Is War Inevitable?

[LivingLife]

Stryper, I had a quick squiz at the bill but how is this diplomacy really gonna work?

 

You are aware SA did have Nukes and that happened in a time of sanctions. How do you prevent Iran from simply buying the stuff and assembling it piecemeal if that was their desire? You cannot. If they really wanted nukes, they would already have them. This "fear™" has been around quite some time. Maybe wanting to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes like a Nuke power station they are "environment conscious"

 

With their Israel "sworn enemies" (ignoring the sizeable Jewish population in Iran) having their own nukes, there is no way in hell they will strike first. Nukes are just deterrents and amounts to a Mexican stand off if enemies are aware MAD exists. It is pretty hard to believe a culture so old will simply go ape shit and throw caution to the wind. Perhaps unseating the Sha of Iran/Persia did not play out the way the US wanted it (going from memory here) and now this other regime having given the finger to the US and the Brits has some folk pissed off.

 

I really hope if things hot up that Russia will start issuing ultimatums too, this is after all on their doorstep. Didn't we see a short lived Georgia incident not to long ago with the Russians involved?

 

There is a big difference sending US troops to fight camel herders versus a well trained army from Russia and to throw a bit of history in here, the ZIPRA forces in Zimbabwe were trained in Russia and the gooks we feared the most as they stood their ground and fought as opposed to the other one trained in China.

 

This is probably just dick waving going on to rile up the masses and of course it is election season.

 

We saw this same rhetoric in the cold war and nothing came of that, no one pushed the button and the fact that Russia sent missiles to Cuba kinda put the US in their place, a good cock block.

 

Perhaps the transatlantic carrier pigeon bearing the news that the cold war is over also died en route

 

How many away war games have the US lost? All of them. Home advantage helps when the crowd cheers you on if you get my simile...

 

In my rant on the threat of sanctions on SA, there were countries exempt from this threat and those w/o looking them up are ones that the US cannot control using wall street.

 

US sentiment worldwide IMO is not very high at this juncture and trying to brand Iranians as the bad guys is really not going to work. The world has moved on since Gulf1.0 (which was a justified police action)

 

Its all about the

 

OIL

[Vigile]

The 800lb gorilla in the room is, is the US willing/able to stop every country from getting nukes as the technology becomes more and more widespread? (it's the rockets that are the tough ones btw, not the nukes. Nukes are easy.) The other 800lb gorilla is, is the US any more responsible with its nukes than any other country is/might be? Why?

 

I don't buy this nuke argument. It's just an excuse for an ongoing agenda in the ME.

[LivingLife]

What did Saddam do with his scuds? He fired them at Israel in retaliation. The scud is pretty much still the V2 of WWII and that rocket is also not too hard to make. You do not even need nukes, biological weapons work just as well. What about the low nuke shells the US used in Iraq, I forget the details but pretty much a dirty weapon too leaving radiation poisoning as an aftermath?

 

The US are no angels when it comes to exotic weapons and the only ones to use nukes against humans, some legacy...

[Vigile]

and that rocket is also not too hard to make.

 

I should have clarified. An accurate rocket is very difficult to make. When I was in university, only France, US, China and Germany IIRC had the scientists and the labs to build an accurate rocket. I don't know where it stands today, but I doubt much has changed here.

[LivingLife]

I know what you meant hence the Scud reference, that flew till the fuel was up and fell detonating whatever. When you have a Nuke or bio-weapon on board, you really do not have to be that accurate.

 

But I share your sentiments that this nuke crap is merely and excuse.

[Vigile]

I forgot Russia.

[Thurisaz]

...it's the rockets that are the tough ones btw, not the nukes. Nukes are easy...

 

Slight disagreement pal.

 

Piling up a critical mass of the unstable element of your choice is easy. Getting the maximum BOOM out of it so that the beginning chain reaction doesn't blow apart the stuff too quickly is another thing (it happened in FuckUshima for example... a number of neutron radiation pulses were measured, hinting at critical masses disassembling themselves again). I'm not an engineer but as far as I know, that part isn't easy at all.

 

Aside from that, though, no contest

[Vigile]

...it's the rockets that are the tough ones btw, not the nukes. Nukes are easy...

 

Slight disagreement pal.

 

Piling up a critical mass of the unstable element of your choice is easy. Getting the maximum BOOM out of it so that the beginning chain reaction doesn't blow apart the stuff too quickly is another thing (it happened in FuckUshima for example... a number of neutron radiation pulses were measured, hinting at critical masses disassembling themselves again). I'm not an engineer but as far as I know, that part isn't easy at all.

 

Aside from that, though, no contest

 

Relatively easy, not easy. Relative to building a rocket that hits its programmed destination hundreds or thousands of miles away. At least that's what my old professor claimed.

 

The other challenge most nations have is getting their hands on processed, weapons grade plutonium. Uranium is pretty much everywhere, but weapons grade plutonium is pretty much all accounted for in the world and requires what most nations don't have. This is why fears were that Hussein would make his SCUDs into dirty bombs, not serious nukes.

 

Both of these issues are no doubt primary to the fact that it takes nations like Iran decades to build nuclear weapons programs, not weeks or months.

[Ouroboros]

I don't buy this nuke argument. It's just an excuse for an ongoing agenda in the ME.

The agenda is spelled "empire."

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

The United States actually has been responsible with its nukes, there would have been more deaths if we didn't drop them the only 2 times we did.

[Vigile]

I don't buy this nuke argument. It's just an excuse for an ongoing agenda in the ME.

The agenda is spelled "empire."

 

Yup. Colonialism is no longer economically viable or necessary as we know free trade amongst countries creates a comparative advantage and the economic pie expands, as opposed to being a zero sum game whose slices need to be fought for. However, commodities, including oil, are zero sum, so the old methods of trying to steal your neighbor's slice are still alive and well and the powerful, as they have always done throughout history, seek to take the slices of the less powerful.

[Vigile]

The United States actually has been responsible with its nukes, there would have been more deaths if we didn't drop them the only 2 times we did.

 

That's the argument they made. The burden remains on those making the claim to prove it. I call bs.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_NagasakiIn

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

^[86]

^[87]

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,^[88][89] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),^[87] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.^[90]

^]

 

 

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.^[80] "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.^[91]

 

Moreover, Cheney was urging the use of nuclear bunker busters in Iraq, but was shot down as cooler minds prevailed. Certain elements in the US, including those in power, can and will be irresponsible with nukes and will always seek to justify their use given the right set of circumstances.

[Vigile]

More...

 

 

http://www.fff.org/c...nt/com0408b.asp

Having Imperial Japan surrender, even if a worthy goal, was nevertheless a political one, and the targeting of innocents to achieve that goal was an act of terrorism.

Indeed, it was terrorism on an incredibly large scale. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese were instantaneously wiped off the earth on August 6 and August 9, 1945. Many more died in the following years from the radioactive climate left behind by the bombings.

So the questions remain: Was this a case where terrorism was justified? Can there be other circumstances where the overt targeting of civilians can be justified, so as to bring about a greater good?

 

 

In the case of Hiroshima, no substantive evidence exists that the bombing was “necessary” to make Japan surrender. In fact, the Japanese had already attempted to sue for peace in July and were only hesitant because they distrusted the terms of unconditional surrender that the Allies demanded. They specifically wanted to keep their emperor, which, after the atomic bombings, they were allowed to, anyway. The military estimated before Hiroshima that invasion would cost as many as 20,000 American lives, but not nearly the half million lives that Truman later claimed had been the estimate. Even without invasion, Japan was utterly defeated by the war and U.S. blockades prevented the island nation from getting the necessary food to survive, much less maintain any type of threat against America.

 

The lesson here is to question the claims your government makes. They have an agenda and will attempt to justify their agenda. This is vitally important to remember as the government once again levels claims in order to justify yet another invasion.

[LivingLife]

Thanks for posting the truth Virgile. It really amazes me that folk in the US have this concept that nukes were justified. The "good" thing that came from nukes was of course it pretty much put paid to anyone hell bent on world domination as now a nation could be attacked from far away.

 

There was a op ed site I visited some years ago and this guy used to work for BP and shared some eye opening stories. (His surname was Vegelis or something like that)

 

One of these the reason why The US does not use their carrier fleet in the Red sea and Med as an offensive tactic. The Russians have a missile that the US have no counter measures against as it travels at Mach 4ish and about 25 feet above the sea. It can be launched from the air, land or sea and really does not even need a warhead. The kinetic energy released would be enough to sink or render a carrier useless. The Chinese navy have these too. The range is quite far and has all the homing and target ID shit.

 

The US navy developed this new type of "gattling" gun firing 0.5 cal rounds. It is a box shaped thing with about 30-40 barrels and the munitions are pre-loaded like one after the other in the barrel and electrically ignited. It is almost a use once weapon and once initiated discharges everything in a second or so. This was as I understand the only hope of defeating the Rusky missile showering it with as much shit as possible. ( I wish I kept the link and the notes I had, the guy is dead now and there are still some mirror sites around)

 

I am sure the US have similar missiles but no one else is really putting out to sea that they can shoot the stuff at.

 

No one will survive an all out nuke war. The fall out will eventually spread around the globe and the distant countries folk will die of radiation poisoning - The Beach movie kinda illustrates this rather well. That would also include much of the wildlife we know today. A nuke war will make the earth a barren uninhabitable planet.

 

If there are survivors, they probably will not be able to breed, one need only look at the effects of RP on newborns and the deformaties

 

Birth Deformities due to Radiation Poisoning Pick a link and learn

 

 

This is only depleted uranium shells the US used in Iraq - These pics should show the sick fucktards cheering on a Nuke war in the ME the end results for humanity.

 

There will be no millennial reign just a slow dying out of all humanity INCLUDING AMERICANS.

 

This is one of few things that piss me off intensely

 

 

Another interesting factoid this guy stumbled upon was the whole anti smoking campaign that came about in the 50's, a time when the US were detonating and testing nukes like crazy in the Pacific. An Indonesian island where the percentage of the population were mostly smokers, the incidence of lung cancer among non smokers were higher than for smokers. This was linked to a lab study where lab rats were being exposed to radiation and cigarette smoke. Somehow the smoker rats escaped and got in with the nuke rats and they outlived the nuke rats and then tests were carried out and the smoker rats did not seem to develop lung cancer.

 

The anti smoker campaigns of the 50's and 60's showing black lungs was false info as they used a dead coal miner's lungs for the "smoker's lungs".

 

The hypothesis was that the smallest of radioactive particles, when it enters the lung, it adheres to the wall of the lung and never gets out. Smoking causes some flem lining and the particle cannot adhere and gets coughed or exhaled out. The sudden high incidence of lung cancer had to be explained and the tobacco industry took the knock. The real culprit was the prolific nuke tests and the subsequent fall out.

 

Smoking does not cause cancer pick a link and decide for yourself.

 

I am not advocating smoking, I wish I never started when I was 8 years old but tests I had in my late 30's showed a clean bill of health and squeaky clean lungs, of course I am only a 15-20 per day all my life, I have been smoking for 46 years.

 

Things that make you go hmmmmmm....