You're inventing stuff again. The report makes no mention of "new" weapons. The report was commissioned by Congress not Bush and is a threat and response assessment. You know, you should get yourself some stationary and become President of the "New World Democratic Foundation". Maybe you can published.
Hepburn, chococake
The problem I have with the old "extend the olive branch" crap is that it doesn't work and it never has.
One day the realization that evil people simply exist will just have to sink in.
Now, you may be able to open a dialog with, say China and Syria, since they are both basically out for themselves and if it is more lucrative to be nice, then they will cooperate. But countries run by brutal dictators who have shown no hesitation to invoke great hardships on their own people are a different story.
A month ago, the former President of Iran, the "moderate" darling of many liberal publications, gave a speech where he urged Iran to develop nukes because the huge Muslim populations could easily absorb Israel's entire nuclear arsenal while destroying Israel utterly.
Now you could tell them the UN would be very, very mad at them, but I'd rather suggest that Iran would cease to exist as a viable nation.
I think my deterrent carries a greater guarantee of peace. Unless of course 5000 yrs of recorded history are wrong.
posted on March 11, 2002 01:08:41 PM new
DeSquirrel, I am not saying we should extend olive branches. Been there done that myself. The one holding the branch usually gets their arm whacked off. Of course evil people exist. Problem is, WE are becoming just as bad, and that is due to our "leader" feeling quite comfy in his new role. Like Schindler told the Nazi officer who used the prisoners as target practise "Power isnt the ability to kill at will. Power is NOT doing it even if its expected by those expecting it". Chasing supposed terrorists all over the world and targeting other countries as "axis of evil" makes me cringe. Our prez is supposed to have a cool head about him at all times. To me, he isnt very cool at all, and if someone pushes more of his buttons behind the scenes, which of those "evil" countries are going to be fed up and shoot first, or worse yet, collect into a group and join AGAINST us?
posted on March 11, 2002 02:04:21 PM new
Hep- We had to get just as bad in WWII, which included killing innocent people as well as starving to death German POWs in western Europe so as not to halt the push on into Germany.
War gets down and dirty. If you use your morality to tie your hands behind your back, you get your head cut off.
The nuclear targeting contingencies are nothing new. We've had them since ICBMs were invented and we had Iraqi nuclear targets in the Gulf war should nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons be used agianst our troops- stormin' Norman admitted it.
China, Iraq and North Korea aren't new targets. The others probably aren't either. What the plan does is direct the military to have these contingencies in place and available. Available means that we either have subs in range for the missles, and the targets have available codes in the ICBMs, or the cruise missles in the Gulf have the target codes available. The launch and target of a nuclear weapon isn't totally in the command of the vessels carrying them.
The military can not just re-aim the nuclear missles at will. There is quite a process that is involved with arming and targeting nuclear weapons. The process is among many different agencies and security compartments to assure the security of the weapons. One compartment commands launches, one compartment command arms the nuclear warhead, and the targets are from yet a third compartment command. No one compartment can successfully launch a nuclear attack. That is why the targeting code contingencies must be done well in advance.
The "news" about the targets was released more so for our enemies' ears than for ours. Targeting is not news here.
But one thing it does spell is that we must be about to move large ground/sea forces into a region that may have beligerents with NBC weapons. We are just warning them that if NBC weapons are used against our troops, they can expect nuclear anihilation in responce. No different than the Gulf war.
It is not that we don't care. It's just that when these religious wackos talk they mean business. You think you can distract a zealot on a RELIGIOUS path of destruction with civility and the entreatments of nations?
I think the President's message was quite clear. North Korea is trying more of its frequent sabre-rattling. Well, we rattle much better.
Iraq, however, is clearly the next target. They have the money and the intent to finance all kinds of horrors against us and Israel. You recall that the UN allows Iraq to ship some oil so they can buy food and medicine. Yet Hussein can still show you the starving baby photos. You don't even have to worry about if he'll use the nasty weapons. He already has, on his own people.
It is amazing that Hussein is not cowering right now and asking for the UN inspectors back. That's more of an indication he's just plain nuts.
posted on March 11, 2002 05:13:39 PM new
Sadam is as much a zealot as bin laden. Perhaps they are related. And yes, Im aware of what holy wars entail.Or rather, what THEY consider to be a holy war. And they have named the USA as their enemy. Nothing will stop them from trying to kill us all, or anything remotely american. Ever.
posted on March 11, 2002 10:12:51 PM new
Desquirrel, read it sometime. The 'report' as you put it is of Bush administration directives to the pentagon to develop new 'battlefield' nuclear weapons. Where you get the idea that that request was authored by congress is beyond me.
posted on March 12, 2002 01:04:17 PM new
The "new" weapons reported are not new, we just need a new delivery system. What they are asking for is a nuclear device that can withstand burrowing into the earth for an underground detonation. This was first proposed by a defense scientist.
The debate is whether a nuclear device could be developed that can withstand smashing rather deep into the earth before detonation.
posted on March 12, 2002 01:38:23 PM newThe debate is whether a nuclear device could be developed that can withstand smashing rather deep into the earth before detonation.
For some reason, that makes me even more worried. Nothing like nuking the hell out of the interior of the earth. What are we gonna do? Puncture our ballon and collapse the whole place? And dont say it cant be done. No telling what damage we can do that cant be UNDONE. Oh I know. Lets just make war on every being on TOP...then lets destroy the very core we stand and build on. Makes sense to me. Not.
posted on March 12, 2002 08:33:33 PM new
We have been doing underground nuke detonation since the 1950s. It is the safest way to have a detonation.
Detonation underground limits the radiation exposure to the atmosphere. The warheads would be smaller that the tonnage dropped on Hiroshima. Small bombs, little or no atmospheric radiation.
There seems to be a certain irrational responce to tactical nuclear weapons. Getting blown to pieces by gunpowder, napalm, or heat and blast from a tactical nuke offer little difference. We should be more concerned with Russian technology nuclear power plants. When they explode, nothing can live in the area for centuries, and the radiation is released into the atmosphere. The Russians are bulding one of these in Iran.
posted on March 13, 2002 09:39:37 AM new"I'm still trying to figure out something about all this Bush bashing. You all don't really think that he invented the nuclear threat do you? Come on? Someone else made the damn thing - Why? To be used!!!!"
How about this for an answer: We've learned that the horror of having such weapons used has given the world a more enlightened point of view; that nations on earth should begin to limit their massive arsenals of nuclear weapons, then eliminate them all together eventually. This has been an ongoing since the 1970's starting with Nixon.
Now comes Bush and turns it all around, to the horror of Americans and the rest of the world. It's a brave new mistake on his part and will likely get him and his cronies into more hot water than they think is waiting for them.
posted on March 13, 2002 10:46:41 AM new
The MADD standoff with the USSR is largely past, but Bush wants heavy spending on ICBMs (whether out of nostalgia or as a preferred form of welfare). Therefore: must find somewhere to point them.
posted on March 13, 2002 01:52:57 PM new
Human rationale is strange. Supposedly there were 500,000 or more Iraqi children who died due to Sadam's reluctance to behave himself and stop diverting resources to weapons of mass destruction and the military.
Now Sadam is killing more children than any single weapon ever used, yet we still have people and nations that think we should just let him be.
Still others think that Iraq should be left alone and nuclear weapons should not be developed or used.
What it amounts to is that we should never do anything, and it is wrong to take lives when it will save many other innocent lives - perhaps even our very own.
posted on March 14, 2002 07:25:31 AM new
It depends on what you mean by "cost". Would I debate, for example, taking a few hundred thousand American casualties in lieu of Hiroshima and Nagasaki????? Not for a microsecond.
posted on March 14, 2002 07:48:22 AM new
We are not going to nuke anyone. There is a real concern that some fringe lunatic will somehow get a nuke and detonate it here. I am personally more concerned with the fact that our President Dubya can't properly pronounce the word "nuclear"! Yesterday he again mispronounced it several times as "nuculer".
