»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Thinking the Unthinkable (or am I nuts or what?)
| The Alley |
|
Thinking the Unthinkable (or am I nuts or what?) |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I was smiling over the last few posts on MIke's thread muttering to myself that the only thing that surpasses South Korean apathy is American self-absorbtion.  And then something frightening popped into my head. With the detonation of an NK nuke, we now have calls from the neocon right that Japan should go nuclear. So much for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, I thought. But that of course, combined with the discrediting of IAEC, is exactly what they want. Think about it. Combine these two points with the doctrine of preventative war and what do you get? A winnable nuclear war. (I suppose you could also throw in the theocon radicals and their armageddon into the mix as well.) So, am I nuts or what? Madeline Albright is reported to have said to Colin Powell at one point: "What's the point of having this grand military if we can't use it." Change 'this grand military' to 'this nuclear arsenal' and is that what is being muttered in neocon thinktanks these days? Are the neocons (Not Bush, Mike  ) actively trying to steer us into a world where nuclear war is a realistic scenario?Or do I need mental help? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Brad, very interesting question and a frightening one, too. I don't know much about this topic, but doesn't the fact that India, Israel and Pakistan having nuclear weapson now have something to do with the problem in general of the IAEA not being a valid authority anymore? I don't think they are signers, are they? I don't think you are nuts. I see what you are saying. You're not in the U.S., are you? If you were, you could turn on the TBS cable channel and see that there truly are some theocons praying for the hastening of the rapture. Of course, there is a dispute among them as to whether it will come before or after Armageddon. I will say this...I think it's greed for power, property or wealth that drives all wars, even though some have been disguished as religious wars. Is this limited to the West? As for whether or not it is a drive by the neocons, I don't know, but there are elements of foreign policy for the past 20 years or so that do support your thinking. Arming one to fight the other then arming the other to fight them back, etc. It's that type of foreign policy that I believe has the rest of the world pretty upset with us. [This message has been edited by iliana (10-14-2006 03:39 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
India and Pakistan (they detonated their first nukes in 1998) fit into a multi-nation nuclear arms race. NK triggers Japan to go nuke, which forces China to add more, which forces India and so. It strikes me that going nuke is not a deterrant to the United States, not for the radical right at any rate. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Brad, do you know the nuclear arsenal figures for the U.S.? I've been looking for them because I heard something on the news the other day that indicated, something unbelievable. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Here's a link that shows build up here...maybe you are right. A New Era of Nuclear Weapons Under Bush Administration. Later Curt Weldon (R-PA) changed his thinking (wonder what happened; e.g. Rep. Weldon Reacts to Nuclear Testing. [This message has been edited by iliana (10-14-2006 05:47 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Madeline Albright is reported to have said to Colin Powell at one point: "What's the point of having this grand military if we can't use it." You didn't finish it, Brad. Powell's response was, "THAT is the reason for having such a military." She was arguing for the right to use force, not the inability to use it. No, Brad, I don't think you need mental help any more than I've ever thought you needed mental help. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Brad, I watched something last night that is very pertinent to this thread. It had to do with the use of depleted uranium and the devastating effects of its use in Iraq and Bosnia, not to mention the thousands and thousands of troops that were involved and exposed in the Gulf War. Being once it is used there is no fix and it continues its affects on people and the environment for near on eternity, the buildup of nuclear weapons just sounds all the more redundant. I have heard very little about this issue on mainstream media and can't understand why. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
It was going to happen eventually. You don't come to power with out wanting it. -Juju |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Juju, just curious, what was eventually going to happen? Do you mean North Korea getting nuclear weapons or breaking treaties, or what exactly? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The part I find farfetched Brad is that Neocons (aka liberals who've been mugged by reality) have demonstrated any ability at long range planning. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I was referring to a new cold war. I knew it was coming because nuclear warfare is cheaper and a whole lot scarier then having an army. You cold throw out numbers if you want, But if you think about it you would understand what I mean. In a blink of an eye. I kind of meant the breaking of treaties and the weapons. My friend was born in South Korea and she told me that the NK's still believe they are at war with the US. I say we are entering a whole new kind of cold war, only this one is allot more scary. India vs. Pakistan NK vs. SK,US,Japan Iran vs. Israel China vs. ? Makes me wonder if we should start working on colonizing Antarctica and the moon. (: -Juju -Juju |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Juju, I see, thanks. It's a scary world we're living in, isn't it? Since you're in engineering....I bet you have to take alot of applied science, maybe mettalurgy, too? Have you read about the effects of depleted uranian? That doesn't even have to come from a nuclear weapon; it comes from various balistic type things (or are those considered nuclear?). |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Brad, I think the lack of interest in this thread, unfortunately, affirms your first sentence, or at least part of it. You would think people would have more to say about this topic. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Well I am not sure really how to respond. I can tell you that It takes a long time for plutoniam and uranium to break down into reactivly stable materials. There are several different ways to have radiation. I Just want to make that clear. I am unsure if the radioactive devices meens they are nuclear. I haven't studied that. I have studied the materials though. I think there are devices that put out radioation with out a nuclear reaction. So maybe. I do know that the bombs that are made now, are alot bigger then the old ones and would destroy alot more then a city. I made a face book group and overnight I had 20 members. Impressive. -Juju |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Oh and the us has lots of nukes. They maybe "disassymbled" but NK would not win against our arsinal -Juju |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: And that is precisely my point. LR, I'm not sure there's any long term thinking involved at all. More simply the frustration that their ideas aren't working and if they didn't have their hands tied behind their back through silly things like international treaties and widespread liberal sentiment, they would. It follows that an agreement, semi-agreement or whatever, that worked more or less for twelve years would be seen as the point of contention. It's Clinton's fault that NK developed nukes now and not twelve years ago. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Brad, why is a winnable nuclear war any more unthinkable than a winnable non-nuclear war? Especially to the guy sitting at ground zero or suddenly looking down the wrong end of M-16? I'm not being flippant, either, because I think answering that question will help define what you/they mean by "winnable." No war is winnable. Some can just be better endured than others. quote: Actually, Iliana, I think the problem is that for those of us who grew up in fallout shelters and practiced hiding under our desks during school drills (yea, like that was really going to ever work) have pretty much already said all that could ever be said on this topic. When asked what weapons he thought would be used to wage World War Three, Einstein said he didn't really know. But, he quickly added, he was sure World War Four would be fought with clubs. I think I was a toddler when he made that observation, but I see no indication anything has changed in the last fifty years. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ron, that was my 4th grade...and I do remember rather vividly, too....especially the day of the Cuban missile crisis. But, I think Brad's point really does have a valid question....are we apathetic or self-absorbed? Or, maybe rather a form of denial? Brad also makes a point about motive and manipulation as a furtherance toward a nuclear war and I think there is some discussion there for those who would brave it. The way I'm interpreting his intial post, he is asking, is it just him....or is the current administration purposely moving us toward a nuclear war? Though I don't have any talking points, it is a valid question. Juju, thanks for the info. They say as a result of the depleted uranium used in Iraq that the water is not drinkable, the soil is contaminated and many people have been exposed and suffer that contamination, also many, many birth defects. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Well my concern is not as much winning the war. It is dealing with the consequences. They developed that weapon just to mess with our fear. One reason I feel nuclear reactors are bad is one lb = 1,000-2000tons of coal. but it takes maybe millions of years for it to be safe. even after it breaks down from being uranium, the next 2 or three are still radioactive. and here is my source on depletion http://www.ratical.org/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/GordonEdwards.html Illiana? Could you send me a link to where I can read more of the Iraq nuclear problems? -Juju |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Actually Ron, I think the quote referred to "sticks and stones" instead of clubs. And here is another that seems to fit in well in this context. "The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one." --Albert Einstein |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I'm not sure it's a push towards a full blown nuclear war though I'm sure in some quarters a small, if small is applicable in this scenario, demonstration of the reasons not to proliferate would be quite welcome. When nuclear weapons were first invented a rush to use them, partly as a demonstration of their destructive power, was definitely in evidence. So much so they demonstrated that force twice, since then all the emphasis has been on convincing people that their use isn't a very good idea, it's the ultimate dilemma of a deterrent. On one hand you need to convince people you'd use the deterrent while on the other convincing them that you really, really, really don't want to use it. It may be that some people believe that the US has been too good at the second and a good wake up call would be useful at this time. Talking of dilemmas though the US is caught between the horns of this one big time as far as this scenario goes, if the US uses a nuke in anger the outcome is counter productive, it would certainly underline the devestation caused by a nuke but the other side of the argument, that they are unwilling to use nuclear weapons, is almost completely destroyed. At that point the need to have their own deterrent to protect themselves against the US would move some nations towards proliferation and not away from it. If however another nation detonates a nuclear device in anger the devastation and impact is underlined while allowing the US to sit on the sidelines shaking their heads while saying "this is why proliferation is a bad idea". The bonus, if a bonus is applicable, is that the devastation becomes real to another generation. [This message has been edited by Grinch (10-22-2006 06:51 PM).] |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Juju, this is the link. It is a very controversial film and winner of the Berkeley Film Festival Award, I think, in 2005. It is very disturbing, so be prepared -- a good bit of the clip is about Gulf War Syndrome, but there is a good bit about depleted uranian and how it is used in weapons and its effects (with your engineering background, you will probably understand that better than me). Bear in mind, also, that Berkeley is a very progressive, liberal school. Depleted Uranium/Iraq/Bosnia The film (entitled "Beyond Treason") is being distributed for free to Veterans by the American Gulf War Veterans Association. [This message has been edited by iliana (10-21-2006 12:26 AM).] |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Meh I go to the U... Of m. -Juju |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
WOw -Juju |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
