It is time to wake up America

As for earth penetrating nuclear warheads for bunkerbusting purposes: They are not really clean. They may be relatively small, but by detonating underground they contaminate huge amounts of soil, producing highly radioactive fallout (as can be seen in the Sedan Test, 635feet underground). More on that here (yes, BOC was faster ... ). I feel tempted to think that Lawrence Livermoore is running out of funds and tasks.

The most important problem is that of escalation: When you go to nuke terrorists they are going to do something on a similar scale. Found 9/11 outragous? When you nuke them they will top it. With that in mind IMO no sane person could seriously suggest that.

 

Y

Well, that is how they see it, and with this that they see as an invasion, I can't blame them. The U.S. might not go into the same "adventures" that European nations went to, but it did fight wars or proxy wars during the Cold War, and even after it, leading these people to think that the U.S. has more than just liberation as its goal. Also, with the U.S. dominating virtually all aspects of life in this world--economically, politically, militarily, socially, culturally, morally, religiously--it is a de facto empire. It's not officially proclaimed, but in all other respects it is almost an empire, if not actually. All it needs is to do something like what Bush did now, and you know that the reaction can be very angry.

 

For my earlier post...

It's not really the countries that you listed (Iraq and North Korea) but terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction from countries like that (Pakistan, Iran and perhaps China and probably North Korea. Not Iraq though). Once a terrorist gets a nuke it's ridiculously easy to get it into the country. You could put it in a container and float it into the ports of a city and detonate it remotely. You could fly a plane into the middle of a city and BOOM! I'm saying that it's a matter of time before that happens, although it's very difficult to get a nuke. We've already seen that terrorists are smart(hi-jacking three or more planes is no small feat).

 

I listed the countries of Iran and N. Korea because Bush had identified them as part of the "axis of evil." Thus, if there was a nuke attack they would probably be targeted in a big way. Just look at the way he went after Iraq - and they probably had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11 - after he had mentioned them as part of the axis of evil.

I'm sure he has plans for the other two, but I hope he has sense enough not to use nukes in anyway, shape or form. As Ragusa stated, things could escalate very quickly once nukes are involved.

NO NUKES!

 

If you're going to go nuclear, you all, you want the really big ones. 5megatons and above.

Back in the 60's, when we were scaling back our total number of warheads, there were a whole slew of physicists and engineers contracted in the meantime. With a single priority: make the arsenal more deadly.

And they did. They worked on boosting efficiency of each warhead (actual yield, not theoretical), and they worked on racking up higher kill ratios. Not only total dead, but within the shortest amount of time.

The answer was very small bombs. 100kilotonnes and under (you've heard them called "tatical" warheads). The reason?

Alpha emitters. You can hold a lump of Uranium (pick a flavor) in your hand, and it's really not all that radioactive compared to a reactor or bomb. You'll rack up several REMs per week, if you sleep with it.

But stand-by if you pulverize it to powder, and breathe it into your lungs. Just a single gram of that stuff will wipe you off the map within a week. You will, quite literally, bleed from every single oriface; not excluding your eyes, ears, lips, and anus.

So, the answer was spread around as much radioactive material as possible.

But with the really massive weapons, that radioactive material gets spread into the upper atmosphere and a much larger area. The residual radiation just isn't all that much. Hiroshima and Nakasagi (I can never spell them right) were nasty bombs; tiny little things that left the entire place clicking hot. Bikini Atoll, on the other hand, has people living on it right now. Time did a little article on it, here a couple of years ago.

But, of course, the problem with the big bombs is the crater. One good one will clear out any decent sized town. Sure, it's probably a good way to make a man-made lake in the middle of the desert; melting sand and forming a glass bottomed one would totally look cool. But people would get upset with the method.

On a related side note, I expect there to be Fun Gas relased in Baghdad. And, of course, it'll be the coalition that released it, killing hundreds of civilians.

 

While the US is not empire building per say alot of the promblems we have in the middle east seem to be caused by our constant interference in there goverments.

As an easy example look at Iran and Iraq.We supported the Shaw until he was over thrown and we switced sides to Iraq helping a new Saddam gain control of Iraq.The Shaw was good to the US but brutal to the people of Iran.

It is easy for me to understand why people in the mideast could be convinced to hate the US.Even if we do not invade and occupy countries,we often support an oppresive regime.I think this is where alot of the promblems stem from.

Certainly their are no easy solutions to this promblem but until we start trying to win peoples hearts and minds we will never win this "war".

 

Darkwolf

I may have a different perspective - North European, but I'm educated enough and old enough to have seen more than a little. I can remember most of the world events over the last 30 years and I've seen a lot of things going on our side of the pond which I doubt was given more than a cursory report in the States. Be that as it may, logic is logic regardless.

To chime in as to where we seem to have got to here: Why do the Arabs object (and they do, of that there is no doubt) to what is going on in Iraq even though Saddam is a monster?

Well, at least he is their monster which to some of them seems to make us worse. He's to a degree becoming a hero in the Arab world for fighting the agressors.

They do not trust the West to have their (the people's) best interest at heart. Our track record of propping up dictatorial regimes for our own benefit is a fairly well established tradition in the area. Unlike most of the African continent and also the main bulk of our old Far Eastern colonies have been more effectively returned to self government than the Middle East.

We left them high and dry in 1991. They rose up with the promise of help. What a complete F*** Up on our part. Now we ask them to trust us.

Why does this make the US more hated than Europe?

European countries have been returning former colonies to self determination for the best part of the last century. I know there is still the Commonwealth, but the members are not governed from London. We no longer see our sphere of influence as the world at large. This last statement is not true of US policies over the last 50 years.

The unwavering support for Israel against the Palestinians is the key though, as Ragusa said earlier. From this problem alone stems most of the mistrust of the US. It is not because the US support Israel per se, but because they see the West at large ignoring the plight of the Palestinians, the US are actively supporting the oppressor without properly questioning what is happening, or using their leverage with Israel to force the peace process forward.

The US must put pressure on Israel to move the process forward. Otherwise the Arab world will never see the American policies as anything but an extension of the Palestinian oppression.

 

@Chandos the Red

Sure... they (Iran and N.K.) would be attacked but if they didn't do it what's the point. Libya is becoming one of the most dangerous countries in the world because they're small and being overlooked. If a nuke was sold to a terrorist it could easily be flown into any western city and detonated. I doubt any terrorist cares about the consequences (take Osama for instance. He killed 3000 americans. How many Taliban members were killed in the reaction?).

 

Darkwolf please don't be so innocent. You seem to overlook the fact that USA has economical and political domination for many years now in central and south America. Is this not a domination;
As i said please don't believe me start searching for yourself the truth and yes action and reaction is a term from physics but it applies in human relationships as well and pretty much too.

And this story about the axis of evil isn't it strange but in this list are all the countries that they have a dispute with the US only not with the rest of the world. For example North Korea has a dispute with the US for the nuclear weapons program which the US don't want fulfilled while the N. Korean goverment wants it really bad. The US goverment does not want the rest of the world to have nukes because they say it's not safe for the global security. My question is what makes the USA safer than the other countries to have nukes;

The US goverment has foiled the ICBM agreement for the reduce of nuclear weapons worldwide forcing all the other nations to follow the agreement and increasing her own arsenal with more powerfull nukes. The US goverment has the half of the world pollution production and the agreement of Kyoto for the reduction of the pollution was not only rejected but President Bush declared the increase of production (and pollution unfortunately). Is this behavior of a country that want to get along with the rest of the world or the behaviour of a regime;

And Viking have ever considered that these oil riches are not given in the people of the country but it is splitted between the goverment and the oil company that exploits the oil well; The Europe had her share in world's resources abuse and now she appears to have grown up but the US is a youngster in compare with the European nations and now is passing through her puberty with all the known symptoms. It would not matter but the USA has the power and the means to enforce her will throughout the world and that's not very good for the obvious reasons.

And as for the implantantion of a goverment it won't succeed because the US goverment is disregarding a very important factor: History. There is to much blood and pain to have such an easy solution in this region. And there is no problem with the geopolitical ideas there is a problem with the cultural and religious ethics. I don't expect you to understand but there is a big difference in how you live your life and how they live theirs. Please respect that fact, if you don't respect it you are causing more trouble than you can imagine.

And Bin Laden is an extreme example of fondamentalism but you must know that he is a hero for the big majority of the Muslim world (this is a big problem) and he was made (CIA has educated him and supported him during the Russian invasion in Afganistan) by the US like Saddam Husein.

And now USA is hunting them down saying that they are the two most dangerous people in the world. YES they are but who made them so dangerous; Please answer this to me

[ April 07, 2003, 15:37: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

 

oohh... shut up Darkwolf..
nazi!!

stupid chicken.....

[If you have nothing to say other than personal attacks, don't post - BTA]

[ April 07, 2003, 17:33: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

I've scanned through your post, and you make a lot of different points.

Please break your posts down into paragraphs so we're able to read them and understand your points better.

This is simply not true, since this is down to the global non-proliferation treaty under the auspices of the UN. This is not an American idea, it's a UN idea, and the treaty had 187 signatories (2002) out of 191 UN members. Here is the latest review from the UN The treaty has been in force since 1970.

Thus North Korea has a dispute with about 99% of the members of the UN who feels that the proliferation of nuclear wepons is a threat to the global security, not with the US.

This doesn't even warrant comment other than to say that you really need to some background reading before you start down this road.

Can you back up the half of the worlds polution statement?

I agree it is indeed short sighted and isolationist of the US government not to sign up to the Kyoto agreement.

It sure is, I and sure have, and this is truly irrelevant. Of course there is a cost related to pumping the black stuff out of the ground. So? What does that have to with the fact that the governments do not invest the vast resource into the infrastructure of their country? I'm sure for example Saddam needs some 46 palaces dotted around the country?

You would be very surprised at how much we are able to understand, and I do know that such statements as "I do not expect you to understand" is a cover for not being able to coherently argue the case in point. Do not presume, build your argument.

Again this is simply not factual. After 9/11 the condemnation was not only widespread, it was almost universal including the Arab world. You see, this is not how most Muslims see their religion, and most of them found the actions as repugnant as we did. As you say - this is an extreme example of fundamentalism. Do not confuse this with your average Muslim.

 

Viking rode:

Well, it is actually an idea from the US, the UK and the USSR. http://disarmament.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf

And I think it's ok and I am very happy that so many nations signed that treaty, because blowing up the world to kingdom come is, imho, a pretty stupid Idea.

But I think Mithrantir brings up 2 intersting points:

1. The US (and the UK) on one side says, that it feels not bound to UN-treaties itself (Prohibition of war of aggression), on the other hand preaches to other nations, they should feel bound to UN treaties.

2. The UK, USSR and USA in the 60's targeted, I think, mainly India, Pakistan and China. Which are nuclear powers now. I can only speculate, but did they maybe feel threatend by the growing power of China and India ? And should India and China not have the same right (as huge and powerful countries) to have nuclear weapons like other countries too ?

And should people in Asia not feel generally confused by the fact, that 3 nuclear powers tell them: "thou shall not be nuclear powers".

(and by the way, France was at time a nuclear power too, where are they ?)

[ April 07, 2003, 15:19: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Yes, under the auspicies of the U.N., courtesy of the U.S. Darkwolf does have a point here. Though it would also be helpful to know that as far as most people of the world goes, North Korea would be quietly going about its way if not for the soundbites from Bush.

It simply means this: the war isn't about "liberation" or "freedom" but about profit margins and big revenues taken from oil. Simply put, Bush is out to please his oil magnate backers, not really into the welfare of the Iraqis.

If that were so, then the very first thing America should've done was to avoid this war at all costs, not stir up a hornet's nest by actually violating the sensitivities of Middle Eastern inhabitants, who are just as spoiling to get back at the U.S.

Though quite true, more and more Muslins are beginning to doubt if that's what it all really is, or if Bin Laden is becoming more of a martyr. Certainly his actions warrant that he must be captured, but the way Bush went (bombing Afghanistan and now Iraq) does little to endear him or America to people in the Middle East. The suspicion is always there, and Bush instead of dispelling it only makes it more pronounced.

In the end, the real winner in this is...extremists on both sides, whether Muslim or Christian. Both factions want to eliminate the other, and with each act Bush is coming closer to blowing up a very volatile powder keg. Should he attack Iran, which seems likely, I am not sure if that keg could still be contained, or if a very large backlash on America will come. As they say, it's been long in coming.

 

I liked the article that started this piece simply because it makes one point clear -- the attacks have been going on for a long time. Now, American foreign policy may not be perfect -- far from it -- but despite its flaws it isn't that bad., The only question I have is this: do the Americans allow themselves to be bullied? Or do they fight back. Concessions made to terrorists do not stop the attacks; they only increase them -- if you give a mouse a cookie . . . .

Concessions do not work with these radicals. Sad but true.

 

Just because we are the victims of terrorists doesn't mean that we should behave like terrorists. If we say and believe that we have principles, then we must apply those principles as well.

Bringing death and suffering to an entire population, to root out a single madman and his two sons, is not a principled approach to the problem. Have you seen the pictures from Iraq? Some may say, "Oh well, we expected a degree of collateral damage anyway" But if it is your wife or child who is dead as a result, then the damage may not seem so small.

Saddam needed to go and I, for one, am glad he is gone, but we did not have to make an entire country's population pay the price. There are many who feel that a diplomatic approach could have solved the problem with much less innocent bloodshed and destruction. But then we may never have had the chance to occupy an oil-rich country in the Middle East again. I guess the opportuntiy was too much for the Bush administration to pass up.

 

Remember that it took more than a quarter of a century to disarm both the U.S. and USSR during the Cold War, and it never worked. If the thinking then had been that since diplomacy never worked anyway--both sides making a large charade of it all--then where are we by now? This seems to be lost among those who wanted this war with Iraq, making this excuse of "we tried diplomacy for 12 or so years..." Well, the world tried to be diplomatic to both the U.S. and USSR for twice more than that.

 

BTA, would you stop that America-Bashing ?

BTA, the problem is, the same "experts" in Washingtion that figured the boycott strategy out and advised the Goverment with what kind of diplomacy it has to handle Iraq, are advicing the Goverment now how to "rebuild iraq and make it democratic".

Hey, the US is a influencial member of the security council, if you talk about UN-Actions that need security council approval, you talk to 80 % about Actions that were US-proposals. And the boycott was a US-proposal. They couldn't let go of good old "containment".

The Bush Sr. administration thaught they had managed too come up with a smart plan to remove the regime. Starvation, they thaught, would lead to a upheavel. Well, let's just say, starting with doublecrossing the shiites in the south of Iraq was just not the smartest first step to begin with.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/containment.stm

So, if you want to critize someone, go to right right adress, Madleine Albright in this case, cause she continued the Bush Sr. policy.

In the end, it don't surprise me at all, that the US plans aren't too convincing to anyone (outside the US, that is). (hm, if they were convincing, many nations would be on board. They just don't like to invest their ressources into projects, which they expect to fail.)

And Blair is triying to convince Bush in Belfast to change to the british line of thought. I think he will fail.

[ April 08, 2003, 11:34: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

The contamination of Iraq only managed to kill more children and generally people because of lack of medical and food supplies. But for weapons not biological and chemicals it did worked as we see so far. Have the invasion force found anything; no. Therefore there was no reason of disarmament as the US claimed. I agree that Saddam Husein should be removed but from his own people not an outsider. And for diplomacy it could have worked and remember that noone tried to solve anything diplomatically these 12 years. The security council (USA just issued a decision and was waiting for the outcome.

Now that there was a need for profits they remembered the poor Iraqi people and their unhappiness with the current regime. Did anyone asked the Iraqi people; Who cares about them we want the oil and oil we'll get. That's the real thought behind the whole sharade. And one could ask why didn't the Bush administration just asked for the oil; Because Saddam would never had given it to the USA.

And these idealistic blah blah is just for cover to the US citizens who by the way eat tonns of propaganda about the need for democracy worldwide and they cannot see that they don't live under one themselves.

Today i heard in the radio an interview of the US embassador in Greece. The journalist asked how he felt seeing everyday outside the embassy a demostration against the war and how he faces the fact that in Greece the 95% of the people are against the war. His answer: In USA the 75% of the people are for the war and we are a democracy because we allow the 25% to be against. WOW what an outopistic democracy. Pericles would have died of jealousness for this perfect democracy that has the decency to ALLOW her people to have a different opinion. That's it because i'm in a hurry.