Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
socrates1fan wrote:
wisconsin_cur wrote:
bonehead wrote:
I can guarantee one thing,whoever starts it will say God's on their side and try to sensor the images of all the corpses.I believe in God but i piss on religion.
So if governments manipulate energy policy do you piss on all energy policy? If governments misuse nationalism, do you piss on your own love of country?
If a government misuses the currency, using rhetoric to sell a bad policy as if it were good, do you piss on your money?
Not saying there is not plenty in any religion to complain about, or that some might be more deserving of scorn than others, but to discount all religion because it is manipulated by government is like hating all white people because some are bigots or all black people because some commit crime or all Texans because most of them are oh never mind, you get the point.
Religion is not the only symbol or institution to be manipulated by government. It would seem to me the secular public school system is at least as culpable as religion. And given how little influence religion seems to have right now I would say we have a problem that religious institutions might be too weak rather than to strong.
I mean really, if the Anglicans came out against a war would it really matter? If the Baptists did, than the masses would leave that Baptist denomination. The catholics regularly denounce wars, does it matter?
Religion is often a scape goat, a windmill posing as a dragon. A slight of hand to keep people from questioning other sources of information and meaning which sell wars.
Why else would so many unreligious be supporting wars.
0_o
religion regardless of what it is, should not have any more power than the beliefs of people. It should not determine government choices or even what books kids are reading in school.
More faith and spirit less trying to make religion control everything.
It isn't the 1500's. The idea that people should not question the church and its sources of information lead to the very death of socrates and thousands of other people.
Throughout history there have been hundreds of wars started simply because of religious reasons so that pretty much destroyes your "Why else would so many unreligious be supporting wars.".
I don't know what it is you think that I said. But let me try again.
Religion means nothing in the west, it has no power. Look at the wars of the 20th century, caused by nationalism and non-religious idealogy. Yet every one points their finger at and is scared of religion. doesn't quite make sense if you ask me.
Religion is a scapegoat reinforces by the very uniformed ideas you just spewed. Yes religion is manipulated by the powers in order to support war but it is (in today's world) a very small player.
But hey, it is easier to kick a nearly dead horse than it is to do the hard thinking about what really does motivate people to go to war so if you want to feel good about yourself, blame religion, all religion. TPTB don't care. They will find another way to get you to support their 21st century war... and you won't notice because you will be too busy blaming religion for the 16th century.
Can we please live in the present? _________________ Nature is complete because it does not serve itself.
The sage places himself after and finds himself before,
Ignores his desire and finds himself content.
He is complete because he does not serve himself. -Lao Tze
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
evilgenius wrote:
I can see eventual nuclear war over control of the Middle East. I have been saying for a long time that what the US is doing, angling to carve out a swath of control, will eventually bring about confrontation with Russia.
i wondered, why didn't the US just keep buying the oil ? why was it necessary to park US troops in Iraq ?
to make sure Russia & China are denied access to Iraqi oil on their terms.
also, looking at the map, most of Iran's oil is in the Southeast, right next to Iraq. i wouldn't be surprised to see the US pursue a policy similar to what they are doing in Venezuela, to try & get the province that has the oil to break away & become "independent", where independent means, more controlled by the US.
Quote:
As for what the Russians will do, the US thinks they will lay down and take it because they will be afraid of annihilation. I think they will likely try to use a proxy to fight invading US ground forces in either Iraq or Iran. There is no way they will allow said proxy to have control of any nukes, but it would be easy enough to obfuscate the origins of a nuclear attack on invading US ground troops, however, should the balance of action make it necessary.
sounds like the Cold War. but warmer.
ALSO - the war in Iraq is already a nuclear war. the US has spread hundreds of tons of depleted uranium on the ground via depleted uranium munitions. since the US has an overwhelming firepower advantage, the tactical improvement offered by DU shells over lead shells is null.
why does the US use DU in Iraq ? it's consistent with a policy of population reduction in the region. turn the local population into a beleagured, bedraggled, coughing, wheezing shadow of its former self, and their ability to assert control over the oil is effectively eliminated.
if i could just learn how to spell 'beleagured' _________________ http://www.LASIK-Flap.com/ ~ Health Warning about LASIK Eye Surgery
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
pedalling_faster wrote:
(...)
ALSO - the war in Iraq is already a nuclear war. the US has spread hundreds of tons of depleted uranium on the ground via depleted uranium munitions. since the US has an overwhelming firepower advantage, the tactical improvement offered by DU shells over lead shells is null.
why does the US use DU in Iraq ? it's consistent with a policy of population reduction in the region. turn the local population into a beleagured, bedraggled, coughing, wheezing shadow of its former self, and their ability to assert control over the oil is effectively eliminated.
For lurkers too, can you post references?
The USA is the only country that have, and still uses, nuclear weapons in wars. I want to see this country die first and most painfully; it's karma.
pedalling_faster wrote:
if i could just learn how to spell 'beleagured'
google is your friend _________________ anagami.net
Joined: Jun 29, 2008 Posts: 82 Location: San Luis Obispo, CA / San Jose, CA
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:32 am Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
anagami, i take offense to what you have said. dont assume us americans are pro-nuclear war. its really not a fair statement to say that i deserve being annihalated by a nuclear weapon because my grandparents generation blew the crap out of japan....
Joined: May 27, 2008 Posts: 70 Location: middle of the USA
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:19 am Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
The first nuclear bomb the US dropped (on Hiroshima) very likely was a good call in that otherwise the US would almost certainly have had to mount a land invasion against Japan's home island, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.
The second bomb was quite a bit less defensible. The US could have waited a little bit longer for Japan to call it quits.
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 3748 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:41 am Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
pedalling_faster wrote:
why does the US use DU in Iraq ?
The US developed DU munitions for its strength. The toxicity was just shrugged off on the basis of the ends justify the means. OUR OWN TROOPS have suffered from DU exposure (Gulf War Syndrome) so believe me, this is not some kind of back-handed attempt at deliberate chemical warfare. It's just plain stupidity on the part of the armed forces along the lines of agent orange. Not the first and not the last.
pedalling_faster wrote:
it's consistent with a policy of population reduction in the region.
What policy would that be? _________________ Paranoia is demonstrated to be an infectious disease, and stupidity plus the internet its major vector.
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 3748 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:47 am Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
ReducedToZero wrote:
anagami, i take offense to what you have said. dont assume us americans are pro-nuclear war. its really not a fair statement to say that i deserve being annihalated by a nuclear weapon because my grandparents generation blew the crap out of japan....
...what karma do you study anyways?
That's the whole nature of war as the process of drawing a circle around countries, and putting its entire population on trial collectively based on a selective history of their government's sins. When the guilty verdict is in, you've now sufficiently rationalized total war. _________________ Paranoia is demonstrated to be an infectious disease, and stupidity plus the internet its major vector.
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4543 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:44 am Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
Yes, war is horrible. Nuclear weapons are a terrible scourge.
But sometimes we have to do horrible things in order to save lives.
The US invasion of Iraq gives you a pretty good idea of what a US invasion of Japan would have looked like.
Except there would have been millions of casualties on both sides. The country would have had to be razed to the ground. Reconstruction would have been nearly impossible and those that were left, would have been reduced to a medieval society.
I think President Truman made the right decision not only for the United States but for the Japanese people as well. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Joined: Jul 04, 2008 Posts: 181 Location: Europe: European Historian
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:54 am Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
OK, I often wonder..for those that say Nuke war won't happen...
Lets go back to 911
20 terrorist hit teh WTC and Pentagon..the USA goes to war with Afghan and Iraq..with public support due to this "and are still in both nations>
What do you all think if say a terror cell got ahold of one of the lost Russian suitcase nukes "1 kilotons" or even had a larger one say a 10 KT and set it off in say Tel Aviv or New York?
What would the USA and Israel do as a counter measure?
Me...I think someone would get blamed and that someone would get nuked "if today it happen likely Iran"..
Then who knows this could lead to a chain of events leading to out all nuclear war..
Joined: Jul 04, 2008 Posts: 181 Location: Europe: European Historian
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
Quote:
I think President Truman made the right decision not only for the United States but for the Japanese people as well.
Don't forget about the firebombing of the German cities on civilians also thats killed millions.
I'm sure had the German developed a few nukes "maybe even a large 100KT one' used them on Moscow, NY and London to end the war "to save lived' Today the Germans also would have said Hitler did the right thing to use those nukes.
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
Daphne64 wrote:
The first nuclear bomb the US dropped (on Hiroshima) very likely was a good call in that otherwise the US would almost certainly have had to mount a land invasion against Japan's home island, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.
There was another plan, namely to use a demonstration of the bomb's power by first dropping one on an uninhabited island. It was supported by many scientists.
That was rejected because the US was under time pressure due to the Soviet offensive in the Kuriles, and wanted to demonstrate its power to Russia as well as test the effects of the bomb on people.
At that point the US was already waging total war against Japan, complete with dropping incendiary bombs on all major and middling Japanese cities. Many more people died in the firebombing than in Hiroshima.
Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of Tokyo were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed. Richard Rhodes, historian, put deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million and homeless residents at a million. These casualty and damage figures could be low. Over 50% of Tokyo would be destroyed by the end of World War Two.
Japan did offer conditional surrender to the US for about 9 months before that -- they were scared that they would have to surrender to Russia. But the US refused since it would only accept unconditional surrender.
Visit the Nagasaki Museum if you ever have the chance.
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:29 am Post subject: Re: The Inevitability of Nuclear War
Daphne64 wrote:
The first nuclear bomb the US dropped (on Hiroshima) very likely was a good call in that otherwise the US would almost certainly have had to mount a land invasion against Japan's home island, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.
The second bomb was quite a bit less defensible. The US could have waited a little bit longer for Japan to call it quits.
There was going to be a land invasion had the bombs not been dropped. It was called operation Olympic, set for late 1945 followed by a second invasion called coronet in 1946.
Millions of lives were saved by dropping the bombs thus ending the war.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
oh never mind, 
