Since 1947 when it really started operations, the World Bank has acted as a branch of the U.S. Defense Department, from its first major chairman John J. McCloy through Robert McNamara to Robert Zoellick and neocon Paul Wolfowitz. From the outset, it has promoted U.S. exports – especially farm exports – by steering Third World countries to produce plantation crops rather than feeding their own populations. (They are to import U.S. grain.) But it has felt obliged to wrap its U.S. export promotion and support for the dollar area in an ostensibly internationalist rhetoric, as if what’s good for the United States is good for the world. Continue reading
What most people blindingly don’t know is that countries like China are willing to take a hit. They are prepared to take a nuclear hit because they are prepared and sheltered by thousands of miles of underground tunnel networks, which also likely store their nuclear arsenals. America is not. The CCP/PLA doesn’t put much value on human life whereas America does and has less of a stomach for war — which is being strongly proven with overwhelming opposition at this moment as a forced war against the citizen’s will with Syria approaches.
Another website, through historical context has put it quite simply:
Dr. Li, in his Private Life of Chairman Mao, wrote that a few years later, Mao recalled his meeting with Nehru. Hethen realized the meaning of Mao’s words about the atomic bomb:
… it was so hard to accept, how willing Mao was to sacrifice his own citizens in order to achieve his goals. I had known as early as October 1954, from a meeting with India’s prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, that Mao considered the atom bomb a “paper tiger” and that he was willing that China lose millions of people in order to emerge victorious against so-called imperialists. “the atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru.
China has many people. They cannot be bombed out of existence. If someone else can drop an atomic bomb, I can too. The death of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.
Nehru had some strong reservations. First of all, for him, “even without war, India would have attained freedom.” He thought that in fact India would have been freed earlier without the war.
Dr. Li added: “In 1957, in a speech in Moscow, Mao said he was willing to lose 300 millions people – half of China population. Even if China lost half its population, Mao said, the country would suffer no great loss. We could produce more people.”Nehru’s second point was that though the US had won the war, they were still unhappy. He could therefore not accept Mao’s argument; he had told him that though a war was bad and therefore should be avoided, still if it comes, one should welcomed it.
China to this day, still pushes forward the agenda of Mao Zedong.
A previous entry covering this can be found here: Mao’s ‘Nuclear Mass Extinction Speech’ Aired on Chinese TV
“Nuclear Weapons Are Cold War Relics.”
Not so. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the era of nuclear competition seemed to be at an end, and the United States and Russia began to get rid of many weapons they had used to threaten each other for more than 40 years. In 1967, the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal peaked at 31,255 warheads, but by 2010, under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) signed with Russia, the United States had promised to deploy no more than 1,550.
In June of this year, U.S. President Barack Obama announced his intention to go even lower, to around 1,000 warheads — a move that would leave the United States with fewer nuclear weapons than at any time since 1953. What’s more, influential figures around the world, including erstwhile American hawks, have increasingly supported steps toward total disarmament. In his major 2009 address in Prague, Obama committed “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Continue reading