How About a Nice Game of Global Thermonuclear War? 1859
Loconut1389 writes "According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon has a revised doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks would give the president the authority for a preemptive nuclear strike. I would hope that this is a move designed to say we mean business and then never use it, but the means is there for mutual assured destruction."
Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:4, Interesting)
The preemptive strike on Iraq has been a disaster. If I didn't like the president I think now at his lowest hour would be the right time to try and push something through like this.
Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, then, isn't it a good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Me? Cynical?)
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that was exactly the reason why the whole "We have the right to nuke the adverse party if we believe they are going to use WMD on us" clause. We have just shown the whole world that we do not need one teeeny bit of evidence, or even a somewhat-reliable intelligence to declare that someone has WMD and is ready to use it against us. In essense, "WMD" is the keyword that can be applied to anybody (if you read the draft, that includes states and non-states alike), and that gives the president the power to just nuke the heck out of whoever he pleases.
So, what do we have here? 1, We have shown resolve to go to war even if the rest of the world vehemently opposes it, and do so, essentially, unilaterally (the forces in Iraq are multinational on paper only, just look at the numbers!). 2, We have shown that WMD is carte blanche of sort, and justifies any means. 3, We have labelled certain nations as supporters of terrorists, and labelled terrorists as wanting to use WMD on us. 4, We are putting the legal framework in place to avoid silly Congress from disagreeing with the president over going to war. 5, By using nukes we ensure that we'd be doing a "precision strike" and avoid the whole mess with a lengthy occupation, etc, making such a war very inexpensive indeed. Except for the international backlash, but we have shown by now that cullies cannot care less about international opinion.
Now, if you were a nation that was laballed as a supporter of terrorism, what's there to guarantee that you won't be nuked the day after such a draft becomes a law? I think this is a very deliberate message -- we have a big red button, and we have one person, the president, who can push it if he is in a bad mood, and he's pushed similar buttons before. Live in PHEAR!
Eveyone knows that we cannot afford to start another war. That's why both Iran and North Korea can happily ignore what we say and do as they please. This draft changes that. We can still threaten them very effectively, and can afford it as well. Very, very dirty move. On par with our friendly Unix vendor, SCO.
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the obvious thought process goes something vaguely like this:
"Ya see, we've got this big behemoth that is trying to tell us what to do, and they've recently shown that they aren't afraid to invade other countries, and they've made it abundantly clear that they consider us part of their "axis of evil," right there in the same category as the other countries they have invaded. They're totally fucking crazy, you know - they're the only country to have ever used a nuclear weapon on another country, and they've done it twice. Now they're posturing against us, pointing their nukes around the planet willy-nilly, and we've gotta defend ourselves. Now, we all know the concept of mutually assured destruction - it would be insane to attack a nuclear power using nuclear weapons, because nobody can win. They have nukes. We don't. They're pointing their nukes at us. We better hurry."
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
InnerWeb
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, of course I'd rather have a public that either takes the time to inform itself, or admits when it doesn't know. Who wouldn't?
Pre-emptive strikes... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pre-emptive strikes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think I speak for a lot of people when I say. (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is wrong with our government?!?!?
In a democracy, people get the government they deserve. It is the responsibility of USA citizens to stop the madman in the Whitehouse. If you do not, you are part of the problem. As things stand, the majority of USA citizens that can be bothered to vote want Bush. You guys had the ability to kick him out of office last year, and you didn't. He represents you. Your fault. Do something about it.
Re:I think I speak for a lot of people when I say. (Score:4, Insightful)
And in other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And in other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you read anything by Michio Kaku?
He's a genius.. one of his theories is that all planets with intelligent beings on them can be categorized into a few distinct categories..
Category 0 = primitive, burn fossil fuels
Category 1 = Planetary, get energy from planet, can control the weather, usually formed a world government by then
Category 2 = Move on to using our local star as our source of energy.
Category 3 = Galactic civilization. Huge, impossible to kill off with 'natural' causes, highly advanced most likely.
He states that he believes most category 0 civilizations (Which we are) never make it to category 1 because of the rise of U235 and the inevitable invention of the nuclear weapon.
Re:And in other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
His is a genius, as I said. And he puts things in a very eloquent... non-physicist sort of way.
His Homepage [mkaku.org]
And here's an article [mkaku.org] about the things I just talked about.
I'd also recommend his book Hyperspace.
Re:And in other news... (Score:5, Informative)
The reality, of course, is that the movement from one stage to the next will not be a series of discrete jumps, but rather a blurry escalation in capability. We will have started to move out into the solar system long before we can use all the energy available to us on Earth, and we will have started to move out into the rest of the galaxy long before we have completely and utterly transformed the resources of our solar system. Good of Kaku to promote the idea, though the world government stuff sounds way too hippy (not to mention being a very bad idea--if said unified government should turn despotic, there'll be no Berlin Wall to flee over).
I believe you meant... (Score:5, Funny)
And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, since W's administration doesn't seem to think the Constitution is worth the paper it's printed on, this won't stop them.
And Congress doesn't seem to hold it in any higher regard these days. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, not the power to issue an "authorization of force".
Re:And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the Constitution - the only ones who can enforce that are the Supreme Court Justices. Guess who GWB gets to pick two of? Oh, and before the Supreme Court can hear a Constitutional issue of this kind, it has to be brought to a lower court BY the Federal Government -and- it has to be within the jurisdiction of the courts.
(Why do you think the people out at Gitmo are being denied access to the US courts? Because if they DID have access, and DID get heard by the Supreme Court, and DID prove a Constitutional violation in the War on Terror, then the whole of GWB's government collapses. By denying access, the Supreme Court is powerless to intervene, no matter what the Justices happen to think on the issue.)
You are entirely correct (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, not very much. Not all prisoners will ever be given the opportunity for a review - the Pentagon has already said as much and has said that it expects some to remain prisoners for life with no possibility of any court review, even on an internal level.
Those who have been "processed" have been denied knowledge of the charges against them or the evidence against them. Indeed, nobody other than the top brass and the judges themselves know if any charges or evidence even exists in these cases. That falls a bit short of a right to a hearing.
Nor have any of those "processed" been allowed to bring witnesses of any kind, challenge testimony presented, challenge the impartiality of any of the tribunal, or carry out any kind of investigative process whatsoever. They can't even question any hearsay the DoD wishes to use as "evidence".
I'm from England, and I know English history pretty well. England had a time like that, under the ruthless dictates of King John, where any person could be arrested on suspicion of an unspecified crime, on the basis of the accuser's uncorroborated "eyewitness testimony". So horrified did England become that it rose up in rebellion and demanded a written constitution (the Magna Carta).
America has a written constitution - although GWB tends to ignore it, and it hasn't been (for the most part) American citizens who have suffered - although there are exceptions. In consequence, there is virtually no chance of any kind of revolt against abuses of power. Nobody who is in a position to has enough to lose or enough to gain. Those who do - well, they're just labelled terrorists and carpet-bombed.
The whole "war on terror" is one huge unholy mess. Hey, fighting terrorism is a good idea, but you can't fight terrorism with the weapons of terror. You've got to use other methods, where at all possible. The problem is, GWB has no interest in "other methods", which makes me think that he is more interested in the fighting than in the resolving.
Re:You are entirely correct (Score:4, Insightful)
You mispelled "a group of privileged nobles".
One rule of pretty much every government: keep your freinds close, and your enemies closer. John treated his barons like crap. How else did he think he was going to hold onto power?
At least Bush keeps his barons fat and happy. When you've got that, the Constitution doesn't really mean jack shit.
Re:You are entirely correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? Because you don't want to?
Either they drop their weapons and live a peacefull life,
Frankly unlikely given the provocation you're dishing out.
or we hunt them down in their neighborhood
Great. When does that start? Oh wait...
Given that plan seems to be a miserable failure I guess you should start thinking "outside the box". Maybe slowing down on the provocation and speeding up on the reconciliation might be helpful. Sure I don't expect Bin Laden to just shake hands and walk away, but he's only one man, and Al Quaeda is just a few. If you get the rest of the Islamic world on your side, they'll be trivially easy to defeat. But your current course of action is doing the exact opposite. It's a war that can never be won.
It would seem the UK is just now starting to realise this at a personal level
What? The UK has been living with terrorism for years (strangely enough, mainly funded out of the US). We know what it is, we know how to continue living our lives without running around like scared kids with machine guns.
And if I say so myself, they executed a response much more quickly and efficiently then our government in the US.
Indeed we did. The police found and arrested those responsible (well, those who didn't blow themselves up), and those who assisted them. They will be subject to criminal trial through the justice system. They will not be sent to a torture camp, the evidence will not be fabricated and we will not invade anywhere. We'll deal with them like we deal with all criminals.
the Pentagon should be taking notes from the UK
Finally we agree on something.
Re:And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Preemptive Impeachment (Score:5, Insightful)
Err... anything else dumb.
What's that? We had that opportunity? November 2004, you say? Oops.
Re:Preemptive Impeachment (Score:4, Insightful)
Misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
The president already has the authority to launch a pre-emptive strike.* What the article is about is a new policy statement by the US (i.e. an international "FYI") about when the president will haul off and nuke something
*This, like the policy discussed in the article, depends on the situation being one where the President doesn't have to wait for Congress to declare war.
Pre-emption a severe move with these weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pre-emption a severe move with these weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that you lower the threshold for their use and there's almost no upper limit for escalation. When in 50 years the United Parishes of Jesusland and the Berkeley Socialist Republic decide to duke it out and suddenly one side starts to flatten the cities of the other with thermonuclear warheads in the 100MT+ range then everyone else is gonna jump on those bastards and use the opportunity to nuke all their other enemies too. Chances are they're gonna have some inhibitions to become the reason for the end of the human race.
With new low yield, low radiation nukes the danger is that the UPJ use a bunker buster the BSR retaliates with a tactical nuke against troop concentrations the UPJ then uses one against dug-in defenders in a city the BSR starts using H-bombs against industrial installation and after that both simply nuke everything. Humans generally don't like to take that first big step but a dozen smaller ones seem easier.
It's OK... (Score:5, Funny)
You think this is some sort of game?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You think this is some sort of game?! (Score:5, Interesting)
History (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:History (Score:4, Insightful)
Republican obsession with the Nuclear Option (Score:5, Funny)
Terrorism forces us into a no win situation (Score:4, Insightful)
What do we do, aside from wringing our hands and saying we can't kill large number of civilians to fight terrorism? The terrorists bomb us, tens of thousands of Americans or Brits or French or Japanese, etc. die. No massive response against the popular terrorists' home base. The result is a population that sees the attacked country/ethnic/religious group as weak, vulnerable and in the case of Islamic terrorism, which is the majority of terrorism today, it is a "sign from Allah that the enemy is going to lose."
So we don't nuke Riyadh and kill a bunch of the people who gave their moral support to the enemy. This is the best option we have short of getting ourselves either into a guerrilla war or just letting the enemy kill us. And here's something that the hand-wringing pacifists will never accept: our enemy knows us and hates us. People who are as dedicated toward killing you as most terrorists are cannot and will not be reasoned with or otherwise be converted to liking you. Either they die, or you and your children die because after you're dead, chances are damn good they'll kill every last one of yours that they can get ahold of.
We have to kill people who even just strongly SUPPORT terrorism overseas if we can to drive home the point we are serious. If we don't, then many of those people will be saying "sign me up" right after the American paper tiger has been defanged by the "martyrs." The Iranian government is already openly boasting that we are weak and totally exposed thanks to our blithering idiots in government from Nagin to Blanco to Bush to almost all of the bureaucrats in between.
The threat is real, and it can indeed be better solved through the threat of military force, especially mass destruction by nuclear weapons. In 1992, the only way we were able to keep Saddam from hitting us and the Israelis with bio weapons was we told him we were prepared to fire off a few of our nuclear weapons against Iraq.
It really does suck that we are pushed to this point, but how else are we going to intimidate the governments and populations that would whole-heartedly jump into the terrorism game? Huh? I'd like to see some serious proposals that don't revolve around us sacrificing all of our rights and sending massive amounts of aid to these groups on a regular basis like some sort of tribute in exchange for not bombing us. And let's cut the bullshit. The Muslim terrorists whine and bitch and moan not just about the fact that we support Israel and have/had troops on their holy grounds, but that *gasp* Spain is actually ruled today by the Spanish and not those imperialist Moores. Repeat the same claims about Greece, Romania, a few other countries in Europe occupied by the Ottomans, India and well... you get the idea. Pretty much any country where the non-Muslims gave their Muslim overlords a swift kick in the ass right out the door.
Blame the enemy, not us. Most Americans do not want to rule the world. Hell, most Americans would really be happy if the rest of the world would just leave us alone and we could get our government to reciprocate to them. But I can say this, as much of an isolationist, live-and-let-live southerner as I am, if my girlfriend and our families were killed in the Northern Virginia area by an Al Qaeda nuclear weapon, I wouldn't care about freedom of speech or conscience in Saudi Arabia. Like many, I'd support anyone who would drive a nuclear bomb right into the middle of those fuckers dancing in the streets celebrating "The Great Satan(tm)" getting nuked.
For the love of God, terrorism is about slaughtering women and children. It is a low-key form of genocide and is beyond mere criminality. A population that supports it and encourages it doesn't deserve to be let off the hook when it unleashes that on another group.
Re:Terrorism forces us into a no win situation (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I understand why so many Americans need shrinks...
Do you realize how scared, you as a nation, are?
Seems like many people are scared of "What goes around, comes around" problem.
Blame the enemy, not us. Most Americans do not want to rule the world. Hell, most Americans would really be happy if the rest of the world would just leave us alone and we could get our government to reciprocate to them.
You *really* need a shrink.
Most of the world would be happy if Americans left THEM alone. You seem to have problems with understanding things, since noone is bothering USA - it's the other way around.
Hell, USA bombed me in 1999 and you're telling me that you want to be left alone?!?
Right. So, you bully people all over the world, and come back later with "Blame the enemy, not us".
So logical, how come I didn't think of it?
As a sidenote - I wonder how noone realized (in writing
It's always about the money people, not the moral or right/wrong...
Re:Terrorism forces us into a no win situation (Score:5, Insightful)
What do we do, aside from wringing our hands and saying we can't kill large number of civilians to fight terrorism?
I'll tell you what we do:
We give them what they want! We get the fuck out of Saudi Arabia!
Trust me on this one. I know it's romantic to say "Never give in to terrorists", and all that, but I know what I'm talking about. I do actually hold a recent degree in History, and I did take several courses on the History of the Middle East, including a 2 semester sequence on Middle East history, and an in-depth study of The Arab-Israeli conflict. I've studied the history; I've read the origional source documents and researched the events. I've debated the merits of several systems of governance in post-Saddam Iraq.
What we're not doing, because we're typical American blowhards, is we're not listening to what the terrorists are saying. If we're going to bomb them, and arrest them, and occupy their land, as if they were a country, then we ought to at least find out what they want.
What Osama Bin Ladin wants is what the vast majority of Muslims (especially Sunnis) want: The U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. After Gulf War I, we never left. This is sacreligious to most Muslims - they take the sacredness of the land much more seriously than we do. It would be akin to Russia building a military base on an Indian reservation in Oklahoma, or Korea setting up a forward outpost right next to George Washington's Boyhood home; and even these don't do the feeling justice.
But, we're all too busy listening to Bill O'Rielly, who proudly proclaims that these quote "radical islamists" endquote (islamists isn't a word; Islam is the religion, Muslim is the word describing the follower - we don't say Judeaists, we say "Jews") are trying to kill us and our wives and children, and convert all of us to their radical islamist ideals, which is just plain false. They just want to be left the fuck alone.
No one is asking "Why do the terrorists attack us?", and possibly as important, "Why do they have popular support?". We assume we know the answer - "because they're all fucking nuts". The answer is:
"The terrorists attack us because we give them reason to attack us"
and
"They have popular support because we constantly prove what the terrorist figureheads say is right, time after time".
If we don't give them reason to attack us, then their attacks will become less and less frequent, AND they will not have the popular support of the Muslim people. If we pull out of Saudi Arabia, stop unilaterally supporting Israel*, and leave Iraq, and basically leave the Muslim world alone, what grounds will they have to attack us? If we do all that, and then an attack comes, the world (including Muslim nations) will know we're innocent, and use peer pressure to stop those attacks.
The terrorists accomplished their goals on 9/11/01, America. What were their goals? To provoke a war. To make America hated and despised. To bankrupt the nation. To bring about the death of civil liberty, and the birth of a police state. They don't want to kill us. They want to make us afraid.
Mission Accomplished.
~Will
*Think pulling out of the Gaza Strip was a good thing? The other half of the deal went like this: "We'll pull out of the Gaza strip, but we're denying right-of-return rights to Palestinian refugees". So, now we have 15 million Palestinians who are stateless. The UN has repeatedly tried to censure Israel for the things it constantly does to the Palestinians; but it can't, because censure requires votes from all 5 members on the UN Security council: The US, the UK, France, Russia, and China. Guess who constantly vetoes any anti-Israel measure?
Re:Terrorism forces us into a no win situation (Score:5, Insightful)
So imagine you're a peaceful Iraqi guy minding his own business, who's family was just wiped out by a US cruise missile. Now do you understand? Violence begats violence. The only way to survive is to break the cycle. Be the better person.
Doomsday (Score:5, Interesting)
Stump him with Tic Tac Toe (Score:5, Funny)
N.B. Preemptive != Preventive (Score:5, Informative)
Preemption stops an action after it has been set in motion but before it has borne fruit. In order for an attack to be preemptive, the enemy must be engaged in an attack, albeit at a very early stage. When the gunfighter is going for his six-shooter, and the friend you've prudently stationed on the roof of the blacksmith's drills him with his winchester, that's preemption. When you shoot a guy in the back on the theory he might shoot you some day, that's merely prevention.
True preemption requires evidence, not of capability, not of hostility, but actual action being set in motion. Nobody who believes the self-defense is justifiable can deny that preemption is equally justifiable. But most forms of prevention are morally reprehensible.
Having a doctrine of preemption only means you prepare for the eventuality. I'd say it should be pretty uncontroversial, except that prevention/preemption distinction is one which many people aren't aware of. Unfortunately, the administration likes to blur the lines between these two things, giving mere prevention the status of preemption. The Iraq war was a preventive war, not a preemptive one, but the administration did its best to make it look preemptive.
STOP THE INSANITY! (Score:4, Interesting)
Lets use a WMD in a pre-emptive strike against groups that MAY have WMD's!
How proud would you as an American be if you had nuked Iraq
Bush and his cohorts are the problem, not the answer. They are the terrorists bent on destabilizing the world's security. He is a firm believer in the book of Revelations and Armeggedon
IRAN is the new target.
Within 5 years Iran plans to have the bomb.
Iran is too big for Dubyafucker to invade in a conventional manner, without massive conscription.
Iran will be pre-emptively nuked by the time they are ready to test their first bomb. Hopefully it won't result in the immediate retaliatory destruction of the USA by the nations of the world whom this attack will anger.
The preparations are happening, this is not a troll, this is not flamebait.
Go ahead and ask your local representative why your airforce just ordered new flight simulators programmed specificaly for the topography of Iran.
Don't worry, they got him on the fine print (Score:5, Funny)
The Pentagon only gave gave him exactly what he asked for: the capability to order a "nucular" first strike.
I'm sorry, but this has to be said. (Score:5, Insightful)
I deliberately said "not american" as opposed to "european" or "english", because that is fast becoming the only distinction required.
the USA, that is the people, need a wake up message, perhaps a wake up message in the form of your entire congress including the president chimp being nuked.
the WTC obviously wasn't a clear enough message.
"9/11" was ___NOT___ an attack on the american people or way of life or anything else, it was an attack on USA foreign policy as driven by USA monetary policy, hence hitting two buildings full of financial institutions.
If I wanted to slap the face of the USA ___PEOPLE___ I'd fly a jet into the Statue of Liberty, the one true global symbol of all that is american.....
if this has been done it would have killed maybe a hundred people, but rocked every citizen in the USA back on their heels as a personal insult.
no way lady liberty was "Overlooked" as a possible target, no chance in hell, ergo the perpetrators werem't after slapping you all personally across the face.
3 jetliners could have been crashed into three electricity stations around new york and thrown the city into anarchy, same as new orleans, but it wasn't done.
bottom line is it is really hard to think of targets that are more clearly and obviously specifically USA financial / foreign policy related than those that were hit
and yet you lot still do not get it
bush is still there, getting worse every day.
we don't care too much if he ruins america, we're sorry for you as citizens, but then you keep voting him in and who are we to interfere?
we do care if he ruins our countries.
bush is the village psychopath, as time passes and his behaviour worstens, more and more of the villagers are going to turn against him
sure, in the ensuing fight much of the village may be razed to the ground, but some of it will survive, if we don't do something about the village psychopath he will desroy ALL of the village.
USA citizens need to wake up and ask themselves is living in a destroyed US economy, like post katrina new orleans or a kurt russell vision of new york, is the future they really want, if not, it's time to cut loose, very publicly, from the insane chimp and his money men backers.
I guess we'll tell how blinkered you all are from how quickly this message is modded as "troll", if slashdot had regional modding you'd find non USAians modding it differently....
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is, today, September 12. Four years and one day ago, it was September 11th, 2001, and I was in New York watching the dust cloud rise. And it's just remarkable, just stunning... I mean, who could have predicted that four years later, the most powerful nation on earth would yet to have brought bin Laden to justice for what he did? Who could have believed that instead, the administration would use lies about WMD to invade a nation with no connection to 9/11? Who would have believed that we'd be in an endless guerilla war with almost two thousand American lives lost and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. That a nation which prides itself in being a beacon of freedom would be torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib and running a gulag in Cuba. And there's no end in sight to any of it. It's just disgusting. And profoundly sad. What's happened to my country? We rose up after 9-11 but somehow in the past four years, it brought us down so low, I barely even recognize the country anymore.
We shouldn't be giving this guy the authority to use nuclear weapons. If he were watching TV in my house, he wouldn't even be entrusted with the remote control. God... just, one day, I want to walk up to him. And spit in his face, and then walk away.
Pretty obvious by now... (Score:5, Insightful)
This bunch of 5 gallon cowboys in 10 gallon are going to leave this country in a real mess. Watch real closely once Karl Rove's think tanks come up with the catch phrase (probably "Operation Compasion" or something) who ponies up to the trough following Katrina...Haliburton and the usual suspects are already there [cnn.com]. REALLY pay close attention when the word for the day is mentioned 14 times in a carefully test grouped speech and displayed on a big blue screen behind the President. It's worked for 6 years...why not now.
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Informative)
Israel, India, Pakistan and others have very limited power projection ablities compared to the other Nuclear Powers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Insightful)
The hurricane wasn't caused by policy. Obviously
The flooding on the other hand, was caused by the degradation of the surrounding swamplands, cleverly placed there by God/nature/whatever to absorb the excess water from exciting weather events
The levee system, it was forecast several years ago, was not even up to the task of resisting a smaller hurricane than Katrina. The Clinton administration had spent 500 mill on it, but funding dropped considerably under Bush.
The advance response was non-existent, the President being too busy with other affairs, and preferring to plead ignorance after the fact
Additionally, National Guard and Army troops, who would normally be called in to assist in major emergencies, were not available at this time, being elsewhere engaged.
Oh wait I see, you were being ironic. You're right, the poor levee maintenance and lack of military personnel and lack of preparatory response weren't caused by President Bush's domestic policies. They were caused by his obsession with foreign policy.
That's a very subtle and clever point you made, well done
Non-existent WMDs Baaaad! Real WMDs Gooood! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know how many of you grew up with the Cuban Missile Crisis and neighbors digging bomb shelters in their back yards; most of you probably just had scary TV specials instead. But we really don't need to put up with this kind of crap from an Administration that says it's doing it to make us *safer*.
Re:Non-existent WMDs Baaaad! Real WMDs Gooood! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Non-existent WMDs Baaaad! Real WMDs Gooood! (Score:5, Informative)
and the Soviet sphere didn't gain a permanent nuclear strike base just off our coast
Let us discuss the Cuban Missile Crisis. The REAL reason why the Soviets went ahead to put nuclear missiles into Cuba was that the Soviet Union was merely returning a favor.
You see, the USA had already planted nuclear missiles into Turkey. Did you know that? And the location of Turkey happens to be just outside the Russian border.
So the Soviet Union was merely extending the courtesy of hauling nuclear missiles next to the other guy's border, and then having had a taste of their own medicine, USA freaked out. When the missile crisis ended, USA agreed to pull out their missiles in Turkey (a little bit delayed though, so that it wouldn't seem that it was the real reason).
The key to international security is really just common sense and respect from all parties. Hauling up nukes to someones backyard and expecting them to accept it is not common sense. Crying wolf when they do the same to you is also not common sense (since you sort of asked for it)?
For more information, have a read [gwu.edu].
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Informative)
In no particular order, these are the 'Nuclear Nations':-
- France
- United Kingdom
- Israel
- India
- Pakistan
- China
- Russia
- United States of America
There is also reputed to be a fair amount of 'missing material' of which nobody knows the exact quantity or location.Frightening isn't it?
The world's gone MAD, totally MAD
Re:Mutual? As in Mutual Insurance for Nuclear War? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually a kind of complicated intersection of several forms of insanity. For example, Dubya's flavor is that he buys into religious forms of Armageddon, so he thinks America needs lots of nuclear bombs to join the party "properly". The neo-cons have delusions of recreating a new Holy Roman Empire, with nuclear bombs replacing the legions. Cheney is the best example of the most toys faction, as in "He who dies with the most toys wins."
In reality, might does NOT make right, and trying to sustain modern civilization with the law of the jungle is going to produce a whole lot of dead Tarzans. The more nuclear weapons one side plays with, the more weapons the other sides will want to play with, and it's the richest players who wind up with the most to lose, and the poorest players who can roll for broke. No blinking allowed.
I'm not a pacifist, by the way. I know that the nuclear genie is not going to go back into the bottle, and the only way to have real peace is if you are ready to use sufficient force against anyone who wants to become violent. However, "sufficient" does not mean "absolute and overwhelming", because there is no such thing. What the world really needs is enough good nations that are capable of working together to face down the threats--which is almost exactly the situation that existed in Iraq in the '90s.
However, I also think that the "just use of force" has an even more important aspect than keeping it to the sufficient level. That's a matter of personal attitude. The just use of force should be done with the proverbial heavy heart and in the face of true necessity. It shouldn't be imagined as a real-life version of a video game or some kind of cowboy romp, which is how most of the Rusheviks and Busheviks see it. You can actually map this all the way down to your local policeman: Of course you want your local policeman to know how to quickly and efficiently apply enough force for each situation, but I do not want a policeman who enjoys the use of force, or even one who has become indifferent to the use of it.
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Opening your eyes and actually using them instead of mindlessly repeating the garbage that some war happy people in the White House are telling you might be a really good idea indeed.
In short, North Korea might have the capability to launch one or two nukes directly at the USA (actually they don't, but lets just assume they do, they probably do have the nukes for it), but is far from assured destruction of the USA. Don't come with the theory that that is only a matter of time, North Korea does not have access to the resources to come anywhere near.
Re:Uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thinking instead of mindlessly repeating the garbage that some anti-war hippy is telling you might be smart.
Sure there isn't a USSR who could take out the entire country in one shot anymore, but one or two missiles is enough. One well placed nuke could kill/injure 10 million if it took out Los Angeles county. New york city has 8 million. Two nukes, well placed, could take out 18 million people. There are 295 million people in the US. That would be 16.39% of the US population. That is literally decimation. That is 50% more than decimation.
You think New Orleans is bad? There were what, 100,000 people left when the hurricane hit? We had 2/3 days to evacuate before it hit. We had that much warning. And the city is livable going forward. Compare that to a few hours notice. Millions dead. Millions injured. The area would be worthless thanks to fallout. Some of the largest and most important companies in the US could be gone. You think the post 9/11 recession was bad?
You don't have to take out half the country in one shot. Just take out LA, New York, or another large city (Seattle, San Fran., etc). If you can hit in the MIDDLE of the US (say Denver, St. Louis, Minneapolis, etc) that would scare people even more.
North Korea, Iran, Terrorists, other states that haven't announced yet or are currently friends/neutral but could turn with an election or coup. Just because big bad USSR is gone doesn't make us safe from nuclear attacks.
Re:Uh? (Score:5, Informative)
Gotta love the American education system. 18 / 295 * 100 = 6.1, not 16.39 (which would of course be exceeding the two significant figures in "18" even if it were close to the right number).
To get to 16% you would have to take out 47million.
Re:Uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I indeed happen to think war is not such a good thing to be involved in, doesn't exactly make me a hippy. What is this name calling needed for whenever anyone might disagree with the current government anyway.
Sure there isn't a USSR who could take out the entire country in one shot anymore, but one or two missiles is enough. One well placed nuke could kill/injure 10 million if it took out Los Angeles county. New york city has 8 million. Two nukes, well placed, could take out 18 million people. There are 295 million people in the US. That would be 16.39% of the US population. That is literally decimation. That is 50% more than decimation.
Just please go learn something about the effects of nuclear weapons, what Korea might have in the worst case, and what kind of damage they can do with it.
I do agree that they can cause a pretty amount of damage, that is not the point.
If you are going to be afraid of a country with nukes, then I'd take another look at Pakistan. Its current leader may not be a problem, and actually most of its population would not be either, but chances of some extremist comming to power one way or another are quite there, and then you have a country with proven nuclear ability, some access to resources for making more, own technology for delivery and a group of fanatic idiots who may try anything to get a nuke delivered.
Do something about North Korea? sure, something should have been done some 40+ years ago there actually, end the state of war between it and the USA. It is one of those 'monsters' the USA has created itself with the same kind of blindness and fear (for communism back then) that so many there are still showing today.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh? (Score:5, Informative)
"It's also worth noting that while North Korea may or may not possess the ability to land a nuclear strike on the west coast of the continental US, China most certainly does, and we all know that China and N. Korea are essentially allies."
Allies? Hardy, more like China's annoying little neighbor who can't be gotten rid off. NK is tolerated since it doesn't jeopardize anything important (ie: trade with the west) and provides a buffer between SK. Also, China has more to fear from those NK nukes than anyone else except SK.
"(using tech Clinton sold them no doubt)"
Wow, how much tin foil do YOU cover your head with? OR are you simply as dense as DU? They're using Soviet technology, heck they copied decent amounts of it exactly.
"If they can put a person in orbit, they can land a warhead anywhere on earth they choose."
Not really, aiming and so on become more problematic and less accurate. In addition, such a weapon is easy to detect and potentially intercept. Right now China has 20 icbms it can lob at the West Coast, and either does or soon will have nuclear missiles on submarines (may have one, I'm not sure) which can hit more or less anywhere. It also would be committing economic suicide if it ever used them.
Re:Uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nukes are old skool. The real problem is that billions of people all over the world want to see us suffer and die. You can't just keep making more enemies every day and not expect any consequences. Those billions of people who want to see you die will figure out a way to kill you or spend you into bankrupcy trying to defend yourself.
Unfortunately nobody in the good old U S of A has any interest in making nice with people. We are intent on making ourselves as obnoxious and dangerous as possible. Sooner or later it's going to bite us in the ass.
There is a reason US was attacked instead of Canada but nobody wants to think about that.
Re:Yes, there was (Score:5, Insightful)
Osama Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire but he's jealous of you yeh right.
You know how the UK stopped Irishmen blowing up our cities. We spent nearly 30 years of getting ever more draconian and then after actually negotiating with the terrorists we've had virtually no trouble with them at all in the last 10.
It may turn some people's stomachs to see Gerry Adams being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but up until our ass-kisser leader dragged us into a pointless war, UK citizens didn't have to worry about being blown up anymore.
Re:Yes, there was (Score:5, Insightful)
Osama bin Laden is a psychopath. But you have a point. His supporters are often wealthy too. They have no reason to envy the US.
I have traveled the world over. I have lived in Muslim nations as a non-Muslim. I have traveled to countries which have seen the brunt of US covert actions. I have never met anyone who hated *me* because I am an American. Yet many people are frustrated and even outraged at our government.
In May of 2002, I was in Quito Ecuador. I used to go to an Indian restaurant, and once I started talking with one of the owners. Turned out he was from Iraq. He asked me where I was from and I told him "Los Estados Unidos" (the US). I will never forget the look in his eyes. Not hatred or anger. But pain and sorrow. Yet I am sure he was in Ecuador not because of my country but because of trying to get away from Saddam.
We in the US are often incredibly insensitive to the suffering our country causes all over the world. The problem is that once you are hurt enough, you may start to do little things to fight back. These may involve looking the other direction when a charity you give money to spends some of its money on donations to militant and/or terrorist organizations. It may involve actually willfully aiding such organization, or it may even involve volunteering into such groups.
Yes, we are the most powerful country the world has ever known. But the hardest lesson to learn is that, to quote an old Norwegian saying, the "Sheath is for Swords." Real power is best kept in reserve, always close at hand but rarely if ever used. Ever since WWII, however, we have been militarily involved in one place or another more or less constantly. We have caused immeasurable sorrow in the world, and consequently we have earned powerful enemies. People forget the lessons of Iran, or Chile, or Guatamala.
Do a google search for September 11, 1973 and see what shows up.... The result of that action by the CIA killed *more Chileans* than Al Qaeda did on the 28th anniversery of that event (if you assume that the 1100 or so that were "disappeared" were probably summarily executed in custody.
The truth is that we are hated for the same reason that we hate Al Qaeda. We are hated just as they are for our crimes against humanity. And those of us who truly love our country have an obligation to try to turn this around.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh? (Score:5, Funny)
Gentlemen, gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the war room!
Re:Uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked, we had treaties with both South Korea and Japan in which case if either came under attack we would help defend them. Also last time I checked, they were both within range of North Koreas missles.
Re:such ignorance... *sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Two more words: Afghan Resistance.
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Informative)
China has about two dozen single-warhead missiles that can reach the US. That's hardly obliteration, though they're the old, heavy kind that are 2MT or more yield.
I did some research on this a while back. The original context was where someone asserted that a mutual exchange could destroy everything on the planet. The numbers for warheads are about two years out of date, so stats for certain weapons like the Peacekeepers are outdated (there are fewer deployed, possibly none by this point).
Throw it into the US and Russia, and the percentages jump to significant levels -- about 5.8% of Russia, and about 11% of the US. It doesn't factor in fallout, either, but as the numbers were intended to reflect airbursts, that wouldn't be as much of a probl
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not that nuclear blasts will kill everyone. It's that 'developed' countries, especially large metropolian areas, are extremely dependant on others for their survival. Once the infrastructure is gone and panic ensues, there will be no electricity water or food. The economy will be reduced to a barter economy since faith in the monetary system is gone.
Hell, even a miniature-by-comparison disaster like New Orleans / Katrina showed signs of anarchy for a while, imagine the hell-on-earth that will erupt if not one, but several major cities are flattened.
P.S. I'm serious, get ahold of and watch Threads, it's a great movie.
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
But I understand that there is this thing called "International Humanitarian Law" that includes such things as the Geneva Conventions. Real freedom fighters should confine themselves to standards that are at least defensible under interational rules of war. Those that do not are terrorists, state sponsored or not.
For example, when I look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, lets look at acts of terrorism:
* Blowing up busses
* dropping 1-ton bombs on apartment buildings
* Indescriminant razing of neighborhoods in refugee camps
* Blowing up supermarkets
* Using ICRC relief workers as human shields
* Firing on PRC medical personnel and equipment with PRG's etc.
etc...
The *only* group which has a legitimate claim not to be a group of terrorists is Tanzim. Not Fatah, Not Hamas, Not the IDF. And Tanzim is only questionably so (it depends on whether Settlers are protected noncombatants under the Geneva Conventions). So a terrorist is a terrorist.
Back to the US.
Look up "September 11, 1973" and you will see what I mean. Personally I think that if Pinochet is to be tried for his crimes against humanity than his CIA buddies should be too. Same in El Salvador, same in Guatamala, same in Ecuador, same in Iran.
Strategic nuclear weapons IMO are terrorist impliments and the use of them ultimately qualifies as a terrorist attack.
A terrorist is a terrorist. It should go without saying that we should be willing to police our own government as much as we want to fight those who perpetrate crimes against humanity (though in revenge for what we have done) against us.
Those who truly love our country have a moral duty to try and turn things around before it is too late (it may be too late anyway but we have to try). I don't pledge allegiance to the President. I pledge allegiance to the *flag.* I don't owe allegiance to the president. I owe allegiance to my *country.* This is the essence of true American patriotism, deeply rooted in a mistrust for those who run our government.
...so where does the Rapture fit in?... (Score:4, Interesting)
[Jer 30:2-7] : 'For, behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel and Judah.' The Lord says, 'I will also bring them back to the land that I gave to their forefathers, and they shall possess it.'
And in Ezekiel [37:21]: "This is what the sovereign Lord says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land."
Re:Method of living for the socially challenged: W (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yippee kayay! (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, if North Korea had any legitimate reason to be concerned about America's intentions before (well, Iraq probably didn't help), they're certainly going to be paranoid out of their tiny little minds now. The further we go down this path, the less North Korea is going to believe it has to lose by launching a pre-emptive strike of their own, to pre-empt the American pre-emptive strike.
If you assume Iran actually meant what it said about their own nuclear technology being for peaceful purposes, you can be absolutely rest-assured they'll have no intention of sticking to that now. The only hope Iran has of NOT being nuked is to be in a position of nuking the USA.
All in all, this is a bad day for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but one hell of a siesta for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Re:Yippee kayay! (Score:4, Insightful)
Have they no suitcases?
Are they unable to covertly contact terrorist organizations?
Have they no legitimate-seeming cargo containers?
A missle is a rather unlikely way for a nuke to strike the US, so forgive me if I find it uncomforting that nutball nuclear powers have poor missile capability. Kinda like I'd hardly feel better to note that a grizzly bear charging me did not, in fact, have the opposable thumbs required to hold a gun---that isn't why it's dangerous.
Re:Times have changed (Score:5, Insightful)
We also have a system in place to respond in kind to wmd attack within 3 minutes with all out world-killing force.
the idea of "preemptive nuclear strike" is not just radical, it's insane.
Re:Times have changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Few countries would come to the US's aid if they nuked Iran. War or no war. The act is simply too repulsive. Sure, there will be official policies, but the regular people on the ground: customs official, the policeman. They will not inforce official policy.
Any country that lobs nukes will inevitably get theirs too. Not that the regular folks deserve it but they will certainly be the ones to pay the price.
Nukes are 40s technology. The time to learn to get along is now.
You're not reading the WHOLE of the article (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, if the USA got itself into a war that was wholly conventional, against an opponent that had no WMDs whatsoever and where no claims of WMDs were even made, but where that opponent was simply better at fighting, the President of the USA will have the right to nuke that opponent off the face of the planet.
Translated: America WILL win every war it fights, because if it loses, it'll utterly obliterate whoever beat it, and then it'll declare itself the winner anyway.
That is a very dangerous policy and doesn't dissuade places like North Korea at all. If anything, they'll now take the line that America is going to nuke them no matter what, so there is absolutely no point in holding back. If they're dead anyway, then why not pull the trigger?
That is NOT a way to make the world safer. Never play chicken with paranoid schizophrenics, particularly not after you've told them that you're prepared to cheat to win.
Put your money where your mouth is. (Score:5, Interesting)
Be careful with that word "never". It may not mean what you think it means.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Times have changed (Score:4, Interesting)
maybe they only chant stuff like that because the US tried to inject puppets into their nation.
maybe stop inviting the CIA to overthrow their regime.
or running stories about how their nuclear power plant is a cover for a WMD station. a nation who lied about WMDs in iraq, forged the niger yellow cake "evidence" and can say with a straight face that iraq was connected with 9-11, even after saying otherwise, doesn't deserve to believed about anything.
a nation who has 50 thousand nuclear warheads telling another nation they cannot have weapons, is about as absurd and hypocritical as it gets, especially since it's also the only country that has used 2 nuclear bombs on civilian targets. an act of terrorism by any definition of the word.
and clearly, any country that doesn't have wmd, like iraq, gets invaded. it's about time every nation on earth starts stockpiling wmd.
Re:Times have changed (Score:5, Insightful)
You aren't seriously suggesting that Ollie North was committing treason by selling weapons to a declared enemy of the USA (Iran) while working for the US military are you? That would be like saying the money wasn't being raised for a good cause anyway - funding right wing terrorists in Central America. It would also be like saying that skimming off money for a personal commission was also wrong, or the current administration giving him another job after all that was wrong.
When the leading lights of the USA compare themselves to the founding fathers are they really talking about Arnold, Wilkinson and Burr?
Re:hmm, mutually assured destruction... (Score:5, Funny)
We all very well may die because a fucking cult wants to bring about the events in their "revalations." AN ACID TRIP IN A BOOK FULL OF FAIRY TALES.
Although, if we go like that then our extinction may well be for the best . . . . .
Re:We would have nuked Iraq. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Poland said in a statement from Iraq that "beyond doubt the shells were from the 1980-1988 period, of the type used against Kurds and during the Iraq-Iran war."
In Baghdad, the U.S. military issued a statement saying that two 122 mm rockets found by Polish forces had tested positive for sarin gas and confirmed that they were left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but said they posed little danger."
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Next topic - Is George Bush adversely affecting the frame rate of graphics card?
Re:Once upon a time... (Score:5, Funny)
I think the lowest level for authorizing nuclear attacks should be Air Force Colonels, provided that their bodily fluids are pure.
Davy Crockett (Score:5, Insightful)
The Davy was a recoilless rifle that fired 1 kiloton nukes and was developed years ago. Yes, there are 155mm nuclear rounds (some are rocket propelled and laser guided) in addition to VX, blister, mine deploying, etc. Do not be surprised at the disgusting genius of weapons designers. There exist some truly horrific means of mass murder and nuclear munitions is just one. Personally nukes don't scare me as much any more. They are fairly easy to track, difficult to build and deliver and suffer from scalibility and engineering issues to make the big ones. There is also a certain stigma attached to them.
Biological weapons scare the living shit out of me. They are difficult to develop, but can be easily mass produced and delivered. They kill indescriminately and can be made self sustaining. What is worse is that to defeat them, you have to devlopment them in the first place (this is the conundrum of any weapons research).
Let's all just try to get along, okay?
Re:Basic (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please, spare us yet more of this ridiculous bomb them back into the stone age idiocy that fails to realise what epoch we're in and who we're dealing with. Please be absolutely, unconditionally assured that no-one in the world doubts the ability of Americans to utterly miss the point and bomb the hell out of "rogue nations", utterly unaware that they're fighting last century's kind of war. The terrorists escaped by foot and horse while you "bombed Afghanistan into the Stone Age", killing more innocent civilians than ever died in 9/11, largely for the benefit of Fox News. So it's all good; no-one doubts your ability to make this kind of dumb fool mistake, just as few now doubt that America is, indeed, a paper tiger when it comes to writing checks the electorate's stomach can't cash. Like a sustained military occupation of Iraq, for example. But, it's true, putting more power in the hands of a prat like Bush will certainly drum the point home to anyone who hasn't been paying attention to your murderous platitudes about trigger-fingers and righteous bombs.