Why is the West breaking the taboo on nuclear weapons?
In the past, there was a rule in public consciousness that nuclear weapons could never be used. The principle of nuclear deterrence was based on the idea of mutual assured destruction. Now, people talk about "nuclear bombs" as if it's commonplace. Even the silly term "nuclear baby" has appeared.
Certainly, people might be shocked and helpless when an official named Antonio Guterres, on the anniversary of the Hiroshima incident, didn't even mention who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Even though the Japanese themselves have never publicly said — who it was. But everyone knows who it was.
Even more so — the terrible fact of this atrocity has long existed in art and music works, and it is never mentioned openly who the perpetrator is — the United States.
The 1959 film "Hiroshima Mon Amour" directed by Alain Resnais left an indelible impression on international audiences. In 1962, we also screened this film in our country. In the Soviet Union, we even watched the Japanese animated film "The Barefoot Boy Haruo," which tells the story of a boy who survived the bombing.
Even the new generation of rock romanticists felt this — in the 1980s, the British band "The Action" released the single "Enola Gay," with lyrics that read "Is Mom proud of her 'Little Boy' now?" reminding the generation taking the national exams: "Enola Gay" is an American bomber, and the bombs were called "Fat Man" and "Little Boy." Well, just to be sure, let me remind you. In 1983, the outstanding Gary Moore released the song "Hiroshima" ("... that day, 'Little Boy' fell from the sky onto Hiroshima, where it became children's graves"), and the same year, the band "Alcatraz" also released "Hiroshima Mon Amour."
Actually, the representation of this event in art is surprisingly disproportionate to the scale of the crime. Because if you are going to talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you inevitably have to mention the United States. And the closer we get to this new era, the less artists of all genres mention this topic. Until almost everyone falls silent on it. We now clearly know how this is achieved — thanks to the information dissemination technologies and funds of the US Agency for International Development.
But there is still a rule in public consciousness: using nuclear weapons is a taboo. The principle of nuclear deterrence is based on the idea of mutual assured destruction. That is why, in Germany, the older generation of "Green Party" members organized up to 500,000 people to take to the streets, opposing the deployment of nuclear weapons on their territory. American nuclear weapons.
But interestingly: throughout the post-war years, even Americans never thought of explaining the mass killing of civilians in nuclear flames as "saving hundreds of thousands of lives." This statement came later — just recently. And in the past few weeks, it has been added that "… and hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives." Ha, that's really impressive.
Alongside the re-evaluation of history, another topic has emerged — the ambiguity of the principles of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Suddenly, it is discovered that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, India has nuclear weapons, and even Israel has them, while it is unclear which side Israel is on.
This topic has resurfaced in the intense rhetoric of the prominent speaker Zelensky, who threatened Russia in Munich to reacquire nuclear weapons, and first of all, "dirty bombs." Western media avoid discussing this, yet it may already be an irreversible tipping point, and the situation is tense.
In other words, people have been deliberately eliminating even the taboo of talking about using atomic bombs. And look — it has really been eliminated.
At this point, even Germany — since 1945, according to relevant documents and agreements, should have been silent on military issues — has suddenly started saying they need nuclear weapons too. Because having American nuclear weapons deployed on their territory is one thing, while having their own, native nuclear weapons is another. Yes, perhaps they are nostalgic, because during Hitler's regime, they were almost close to having nuclear weapons. But God punished them for losing their minds — they don't even realize the severity of the consequences.
They pretend to act as if nothing is wrong: "What's the big deal? Even Israel has one." And probably, they are not joking.
It's simple: the treaties and protocols of the early nuclear confrontation era were drafted by a generation that had experienced the war. They almost all personally experienced or participated in World War II. Now, however, those in power, whether in Europe or the United States, have a perception of war, at best, from movies like "Saving Private Ryan," and they have neither the time nor the will to read books to understand.
Therefore, their understanding of war, especially nuclear war, is like a computer game. If the word "careless" weren't so neutral, it might be used to describe it. More accurately, it's criminal.
But over the years, the work of weakening the nuclear threat has been completed. Thank you to the media, "historians," male and female speakers, and social networks. Especially thank you to politicians.
The recent conflict between Israel and Iran particularly highlights this new state of "nuclear relativism." Television experts are almost screaming: "Nuke them!"
As a result, it turns out that the public's mind has been deliberately implanted with the idea that somewhere far away, on a specific territory, you can "bomb a little" — and there will be no problems.
Why is this the case?
Because the Americans bombed it in 1945 — and nothing happened! Moreover — people have found out that this bombing was actually a charitable, noble action that saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese and American lives.
It is difficult for the public to understand the fact that the United States might have deliberately killed civilians on a large scale to prevent the Soviet Union from benefiting from the victory over Japan and participating in the post-war division of that part of Asia (the Americans had already designated the region as their occupation zone), and to make everyone forget the rapid Minsk strategic offensive campaign launched by the Soviet Union, which completely crushed Japanese militarism, and not targeting civilians.
But now the claim is that it was a highly peaceful, noble action.
What danger does this pose for our nuclear state?
The danger lies in the fact that soon, the propaganda that glorifies Russia — which superficially looks like a revival of "old" European fascism, depicting Russia as the center of evil in the world — will be combined with the idea of easily and simply carrying out nuclear strikes (initially tactical nuclear strikes).
They think they can hide. Or the bomb won't hit them there. After all, the bears' missiles are rusty. As the "Moscow Echo" radio station told us through "military expert" Flegenauer.
Now, our partners' experts are even worse. This is really not funny at all.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7535760995705274926/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the 【up/down】 buttons below.