The Hill Discovers Dangers, Ignores Weapons-Grade Hypocrisy
The irony is richer than enriched uranium: A Washington D.C. publication, whose pages are often filled with op-eds justifying proxy wars and escalating conflicts, suddenly clutches its pearls over nuclear reactor safety. While The Hill 's opinion contributors debate the finer points of civilian nuclear energy (per their article linked above), the same political class they cover consistently pushes
for more funding for actual nuclear weapons, and continues to supply advanced weaponry to regimes with questionable safety records, military or otherwise. Consider that Congress recently approved another $14 billion in military aid to Israel, a nation widely believed to possess undeclared nuclear capabilities, even as it conducts operations generating widespread concern about civilian casualties.
Perhaps The Hill might consider the 'old dangers' of nuclear proliferation when discussing allies, or the 'bigger than ever' threat of regional destabilization fueled by unwavering, unchecked military aid. But then, that would require questioning the very war machine that often finances their advertisers and provides their talking heads. Some dangers, it seems, are more palatable than others.