I will spare you the story of the nuclear bomb. We all have in mind that in 1945 this kind of device was used for the first and last time (two bombs of different kinds, one target country, one aggressor).

Since then more and more countries developed their own systems: weapons, trigger devices, and security plans to protect inadequate uses of those weapons. Funny thing is with all the money burnt on that research, protection, planning... ...no one has given use to their bombs since that August in 45.

There was a so called cold war between the two countries that had the most powerful nuclear arsenals. The cold war never got hotter for both had retaliation abilities: they could blow their enemy even after being hit.
And that was how nuclear submarines from USA and USSR chased each others vessels, and the top brass from both sides was sleeping with a finger on the trigger.

Yet nothing happened. Enters Afghanistan, John Rambo and stuff - the cold war gets frozen. Instead of building nuclear shelters we all breathe, anxiety is washed away. There are wars but not in Europe; there are enemies but not the big powerful nations; there are bombs but they are stored in underground hangars.

Err...

Fact is last week we had a war in Europe and even if it was a small skirmish we can read between the lines and figure what is happening. Cold war is a victim of global warming and is alive again. This time the cold war is brought to you in a more exquisite manner. Wrapped in politeness and democracy.

What's new on the Cold War II / Word War III?
There are more players this time. It is not mighty USA versus an apparently strong USSR like it was in the 80s. This time we have war-exhausted USA, restored Russia, rising China and the rest of the unhappy world. Should we care about Iran having nukes? SURE! But shouldn't we care about USA having them? They were the only country that ever used them and they used it on civilian targets. "USA is responsible, stable democracy" - fine. What about Pakistan?

Pakistan is in political chaos for more than a year now. They do have nukes and they have a lousy security system. What about the word-war between Israel and Iran? We all know that Israel has been training for a possible attack to Iran.
Israel HAS nukes, Iran HAS NOT. Shouldn't we be worried?

Then we have the rest of the nuclear-confirmed countries: France, UK, China, India, North Korea, Israel. Then the ones to whom nukes have been borrowed: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Greece. The ones that had in the past: South Africa, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan. And the ones that are suspected to be building nukes: Iran and Syria.

So why are we only worried about Iran and Syria?
You want to make nukes? CANT
You have nukes? THATS OK

Fishy.

I've been willing to write here for days but I just couldn't find a way to start...
Now I don't have that problem, I am already writing.

I would like to thank PRLA for the invitation. I will try to do my best to stay on the editorial line of this blog, even if it doesn't have one (which appears to be case).
Due to censorship I am not authorized to discuss some issues of international politics at my will (so much for the free speech) but I will touch those topics from time to time.

So lets start with some Olympic matters. As most of the inhabitants of the planet know, the Olympic Games will take place in China this year and 1/5 of the world is worried about Human Rights issues in that country (2/5 are busy with their own problems: hunger, war, civil unrest, dictators, etc; 1/5 does not care about that and the rest of the people are Chinese).


It is indeed nice these days to be pro-Tibet and say Dalai Lama is a nice dude, a bald laughter like no other. So we have to fight China for they employ little children, exploit their workers, limit freedoms and conquered Tibet. That is all true but let's not lose the bigger picture.

Such places (I wouldn't say countries, regions, etc for most of the people of an oppressed country are victims) exist all over the world and this is a global fight, one much more important than fighting terrorism (which by the way is a subjective term - we will discuss that later - and is invisible - no one is a terrorist until he/she spreads terror).

The struggle against hunger, war, oppression, exploitation must be taken in a global scale. And economic sanctions are not solution. You can't also "bomb" countries with food - that's not help; that's hypocrisy in cereal boxes. Most of the world needs know-how and that kind of help is not a task for ONG's or for common citizens. A new kind of United Nations has to make it's appearance in the world.

Of course China is the most visible case of HR violations right now and thus every western citizen waits to see China failing. That will not happen from China's perspective; that will surely happen from Europe / US perspective. The problem is that the US are scared - China WILL become the next superpower; the world will no longer be ruled by one nation. Europeans are simply jealous - over the last 60 years they watched the rise of US, USSR, Russia post-91, India, China, etc. And EU still is discussing internal matters and will be forever. The bigger it gets (27 and counting) the harder it will be to have a one voiced supra-national entity that is a world player and with worldwide respect.

So the story about China is this - the rise of a new giant. As Tom Clancy is changing it's novels (the red threath is now China, not Russia) the politicians at Capitol Hill are changing their focus too.

And so do we, carried on by the media.



PS - we came to the strange situation of Europeans wanting independence for Tibet, something that not even Dalai Lama wants...