Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe

by Noam Chomsky, Laray Polk

“There are two problems for our species’ survival—nuclear war and environmental catastrophe, ” says Noam Chomsky in this new book on the two existential threats of our time and their points of intersection since World War II.

While a nuclear strike would require action, environmental catastrophe is partially defined by willful inaction in response to human-induced climate change. Denial of the facts is only half the equation. Other contributing factors include extreme techniques for the extraction of remaining carbon deposits, the elimination of agricultural land for bio-fuel, the construction of dams, and the destruction of forests that are crucial for carbon sequestration.

On the subject of current nuclear tensions, Chomsky revisits the long-established option of a nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East, a proposal set in motion through a joint Egyptian Iranian General Assembly resolution in 1974.

Intended as a warning, Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe  is also a reminder that talking about the unspeakable can still be done with humor, with wit and indomitable spirit.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, History, Environment, Philosophy, War

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Reviews

[The Conspiracy is Capitalism · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's revealing how an interview with Chomsky has enough depth to be made into a short book.

I try to save 5-stars for only monumental works, but I will justify it here on the following grounds:
1. Cannot deny the sheer significance of the subject matter. For more on nuclear war, see: The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner
2. Then, Chomsky applies his humane logic, using real-world examples and comparisons to unpack global power structures (their effects, means of control, etc... for a general introduction, start with Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky)
3. Use it as a critical introduction, explore the further readings in the book's appendix, and I cannot deny it 5-stars!

[Andy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this book.

[Seri_chervant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Abbiamo ancora tempo?
In questa intervista Chomsky affronta due temi importanti come la tematica ambientale e la guerra nucleare. Queste hanno una cosa in comune, entrambe ci porteranno all' estinzione. L'intervista, ben guidata da Laray Polk, porta alla consapevolezza del fatto che non c'é più tempo, eppure chi governa lo stato più potente del mondo continua a chiederne o addirittura negare ciò che accade attorno a noi. Quando poi si scopre quante volte abbiamo rischiato una guerra nucleare per motivi futili sinceramente ho avuto i brividi. Ho quasi pianto per la frustrazione di non poter fare nulla di più. Il più interessante è il capitolo su università e ricerca scientifica dove si capisce quanto l'essere umano é avido e corrotto. Negare e imbavagliare la scienza per profitto é una cosa da porci, eppure in America succede di continuo. Le multinazionali e le compagnie petrolifere sono consapevoli di star uccidendo le prossime generazioni solo per soldi, eppure lo fanno e continueranno a farlo sempre. Consiglio questo testo a tutti: é breve, di facile comprensione ed é scritto enorme. Non avete scuse.

[Mauro · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mi ha un po' deluso. È un'intervista breve di Polk a Chomsky. I temi trattati sono sempre gli stessi di altri libri scritti da Chomski ma qui meno approfonditi e senza alcun ordine. Non vi è alcuna aggiunta rispetto a "Chi sono i padroni del mondo" quindi leggetevi quest'ultimo ed evitatevi questo.

[David Bjelland · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick impulse read after the title caught my eye while randomly browsing at the library.

Obviously, a minor work compared to something like Manufacturing Consent (the only other book of his I've read), but in my opinion, the interview format actually plays to his strengths: the guy has an extraordinary body of facts and quotations he can recall at a moment's notice, and he can quickly articulate non-obvious connections between wide-ranging topics. From my limited knowledge of his work, it's what makes him great as an interview subject but... sometimes exhausting as a "popular author" (Manufacturing Consent was at least twice as long as it should've been, while this one leaves the reader hungry for more).

Not recommended for Jehovah's Witnesses who are twiddling their thumbs, waiting to greet the rapture with open arms; potentially of interest for everyone else who views a potential nuclear- or climate-based apocalypse as a bad thing to be avoided.

[Shania · Rating 3 out of 5]

wish it was longer and more detailed, but still an interesting read

[Hanna N · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bolivia numero uno 🏆

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chomsky being Chomsky. Very short but good enough for its length. Tons of citations and appendix material, which is a little annoying to have to flip back and forth but I'm thankful nonetheless.

[Mat · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is less a fully-fledged book and more a collection of conversations fleshed out with appendices and extensive footnotes. The starting point was a statement Noam Chomsky made around 2010: “There are two problems for our species’ survival—nuclear war and environmental catastrophe.” The interviewer for the book, Laray Polk - a multimedia artist who has written about radioactive waste in Texas - asks Chomsky some good questions. Here are some quotes I liked:

From the preface by Laray Polk:

As Christian Parenti in Tropic of Chaos perceptively and correctly points out: “[E]ven if all greenhouse gas emissions stopped immediately—that is, if the world economy collapsed today, and not a single light bulb was switched on nor a single gasoline-powered motor started ever again—there is already enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to cause significant warming and disruptive climate change, and with that considerably more poverty, violence, social dislocation, forced migration, and political upheaval. Thus we must find humane and just means of adaptation, or we face barbaric prospects.” Seen in this light, to live collaboratively and creatively is less a radical proposal than a pragmatic one, if we, future generations, and the biosphere are to survive nuclear war and environmental catastrophe.

From the main book, Noam Chomsky:

[T]he country that is well in the lead in trying to do something serious about the environment is the poorest country in South America, Bolivia. They recently passed laws granting rights to nature. It comes out of the indigenous traditions, largely—the indigenous majority, they’ve got the government advocating on their behalf. Sophisticated Westerners can laugh at that, but Bolivia is going to have the last laugh. Anyway, they’re doing something. In the global system, they’re in the lead, along with indigenous communities in Ecuador. Then there’s the richest country—not only in the hemisphere, but in world history—the richest, most powerful country, which is not only doing nothing, but is going backward. Congress is now dismantling some of the legislation and institutions put into operation by our last liberal president, Richard Nixon, which is an indication of where we are.

In Congress, among the latest cohort of Republican House representatives from 2010, almost all are global- warming deniers and are acting to cut back legislation to block anything meaningful, and to roll back the little that exists. I mean, it’s surreal. If someone were watching this from Mars, they wouldn’t believe what was happening on Earth.

We don’t have to be lunatics who are willing to sacrifice our grandchildren so that we can have a little more profit.

George Bush, Tony Blair, and their accomplices should be subjected to the legal principles established at Nuremberg. Cleanup would be one important obligation on legal grounds, but a minor one in context. At the very least, the US and UK are obligated to provide massive reparations for their crimes against Iraq.

There is no doubt that cleanup—in fact, far more—would be regarded as a moral obligation if the crimes had been carried out by an enemy. Therefore it is an obligation for us if we are capable of accepting one of the most elementary of moral principles, found in every moral code worth consideration: the principle of universality, holding that we should apply to ourselves the standards we impose on others, if not more stringent ones.

Both India and Pakistan are expanding their nuclear arsenals with US support.

There are plenty of times when automated systems in the United States—and in Russia, it’s probably worse—have warned of a nuclear attack which would set off an automatic response except that human intervention happened to take place in time, and sometimes in a matter of minutes. That’s playing with fire. That’s a low-probability event, but with low-probability events over a long period, the probability is not low.

[T]here’s this regular five-year Non-Proliferation Review Conference. In 1995, under strong pressure from the Arab states, Egypt primarily, there was an agreement that they would move toward a nuclear-weapon-free zone and the Clinton administration signed on. It was reiterated in 2000. In 2005 the Bush administration just essentially undermined the whole meeting. They basically said, “Why do anything?”

[I]f China is trying to control waters off its coast, that’s aggression and it’s harming our security. That’s a classic security dilemma. You could just imagine if China were carrying out naval exercises in the Caribbean—in fact, in the mid-Pacific—it would be considered intolerable. That’s very much like Iran. The basic assumption is “We own the world,” and any exercise of sovereignty within our domains, which is most of the world, is aggression.

In the Arab world, public opinion is so outraged at the United States that a real majority now favors Iran developing nuclear weapons, not just nuclear energy. The US doesn’t take that too seriously, they figure that dictatorships can control the populations.

Innovation and development are long-term projects. They don’t give you profits tomorrow. In fact, they give you costs. So the state takes it over; the taxpayer, in other words, pays for it. It’s a system of essentially public subsidy, private profit. And it’s called capitalism, but has little resemblance to capitalism.

[A]nything that interferes with profit is unthinkable. It can’t be discussed.

[T]he business leadership tends to be secular. On social issues, they’re what are called liberals. They’re perfectly happy to mobilize and support, by what are world standards, extremist religious organizations as their sort of storm troops and they kind of have to do it... The CEO of a corporation doesn’t care that much if there’s a law against, say, abortion. Their stratum of society is going to get it anyway, whatever the laws are. They’ll have everything they want. And if you have to throw some red meat to voters out there whose views you just think are ridiculous, then you do it... In their institutional role they have a function: they must maximize short-term profit and market share. Their jobs and salaries depend upon it. And that institutional role is driving them toward what I suspect is a fairly conscious commitment to longer-term destruction.

Trust in institutions is extremely low, and, unfortunately, that has some resonances rather similar to late Weimar Germany...

[M]eanwhile, there’s plenty of wealth around. If everything were impoverished, it wouldn’t be so striking. You can read the front page of the New York Times and see it. A couple of weeks ago, they had an article on growing poverty in America, which is enormous, and another column on how luxury-good stores are marking up their prices because they can’t sell them fast enough, might as well mark them up anyway. That’s what the country’s coming to look like, so people are angry—and rightly angry. And nothing is being done about it except to make it worse.

A case can be made that the way to be a “good steward” of the earth is to abandon any thought of “dominion over it” and to recognize, with proper humility, that we must find a place within the natural world that will help sustain it not just for ourselves but for other creatures as well, and for future generations, recognizing values that are often upheld most firmly and convincingly within indigenous cultures.

Debates are among the most irrational constructions that humans have developed. Their rules are designed to undermine rational interchange. A debater is not allowed to say, “That was a good point, I’ll have to rethink my views.” Rather, they must adhere blindly to their positions even when they recognize that they are wrong. And what are called “skilled debaters” know that they should use trickery and deceit rather than rational argument to “win.”

The term “intellectual” is typically used to refer to those who have sufficient privilege to be able to gain some kind of audience when they speak on public issues. The world’s greatest physicists are not called “intellectuals” if they devote themselves, laser-like, to the search for the Higgs boson. A carpenter with little formal schooling who happens to have very deep insight into international affairs and the factors that drive the economy and explains these matters to his family and friends is not called an “intellectual.” There is evidence that the more educated tend to be more indoctrinated and conformist—but nevertheless, or maybe therefore, they tend to provide the recognized “intellectual class.” We could devise a different concept that relates more closely to insight, understanding, creative intelligence, and similar qualities.

I’m just old enough to remember the Depression; objectively it was much worse. Most of my family was unemployed working-class, but there was a lot of hopefulness after the first few years. There was a sense that things are going to get better, we can do something about it, there’s organizing and government efforts—it’s bad, but we can get out of this. There isn’t that feeling now, and it may be objectively right.

In every society I know of since classical times there have been honest dissidents, usually a fringe, almost always punished in one or another way.

Not only in Bolivia, but worldwide, indigenous communities (“first nations,” “aboriginal,” “tribal,” whatever they call themselves) have been in the forefront of recognizing that if there is to be a hope of decent survival, we must learn to organize our societies and lives so that care for “the commons”—the common possessions of all of us—must become a very high priority, as it has been in traditional societies, quite often.

[Laray Polk, asking a question:] [A]ctivist and physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote: “Recent studies have concluded that even a limited nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, for example—involving perhaps 100 warheads—would significantly disrupt the global climate for at least a decade and would kick at least 5 million tons of smoke into the stratosphere. Estimates suggest this would potentially lead to the death of up to a billion people because of the effect of this smoke on global agriculture.”

[D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps. But the greatest threat, I think, is the evasion and suppression of what is known, or could easily be known if there were any authentic concern for terrible crimes. Of course there is much anguish when someone else is guilty, but the crucial case, always, is when we ourselves are the perpetrators—clearly the most crucial case for us, on elementary moral grounds. Sometimes there is awareness, though ineffectual. Thomas Jefferson famously said that “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever,” referring to the crime of slavery. John Quincy Adams, the great grand strategist who was the intellectual author of Manifest Destiny, expressed very similar thoughts in reflecting on the “extermination” of the indigenous population with “merciless and perfidious cruelty . . . among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement.” Their concerns should resonate painfully to the present day. Those who preach most eloquently about their devotion to their Lord express only contempt for such thoughts; and they have plenty of company, needless to say. The US and its intellectual community are breaking no new ground, of course. They are following the course typical of systems of power, throughout history. We should, I think, take all of this as an indication of the great chasm that lies between the most advanced cultures and minimal standards of elementary decency, honesty, and moral integrity. Not a small problem, quite apart from the matters we are discussing.


There is another possibility that, I think, is not to be dismissed: nuclear terror. Like a dirty bomb in New York City, let’s say. It wouldn’t take tremendous facility to do that. I know US intelligence or people like Graham Allison at Harvard who works on this, they regard it as very likely in the coming years—and who knows what kind of reaction there would be to that. So, I think there are plenty of possibilities. I think it is getting worse. Just like the proliferation problem is getting worse. Take a couple of cases: In September 2009, the Security Council did pass a resolution, S/RES/1887, which was interpreted here as a resolution against Iran. In part it was, but it also called on all states to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That’s three states: India, Pakistan, and Israel. The Obama administration immediately informed India that this didn’t apply to them; it informed Israel that it doesn’t apply to them.4

Since the 1960s. And in fact, the Nixon administration made an unwritten agreement with Israel that it wouldn’t do anything to compel Israel, or even induce them, to drop what they call their ambiguity policy—not saying whether or not they have them.53 That’s now very alive because there’s this regular five-year Non-Proliferation Review Conference. In 1995, under strong pressure from the Arab states, Egypt primarily, there was an agreement that they would move toward a nuclear-weapon-free zone and the Clinton administration signed on. It was reiterated in 2000. In 2005 the Bush administration just essentially undermined the whole meeting. They basically said, “Why do anything?” It came up again in May 2010. Egypt is now speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, 118 countries, they’re this year’s representative, and they pressed pretty hard for a move in that direction. The pressure was so strong that the United States accepted it in principle and claims to be committed to it, but Hillary Clinton said the time’s “not ripe for establishing the zone.”54 And the administration just endorsed Israel’s position, essentially saying, “Yes, but only after a comprehensive peace agreement in the region,” which the US and Israel can delay indefinitely. So, that’s basically saying, “it’s fine, but it’s never going to happen.” And this is barely ever reported, so nobody knows about it. Just as almost nobody knows about Obama informing India and Israel that the resolutions don’t apply to them. All of this just increases the risk of nuclear war


Actually, the question of the Iranian threat is quite interesting. It’s discussed as if that’s the major issue of the current era. And not just in the United States, Britain too. This is “the year of Iran,” Iran is the major threat, the major policy issue. It does raise the question: What’s the Iranian threat? That’s never seriously discussed, but there is an authoritative answer, which isn’t reported. The authoritative answer was given by the Pentagon and intelligence in April 2010; they have an annual submission to Congress on the global security system, and of course discussed Iran.57 They made it very clear that the threat is not military. They said Iran has very low military spending even by the standards of the region; their strategic doctrine is completely defensive, it’s designed to deter an invasion long enough to allow diplomacy to begin to operate; they have very little capacity to deploy force abroad. They say if Iran were developing nuclear capability, which is not the same as weapons, it would be part of the deterrent strategy, which is what most strategic analysts take for granted, so there’s no military threat. Nevertheless, they say it’s the most significant threat in the world. What is it? Well, that’s interesting. They’re trying to extend their influence in neighboring countries; that’s what’s called destabilizing. So if we invade their neighbors and occupy them, that’s stabilizing. Which is a standard assumption. It basically says, “Look, we own the world.” And if anybody doesn’t follow orders, they’re aggressive.

Then innovation goes out but it’s filtered through intellectual property rights— Which is another form of government subsidy, and a major form. Take a look at the World Trade Organization rules. They’ve imposed patent conditions for the developing countries, which would have killed off industrial development in the rich countries if they had ever had to adhere to them.70 The United States, for example, relied substantially on technology transfer— what’s now called piracy—from England, which was more advanced. In fact, England did the same for more advanced technology from India and Ireland, and from more skilled workers from the Lowlands, Belgium, and Holland. We did it then to England, and other countries are trying to do it too, but they’re barred from it by what are called free-trade rules, meaning: we protect what we want and we impose a market rigor on you. There have been some good studies of this. Among the main beneficiaries of the World Trade Organization’s rigorous patent restrictions are the pharmaceutical corporations. They claim that they need it for research and development. This was investigated carefully by, among others, Dean Baker, a very good economist. He went through the records and found that the corporations themselves fund only a minority of their own R&D, and that’s misleading because it tends to be oriented toward the marketing side, copycat drugs, and so on. The basic funding comes from either the government or from foundations. He calculated that if funding for R&D for the big pharmaceutical corporations was raised to 100 percent public, and they were then compelled to sell their goods on the market, there’d be a colossal saving to consumers and no patent rights.71 But that’s unthinkable; anything that interferes with profit is unthinkable. It can’t be discussed.


And they can appeal to something quite objective. Take a look at post–Second World War history. The first two decades, the ’50s and ’60s, were periods of very substantial growth. In fact, the highest growth in the country’s history—and egalitarian growth. People were gaining things, they were getting somewhere, and they had hope for the future and expectations, etc. The ’70s was a transition period. Since the ’80s, for the majority of the population, life has just gotten relatively worse: real wages and incomes have stagnated or declined; benefits, which were never very much, have declined; people have been getting by on working more hours per family, unsustainable debt, and asset inflation bubbles, but they crash. So meanwhile, there’s plenty of wealth around. If everything were impoverished, it wouldn’t be so striking. You can read the front page of the New York Times and see it. A couple of weeks ago, they had an article on growing poverty in America, which is enormous, and another column on how luxury-good stores are marking up their prices because they can’t sell them fast enough, might as well mark them up anyway. That’s what the country’s coming to look like, so people are angry—and rightly angry. And nothing is being done about it except to make it worse. So it’s a natural basis for preying on disillusionment and saying all institutions are rotten, get rid of all of them. The subtext being, you get rid of all of them, and we’ll take control. Unfortunately that’s the actual content of the libertarian conception, whatever the people may believe; they’re effectively calling for corporate tyranny.

When we look over the record of famous debates, we find that they are not “won” on the basis of serious argument, significant evidence, or intellectual values generally. Rather, the outcome turns on Nixon’s five o’clock shadow, Reagan’s sappy smile, lines like “have you no shame” or “you’re no Jack Kennedy,” etc. That’s not surprising. Debates are among the most irrational constructions that humans have developed. Their rules are designed to undermine rational interchange. A debater is not allowed to say, “That was a good point, I’ll have to rethink my views.” Rather, they must adhere blindly to their positions even when they recognize that they are wrong. And what are called “skilled debaters” know that they should use trickery and deceit rather than rational argument to “win.” I don’t know who Richard Land is, and if he regards Gingrich as a “real intellectual,” I don’t see much reason to explore further. The term “intellectual” is typically used to refer to those who have sufficient privilege to be able to gain some kind of audience when they speak on public issues. The world’s greatest physicists are not called “intellectuals” if they devote themselves, laser-like, to the search for the Higgs boson. A carpenter with little formal schooling who happens to have very deep insight into international affairs and the factors that drive the economy and explains these matters to his family and friends is not called an “intellectual.” There is evidence that the more educated tend to be more indoctrinated and conformist—but nevertheless, or maybe therefore, they tend to provide the recognized “intellectual class.” We could devise a different concept that relates more closely to insight, understanding, creative intelligence, and similar qualities. But it would be a different concept.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic. Short little book containing an interview between Noam Chomsky and Laray Polk about a number of topics, but centring (unsurprisingly) on nuclear war and environmental catastrophe.

Also includes some gut-wrenching Appendixes, among which a common theme is found - American (and Western generally) indifference to, or even denial of the impact of, nuclear fallout and environmental damage they have caused.

The science was clear when this was published in 2013, and it had been clear for a long time before that. In many ways this book is heartbreaking.

[Soph Nova · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting, and short, collection of interviews with Chomsky and a supporting set of documents (at least that’s what I think it was supposed to be, but I couldn’t really parse out why most of the appendix documents were included except being related to the overall subject at hand).

“When we look over the record of famous debates, we find that they are not ‘won’ on the basis of serious argument, significant evidence, or intellectual values generally.”

[Thiago S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leitura rapida e interessante, com muitas citacoes e indicacoes de livros. Conteudo um pouco mais abrangente que o indicado no título. Preço na Amazon abusivo (55 reais por 160 paginas o impresso, 44 reais o ebook!). Recomendo pra quem já leu algo do Chomsky e já possui conhecimento em geopolítica, pois é do que trata o livro, mais que a ideia do Armaggedon em si.

[Ariel Karn · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was an “not too bad, not too good” kind of read. Definitely too short (but understandable because it is an interview). Couldn’t say I learned much, couldn’t say I learned nothing either. I suggest you check out the sample first before deciding whether will read it. If you have absolutely no idea on nuclear weapons/environmental or it’s related affairs you might enjoy this tho. If you do and you’re looking for the “nodding-reading” type of read then this could be it.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

latest book of Noam's - it's an easy read - a few hours and you are done. it has lots of great stuff every american should know - stuff like:

NO LEGAL EXERCISE OF SOVEREIGNTY BY ANY COUNTRY CAN BE TOLERATED WHICH INTERFERES WITH U.S. PLANS

successful governments or movements send the wrong message - that there may be an alternative to u.s. hegemony.

if we can't control latin america, how can we control the rest of the world?

NATO's real role is keeping europe from adopting a different path from the u.s. it must stay a vassal.

effect #1 of UN sanctions on iran? keeping western competitors out. interesting...

there's great stuff on every page and a nice summation of the concerns of David Ricardo on p.70

my favorite part of the book was that america has to tell itself; either the Nuremberg Trials were judicial murder or bush, blair, and obama must be prosecuted by their principles now.

he again points on how the u.s. keeps avoiding reparations to the countries it injures - and of course the u.s. press doesn't cover such stories because
it doesn't cover victims of u.s. policy let alone victims of u.s. business or unrestrained capitalism.

if every american read noam, this government would no longer be able to control the people through smoke and mirrors because we'd be all happier staring at the hands of Oz and no longer sitting raptly in front eating the popcorn and propaganda. an informed public is the greatest enemy of the state which can see worldwide anti-war rallys only as subversive or as focus groups. governments never fight for justice, equality or stopping the endless war (unless historically pressured by the threat of the people's retaliation) because any movement towards justice, equality and stopping war means lost profits for wall street and gains only for the people - referred to lovingly as "the bewildered herd" by elite spokesman Walter Lippman.

[Heather Neistein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting short read.

[Heather · Rating 2 out of 5]

I felt sour about this book. Not much was said about thoughts on the feasibility of nuclear power or about actions taken against environmental catastrophe. Potentially Chomsky doesn't see those as the biggest part of the picture, but if so he should have spoken on that. At times too the conversation was hard to follow.

[Rachella Baker · Rating 5 out of 5]

I WON THIS BOOK THROUGH GOODREADS FIRST READ GIVE-A-WAYS PROGRAM.IT IS REALLY AN INTERESTING BOOK,I HAD A HARD TIME GETTING THROUGH THIS ONE,I JUST DONT UNDERSTAND ALL THE DOINGS IN THIS ONE.I WILL HAVE TO READ AGAIN AND TRY HARDER TO UNDERSTAND.THANK YOU

[Davidkjelkerud]

Brilliant. Chomsky explains these issues in his usual clear-eyed and fact-based way. Probably half of the book consists of references and appendixes backing up his arguments. It's impossible to put down.

[MartinaSofia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I always take a pleasure in reading Chomsky who impresses with a great inside and an educated knowledge. One of the " should read".

[Jon Letman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. Short read but incredibly full of important policy practices that are rarely discussed or examined. This book should be on every senior high school student's "must read" list.

[Rye · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The powerful are self-immunized from even inquiry, let alone punishment for their crimes."

[Kelly Jo · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book was a short and easy read. I wish that it would have gone into a little more detail instead of briefly touching on multiple topics. The book left me wanting more information.

[Roge Roger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Noam launches off on a well meaning but ultimately flawed work to try and ward off a likely inevitable future.

[Lenka · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, this is very much real now; we're screwed.