we retaliated.

So, yes. This nuclear buildup and expansion on our part is insanity. The only solution is to rid the planet of these hideous weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. That is where our energy needs to be focused. We still have a long way to go, but we have made progress on countries coming together to fight climate change. The same energy and determination now must include nuclear war. The threat of Nuclear Armageddon is closer now than it has been since the height of the Cold War. It is time for mass demonstrations around the globe focusing on the goal of ridding the world of these weapons forever—not increasing the risk as our current buildup is doing.  A new, vigorous peace movement and anti-nuke movement may help us avoid catastrophe and enable us humans to avoid being part of  the Sixth Great Mass Extinction on the planet Earth. Doing nothing is not a viable option.

 

 

 

 

 

Visit me on Substack!
Subscribe to my Substack!

I am an avid listener of The New York Times “The Daily” podcast. On Tuesday, October 8, Michael Barbaro interviewed a Times reporter who has been following the 2024 presidential election campaign for some time and who has a theory of why the working class jumped ship from the Democrats, starting several decades ago, and accelerating in the early 2000s as became evident in the 2016 “upset election.”

 For quite a while, I have been perplexed by this phenomenon. Why would working people in 2024 vote for Trump, whose policies when he was president did not benefit blue collar workers but rather large corporations and the super-rich, who saw their taxes plummet? The Republicans have been anti-labor and pro-business for decades. They have fought Obamacare and efforts to strengthen the social safety net. What is going on?  I sort of understand the rebellion of the white working class and the evangelicals who are driven in part by culture wars and belief that DEI, “Black Lives Matter,”  pro-immigration and pro-abortion policies have gone too far, offending their religious and cultural values. Trump in his own words has said as much: “I am your retribution.”

So, I get this, but there are many others in the country who also are blue collar workers and who are not white. And 60 percent of our work force in the United States are people without a college degree. Many do very important—and difficult– work for which they get paid barely a living wage. What about them?

The reporter argued in the interview that the reason for the great discontent of the American working class can be explained in one word: NAFTA– The North American Free Trade Act, which passed the Congress in 1993 and became law in 1994.

The reporter went on to cite facts and figures over the decades about the job losses which followed the enactment of NAFTA, which lifted trade barriers first with Canada and Mexico followed by additional free trade legislation including China and other cheap labor countries. When the NAFTA bill was being debated during the election of 1992, Ross Perot, the third party candidate, railed about the “great sucking sound” which would happen when good paying jobs in the industrial Mid West and across the country were shipped  off to Mexico where there was cheap labor. Bernie Sanders and several other progressives and center-left Democrats protested vehemently as well but not enough to keep the bill from passing.

While I can remember the NAFTA debate, it is a bit foggy. What I remember most is that I had no idea whether it was a good or bad idea. The economists along with other experts as I recall tended to support lifting trade barriers, but at the time who was to know? And for that matter, the question is still unresolved since a strong argument can be made that it has helped our economy remain robust  and has benefitted many countries around the world. What is also now clear according to the Times reporter is  the collateral damage that has hammered the working class in the United States.

It turned out that Perot was right. Thousands of businesses downsized or closed in the U.S. and opened factories in Mexico and then in other low wage countries around the world resulting in the loss of millions of good paying, blue collar jobs (with benefits) in the U.S.–over 4.5 million according to the Department of Commerce.  The exodus of factories and manufacturing jobs might have happened to some extent anyway. However, NAFTA was responsible for accelerating the decline. And the argument goes, there were some good outcomes. Prices of goods manufactured in low wage countries tended to be low, providing some relief for people with modest incomes shopping at Walmart and Target. And the economies of countries like China and Mexico have benefitted immensely, bringing down the world-wide poverty rate. But as for the American workers that did the heavy lifting, not so much, and for many it has been a disaster. No wonder many are upset. I would be too. Through no fault of their own, opportunities to earn a decent living have collapsed for many workers with no college degree and who find that they now must compete with immigrants for jobs that do not even pay a living wage.

The crowning moment, the reporter said, came during the presidential debate in 2016 when Trump blamed NAFTA and Bill Clinton for the job losses and Hillary responded by confirming her support for her husband and shrugged off the question. Game over. Despite his many egregious faults, Trump is a marketer and could sense the simmering anger and resentment of the working class. According to the reporter, this was the moment that sealed the fate for the Democrats.

The highlight of the podcast, however, were the comments of an African American factory worker whose life had been upended when his employer, Master Lock, closed, sending him and his friends scuttling, trying to find jobs which paid well, and provided health insurance and a pension. They were unable to find anything even close. His union factory job had enabled him to buy a house and provide for his family. It instilled pride and a feeling of self-worth. All that was gone when Master Lock closed down.  When asked if he was a Democrat or a Republican, he said that while he used to be a Democrat, he would never vote for a Democrat again because most of this happened on their watch. Clinton was the president  who started it all. What happened made it possible for  his employer and so many others to move their factories to Mexico. He was quick to point out that he was not a Republican either. He thought Trump was “a crook” and that the Republicans were probably even worse. Rather, he was disillusioned and alienated and would not vote at all. And this was also true, he said, for his African American friends and co-workers. Everyone was fed up.

Listening to his sad story was an Ah Ha moment for me. Of course! No wonder so many working people feel abandoned by the Democrats. Their path to the middle class was roadblocked with no good options readily available for finding a new pathway.  Listening to this guy honestly and painfully describe his experience, I could not help feeling empathy. And this has been happening everywhere in the United States for decades—especially across the industrial Mid West and in the battleground states. 

One could argue that all is not lost for us Democrats. Not everyone who lost a good paying union job has become a Republican, but still, many in the working class feel abandoned by the Democrats, who they feel do not care about ordinary working people since many believe that now the party has become the party of the college educated elite. Many blue collar workers do not see a happy place for themselves if there is no change of course. For this reason, they are going to vote for Trump or are not going to vote. But sitting out this election could make all the difference. Will we Dems pay the price, or will we pull this one out of the fire giving the country a chance to try to level the playing field and right some of the wrongs that have happened to the American working class? The stakes have never been higher.

Visit me on Substack!
Subscribe to my Substack!

On November 5 voters will decide the outcome of the most consequential election in my lifetime. This election is not about the traditional issues that have separated (modern) Democrats from Republicans. Democrats have tended to focus on leveling the playing field, expanding the social safety net and embracing reform movements like civil rights, and gender identity issues. Republicans have championed a strong, unfettered business-based economy, individual responsibility, “family values,” a strong military, and a robust foreign policy. As the saying goes, “Those trains have done left the station.” The fundamental underlining question on the table in this election is whether democracy will survive in the United States. The Republican Party has been transformed from supporting traditional conservative values to a radical populist party supported largely by an alienated, white working class and financed and directed primarily by billionaire tech libertarians. At stake is the survival of our system of government.

Before I start my day, I will typically open my iPhone and take a quick look at my calendar (usually not much there) and read two blog posts, one by Robert Reich and the second by Heather Cox Richardson. They rarely let me down. On October 3 the Reich post was about the threat to our democracy where he posted the following, referring to Vance’s phony, “nice guy” debate performance and his close relationship with billionaire libertarian Peter Thiel:

Thiel and Vance — along with Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, Blake Masters, tech entrepreneur David Sacks, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, Palantir adviser Jacob Helberg, Sequoia Capital’s Doug Leone, blogger Curtis Yarvin, and others in the anti-democracy movement — believe that the only way true libertarians can win in America is for a Caesar-like figure to wrest power from the American establishment and install a monarchical regime, run like a startup.

Reich describes Vance as the heir apparent to lead the effort to transform the United States into a totalitarian country. Regardless what happens  in 2024, Vance will likely be the Republican candidate in 2028 and the battle for the soul of America will continue. In other words, this battle will not disappear in 2024 and will likely be the most important issue that our nation will face now and possibly for years to come.

And it is far from certain how this movie will end. But even if we Democrats pull off a victory this election, Trump and Vance will likely fight the outcome just as Trump did in 2000. There could be another January 6 type event, this time on steroids.

This leads to the fundamental question: what is wrong with us? Surely there are important issues that are fueling the fire. Our country has become more divided and unequal according to social class and income. There is push back on immigration. Racism persists. Wars in Europe and the Middle East persist and are intensifying.  Covid was a huge factor and continues to be a potential threat. Inflation has aggravated economic inequalities. Lack of affordable housing (my field) is a big problem. Social media  and alternative news options also play a role. “Political correctness” and culture wars alienate many on the right. Huge divisions surround the abortion issue. Then there is climate change, horrific hurricanes, and coastal flooding.

But still. We live in a great country. There is much to celebrate—the fact that for now we still have a democracy, that we have made great progress on racial and gender issues, that we are not a police state, and that new opportunities pop up when others fail. We are the wealthiest and most powerful nation on this planet. We have the most robust culture and produce some of the world’s greatest artists, writers, athletes, entrepreneurs, intellectuals, inventors, philanthropists, scientists, and performers. And we are trying to address the problems facing us.  Yet there are those that want to throw all this out in favor of an authoritarian system? What is wrong with them?

In times like this I keep falling back on the explanation that this is our human nature. We are a flawed species. Humans have risen to the top of the food chain due to our superior brain and intellect, but we are just another animal and have animal instincts when it comes to self-preservation. When animals feel cornered or threatened, they fight back. So do we humans. We are also herd animals. We evolved   because over hundreds of thousands of years we gradually formed family groups, clans, tribes, and eventually nations and figured out that working together in groups produces better outcomes. And the key to tribal–and national–survival is having a strong and good leader.

We humans have a mixed track record in leadership. While we have had our share of good leaders, we have also produced the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Franco, Mussolini, Putin, and Xi. I suspect that the list of bad leaders—some horrific– is much longer than the list of great leaders. But few would argue that leaders do not make a difference. That is why the election of 2024 is so important.

And never have the stakes been higher.  According to many pundits we are closer to World War III than we have ever been, given the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and that nuclear saber rattling is raising its ugly head.

Visit me on Substack!
Subscribe to my Substack!

I find myself often asking the perplexing question, “How can half the voting population of the United States in 2024 vote for Trump?” The polls say that this will likely happen, and that the election remains a tossup. We now know what Trump is like—narcissist, braggart, egotist, perpetual liar, and one who like Biden is wrestling with nagging intellectual frailties of old age. His  term as president was saved from complete disaster by having at least some competent advisers who provided guardrails that kept him—and our country—from plunging over the cliff. Another term will not have such advisers, and Project 2025 lays out in excruciating detail how our country could become closer to a dictatorship if Trump is reelected in November. If he wins, there will be no excuse for arguing that the country was not forewarned. A second presidency of Donald J Trump could mean the end of the world’s oldest continuing democracy.

The reason I have trouble understanding why Trump remains popular with half the country is because I do not believe half of us Americans are “bad people.” Half the voters in our country can’t be “nuts.” And a huge majority of evangelicals—who are among Trump’s most ardent MAGA followers—can’t all be crazy. What is going on?

What is going on is this: Trump is a symbol rather than a cause of “America’s Great Discontent.” When he ran and unexpectedly won in 2016, Trump sensed the anger and anxiety that many Americans felt and exploited that. He sensed that many people were struggling to get by and were resentful of others who seemed to have had it easy and who they believed looked down on them. The most vocal supporters of Trump then and now are white men with no college degree, many working in blue collar jobs. For many of these people Trump is their hero because he is a thorn in the flesh of America’s elite—intellectuals, professionals, academics, scientists, business people, and anyone who is of a liberal bent.

 Make no mistake: Many of these grievances are legitimate. They are the cause of the basic grievance fueling old fashioned populism—the little guys versus the big guys.  The irony in this case is that Trump’s policies in his presidency provided tax cuts for the ultra-rich and large corporations and did not address class and income disparities.  Rather, they exacerbated them. And Trump’s contempt for programs like Obamacare, Child Tax Credits, and supportive services that have helped the working class and lower income people prove that he is a “faux populist.” In other words what he has done is less important than what he has said.  If he calls out the “liberal elite” as enemies of his base, this is enough for him to hold on to his supporters. As the saying goes, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” He is the symbol of grievance and has said so himself: “I will be your retribution!”

This is not to say that the white working class and evangelical MAGA supporters are the only ones who will vote for Trump on November 5. There are lots of others, many of whom are wealthy people who have benefitted from Trump’s tax cuts in 2017 that benefitted the wealthy and large corporations. Those cuts are responsible for  more than  $1.5 trillion of the deficits our country has experienced over the past eight years  and are due to expire early 2025. Many who have benefitted from the tax cuts will hold their nose and vote for Trump anyway both to preserve the cuts they have benefitted from for the last eight years and the additional cuts that Trump has promised. And surely there are many more who have their own reasons, many of whom are part of Trump’s  cult of personality.  It is hard to deny that the powerful persona of Donald Trump casts an ominous   shadow over election day 2024 and the actions that will follow.  

Whether Trump gets reelected or not, this should be wakeup call that there is something wrong in our country which needs to be addressed. Besides the income and social class disparities, there are three other controversial issues where Tump’s proclamations carry weight with his followers—race, immigration and abortion. I do not believe that Trump himself really cares about any of these issues. He only cares about himself. What he looks for, however, is an issue which divides Americans and then calculates which side of the issue will help him win votes. His white, working class followers have opposed progressive initiatives like “Black Lives Matter,” “DEI,” and a woman’s right to choose. Reading the tea leaves, Trump has sided with those who oppose these progressive initiatives. And top on the list, of course, is immigration, which many in his base believe has threatened their jobs and their fragile position in our society. Trump has made immigration his centerpiece policy initiative and has pledged to close the border and expel millions of immigrants. His ranting and raving on this issue keeps the fire going among his base, even though what he proposes to do would make America seem more like Nazi Germany than the country we now know.

So, yes, I am apprehensive and fearful. I am a big fan of Harris and Walz and pray they will eke out a win, but if they do win, that also raises the issue of another rebellion like January 6, this time on steroids.

Oh, I have not mentioned foreign policy. The good news is that Trump would likely keep us out of a nuclear war with Russia. The casualty, of course, would be Ukraine, which he would abandon, probably along with  NATO and perhaps even the United Nations.

This is certainly the most consequential election in my lifetime. The stakes have never been higher. But the other takeaway is that these issues–income and social class disparities, lingering racism, abortion, and immigration–are issues which will continue to haunt the United States regardless of who gets elected. We Americans must address these challenges and make our country kinder, gentler, and fairer. If not, another faux populist is likely to take Trump’s place four years from now, if not sooner.

 

 

 

 

Visit me on Substack!
Subscribe to my Substack!

Here are my two recent letter-to-the-editor submissions to the Washington Post regarding supplying long range missiles provided by NATO to destroy strategic targets deep into Russia. So far neither has been published.

In the David Ignatius op-ed on September 16 on the Russian Ukrainian War, he describes a high level meeting in Europe supporting Ukraine war efforts with the theme, “The Necessity to Win.” Ignatius correctly questions whether this initiative could lead to a dangerous escalation. The current Biden Administration policy of fully supporting Ukraine “as long as it takes” is now front and center as Biden contemplates whether to approve the use of NATO produced, long range weapons that could strike deep into the heart of Russia. Putin responded over the weekend that this approval would in effect be a declaration of war between NATO and Russia. He also has assembled tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus and has stated that he will use them if the security of Russia is threatened. Some say that Putin is bluffing, but what if he is not? This could put the world on the edge of a nuclear war, which would end life on Earth as we know it. There must be a peaceful solution to this conflict, which neither side will be able to “win,” and it must happen soon.

Risking World War III

In a Washington Post editorial published on September 23, the Post argues that Biden should lend his support to allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to destroy strategic targets 155 miles into Russia and supports delivering long range tactical bombs (“ATACMS”), since “Ukraine urgently needs all the weapons it can get to continue to stave off Mr. Putin’s aggressions.” The Post does not mention that Putin has declared that the use of these weapons would result in a declaration of war between Russia and NATO. The Post, however, does acknowledge Putin “issuing ‘red lines,’  implicitly threatening nuclear war.” The Post dismisses this as an empty threat noting that Putin has not “followed through on his threats. There is no reason to think that he would risk a wider war with the North American Treaty Organization at a time when his forces are already severally depleted.”

There is no mention in the editorial of the need to bring this war to a negotiated end, given the risks associated with further escalation. Nor is there any indication that the editorial writers have considered the consequences to the world as we know it should Russia declare war on NATO and should Russia follow through on Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons. The depletion of Russian troops is not the reason for NATO to escalate against Russia but rather a warning that when a ruthless dictator is pushed into a corner and threatened with defeat, he will use whatever weapons he has at his disposal to strike back.

Should the unthinkable happen, game over for the planet Earth as we know it.

 

I got a lot of thoughtful feedback from my last blog post urging Biden not to approve the use of NATO long range missiles against Russia. The consensus was that appeasement never works and that the risk of nuclear war is probably not that high given that it would destroy most of the planet. In other words, the risk is worth it.

I respectfully disagree. It is exactly in times like this when no one believes any nation could be so foolish as to start a nuclear war that we are most at risk. Friends, do not deceive yourselves. Nuclear war could happen. Read Jacobsen’s book, Nuclear War, and then let’s continue the conversation. Does anyone believe that these weapons will never be used, ever? The only way that we can assure that they won’t is to outlaw them and dispose of them. If they remain an option, at some point in the future, odds are they will be used. Maybe by accident, maybe by design. Go to the internet and see what AI has to say about it.

Some will conclude that as has been the case before, I am simply over reacting. I hope they are right. But I also must say that  given what is happening in Ukraine and in Palestine, Israel, and now Lebanon, this is the most apprehensive I have been since the fall of the Soviet Union that calamity will befall our troubled planet. 

 

 

 

Visit me on Substack!
Subscribe to my Substack!

President Biden, do not allow NATO long range missiles provided to Ukraine to strike targets deep into Russia. The only viable alternative is to work out a truce followed by a peace agreement. This horrid war must stop. Yeah, I know, good luck on that, but the alternative could lead to the end of the world as we know it.

Of course, I am talking about the nuclear option that I wrote about in my previous blog post. The Jacobsen book, Nuclear War, still haunts me. If you read that post you know that I believe that we are dangerously close to a miscalculation that could lead to Nuclear Armageddon. Putin has said two things, first that he is prepared to use “tactical” nuclear weapons in the Ukraine War if he believes Russian security is threatened and, second, that if long range weapons provided by a NATO country strike deep into Russia, he will consider this an act of war between Russia and NATO. This puts us one step closer to World War III.

There was an article today (September 14) buried on page 6 of the New York Times with the headline, “Putin Warns Ukraine’s Use of Western Weapons Means War With NATO.” Advisors and others shrug this off as just another empty threat. Same old, same old. At the same time the article and other reporting by CNN and NBC point out that Putin’s tone and demeanor were noticeably different in this announcement than in past times when he was ranting about one thing or another.

And this article did not even make it to the front page!

Is Biden or anyone in the White House asking the question what if Putin is actually serious this time? That he will use nuclear weapons to “protect the security of Russia” if long range missiles provided by a NATO country are used against Russia.

Friends, this madness must stop. This war–and the war in Palestine–must come to an end before they spiral into a conflict which is out of control. I understand that the natural reaction will be to conclude that I am naïve and unrealistic, that there is nothing ordinary people can do about it, and that nuclear war will not happen because of the MAD theory: No country would initiate a nuclear war because ultimately it would result in the destruction of that country. So why worry if there is nothing we can do about it? Valid comments, but still….

Here is the latest from Wikipedia on the Ukraine nuclear threat:

 

“During the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been constant speculation about whether Russia‘s president Vladimir Putin will use a tactical nuclear weapon either against Ukraine or in a demonstration strike over unpopulated areas, given that the course of the war does not seem favorable to what the Kremlin anticipated, and several members of the Russian government have threatened the use of nuclear weapons.^{[28][29][30][31]}

On 25 March 2023, President Putin announced the stationing of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. Russia would maintain control of the weapons. As of May 2023 the weapons are a small number of Iskander missile warheads. Russia plans to finish a “storage facility” for tactical nuclear weapons by July 1. President Putin told Russian state television: “There is nothing unusual here either. Firstly, the United States has been doing this for decades. They have long deployed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allied countries.”^[32] In December 2023, Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko announced that the nuclear weapons deliveries were completed that October.^[33][34]

In May 2024, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would be holding drills with tactical nuclear weapons, days after responding to comments from senior Western officials.^[35]”

 

Type into Google the following: “What are the chances of nuclear war happening in the future?” and see what you get from AI. The estimates range from around 50% to 80% in the time frame from now to 2100. Good heavens! These odds are high!

Also check out the Wikipedia article about the chances of nuclear war where you will find that we are closer to nuclear war now than we have been in decades.

Biden must resist this escalation and use this as a wakeup call to work harder toward negotiations resulting in a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia. Naïve? Perhaps, but think about the alternative. The pathway to our survival as a species and as a planet requires eliminating these weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, not producing more lethal weapons as now is the case.

If we Homo sapiens on the planet Earth can’t figure out how to resolve conflicts without using the  deadliest weapons we have, eventually it will be the end of us.

Don’t do it, Joe. Not on your watch. You have only got a few more months to go. Do not give Putin the opportunity to unleash nuclear weapons!

Visit me on Substack!
Subscribe to my Substack!

Yes, this is true. Scientists now agree: In 1.3 billion years when the Sun begins to expand into a red giant, it will become too hot for any life to survive on this wonderful, blue planet. Plants may start disappearing as soon as 600 million years from now. And in about seven billion years the entire planet will cease to exist along with the Sun and the entire solar system.

Are you worried?

Well, I am. Not so much for my own sake since it is unlikely that I will still be around 1.3 billion years from now. (Hey, like many octogenarians, I am thankful for every day that I wake up and discover that I am still here.) It is because that at this moment it seems that forces that could destroy life on our planet are lining up against us and that in the long run, the future could be bleak. Let’s examine the two scariest threats: climate change and nuclear war. (There is not enough known about AI at this point to fully understand its impact though it seems likely that it too could become a major existential threat.)

Climate Change 

Despite objections by many elected Republicans and other climate change deniers, climate change is real and will eventually destroy life on the planet as we know it if we do not meet the challenges of global warming. We are trying hard and making some progress, but still there is so much farther to go, and winning this battle will require the cooperation of Russia, India and China along with Europe, South America, and most other countries. We humans may have the technical ability to tackle this but do not appear to have the will or ability to do what scientists tell us we must do to reduce carbon emissions and win this battle.

And if temperatures continue to rise, the Greenland Icecap will eventually melt. The oceans will rise some 30 feet. Game over. Of course, that is still aways off, but if we are not able to reduce carbon emissions, we will continue along a projectory for it to happen.

And here is the thing. While doing research on another recent obsession of mine (on “the evolution of the universe”), I learned that the planet Earth since its beginning some four billion years ago has experienced five mass extinctions, which wiped out between 85 percent and 95 percent of all plant and animal life on the planet at that time. These extinctions have happened routinely on average every 60-100 million years and were caused mainly by climate change. The last mass extinction happened 66 million years ago when a giant asteroid hit the Yucatan Peninsula causing most of the giant dinosaurs to die within hours. Smaller ones may have survived months or even years longer, but the debris in the air reduced sunlight destroying the habitat which supported these creatures.

The timing is about right for another mass extinction and do-over for the planet Earth.

The good news about the Fifth Mass Extinction is that this gave an opening for us mammals to evolve and thrive. The bad news is that the king of the mammal world, we Homo sapiens, for the last century and a half have been trashing this delicate planet at an alarming rate. Because of our actions many scientists believe the planet has already entered its Sixth Mass Extinction. This is because we humans are destroying the habitats of other animals. Scientists and those who keep track of such things estimate that during the last 500 years almost 900 species have ceased to exist. One in four mammals and one in eight birds face a high risk of extinction in the next few decades. In just the last 50 years the human population on the planet has doubled. The population of all other animals has declined by 70 percent. The existential question is this: If the planet is now already in a Sixth Mass Extinction, will we humans be part of it?

This question leads to the other big existential threat.

Nuclear War

Why have we heard so little about this threat in recent times? I have just finished reading two very good but very disturbing books—Nuclear War by Annie Jacobsen and The Road by Cormac McCarthy. The first book is a fictional account about a theoretical nuclear war, which happens so fast that it is impossible to avert total disaster–sort of like what happened to the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. The book presents a compelling story of how a full scale nuclear war could happen at any time, either by a miscalculation or accident or if a bad actor uses this weapon. The second book is about a deserted world where a father and son hunt for canned food left over following an unnamed–but most likely a nuclear disaster–while trying to escape bands of roaming human cannibals. These books will scare the bejesus out of you.

Jacobsen is a reporter for The New York Times who has specialized in writing about national security issues for many years. For this book she interviewed scores of experts and former officials in the government and the private sector involved in national security and nuclear weapon development. While fiction, the book provides extensive footnotes and documentation that what Jacobson is writing about could happen. Of course, it is unthinkable and beyond our comprehension. Yet she makes a compelling case that the threat of nuclear holocaust is real and more of a threat now than at any other time since we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Lord have mercy!

Following the explosions of the two atomic bombs, in the late 1940s and early 1950s there was a huge uproar led by Bertrand Russell and other intellectuals warning the world of dire consequences. “Ban the bomb” was a common mantra around the world. Then there was pushback and a counter argument that we really need not worry so much about a nuclear war because of a theory called MAD or “Mutually Assured Destruction.” In other words, the consequences of a nuclear war are so dire and extreme, no leader would initiate an action which could ultimately result in the destruction of one’s own country. Well, since we are still here and except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki no nuclear war has happened, maybe the theory is correct.

But what if it isn’t?

There are now nine nations that have “strategic nuclear arsenals”—the United States, Russia, China, France, the U.K., Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea— and the number continues to grow. Iran is likely to be next. And one nation—North Korea—is a rogue nation with an unpredictable leader, who many label as a nutcase. In Jacobsen’s book, North Korea is the bad actor that starts the war which leads to the massive annihilation of human life on Earth.

The total number of warheads that these nine nations have is a tad over 12,000. One average size nuclear weapon exploded in New York City would cause about 600,000 deaths, wounding many others. Do the arithmetic. Humans currently have the capacity to kill 7.2 billion people, which is 80 percent of all humans on the planet. And as Jacobsen’s book describes, this could happen very quickly.

As scary as this is, actually we have made progress because of the numerous nuclear treaties between the US and the Soviet Union beginning in the 1960s with the latest with Russia in 2010 (“START”). At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had 40,000 nukes and we had 30,000, enough to destroy all life on the planet many times over.

Note that the reduction in the number of nuclear warheads applies to strategic nuclear weapons and not to the so called “tactical nuclear weapons,” which Putin has already threatened to use in his war on Ukraine. Some of these less powerful weapons, however, have twenty times the power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes, progress has been made. But friends, this is madness!

What the Jacobsen book convincingly portrays is that just because a full scale nuclear war has not happened yet does not mean it will never happen. And if it does, it will mean that we humans will be part of the Sixth Mass Extinction, that the next do-over will begin, and that the Earth will continue to experience extinctions until our Sun becomes a red giant a little over a billion years from now. If the past is any indication of the future, before life on Earth perishes, we can expect more mass extinctions. If one happens, say, every 70 million years on average, there would be 14 more of these “wipe the slate clean” do-overs.

These questions lead us from the world of science to the world of spirituality and religion. Where does God fit in to all this? And what is the meaning and purpose of life in our fragile world as we humans stagger through our lives trying to play the cards we have been dealt as best as we can?

Read these two books. Then mix yourself a stiff drink and pray that nothing like this will ever happen—even though the odds are that unless we rid the planet of these horrific weapons—along with other weapons of mass destruction– it will happen, probably not soon but sometime. And according to Jacobson the timing could well be sooner rather than later. The fuel is in place waiting for a rogue nation or bad actor to strike a match which starts the fire that completes the Sixth Mass Extinction on the planet Earth. God help us.

 

Visit me on Substack!
Subscribe to my Substack!

 

Visit me on Substack!
Subscribe to my Substack!

As we departed by train for Lyon, the second largest city in France with a metro population of about 1.3 million and where we would begin a river cruise, we talked about how great the trip had been and with no “incidents” to speak of. For some reason Embry had nagging fears that something was bound to go wrong. This was understandable given our recent track record of our ill-fated flight to the BVIs, our challenges getting to Costa Rica and Puerto Rico, and the horrid Covid cruise in 2020. We were batting 0 for 4 for the past four trips. However, these trips were not total disasters by any means, and we now look back on them fondly, but they all had “issues” (which have been described in previous blog posts). What would go wrong this time? But the most vulnerable part of the trip was over. We had zipped through the airports thanks to wheelchair support for the frail elderly and thanks to our son, Andrew, our volunteer guide, who had led the excursion to Brittany to visit our sister-in-law and then on to an Airbnb in Paris and the Olympics. We were flying high. What could possibly go wrong on a river cruise?

Going on a European river cruise had been on my bucket list for years and that is why Embry had booked this cruise following the Olympics. It was for a six-day cruise on a riverboat owned by a German, family-owned company called Amadeus. The company owns 19 riverboats, which cruise the various rivers throughout Europe. This cruise, which was billed as primarily a German speaking cruise, covered about 550 miles on the Saone and Rhone rivers. The first leg was on the Saone River motoring upstream from Lyon for about 120 miles, then back downstream to Lyon where the river merged with the Rhone where we motored south for another 150 miles almost to the Mediterranean before returning to Lyon. The cruise took us through some of the most beautiful country you will ever see—one bucolic countryside after another, luxuriant hillsides and vineyards, ancient villages with busy central courtyards, town squares, and outdoor cafes, castles, Roman ruins, chateaus, and Medieval churches—just what you would expect and more. There was surprisingly little river boat traffic, and the weather was perfect—partly cloudy, highs around 80 and low humidity the entire time. Since the boat motored most of the nights, days were available for excursions to visit by tour bus other points of interest not on the river. Our favorite was Cluny, which in the Middle Ages was the largest abbey in France and contained the largest church in the world at the time, predating St Peter’s in Rome.

The Amadeus Provencal was the name of our riverboat, which looked like all the other riverboats on the Saone and Rhine, due to the challenge of passing under scores of low bridges and through dozens of locks. The boat was over a football field long, but only 15 feet tall and about 30 feet wide and drawing only about five feet. Staterooms were small but attractive and had large picture windows, which could be opened. There was a large dining room, a lounge/meeting room about the same size, a vast roof deck, an exercise room, and even a tiny “infinity swimming pool.” The boat cruised at 12-15 knots. Maximum guest capacity was 140 passengers though there were only 90 on our boat, which also had a crew of 40. Service was excellent with three meals a day included in the price including a four-course evening meal every day with unlimited wine. Waiters darted about carrying three bottles, white, red, and rose wine, assuring no glass was ever empty. The food was good but not superior—after all, this was a German company, not a French one–but still, nothing to complain about.

The first observation we had after boarding was “Good heavens, this is a retirement community!” Only a handful of the 90 passengers lacked gray or white hair.

Since the cruise was billed as primarily German speaking, Embry and I were a tad concerned, I less than her since with my horrible hearing I can’t hear much anyway. To our surprise, however, three “official” languages were in use—German, Dutch, and English. This meant that all the land excursions included local guides who spoke English. This was surprising because there were only seven native, English speakers, the two of us, two elderly British couples, and Nancy, an expat lady my age who had immigrated from the U.S. to Rome 25 years ago. Since the excursions—and table seating– were organized by language, we English speakers were able to have our own small group experience. Of course, since most Germans and Dutch are multilingual, we were able to chat with some of them at gatherings on the boat.

The only issue was Nancy. She was the American expat lady who asked me on the first day how old I was and proudly announced that she was born one year after me. She looked to me like she was closer to 100. The assigned seating for meals placed the two British couples at one table and the three Americans at another. The first evening meal together was a disaster. Nancy talked incessantly about herself and neither of us could get a word in. We got her entire life history—graduate of Vassar, PhD from Penn, accomplished college professor in biochemistry, Trump hater, and a bitter, outspoken critic of the U.S.—and an authority and know-it-all on whatever subject you might bring up to try to broaden the conversation. Well, one meal with her might be tolerable. Three meals a day for the entire cruise? As we left the meal the first evening, we looked at each other in dismay. Embry replied, “No worries. I told the head waiter that they had to put us at another table,” which they did, giving us our own table next to Nancy’s table, who except for the last day sadly remained alone at her table throughout the cruise. This was an unfortunate situation, which many guests on the boat let us know they were aware of. Never married, no family, lived alone in Rome, and alienated from her Trump-supporting siblings. In fact, she had partitioned the two British couples to allow her to join them. They turned her down.

The thing is that not only was her mealtime behavior intolerable for more than one meal with her, but she was also not playing with a full deck. Because she was one of us seven native English speakers, she joined us on most of the excursions. Several times she would initiate a conversation with us asking, “Do I know you?” or “Do you know me?” And she routinely asked questions to our guides which made no sense. We took a deep breath and asked the waiters to put us back at her table for the last meal, which they did, and which we endured but felt sympathy for her, for surely for her it was an imperfect river cruise.

The cruise concluded on a Saturday. The evening before there was a huge goodbye banquet followed by entertainment. I felt fine. However, around two A.M. early that Saturday morning I woke up with chills, fever, and an aching body. By the time for our last breakfast on board I knew something was wrong. I had no idea what disease I had, but whatever it was, there was nothing I could do other than gut it out on the long train ride from Lyon to the Paris CDG airport, spending a painful evening at a Novotel at the airport, and finally enduring the long slog on the flight home, fortunately in business class, but feeling worse every hour of the seven hour flight. Embry had searched in vain to purchase a face mask for me at the train station and airport so that I would not infect others but could find none. We did not see a soul wearing one on the flight over or anywhere we went in France.  After we landed the frail elderly wheelchair routine worked again, allowing us to avoid the massive line and go through passport control at Dulles in only a few minutes. On the cab ride home, all I could think about was collapsing into bed.

Of course, how could I avoid asking the question: Could this be the dreaded Covid? This would be my second episode. The first one in 2020 involved a rebound lasting almost a month.   After stumbling into our apartment, I immediately took a Covid test. It came out positive. Hardly a surprise, but still…. Someone on the boat had to have infected me but who? And how many people might I have infected? I coughed incessantly on the flight home and felt guilty about the harm I may have caused. Sadly, hardly anyone wears a mask nowadays, and Embry could not find a mask for me when I needed one.

After one full week, ending last Saturday, I finally started to feel a tad better and gave myself another Covid test.  Negative for Covid! Hurrah! I am now beginning to feel better and to get my strength back. I would not describe my Covid experience as a light case. I was miserable. Maybe I should have taken Paxlovid, though the doctor I talked to at Kaiser advised against it. But the good news is that Covid did not kill me.  I read in The New York Times today that 600 people are now dying every week in the U.S. from Covid—mainly seniors who have never been vaccinated. The Fat Lady hasn’t sung yet to celebrate putting the nail in the coffin of   this horrid disease. With so few people masked nowadays, it is only going to get worse.

Then I think about what could have happened. What if I had come down with Covid during the river cruise or at any time on Our Last Big Trip? It would have been a disaster! So, I am the lucky one. I am profoundly grateful finally to start to get back on my feet and to have made it through Our Last Big Trip before Covid nailed me. Embry’s intuition was right. Danger was lurking in the shadows, but we made it. Even if barely. And fortunately, she never got Covid despite being exposed.

If asked the question, “Other than that, Mr. Howell, how did you enjoy the cruise?” my answer would be “immensely” and ditto for the entire Howell’s Last Big Trip. Bottom line: If you have not done a European riverboat cruise, put it on your bucket list.

 

 

 

Visit me on Substack!
Subscribe to my Substack!