Let Them Die

Conditions: Overcast.


Taking Stock

One of the more troubling moves by the American military over the last few years has been the push towards wanting to develop new types of nuclear weapons, in anticipation of the current crop of nukes becoming either ineffective or disabled through age. The upshot of that is a new dangerous period of nuclear development and testing that could well upset the applecart of peace surrounding the decades-old nuclear mutually-assured-destruction standoff with nukes. Happily, an advisory panel has taken the wind of of the sails:

WASHINGTON -- A top-level independent advisory panel has told the Obama administration that the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal could remain viable for years to come using standard warhead life-extension approaches

If embraced by Washington, the finding would suggest that the United States could avoid building an expensive new generation of nuclear warheads to replace those currently fielded.

"Lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss of confidence, by using approaches similar to those employed" in maintaining the stockpile to date, according to JASON, a panel of senior scientific and technical experts frequently consulted by the U.S. government.

The findings are already proving controversial, though more than a year has passed since Congress twice denied Bush administration funding requests for developing a new series of weapons -- called the Reliable Replacement Warhead -- aimed at modernizing U.S. nuclear arms

President Barack Obama's national security team remains split over how best to keep the stockpile functioning, even as the White House embarks on an ambitious agenda aimed at eventually eliminating nuclear weapons

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and some of his top generals have insisted that at least one or two vintage warheads would have to be replaced with more modern designs if the nuclear arsenal is to remain functional

- globalsecuritynewswire.org/

Yes, but I think it's safe to say that the Generals would say that, really. In reality, with Washington trying to preach a non-proliferation line of thinking for the future of international relations, it'd be a bit rich for the military to start designing new bombs for themselves. And so it's quite possible this could be a win for the calm and rational. About time.




Film Review: 2012

In his time, Roland Emmerich has blown the world up in one way or another on many famous occasions, with everything from aliens to giant lizards to global warming. So it seems logical to have him helm the latest installment in the disaster film genre: 2012. This time around it's in the form of mutated neutrinos heating up the Earths core and eventually causing global earthquakes the scale of which has never been imagined. It's down to writer John Cusack to save his family before everything is destroyed. And that's kind of the problem. See, unlike previous disaster films, here there is nothing that can be done to save everyone, no monsters to fight, no puzzles to solve. The world is going to end, billions of people will die, and all we have is the plight of this small family to try and offset the spectacular and detailed downfall of an entire civilisation. And despite how cute the little girl is, or how touching it is that John's ex-wife still loves him, or whether the dog survives or not, this is one hell of a downer to hang a story on.

The action sequences are spectacular, as you would image and frankly, in this day and age, come to expect. We didn't come to watch the end of the world without experiencing it in high-definition and surround sound. But if there's one thing that Roland has taught us in his previous films, is that spectacle itself is hollow and worthless if it doesn't have some heart and some hope to pin it on, and so it is most surprising that from the outset this film lacks both. It's not as if Cusack isn't trying, as are the other cast members, they're just not being given anything to do other than run, scream on cue, and look disheveled. The only sliver of hopes lies with the B story, wherein Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton and Oliver Platt organize how to save the human species, and which pieces of artwork will be preserved.

To this end, giant ships have been built in China, and it is to China that the lucky and the rich make their way as the seas begin to rise and the cities fall. John and co scrap their way there as well as best they can, and so for a finale, with billions already dead, we essentially have a mini Poseidon Adventure as the giant ark ships get knocked around and Cusack has to half-drown in order to save the day. Who the hell builds a ship where the engine can't be started until the doors are closed? The only real drama among all this is Chiwetel's anger at his bosses decision to keep the whole 'Armageddon' thing a secret from the masses. And it's a fake-feeling kind of anger, one that prison guards might express at the revelation of prison abuse. I mean, come on. Frankly, the lack of any good options makes the ending a real bummer, despite all the dawn rosiness the Hollywood computers can render. There's almost a sense here of the director just not really caring anymore. As if as long as he can drop an aircraft carrier onto the U.S President as he stands in front of the White House, then to hell with anything else. It's hard to believe this is the same director that made us care about a drunken crop duster. One collapsing skyscraper out of Five.


- Peace out