Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Works Up Plans for Using Nuclear Arms
rjrjr writes: "The L.A. Times reports on the DoD's new stance on the use of nukes, including such comforting notions as nuclear bunker busters. What it all means is well explored in this cogent commentary."
I have always been strictly anti-nuclea wepons. I like my life
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
...this article with a bit more detail.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/10/nuclear.weapons/i ndex.html
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria.
I've got a lovely bunch of nuclears...
there they are all standing in a row...
big ones, small ones, ones the size of your head
Give em a twist, a flick of the wrist, that's what that monkey said.
I have to ask... what has North Korea and Russia been doing lately to deserve this?
Don't they know that nukes generate 8 squares of pollution, and make the entire world hate you?
Guess I've been playing too much CIV ][...
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
... is NOT that it existed, but rather that it was published. Anyone have any insights why it wasn't kept secret?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/09/bush.nuclear.reut /index.html0 /nuclear.weapons/i ndex.html
and
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/1
my view = this is now bush's new 'missle defense' system, threaten to blow up the world before any missles can hit the USA. sigh.
Runnin' On Empty
The LA Times also ran a story today about the erosion of civil liberties following the Sept 11 attacks.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Obviously the US has a lot of nuclear weapons sitting around, ready to be fired at any time. I, for one, am glad they are making these plans. If all of a sudden we're attacked I'd rather a large group of people spend time now planning what would be done than a few people make a quick irrational decision which could lead to global problems.
Go Kart Parts - Got to love driving with the ground an in
I really don't see how this can qualify as a flamebait.
For them to write an explicit report stating names of countries where this could be used? Hello - America wake the fuck up - NUKES ARE BAD
Read the article. I love this line for a general catch all excuse for when the Pres. wants to vape a country.
On a more serious note such a reason is very dangerous as it could apply to anything.If your going to define a policy on when to use nukes then you should have the obligation to make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered.
For any programmer out there could you imagine writing a functional spec using such loose and ambigious language?
Personaly I think it's a good thing. In fact it concerns me that the military wasn't ready to do that earlier. Personaly I think it's all a big PR move that means absolutely nothing. During operation Dessert Storm Bush made it quite clear to Saddam that if he used any WMD weapons against him we'd reciprocate with the kind of weapons that would wipe Iraq off the face of the Earth. I don't think it was a bluff and certainly such things require planning.
It takes 2,200 warheads to cover what planners call "a full target list" (nice fluffy way of saying that we need 2200 little containers to end humanity). I'm hoping that we got those targets slected!
This is not a matter of US world domination, it is a question whether Bush and his fellow capitalist will dominate the world. What difference will it make for farmers, programmers, dentists, teachers, etc. in the US if the US-President is a more powerfull man? None! But thats the great illusion. Why did so many German soldiers go to war for Hitler? Did they imagine that they themselfs would be better of after the war, if Germany would be a huge country? The problem is the illusion of NATIONS, and the answer is to wake up and to start understand the world in terms of classes!
And they aren't thrilled...try looking an non-American press too. the article
And you don't think that the US cocking the trigger on their nukes will make other nuclear capable nations do the same thing as well?
Geez, haven't you seen WarGames?
This in NOT news. The US has had nuclear contingency plans since WWII. The only significant story here is that an "official" document was "leaked." My guess is that it was 'leaked' purposely.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
You mean like Japan, who after having 2 Made in the U.S.A. nukes dropped on their heads, are one of our best business partners as well as political allies?
There is something to be said for an adequate use of force.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
I wonder if getting approval to use nuclear weapons is mostly for the threat factor, as with the cold war... Although, considering the suicidal tactics of the terrorist, this argument could be flawed.
Hmmmm...
-Alex
On the otherhand I'd kind of like to see a 1 megaton burst from 30 miles away just once. Aside from being the last thing I'd ever see if I didn't wear goggles, it's probably spectacular.
Please don't think I'm a war mongerer. I don't mean we should use it on anyone. It's just that I'm part of a generation which grew up expecting a nuclear war. Imagine my surprise when we never had one. A little grotesque disapointment that I have to actually get a day job instead of wander the desert looking for canned dog food and gasoline.
And I bet you thought that Reganite Nihilism was a thing of the 80's. Well After reading the above I realize it's alive and well living inside my subconcious. Just waiting to rear it's ugly little head. Does this mean I get to do cocaine again?
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
"make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered"
So where the fuck is the deterrence value, fucky?
If I am Achmed the Arab, and I want to know America's response to a given situation, in your world, I would look it up in 'Fuckys book of America's responses'
In MY world, motha-fucka step lightly, because any attack on us MAY be answered with nuclear force. Nobody will front.
Of course. Haven't you seen any food wars?
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
This just inhances my view that Bush is becoming the little too trigger happy sheriff putting up wanted dead and alive posters
Look a monkey!
Imagine a beowulf cluster of those
Me too!
On a more serious note such a reason is very dangerous as it could apply to anything.If your going to define a policy on when to use nukes then you should have the obligation to make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered.
What's the point of that? If you follow that logic strictly then you simply give the enemy a road-map around the obstacle of nuclear retaliation. That catch-all phrase simply says "if you threaten our vital interests in a way we haven't anticipated, you are taking a huge risk." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
For any programmer out there could you imagine writing a functional spec using such loose and ambigious language?
Or, even more shocking, can you imagine someone comparing national nuclear policy-making to writing the functional spec for a computer program?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I've always been wondering, why isn't the Empire using nukes in the snow battle in ESB? Why isn't the federation wiping out the gungan army with nukes in TPM?
I guess it's possible nuclear energy doesn't exist in Star Wars since physics seem so different already: laser blasts travel at 200mph, and sound travel in space.
You didn't think all those sexy nuke explosion simulations were just to stress-test some graphics cards, did you?
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I think the reason why this report was drawn up is this: the existance of the B61-11 bunker buster bomb.
Essentially, is a B61 gravity-dropped nuclear bomb in the 45-50 kT yield variant that is designed to explode after it penetrates deep into the ground. Such a weapon will easily destroy most bunker complexes, even those built deept into mountainsides. We do know that Saddam Hussein has built a whole bunch of such bunkers, and Osama bin Laden--who was trained as a construction engineer himself--has probably built similar bunkers in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
how can this possibly be "news for nerds" ??
So what countries are there out there that accept expatriot Americans fleeing the madness of thier government? Preferably island countries.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Ha, I knew I'd find a link to it somewhere.
to quote:
'Nuff said.
Soon after Sept 11, senior people in the military were quoted as saying that they wanted the entire Afghanistan/Middle East region to "glow with radiation."
So, no, I'm not surprised that the US wants to use nukes. Particularly against that axis of evil -- if you can't nuke them, who can you nuke? And if you can't nuke anyone, what are those nukes for?
First of all, you are all going to die anyway. Second of all, you will only wind up suffering in a nuclear attack if the blast doesn't kill you outright.
You nerds are too paranoid
"It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war." -- John F. Kennedy
-- Cisk for the Cisk God
Remember almost everyone else has them too. Do you like the idea of people who HATE us and our allies having nukes and us (and our allies) not? I sure don't.
:-)
Second, this is not new stuff. Even our tank shells are depleted with uranium. Our newer missiles...all of them are what they called nuclear tipped...for some lovely explosive effects.
Someone will always dominate the world militarily...unless men all around the world suddenly change their DNA patterns spontaneously. If you've got to pick from China, the U.S. and Pakistan, who would you rather it be?
Derek Greene
....hop on this thread and spew their Anti-American prattle
I think that it is interesting that since 9-11 the economy has kept on starting and halting, not totally going into recession, but not pulling out either. Alan Greenspan says that the nation is out of recession, but it remains to be seen whether we are on the way to recovery.
I don't think that the nation is on the way to recovery, simply because the international situation remains so jittery. Businesses may be able to act normally, but how can they expand with such factors as escalting violence in Israel, clashes between Palestine and India, a war that has an uncertain course and end; and now this talk of plans for nuclear attacks?
Of course we have nuclear weapons for the purpose of attacking certain nations, and these countries shouldn't be surprised to see themselves on the list. But do we have to go around announcing to everyone that we are planning on nuking them? That seems a little extreme to me. Or just plain rude.
The bottom line is, as long as we have this free floating international violence, the economy will probably not be able to recover very much.
On the other hand, this may be Bush's roundabout plan to improve the economy by helping get consumer dollars back into the economy, I can imagine all the people thinking: "Ah well, if there is going to be a nuclear war, I might as well spend my retirement fund on a Mercedes, and enjoy it while I can!"
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
If, as the article suggests, this is a reaction to the vulnerability felt after the attacks of 9/11, then it is a poorly thought-out one.
Stopping one person who is willing to die in an effort to do damage is a job for intelligence, not nukes.
Nuclear deterrence may not be at all effective against rogue nations and terrorist organizations. Do you think Hussien would actually give a crap if tens of thousands of Iraqis die simply because we bomb a place we think he's hiding. If Iraq sets off some kind of non-nuclear attack against the US, would we seriously nuke Baghdad in response? Would he care?
As for the likes of bin Laden, I would bet that if we promised to nuke him, he'd tell us where he is and setup a live television feed. This war would become US v Islam in the blink of an eye.
While we cannot put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, accepting this fact should not make the use of nuclear weapons desireable. We've had a solution for hardened fortifications for a couple millenia. While nukes might bust an unbustable bunker, so will a good old-fasioned siege.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
what the world really wants
Preventitive healthcare is a common concept. So why isn't preventitive warfare?
"scare factor". Interesting.
several years after WWII and the use of The Bomb people began to lack in their attitudes towards the threat of nuclear war. Along came Castro and Kruschev and bam again the "scare" returned. It was quickly quelled by anti-nuclear weapons treaties, end of the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.
Now we are in the "next millenium" and what the fuck are we doing. Promoting the threat of the use to return and we're not scared of that?
Just b/c it isn't US policy right now does NOT mean it doesn't increase the risk. Empty at this time or not, that statement moves us more towards fucking midnight than we want.
Trust me.
It's called deterence. All they are really saing is that during the cold war our nukes were pointed at Russia and China. Now they are pointed at Russia China Iran Iraq Lybia Syria N. Korea and France. For deterence to be effective, your enemy has to know you have the weapons pointed at them. If the French don't know our missles are pointed at them, then how can they know to be afraid?
Ok, let me get this straight, the LA.Times gets a secret reports about a possible nuclear fiasco and no one smell trouble? I mean, how often does the LA Times gets secret reports? I wouldnt think something like this just leak its way out of congress just like that at this time. According to reuters the Iran's influential former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Sunday the United States was trying to intimidate other nations with reported contingency plans to use nuclear weapons. But then again, Powell Says Secret Nuke Report Was Routine Planning accordings again to reuters. Where is the love?
The Russians built a "doomsday device" as a deterrent to nuclear aggression - but they kept it secret. Dr. Strangelove points out (as it becomes apparent that the world is, well, f*cked) that "the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret!"
Same principle here. The message is being sent through an orchestrated leak.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Writing the HTML for a link does not a take a lot of time or work, and you only have to do it once. Making each user go through the select - copy - paste - remove space - confirm sequence is just plain impolite.
I suppose this is where I'm supposed to be apologetic for my desire to live and distrust of nations that have shown time and time and time again that they aren't really very nice people.
But, I'm not sorry. In fact, I'm quite happy about this. Let's say we find a small pox lab in Iraq. We know they have it. They know we know. What's to stop them from using it?
A 50-megaton nuke pointed at Baghdad, that's what.
For fuck's sake wake up and smell the truth. The world is not , has never been, nor probably ever will be a nice place. Peace is purchased with superior firepower.
NEVER forget that.
Knunov
B.S. in Comp. Sci from UNC@Chapel Hill - Oracle DBA, Novell CNE, and UNIX/Linux/BSD administrator/user/enthusiast. I was also a Captain in the U.S.M.C., MOS - Infantry - Force Recon, 1st Battalion.
So, unlike the vocal majority of computer geeks here, this geek actually has a clue about warfare.
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/10/nuclear.weapons/i ndex.html
We need to have the capacity to use nukes against any country who has weapons of mass destruction or the capability to make them.
It is called deterence.
World peace is a pipe dream. There are bad people in the world, and they don't always get nicer if we ignore them.
Appeasement is a failure. 1939 taught us that in a way that no one should ever forget.
National policy is always best made after a long session with the SpaceBong 4000, dude!
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I broke out really bad last night, and when i was compiling my kernel, i thought of the last time i was playing civ ][ and blew up the world. Boy were they pissed.
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
As to the specific recommendations, the only really worrying thing would be the insinuation that the DoD is investigating ways to utilize nuclear weapons in conventional tactical scenarios, but there's a hell of a lot of hurdles to clear before that can even be seriously considered, much less implemented. The nations listed in the LA Times report, the US' usual rogue's gallery of nations, were for the most part already included in the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan, which is highly-classified even God needs SIOP-ESI clearance to see it) as smaller attack options (Selected/Limited), going back through the Clinton Administration, so that isn't really some kind of groundbreaking new policy.
Furthermore, an understated policy of the US since the Gulf War has been to keep the nuclear option open in the event of some other mass attack (biological/chemical) as deterrence, so again, this isn't terribly new. I do find interesting that the DoD is looking more closely at new ways of neutralizing agents besides blowing up the factories and spreading them to the four winds though...
:wq
Okay, is anyone else VERY disturbed by the article.
The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments."
They are already on thin ice with 3/4 of the planet because of Bush's idiotic "axis of evil" statements and now they are threatening to start nuking people!?! Russia is going through enough trouble as it is. They're fighting internal difficulties and are still hot at the US over the olympics. A statement like this is just the excuse that hard line factions in any one of these countries (along with half the arab world) need to take power.
At a time when the US should be questioning, even for just a second, what they could have done that have convinced who knows how many terrorists that it is worth commiting SUICIDE as long as you die taking a shot at the US. When they should be thinking about why half the planet hates their guts and considers them pure evil? Maybe, just maybe they might have some legitimate beef to grind with the US. Now instead of trying to figure out what they've done wrong and trying to do better they invade and take over a nation. Remember that Afgahnistan, however repressive and unjust WAS a soveign nation who was attacked because they harboured an accussed terrorist who was never actually proven to be guilty, however obvious it seemed.
But now the US has bettered that, instead of just blowing the crap out of a third world nation (hey where have we heard that before) the US has just said that they're willing to nuke ~1.5 (a little on the low side) out of the 6 billion people on the planet!! At least two of the countries (China and Russia) are two of the most powerful countries on the planet and are supposedly on somewhat nice terms with the US. Now we all know Bush is a gun tolling, nuke happy, big buisness loving, illiterate moron but has his arrogance over the US as the worlds nice police man watching all the evil little bullies truly gotten this great?
I stole this Sig
does any body have a link to the original document? or has it only been quoted, and not actually published verbatem?
the bbc article has some insights that many of the other lack, a good read.
OK - the USA need to stop and realise what they are doing. Nuclear weapons are NOT a good idea - I cannot even believe that Bush is considering using them.
:(
Damn - I have a million things I wanna say about this, but I dont know where to begin. I best not even bother - I will pro'lly get flamed down.
I am interested to know what the American public thinks of this - I would be really really dissapointed in the American Public if they think that using Nuclear Weapons are acceptable!
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
It's that it was leaked. These documents have always existed, under very tight security and controls. Either the document was deliberately leaked for some political purpose, or there is a serious security problem. My guess is that it was deliberately leaked for sabre rattling effect and to feel the public's pulse on the subject.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
You voted them in. It goes rapidly downhill from here.
Peace
From my time studying with them, it was evident that they were desperate for a nuclear policy shift. Some of their reasoning behind this was sound, other elements are not well conceived. Some key elements of their philosophy include:
Nuclear weapons are weapons/tools, just like any other. Just because nuclear weapons are "nuclear", does not mean that they are qualitatively different from other weapons. Fuel Air Explosives can lead to nasty metal poisoning incidents in their target areas - often more environmentally unfriendly than a low-yield nuclear airburst. A modern reduced-blast warhead (aka the neutron bomb, a wholly inaccurate name) produces an immense quantity of prompt radiation that tends not to stick around, and next to no residual/secondary radiation, and almost no fallout (assuming you use it carefully - fallout is a result of the fireball touching dirt sucked up from the ground, and can be avoided). There are some targets that are inaccessible to anything but nuclear weapons; during my time in SMSU, this included some structures in Libya and North Korea.
Deterrent theory relies upon the belief that you will use the weapons, and for that belief to be credibly instilled, you must be prepared to use them should whatever line-in-the-sand you create be crossed. I was personally surprised not to see a tac-nuke strike on Tora Bora for this reason; a tenet of deterrent policy had been that a large-scale assault on mainland America would result in maximum retribution. In the Gulf War, when Bush Snr. Administration officials spoke of "maximum retallation" to chemical use, everyone assumed that meant "nuclear" (as it happens, Bush Snr. had removed that option from the table - see below) - otherwise, the question remains "what are you going to bomb that you wouldn't have bombed anyway?" [hint: the answer is "nothing". Iraq actually thought that they were under nuclear assault at one point, and that didn't change anything from their perspective].
Arms Control Is Always Bad. A particularly strongly held viewpoint (ironic, given that Van Cleave negotiated parts of the ABM Treaty, and Dr. Crouch worked on Start) is that arms control will always fail. Prof. Colin Gray has written some texts explaining this idea (in particular, "why arms control must fail"), and these make informative (if scary) reading. The argument may be summarized as "arms control cannot work when you need it" - that is, in order to agree on meaningful (and enforced) arms control, both countries must be starting to like one another anyway - so it doesn't help; if they come up with something without making real progress, violations become major relationship sticking points (see Krasnoyarsk...)
American Hegemony. Most of the people with whom I worked at DSS are believers that moving towards a unipolar world-model is a good idea (I disagree strongly, but thats because I'm a whiny European...). They tend to frame this argument in two ways. The first is entirely domestic in nature: if the US doesn't rule the world, it will turn to isolationism. This argument is not strong, since it assumes a total lack of sophistication among US policymakers, most of whom were able to handle selective engagement without becoming overly confused. The second is much more terrifying, and can be seen as an extension of Manifest Destiny theory. Basically, they see the US as being a paragon of virtue and believe that the US should "help" the rest of the world live within a mutually prosperous (read: US exploited) Pax Americana. This is no different from the colonial eras of any other nation, but I don't recommend telling them that. :-|
Readiness. Americans, and the American military, are not prepared for the horrors that could accompany a nuclear war. Indeed, most brances of the US military tend to regard the idea of nuclear use as being so "out there" that they refuse to even plan for it. The Navy's nuclear policy used to consist of stating that "in the event of nuclear war, all bets are off". It is important to persuade planners that nuclear use is possible (even likely, as more and more groups gain access to basic fission weapons), and at least come up with some form of credible, planned response. 9/11 was bad, but it does not even approximate the devastation that a 220kT warhead would have inflicted if detonated above the WTC; likewise, the Navy needs to recognize that it doesn't take many nukes to stop an entire Carrier Battle Group.
There will also be some interesting in-Pentagon dynamics associated with this. There are some very strong anti-nuclear movements within the Pentagon, and a policy review of this type represents early shots in what can be expected to be a protracted political conflict. During the Gulf War, Dr. Crouch was instrumental in persuading the Pentagon to perform a feasability study regarding the use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons against Iraqi forces; the report that came back was drafted by anti-nuclear elements, and claimed that more than 2,000 nuclear weapons would be needed to soften up the Republican Guard, with unspeakable consequences. The report itself was badly written, but it did the trick: Bush Snr. removed the nuclear option from the table.
Expect similar infighting on this issue. In particular, remember that the services don't like nuclear weapons. Navy ships with nukes on board are a fast-track to fewer cushy officer jobs (because one slip-up means end of career). Likewise, the Navy hate the fact that their big ships in blue water policy is very vulnerable to nuclear attack. The Air Force don't like nukes because a recognition of possible attack requires strip alerts for bombers (or extreme vulnerability - take your pick). Additionally, the Air Force dislike ballistic missiles because it means fewer pilots. The Army and Marines would be expected to run through the immediate results of nuclear strikes in some cases, so its easy to see why they don't like it very much!
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
Before we have all out GWB bashing:
The article makes it clear this is a draft of a report rather than a full blown plan. It also is a Pentagon study rather than administration policy.
I think the fact that this has become public is no accident. As Dr. Strangelove once asked "what's the point of a doomsday weapon if you don't tell anyone it exists?". Like it or not, this administration seems to be developing a Mutually Assured Destruction policy towards states that support terrorism. It is important at some point to broadcast this intention. A leaked internal report serves this function while allowing the State Dept. and diplomatic channels deniability.
I got half way through that article before I was thouroughly disgusted with it. The writting was fine, the idea of moving forward in the road to using nuclear weapons under ANY circumstance, and i mean ANY, is just WRONG. This is just another highlight to show that Bush is still stuck in the cold war-era thinking and not looking forward. If this is any sign why i WON'T sign, or even be "United", this is it. We have a president who doesn't seem to understand what's going on in the world, or what has happend in the last 12 years between reagan and now. Oh well, if by chance he DOES decide to use nukes, i'd be willing to bet his advice on the counter strike would be, "DUCK! And Cover!"
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
The geeks are ready:
Linux, BSD, et. al. are already mirrored worldwide. They will survive all but the worst nuclear catastrophe.
'nuff said. Next story...
President George W. Bush, is a maniac when it comes to slaughter. The man's face lights up at any mention of the death penalty or bombing people. How determined is he to destroy the whole world and become the king of a graveyard is anyone's guess. This is simply too much.
No one with as miserable of an education as Dubya would even consider that Lou Tzu offered wisdom on the topic of war thousands of years ago. To sum it up, anytime you make more weapons, your enemy makes more weapons. If the US reverses its anti-nuke policy, everyone else is going to become as gun-ho to compensate. And as weapons increase, the world becomes less safe for everyone.
George W. Bush, you moron. STOP IT. We do not have to bomb everyone, let alone nuke anyone!
Nuclear weapons are so unmistakably evil it's amazing how this fruitcake religious fanatic who uses Christianity (a religion that teaches non-violence - think about the teaching of Jesus) as a campaign platform... is so EAGER to deal out death! Not to mention his empowerment of John Ashcroft, who is die-hardly determined to become the next McCarthy.
Where is it going to end? I honestly wonder if we're all going to make it to 2004.
Why bother.
The posts I have seen so far are completely rediculous to me. They contain catch-phrases such as "Bush Domination." A lot of these posters fail to face reality. The nations listed have a vested interest in destroying the USA. China wants Taiwan and the others are self-evident. The second part of the article just explains that Bush wants to develop SMALLER nuclear weapons to use in tactical situations (i.e. to use on cave conplexes akin to those found in Afghanistan). These tactical nuclear weapons are far less destructive and can be used in smaller areas to reduce the amount of unintended deaths. I see this as a good thing personally. I think the slashdot community is going to take an anti-defense/anti-american stance on any controversial issue without even thinking about the ramifications of said issue. Please think this out rationally without resorting to the typical anti-american knee-jerk reactions.
So what your saying is, if your losing the war by conventional means you just say "f'ck it lets just nuke them"?
Thats nice, and thats what the sentance means.
The only problem I have with this list is that Saudi Arabia is not on it.
The problem with this is that ever since the cold war era and afterwards, the greatest deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons is the fact of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Knowing this and the idiocy behinds the huge arms race, there was a feeling of peace in that your enemy would not use nuclear weapons against use and you wouldn't use it against them. It was at an equilibrium (maybe not an ideal one, but still maintain stability in the world)
Now with this new release, other countries are not so sure that the US will be holding back on the use of nuclear weapons. The only smart thing that they can do knowing this news is to build up their current stockpile and for those that don't have it, acquire it. The result of this is that it leads to greater instability in the world
Let's think about it this way. Let's just say for example if "Australia" comes out tomorrow and announce that the US is a great terrorist nation and a part of the "Axis of Badpeople" and that at some point later on, the US has to be dealt accordingly. Do you think the US is going to sit back and wait until "Australia" attacks? No, the US will attack "Australia" preemptively because you pretty much know a battle is coming, why wait for the enemy to attack you.
In my personal opinion, the current administration has done a great amount of damage to the world in terms of lodging it off of the fragile stability that it once was. Just to name a few events, the refusal to sign the Kyoto Pact, the refusal of signing the ban on Biological Weapons and Chemical Warfare, the withdrawal from the ARMS Control treaty with Russia, etc. I mean, how can the US morally attack countries like Iraq for producing Chemical weapons if the US is also producing (or "researching") Biological warfare. [Again, I'm in no way defending Iraq or any other nation..but it's just something to think about]
Yes, September 11th was an horrible event. I live only 5 miles away from the WTC and unfortunately watched it happen. But what I find even more horrendous is the fact that the administration is using this as a scapegoat to attack people that were not directly involved, and along the way kill innocent civilians and/or detain the thousands of innocent people in this country
Again, I am in no way condoning what was done on September 11th. But it is times like this that we have to step back and make sure that the people that are leading the nation are doing the right thing, and not just blindly follow like sheeps. That is what the core part of democracy is: the power of the people. Throughout history, we have seen situation where entire nations blindly followed the policies of its leaders (take WWII or Communism for example)
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
big fucking deal. you were a little peon in the most overfunded, overhyped force on earth. woo, i am soooooo impressed.
the US military is increasingly filling a biggest bully in the schoolyard role, and the latest requests to congress for additional offense spending (dont' give me this bullshit about defense spending) are hardly going to win us any friends.
the problem isn't that this administration has shit-for-brains (this was always known). the problem is it has shit-for-brains, and thanks to 9/11 an excuse to flounder about with a big stick.
the only believable reason for going back into iraq militarily at this point is that saddam embarrased the hell out of bush senior, and so shrub wants to make amends.
well thats really mature.
The long-term effects of radiation aren't as bad as some people would have you think. It doesn't take thousands of years to make the area liveable.
It would be nice if there was a conventional explosive without any long-term residuals, but unfortunately there isn't (yet).
Check this out for a study done by the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare on the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Basically, people in the initial blast zone are (obviously) fucked. Survivor's offspring will show a huge spike in cases of leukemia, and small spikes in other cancer types. The grandchildren of survivors show close to baseline birth defects, meaning nothing statistically significant.
And these are people living on the actual ground that is contaminated.
This study could be bullshit, but it's done by a Japanese organization, along with the U.S.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
No one likes us
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try.
But all around even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.
We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.
Now Asia's crowded
And Europe's too old.
Africa's far too hot,
And Canada's too cold.
And South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us.
Bridge:
We'll save Australia;
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo.
We'll build an all-American amusement park there;
They've got surfing, too.
Well, boom goes London,
And boom Paris.
More room for you
And more room for me.
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town.
Oh, how peaceful it'll be;
We'll set everybody free;
You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby,
There'll be Italian shoes for me.
They all hate us anyhow,
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now.
This says more about this disgusting subject than I ever could.
No, it would take more than just "losing a war." It requires a threat to vital national interests that can't be countered by other means.
Now, if we were losing a war on our soil and our very existence was at risk - well, yeah, bombs away.
In most cases, the threat is enough to deter. But in order to deter, you have to be willing to follow through if deterrence fails. Otherwise there is no deterrent. [arm stiffens involuntarily into a nazi salute as I reposition my wheelchair].
Sick and convoluted, but there you have it. There is no other way.
Has anyone seen my precious bodily fluids?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Mod the parent up! It deserves +5
... that the Clinton Administration declassified over 4,000,000 pages of classified information on nuclear test results -- and received massive illegal campaign contributions from the communist Chinese government. And the Chinese are spreading that technology all over the world. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Did Slashdot express moral outrage over that little episode? I doubt it.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
I grow tired of the education system in this country and the monopoly the government is turning into. I am tired of paying taxes to police the world just to become a target myself for living here. I have been looking into an alternative English speaking nation but still lack the needed research to make an informed decision. This move by the DoD is the straw that... er, anyone want to recommend a good country or a good source of information for this sort of thing?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Strange how people seem to believe that a superior force using bigger weapons is going to help against the inferior force that doesn't fight in a way where the size of weapons matter.
Face it - the U.S. is a superior military force today. Using bigger or smaller bombs is not going to make one bit of difference.
The way that other forces fight back, is naturally not by putting up their largest army, only to see it squashed by the bigger army. That would be silly. No, the way to conquor a larger state with your inferior army, is to strike them where they do not expect it. That is why someone used civil aircraft as bombs on Sept. 11th. Whether we like it or not, it's the rational choice (if you can talk about "rational" and "warfare" in the same sentence...).
Now before you condemn what I say here - think about it. If you were at war with a superior force, would you line up in rows and columns to be slaughtered by the superior force, or would you rather be smart and make a difference ?
One thing's certain; using bigger bombs is not going to make fewer people strike back. I fail to see the logic behind this escalation, should it pass.
And no, I do not applaud what's been happening in the world lately. If you think I do, read this post again. Re-iterate as you must.
Lately the Bush Regime has been ballyhooing that:
1) Dick Cheney is in a secure, undisclosed location.
2) The Shadow Government is fully functional.
3) And NOW: "Here is a list of people we're going to retaliate on if we get nuked". The previous quote is MY paraphrasing of the intent behind the recent release of the Naughty Nations List.
I Am Not A High Level Policy Analyst (heh heh), but it is starting to smell like there is at least one loose nuke out there, and our government and "Big Shots" are gettin' ready.
I've been way wrong before though: I sure as heck thought Vietnam plus Civil Disorder over Civil Rights plus CoIntelPro plus Watergate added up to a sure-fire gen-u-wine old school blood and guts style revolution in the US. In my defense I can only say that I was in my mid teens and had just read Ed Luttwak. Man, was I _way_ off on that one!
So much for staying on topic....
I would even say cut "President Jethro" and company some slack on this one -- The US gov't is having to project a security image that it is unfamiliar with handling, to a population that is well armed, politically ignorant, socially restless, economically divided, and nuke happy in general. It's probably just a case of Percieved Government Testosterone Enhancement via media bluster.
Go back to discussing whether the Open Source movement effectively seals off any attempt to set up a company to economically challenge Micrososoft. Or something.
nice language. is that really necessary to make your point? it detracts more than it adds.
i've said it before and i'll say it again: if i want overtly political and security-related news, I'll go to CNN or allpolitics.com, not slashdot.
This site is (i thought) supposed to be including political stories only when it affects the Internet, digital rights, or some other form of IT censorship-- not wild speculation on a 'purposefully leaked' memo about tactical nuclear weapons.
C'mon CMDRTACO-- show some editorial integrity...
davejenkins.com |
This sort of thing is just wrong on so many levels.
To start, telling China and Russia that they "made the short list" is not a way to help smooth out diplomatic relations. The only way to deal with such nations is to convince them that they can satisfy their own best intrests by working with the US rather then against them.
Also, though it is my own completely uninformed opinion, but destroying massive amounts of property is not a great way to win a war. This is especially true when your enemy has the same capability. If Japan had been able to drop some Atomic Bombs on California, does anyone doubt what their response would have been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Modern warfare will most likely take place in Cities and other urban environments. We would all be better off if military personal were all trained and used for such operations.
The only real bonus for Nukes is that using them does not endanger US soldiers who would otherwise need to go be put in harms way. If a nation is not willing to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers for a cause, then perhaps it should not be involved in the first place.
END C0OMMUNICATION
How I wish I had moderation points! This is the most insightful post I've read for weeks. Someone please moderate the parent up.
The problem is the US is too big and powerful, and it knows it. Add in the mix the fact that a lot of George W Bush's advisors are "Cold War Enthusiasts" and you can understand statements like these.
Very sad, very worrying, and if the USA is the best example of a free loving democratic nation, then God help us all.
I'd cuss you out, but I don't know where to start.
What, EVERY SINGLE PERSON in Afghanistan helped Bin Laden?!?! Avoiding murdering innocent civilians is a whole lot more difficult if you don't recognise the existence of them
Can someone explain to me exactly who are the terrorists?
Are we not a rogue nation? Our "president" was not elected. He is a Monarch who was put in office by a coup in Florida and by the 5 republicans on the supreme court. He is a religious fanatic who answers to no one and ignores any opposition here and abroad. He wields weapons of mass destruction and threatens the entire world with them. "You are either with us or against us."
What the hell is the difference between the US and this supposed "axis of evil" anyway.
Fucking cattle are just eating this up.
11. True or False: If the Taliban were the current ruling government, you would have already been shot for posting a comment critical of the government?
The report can be found in its entirety at: http://cryptome.org/dod-npr.htm This site is a good resource for classified documents.
Maybe those poor folks in Afghanistan should have thougt about all these bad things Americans might do to their country before they helped Bin Laden knock over our little sky scrapers.
I'm willing to bet that most of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan killed by US military action had nothing to do with Bin Laden.
"big fucking deal. you were a little peon in the most overfunded, overhyped force on earth. woo, i am soooooo impressed."
There are at least 3 glaring errors in this statement.
1 - I was a rather large peon, not that you could have known.
2 - The Marines are notoriously underfunded. We basically get the Navy's leftovers and some Army scraps.
3 - Overhyped? HAH! Don't let MoA fool you. The U.S. has some pure psychopaths in their military. Be happy they're in the service and not on the street. Black-souled people if I've ever met them. And they are as skilled as a person gets in warfare. They cower from no one. I'm assuming you were referring to the U.S. military in general, as opposed to Force Recon. Because if you were singling out Force Recon, or even the Marines as being overhyped, you're a fucking idiot.
"the US military is...biggest bully...and...offense spending...are hardly going to win us any friends."
Uh-huh. In case you haven't noticed, nothing we do makes us any friends, aside from bombing the fuck out of them. Germany, Japan, Italy - BOMBED. Now, all are our allies. Go figure. Some people need the Ike Turner treatment.
"the only...reason for going back into iraq...is that saddam embarrased the hell out of bush senior, and so shrub wants to make amends."
We killed more of our own troops by accident than Iraqi forces did intentionally. Yeah, they really embarrased us...
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
hehehe
:D
+5 funny for you dude
Now, what was it you wanted again?
um.. food?
ROFL!! You should have thought of that *before* you became a peasant!
Can't we all just get along?
"Allez Cusine!"
I applaud the L.A. Times for publishing this information and making Americans aware of what their "elected" officials are doing. The Nuclear Posture Review should not be secret, because if it is, then how can nuclear weapons be a deterrent? And further, if the NPR is secret, then how can the voters make a meaningful choice at the time of the next election?
Every civilized person on this planet was horrified and saddened by what happened on Sept. 11. That does not mean every person on the planet supports U.S. World Domination at any cost, which now includes the use of nuclear weapons. There are roughly six billion other people on this planet. Half of them hungry and angry, with little to loose. The U.S. needs more friends, not enemies, and perhaps it would be wise to make the distinction between countries temporarily afraid of the U.S., and friends.
The United States is embarking on a very lonely journey with, if history is a guide, a certain and unpleasant outcome. Imperialism does not work, corporate or otherwise. Europeans are openly discussing the Bush Doctrine, which according to an opinion piece in the German paper Die Welt can be summed up as "America above everything." When have we heard that the last time? Remember what happened? Every time there is a large imbalance in military power, somebody tries to take advantage, and now it seems the U.S. are about to cross a threshold from which there is no turning back.
People in the Middle East not being enamored with America is one thing. But allies and friends not supporting the U.S. is worrisome. Political leaders in Germany have openly warned the U.S. that they do not have card blanche to hit whatever country the U.S. doesn't like. Try to remember that Germans are among the closest allies of the U.S.
It is obvious that the Congress cannot be counted on to make rational decisions in a time of crisis (cf. horrific assault on the Constitution without meaningful dissent or discussion). But other countries are not blinded by American patriotism and pork barrel politics, and cannot be counted on to support military adventures that can lead to no good.
The N.Y. Times quotes Colin Powell: "Right now, today, not a single nation on the face of the earth is being targeted by an American nuclear weapon on a day-to-day basis." What Mr. Powell meant to say is, we target everybody and you better make sure you're on our side.
Perhaps Colin Powell means what he said, but reportedly the Nuclear Posture Review was signed by the Secretary of Defense, and he is the President's military advisor. The key issue is that Nuclear weapons were never meant to be used. They were meant as a deterrent. Now they are becoming part of the plan.
I support striking back hard at Afghanistan. But at the same time, the U.S. must show some respect on the world stage. It starts just a few miles off the American coast. The world has told the U.S. to leave Cuba alone, but that's not politically correct at home. So U.S. economic warfare continues to punish this tiny island nation for no apparent reason. Yes, Castro was not elected, but that doesn't seem to be a big problem when it comes to any of our Middle Eastern dictator friends. When the U.S. doesn't like the way the U.N. works, they simply don't pay and again use economic power to assert their will. (Can I not pay my taxes if I don't like what's happening in D.C.?) These are only two examples, in which the U.S. acts as if it is already in charge of the planet. Is it a surprise then when some people feel the only way to make their voice heard is suicide bombings, and that it appears we are in trouble even with our friends abroad? It is not a matter of being right. It is a matter of respect for other people.
Yes, we have the biggest meanest guns right now. But look at history. Things change. Pray that the Bush Administration comes to its senses before it is too late.
Mutually assured destruction worked very well durring the cold war. No one was dumb enough to use a nuke for fear of retaliation.
Way to be on top of the news, guys! Woah... this story is like, a few days old already!
The sad part is, some brain dead teenager will read this on Slashdot and start believing it.
Wow, that's the biggest collection of strawmen I've seen since I was forced to drive through Iowa.
A single nuclear attack would destabilize his regime by ruining his public support. It's one thing for him to say, "look they're starving you," but it is another for him to try to explain "we didn't do anything to justify a NUCLEAR attack on our country" to his people. Nuke strikes aren't a small matter. To push a nation to launch a nuclear strike against another means that chances are, the nuked country's government did something ****VERY**** bad to bring that on. Anyone with >=80 IQ and possessing even a degree of sanity knows that. He'd be left with a nation full of people seeking revenge not against us, but him for bringing that on them
I'm all for reforming the policy on using nuclear weapons. But some of the things in the article really bother me. For example, the US's policy (someone correct me if i'm wrong) is to only use nuclear weapons as a last resort. This is why we didn't just nuke Vietnam instead of waiting it out for years.
Nukes weren't made to target battlefield situations, once the war is over the battlefield dissapears but the radiation doesn't. Which means innocent people would end up feeling this one way or another. And isn't that what started the hate in the arab community against the US in the first place?
Maybe it's time Americans stop praising bush for all he did right and focus on now. I'm not saying that he did a terrible job leading us through September 11th, in fact I think he did a great job. He's a great moral leader for our country, he keeps everyones hopes up. But politically with things like this, I'm not so sure about that.
We have all the land we want (otherwise we would have taken ALL of Mexico instead of just half). We use nukes as deterrants, as you have noticed we didn't use them to save tens of thousands of Americans in Korea or Vietnam, just in Japan when we still didn't know their capacity. This report is nothing new and I'm sure it has calmed down a lot since the cold war. You know that time when we had nukes in Afghanistan pointing at Moscow? That was a much worse time I assure you.
Personally, I'm glad our military is thinking of every scenario possible. We sure as hell didn't have one for our War on Terrorism and we had to make one up as we go. It's better to have the ground work made up in case China sneak attacks Taiwan or North Korea runs over South Korea with biological weapons. You know what they say, "Pray for the best, prepare for the worst."
Quite simply the US has had a standing policy that any attack on the US with weapons of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological, nuclear or otherwise, will be responded to with a nuclear strike. So if a rouge nation used chemical weapons on a US city or interest, we would respond, most likely, with nuclear weapons. This is OLD doctrine.
You've got to love political discussions on a computer message board. Yes, your ten leading questions are all valid and true - but they all tell only one part of the story. You introduce no context.
1. Which is the only country on the planet that's used a nuclear weapon on civilians?
Ignoring the context of a war in which the aggressors (Japan and Germany) committed the most horrible atrocities ever witnessed, ignoring the fact that both sides had already attacked civilian populations, ignoring the fact that the firebombing of Dresden caused more deaths than those nuclear weapons, ignoring the fact that it was believed (and justifiably) that ending the war with two massive bombs would cause fewer deaths than a ground invasion.
2. Have more Americans been killed at the hands of Iraqis, or have more Iraqis been killed at the hands of Americans?
Ignoring the context of why there are sanctions, who is really responsible for those Iraqi deaths (in the northern region of Iraq, governed by the UN since the end of the war, infant mortality rates and so forth have gone down, not up, even though they are under the same sanctions regime), why other nations oppose the US removing Saddam Hussein and thereby removing a threat to other nations and allowing us to end the sanctions and return weapon inspectors.
3. Who's killed more innocent civilians? Al Quaeda in the United States, or the United States military in Afghanistan?
Ignoring the fact that the one study showing that the US has killed 4,000 in Afghanistan has been called into heavy question (Human Rights Watch and Reuters both came up with much lower number of casualties), ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda purposely targetted civilians and the US did not, ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda wants to create Islamic fundamentalist rule and the US has removed the Taliban and organized aid to Afghanistan, etc.
I could go into more detail on all these points, and also cover your other points, but I think you get the idea. The point is, don't accept bon mots or witticisms as replacements for actually thinking through the whole issue.
Russia "made" the 'short-list' because the Wolfowitz doctrine is the Bush doctrine as outlined in this fancy article.
judging by all recent events, things are in fact falling in to place, as outlined. These latest reports are all just part of the 'game'.
We are in fact gaining a strong military presence in the exact area the Wolf Doc details, strategically we have placed ourselves in the center of the cyclone so to speak.
1. Which is the only country on the planet that's used a nuclear weapon on civilians?
United States of America. Not the only country that has used Weapons of Mass Destruction against civilians though.
3. Who's killed more innocent civilians? Al Quaeda in the United States, or the United States military in Afghanistan?
I don't think anyone really knows the answer to this question. One of the problems is that many of the "documented" civilian deaths in the early days of the bombing capaign were propaganda by the Taliban, and no independant sources have verified their claims. I don't believe that you can trust either side for accurate numbers on this issue.
5. Who recently said that getting Bin Laden, the architect of the Sept 11th attacks, was no longer a primary military objective in Afghanistan?
Maybe he's no longer in Afghanistan. That would mean that he could no longer be a primary military objective there, right?
7. List the number of Americans being held in captivity by enemy forces even though they've had nothing to do with American foreign policy. Now, list the number of people of Arabic descent being held by American forces even though they've had nothing to do with the Sept 11th terrorist attacks.
The State Department figures that around 2,500 Americans are arrested every year in Foreign nations. I haven't found a single documented case of someone of Arabic descent being held without them also being charged with a legitimate crime (usually immigration violations). I disagree with bringing in Arabs for questioning, which has been done without evidence linking them to crimes.
8. Any feasible pipeline built from the oil fields just off the Caspian Sea is going to need to go through Afghanistan. True or False?
False. It could also go through Iran.
9. Define the word "Terrorism" in absolute terms. Now, in 50 words or less, state whether or not the School of the Americas trains terrorists and why.
I don't believe that the School of the Americas trains soldiers to be terrorists. I believe that a few of it's graduates have committed terrorists acts, and probably would have with or without the training they received at SOA.
10. Afghanistan's Taliban regime was notorious in its poor treatment of women. Now, list all the countries that have a similar record of such treatment, but are still allies of the United States.
We didn't go in there with the intention to liberate women. Even though, I agree with you, I don't think that we should ally ourselves with foreign powers that don't provide their citizens with the same freedoms and protections that we provide ours with.
it is painfully obvious that the US of A is being attacked from all sides. Russia and China have finally showed their true face - they are clear targets in the war against terrorism. And are Germans really our friends now? Make no mistake - they could go Nazi on us any second. And what about the French? Don't even get me started on the French.
Our plan of action is clear. We have to preemptively nuke the entire world (except US, of course). It is the only way to be safe from the terrorist menace. All we need is a National "Defense" Shield. We will also need some kind of a National Fallout Shield. A giant glass dome will do.
With God's help fellow citizens,Mr. Chimp
points to ponder:
1) a captain is a peon in any force I know of
2) I was generalizing to US military, not marines, with the funding statement. We spend *way* too much of GDP on 'defence' spending. Wether or not it is *effectively* spend is another issue.
3) overhyped. definately. speaking of the forces in general, of course. but even your little SF wank is not quite true; we have allies (eg brit) with SF which are more capable (but far smaller as well). our real advantage is that we can outspend and outequip pretty much anyone, even if that equipment isn't allways as well tested as it should be. but we would be better off with a smaller, better trained military. one that wasn't so deeply up the ass of the military-industrail corps.
4) well, it was embarassing that even with *overwhelming* imbalance of power, we couldn't meet most of our objectives, and saddam has been thumbing his nose at us since. but if you read with a little bit of care, I was suggesting that saddam *personally* embarrased bush, but showing that bush couldn't touch him. Very different than what you *thought* I said.
"Rogue states". "Undemocratic".
"Threatening to employ weapons of mass-descruction." "Terrorist."
C'mon, it's all there, in Dubya's amazingly accurate self-describing rhetorics.
Ah well. It was just a matter of time, given the availability of these babies, for them to get used, once again; that it's happening as a result of the successful fundamentalist coup in the US of A is no surprise.
Only a single country has ever been eager and foolish enough to drop atom bombs, even though there was no need to. Hardly surprising if it happens again.
Didn't I see this a while back in StarCraft?
I'm 26 years old, and I don't think there has been anything in my life that has been more directly shocking to me and what I perceive my future to be than this announcement. Not even the Sept. 11 attacks compare to this demonstration of *intent* to use nuclear weapons in battle if necessary. Sorry, but the loss of 5000 people on that day is not enough to justify unleasing the nuclear floodgates on the world. How dare we.
Even India and Pakistan testing their nuclear stuff was of less concern to me than this situation. They're developing countries, trying to posture against each other, and at least with them, you figure they're just using the weapons to compete and deter each other.
But in this case, we've got the world's superpower, announcing that it's ready (yes, what do you think a contingency plan means? it means they're ready to do it) to use nuclear weapons of all sizes against whomever they believe to be the enemy. On its own, without giving a damn about the rest of the world.
I know that the military is not directly linked to the administration in the White House, but you'd better believe that GW Bush made this attitude possible. This is unbelievable, and endangers all of our lives, seriously. How dare we say that we have the right to go around the world and root out our enemies, bombing the shit out of lands just because we believe that they're hiding somewhere.
This administration has destroyed our credibility and leverage among our neighbors and I'm not sure how big the repercussions will be in the long run for all of us. It's time to stop the childish attitudes and understand what our role in the world is. It's not just "whatever we want because they're the bad guys, and because we can".
I couldn't help but think of Tom Daschle's complaints that he wasn't informed about the 175-200 officials who are kept in bunkers in the event of a disasterous attack on Washington.
When classified documents end up in the hands of the New York Times, the administration has a ready-made answer any time a legislator whines about not getting information that he or she isn't legally guaranteed.
The real question, it seems, is this:
Knowing what patriots we have in the press and throughout Congress, does that document relate more to our actual strategies, or more to what we want certain other parties to believe our strategies to be?
The notion that a "million lives" were saved by dropping the nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is completely unfounded by any fact. The most liberal military projections of lives lost without a nuclear attack were focusing on an additional 50K American casualties before the end of the war. Tops. Figures like 1/2 million and 1 million were entirely fabricated, be it intentional or otherwise.
We taught the Japanese a lesson with the A-Bomb in WWII and they've acted like a civilized nation ever since then. I think a few nukes would do wonders for curing the world of the cancer of islamic fundamentalism.
Have you ever studied this issue?
Let's say that the US makes a "no first use" pledge. Then some nut releases militarized smallpox or some other viriluent agent. But since they didn't use a nuke, the 50 million survivors are left with nothing more than wagging their fingers at him since we can't use nukes and we can't afford conventional military action with 5 out of 6 people dead. Where's the downside for that nut?
Now let's take one step back - we know that this nut has militarized smallpox prepared and almost ready for release. We have two days, and there's simply not enough time for a conventional strike. (And if we tried, the smallpox could be immediately released.) If we don't act, 250 million Americans (and a billion or two people in the rest of the world) will die. Or we can nuke the bastard. Maybe a few million will die if the nut has it in the middle of his capital city, but you will have a very hard time finding anyone who says that a few billion innocent deaths is preferable one-tenth of one percent of that number dying in a preemptive strike intended to save those lives.
It's easy to create strawmen arguments where the first use of nukes isn't necessary... but the scary scenarios are the ones where a first use prevents the use of other weapons of mass destruction.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
You are, in fact, the one engaging in a knee-jerk reaction. You instinctively feel the need to defend (apologize for) your president when anyone questions his actions.
Why don't you just come out with it and tell us all we're supporting terrosists here? Ask yourself: What Would Dubya Do? He'd roast us alive, wouldn't he? So get rid of the timid apologies, ok?
Edith Keeler Must Die
Take a look at the byline at the bottom of the commentary.
William M. Arkin is a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington and an adjunct professor at the U.S. Air Force School of Advanced Airpower Studies. He is also a consultant to a number of nongovernmental organizations and a regular contributor to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Officials are looking for nuclear weapons that could help against a foe like Al Qaeda.
No, I don't understand the last sentence either...
Miniskirts?
Bikinis?
Hollywood?
The Internet?
Playboy Magazine?
Rock-n-Roll Music?
The Islamic kooks that are involved in this terrorism hate us because our women are allowed to drive cars, dress in slacks, and walk in public without face and head coverings.
As much as I think this guy is wrong, don't moderate him down.
Would tactical nukes deterr terrorists? Hardly.
All this does is up the stakes in any conflict that the US gets involved in, and encourages people who don't like the US to develop their own nukes, and to deploy them in ways that will make deterrence irrelevant.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Bravo!! This guy gets it. At last a slashdot reader that isn't a slashBOT. Moderation = censorshipo.
The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor, it said.
the united states coming to intervene on the side of israel, how kind. maybe we should just give the nukes to israel with the other weapons we supply them, so we dont feel as bad when they use them on the arabs, terrorist to you..freedom fighters to others, only trying to get back their homeland?
The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria
i do not believe that the united states would ever really drop nukes on russia, or china. but listing them out like that only fules the belief that the united states targets muslim countries...
Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller "theater" nuclear weapons, remains of concern.
The administration has proposed cutting the offensive nuclear arsenal by about two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 missiles, within 10 years.
does this baffle anyone else? why do we need several thousand?? why does anyone need several thousand... so after the first wave.. we'll keep bombing so we can try and kill the roaches too??
They win if they can show us to be morally corrupt. They could successfully argue that we are, at least to sympathetic listeners, if we use nukes. And what could possibly win them more sympathy than being under attack by taboo weapons?
We supplied the terrorists with the bombs for the Trade Center by lax stewardship of our airplanes, and now we are offering them control of our nukes. We have shown them how to leverage nukes they don't own: just take these actions, and we will make this reaction. We are committed to fighting their war for them, by attacking them. We have our hand on the button, and we have shown them how to place their hand over ours and make us push it.
How foolish of us to make a threat that will destroy us if we carry it out.
"overhyped. definately. speaking of the forces in general, of course. but even your little SF wank is not quite true; we have allies (eg brit) with SF which are more capable..."
Where do people like you get your reasoning from?
You think Brits, or any other foreigners for that matter, are just naturally better soldiers than Americans?
Get your head out of your ass.
Americans are well fed. We have unlimited facilities to train and exercise in. Genetically, we are 25% German blood, followed by Irish then British blood. Not a pussy race to be found. (French blood accounts for 8% of American lineage, but my guess is we got the rowdy 8%)
And we also have a very large breeding pool, meaning more candidates that are suitable for this type of work.
We train as hard as anyone. I've trained with British SAS (Desert Patrol) and RoK Marines. Yes, they're hard core. But they don't outclass Force Recon/SEALs/Delta Force.
Technologically, we are far ahead of everyone else. You should see the shit in the labs at Quantico. It would blow you away, literally.
What exactly makes you think Americans are somehow inferior warriors? Even in Vietnam, a war we 'lost', the kill ratio was 12:1, and it's only gone up, since.
Americans will go down in history, for better or worse, as some of the baddest mother fuckers that ever walked the planet.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
From the article:
It calls for improvements in the ability to "exploit" enemy computer networks, and the integration of cyber-warfare into the overall nuclear war database "to enable more effective targeting, weaponeering, and combat assessment essential to the New Triad."
No wonder why the germans are looking at open source from a national security perspective!
I know that U.S.A. is not an enemy of EU, but looking at the fascist direction things are taking in the U.S.A. (Bush said: you are with me or against me) and the fact that computer software comes from U.S.A., Europe should be careful.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
This is an old story.
The U.S. has always made nuclear contingency plans.
In the 70's, the U.S. developed the neutron bomb. It kills all the people but leaves buildings standing (sounds familiar?! It minimizes collateral damage, but gets the bastards causing us problems). Also, tactical nukes (battlefield level devices as opposed to strategic - i.e. ICBMs) have always existed in the U.S. arsenal.
Nobody creates weapons without having specific plans on where or when they might be used. Also, to get funding, you need to justify the existence of such a program. It can't be done unless you write a report first.
I was in military intelligence in the 1980's. There is nothing new about this story.
so while you're sniffing daisies and wizzing on the flag people are eating bark in north korea, nevermind dog. their backs are against the wall, the best thing they could do right now is to invade south korea. just like the USSR, communism is inherently flawed, the only way it can survive is to rape new lands.
get a clue-by-four.
The Soviets were allied with the US at the time. The Soviets wanted to invade Japan as well, but what would happen if the Soviets invaded Japan? They would probably want to keep it for themselves, and then they would have a military stronghold in the Pacific. I'm not saying that it justified us for using the bomb. I believe, in the long run, that it caused more harm than good.
When I heard Dubya wanted to get rid of the ABM treaty, I knew his true intentions.
He and his republican cronies want to continue their warmongering just like Daddy Bush and Ronnie Raygun.
This is pointless. War gets us nowhere. The truly horrifying point is that Bush Inc. is using 9/11 to further their conservative agenda: War, Anti-choice, big fat paybacks to corporations, the further screwing of the middle and lower classes, spying on our own citizens, the continuation of the media as a propaganda tool for the military-industrial complex.
Granted, the democrats aren't much better. They are just as beholden to the big corporations ad the republicans, and day by day, the differences between the two parties shrinks and shrinks.
We have to stop the insanity. It's clear that the Bush administration have lost whatever shreds of sanity they ever had and are mad-bent on controlling the rest of the world through deployed groundtroops in various countries and nukes... and for what!? More 3rd world countries to exploit for the IMF and the World Bank? More "U.S. sponsored terrorism"? More CIA-trained terrorists to help the U.S. (and in 10 years we'll be fighting them.)
It's a vicious cycle.
-f-
actually SAS does outclass all US SF. Or at least it did 10 years ago. I am out of touch, so they could have been going down the tubes. I don't know others for sure, but wouldn't be surprised.
but we have better equipment, so there is a balance.
of course they aren't naturally better, or genetically, or whatever. but they do train harder, and probably better. and they don't, for the most part, have the stupid attitude that a lot of US SF I have met did. This is a psychological weakness. Well, perhaps weakness is a bit strong. It can help you on an in-and-out, but weakens your mental state on the long hauls.
I know a brit who did a 3 month solo in mumble (a while ago now) that was pure hell. I can't think of many others I have met that could have walked out of that, and none of them were FR or Delta...
OK, I'll play devils advocate (and I am not an American)
1. Which is the only country on the planet that's used a nuclear weapon on civilians?
Who saved many tens of thousands of lives by preventing the need for an invasion of the Japanese islands against a fanatical/suicidal defense?
2. Have more Americans been killed at the hands of Iraqis, or have more Iraqis been killed at the hands of Americans?
Have more Kuwaitis been killed at the hands of Iraqis, or have more Kuwaitis been killed at the hands of Americans?
3. Who's killed more innocent civilians? Al Quaeda in the United States, or the United States military in Afghanistan?
Who *intentionally* targets more civilians? Do you really think the distinction is irrelevant?
4. Which powerful nation recently criticized Israel for attacks that led to civilian deaths? For extra marks, has this powerful nation itself conducted military activity that's led to more civilian deaths in the same timespan since Sept 11th than Israel?
Which Jewish mid-east country has no realistic hope of resolving its terrorism problems through the use of military force? For bonus points, which powerful north american country is in a very different position?
5. Who recently said that getting Bin Laden, the architect of the Sept 11th attacks, was no longer a primary military objective in Afghanistan?
Who really believes that the WTC came down as the result of the actions of a single person?
6. Within 24 hours close to the end of 2001, one prominent US official said the following two statements: (1) that this wasn't a war against Afghanistan, (2) that the US military wasn't running out targets, but "Afghanistan" was. Name that official.
Why do some people insist on trying to paint this as a war against a "country" or against "Islam"? Does the use of such fairy tales make it easier for such people to demonize the USA?
7. List the number of Americans being held in captivity by enemy forces even though they've had nothing to do with American foreign policy. Now, list the number of people of Arabic descent being held by American forces even though they've had nothing to do with the Sept 11th terrorist attacks.
Were the 911 terrorists of Arabic descent? Do you think that the associates of the terrorists are more likely to be A) Arabic, or B)Mongolian?
8. Any feasible pipeline built from the oil fields just off the Caspian Sea is going to need to go through Afghanistan. True or False?
Which is the USA more likely to be slightly concerned about: A) One additional source of oil in an oil-glutted market. or B) Large commercial airliners been crashed into US skyscrapers and the pentagon?
9. Define the word "Terrorism" in absolute terms. Now, in 50 words or less, state whether or not the School of the Americas trains terrorists and why.
If the USA were to purposely target innocent civilians anywhere in the world, would this A) Make the world do what the USA wants, or B) Turn every civilized country against them? Are there people who make unfounded accusations of terrorism against the USA simply because they want to bring about B?
10. Afghanistan's Taliban regime was notorious in its poor treatment of women. Now, list all the countries that have a similar record of such treatment, but are still allies of the United States.
Should the USA use military force against other countries because of A) Cultural differences, or B) Terrorism?
Alec? Must be nice to know you are as "enlightened" as Hollywood actors.
Only a small part of the report was unclassfied. The part that was reported by the LA times was classified. Everybody wanted John Walker to be tried as a traitor and be put to death. But now we have Congressmen doing much more harm to the country then Walker ever did (don't get me wrong, I don't support Walker).
Whomever released this information to the press should be found and delt with accordingly. If we can't trust national secrets to people within the government I don't see how we can trust anybody.
Though there may be some positive that comes from all the "Shenanigans" it is a little unsettling. Get your Brooms Everybody!
We have the capability to make weapons of mass destruction, and we do make them. Does that mean that some else has the right to use nukes against us?
First of all, before you call me a Bush brown-noser or troll or idiot or dipshit or anything, I hate nuclear weapons.
They are really the only thing that could send us back to the stone age. A major nuclear war could destroy enough cities to collapse our delicate network of civilzation and send us to the Neolithic. However, the nuclear winter thing is unfounded. And the radiation from a couple hundred bombs would only hurt you if you were in 50 miles. Anyway,
My point is that people think that we are now suddenly changing our policy to allow the use of nuclear weapons at the slightest provocation. This isn't really true.
The DoD is just updating it's nuclear strategy. Political climates are constantly changing. Things today, especialy since 9-11, are much different than 10 years ago during the cold war. They are just updating their strategy for the new threats, such as being hit by a nuclear weapon from a rogue state like Iraq. They do this all the time. This is the first time it's been published, thats all.
It's not the end of the world. Just a change in policy. I don't think it's a bad idea to let N. Korea and Iraq know that we might use nuclear weapons against them if they mess with us or our allies. It's a good deterrent.
I personally think the DoD is just bluffing so China doesn't invade Taiwan, Iraq doesn't attack Israel, etc. I really don't think we would ever use nukes unless someone attacked us.
I also have one more rant: A little known fact, but Taiwan would most likely win if China invaded them.
Taiwan has about 350,000 troops.
China has 3 million.
However, China's troops are useless because they wouldn't be able to get more than about 500,000 troops over to Taiwan. They don't have enough landing craft. Also, China's troops are poorly trained. Probably 1 Taiwanese soldier is equal to 4 Chinese soldiers, due to the vastly better training. Less than half have guns. Also, their air force and navy suck. Taiwan has a bigger air force and navy. China only has some ratty 30 year old MIGS. They don't have any aircraft carriers and their destroyers suck.
Compare that to Taiwan: They have 350,000 highly trained troops. They ALL have guns. They have the latest American fighters. They have the best ships that they got from America. Their army would stomp the few Chinese that could get over the Straight of Taiwan. Their navy would completely whop the Chinese.
The invasion of Taiwan would be mainly a sea and air war. Taiwan clearly wins out over China in both respects. And, due to the poor quality of the Chinese army, the Taiwanese would still win out on land, too.
However, the Chonese are increasing their military fast. In a few year they could easily have the capability to invade Taiwan. They just don't now.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
You're an idiot. If the US dropped a nuke on anybody it would instantly lose every ally it has in Europe and NATO with the exception of the UK. China, North Korea and Russia would become loose cannons in a new, unbalanced (3-to-1) cold war which could quickly turn hot, possibly even as a matter of course. US embassies in every part of the globe would be shut down in response and US citizens anywhere around the world would be in immediate danger.
Worse, if the US were to drop "the" bomb on Baghdad specifically, it would also have every last Arab state aligned specifically against it as well; worldwide terrorism would increase 1000% and would be supported by all of the eastern nations either covertly or even explicitly. "The west" would suddenly find itself reduced to "US, Canada, UK" and positioned vs. The Entire East including most of Europe, as well as in a full-scale Protestant vs. Islam war which could last for centuries.
The fact that there are people out there who actually think that the US could *improve* international relations and world peace by using nuclear weapons demonstrates just how disconnected Americans are from reality.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Ah whatever. Que sera sera and all that. ;)
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
this statement alones shows what an idiot you are. The U.S. government always prepares for contingencies for using nukes. The only surprise is that this one is publicized. You don't want to show your hand to the enemy, so they can ante up or call your bluff. To compare this congressionally mandated review to 9/11 is just plain idiotic.
Even India and Pakistan testing their nuclear stuff was of less concern to me than this situation.
Christ almighty. India and Pakistan have fought 3 wars in the last 50 years, and are still fighting over Kashmir.
I'm not gonna waste any more time with this karma whoring nonsense. I just had to respond because a few idiot moderators upped it up.
...of our nuclear arsenal. The fact is, we have many nuclear weapons ready for deployment anyway. You think plans like this haven't always existed? The current administration has little to do with this...this is a mandatory review by the pentagon! If you are surprised by this, you have not been paying attention the last 60 years. Heck...the fact that this information was (somehow) released makes me very happy Clinton had contingency plans like this to, believe it or not. The fact that we know about this makes me, as I said, very happy. I want to know about such things, but I am not childishly naive enough to believe that they did not exist even when I was unaware of them.
Get yourself to a church. Quick.
This kind of hatred is going to put you in Hell.
How on earth is this story warrented on /.? Have you forgotten "News for nerds, stuff that matters?"
/..
This is news, yes, and worthy of being published (issues of how the info was obtained aside)... but NOT on
Can we get back to tech news now?
Large scale weapons of mass destruction don't grow on trees. They require R&D efforts and some industrial capacity to manufacture, even so-called "cheap" biologicals. A biological intended to reliably take out a city no doubt takes more than a whack-job and a private garage to create. Will nukes deter whack-jobs that have been promised a harem of 30 virgins in heaven for "destroying the infidel"? Nope, nothing will. Will they give pause to those that would arm, train, and house said whack-jobs? Very likely.
All that said, one does not even so much as bandy about that he may use nukes. It makes people scared and scared people don't think rationally. Middle Eastern nations and even some in Europe think we're capable of doing anything right now. The timing is incredibly bad to announce "nuclear contingency plans".
I love cryptome, I read it every day. That said, the report John Young has put up is the unclassified version; although he's trolling for the classified version.
Hey Taco, any idea when the results of the John Young questions will be posted? It's been six months or so...
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
The weapons that are being proposed, sub-kiloton, are not the same "Bomb" as those developed in those heady days of MAD and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
These weapons are cleaner than anything used in World War Two, smaller than anything used in World War Two and very capable of being a good deterant to people that might use Biological or Chemical weapons against a nuclear armed foe.
The reason I say they might be deter a foe is, the weapons that the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China have now are too big and thus unusable from a political point of view. A smaller weapon that is actually usable from a tactical standpoint would actually be more humane than many of the systems in use now.
Had the Allies used a few small nuclear devices during the Gulf War in 1991 or Desert Fox in 1998 against hardened Iraqi facilites would have ended Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological dreams and allowed the United Nations to end the sanctions.
Small tactical nuclear devices DO NOT move the world closer to "midnight". SS-25 Satan's with 20 megaton warheads and Trident D-5s with 10 225 kiloton warheads do.
Michael, you can't handle the truth. Please continue to mod down
So if I understand this article right, the US may actually be willing to use nukes if Taiwan and China went to war? Is this incredibly stupid or what...If we send a nuke to China, they are simply going to send 100 right back. What's the point in that?
If you're 26 years old, then you're too young to remember the Cold War. You know, the one we WON because nobody in their freaking mind would attack the US military? Well, guess what: eight years of military softening by the Philanderer-in-Chief left not only our military but our CIVILIAN population vulnerable to some psycho with a Weapon of Mass Destruction (and yes, a 767 at speed loaded with fuel qualifies as a WMD).
There are only two options for dealing with such people. One is to eliminate any civil liberties, and spot them as they're about to attack. The other is to kill them in place. I'll opt for the "Kill in Place" method, since I see no reason to screw up a perfectly good society.
As for the rest of the world, they do what's in their best interest without consulting the US. Get a clue.
-=paulf
...-.-
...And every German resident during WWII was a Nazi soldier that gassed Jewish people to death, I suppose?
[Sorry to invoke Godwin's law, but you're WAY off]
We have always had plans. Or in other words, control.
Get a free ipod.
Look, I think what we need to be thinking about here is why we have nuclear weapons in the first place.
Nuclear weapons came out of WW2. They were created because we had two implacable enemies who had indicated their willingness to fight us to the death of their last man, and our leaders were concerned that we were going to have to send hundreds of thousands of our finest young men to their deaths for no good reason other than that there wasn't any other way.
When Germany surrendered, they had complete plans for a jet bomber that could have reached New York. When Japan surrendered, they not only were within months of completing actual bombers that could have reached California, they also had biological weapons ready to be deployed that could have killed millions, and plans to use them on San Diego. They also were planning that every man, woman, and child in Japan was going to fight to the death to prevent a US invasion.
The decision to drop nukes on Japan was made because it was believed that dropping nukes would kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese people, but invading would kill millions from both sides.
Nuclear weapons are a terrible thing and I sincerely hope we never have to use them again. Yet, I think it's entirely reasonable for the United States to openly make a statement such as "if you attack the united states or our territories, we will nuke you no questions asked," I rather doubt any nation would want to mess around with us. It may not deter terrorists, but it may deter nations from harboring them.
Nuclear bombs were created to scare the beejabbers out of our enemies so they might think twice about attacking us, or moreover so that if we are at war they will be cowed into submission. If we act like we're afraid to use these weapons, we have made these weapons worthless. If we indicate our willingness to use them without hesitation in limited, correct circumstances, we could be a safer people. Consequently, while I think this report is a bad way for this message to get out, I think it's a correct message for us to be expressing.
You do both. I'm positive, without actually knowing anything about it, that we are on their "short lists" too. They'd be fools if we weren't. You think China has the nukes its does but its official policy is "We really don't know what we'd do with them?"
We're on China's list. Japan is on their list. India is on their list. South Korea is on their list. Russia is on their list.
Russia's "list" probably looks similar.
Also, though it is my own completely uninformed opinion, but destroying massive amounts of property is not a great way to win a war.
And as many others have pointed out, the reason for the existence of strategic nukes, the kind that do the enormous amounts of damage, is to deter, not to win wars.
US culture already "occupies" much of the world.
cpeterso
"Oh yeah, Sadam eats babies"
Must be true....it was on CNN, fact-free 'news'
at its best.
Hey people, this kind of thing is being taken out of context. Congress MUST setup nuclear policy from the get-go. That's all this paper is about - policy. You guys would probably be frightened to hear that we have target lists of what we'd nuke in Russia, China, and several other nations in the event of nuclear war. Good grief. I'd be horrified if I ever learned that the Pentagon DIDN'T do any planning in regards to nuclear weapons. We've got over 6,000 active warheads. To think that nobody ever thought about the way to use them in the event we need to is ludicrous. I'm willing to bet that somewhere in the DoD's massive archives are plans for the defense of Taiwain against a Chinese invasion. I'd also bet that a similar plan exists for the possible counter-invasion of China. Having the power and knowing how to use it are two totally different things. The planning of how to utilize the A-bomb in WW2 was being developed before we even knew if we'd have "the bomb" by the end of the war. Otherwise, we might have blindly used nukes to clear the beaches of Japan as we invaded. Nuclear weapons are controversial, but no matter how you look at it, so long as the exist, the owners must have clear planning about how to use them in the event of need.
Maybe America should find a couple of cities that al'qaeda recognize as sacred, and then nuke them killing millions of civilians. Then they could say "give up now, or we bomb 2 more cities". I mean, it worked in Japan, and we all know the American government has the PR capability to turn it all around and make it seem like they are the good guys. :)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
uuh...what exactly makes you think that trident D-5's and SS-25's wont be launched if the US uses "small" nuclear weapons on a regular basis ?
Iraq was happily developing various forms of bio and chemical weapons, despite near-direct threats of nuclear attack.
/real/ nuclear deterrent: lots of little wars, all over the place, lots of countries doing their own research into weapons, and bying things from the Soviets, or being given them by the US, or whatever. The lesson to be learnt from that is that a large scale nuclear deterrent does not work against most things, and most states. Not at all.
They're the most obvious example, but there are sure to be others - if nothing else, ex-Soviet scientists selling things to people indiscriminately.
Take a look at the history of warfare during the cold war, when there was a
Bush is fucking up seriously in his handling of the post WTO world.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Yes, exactly. It's a war against terrorism. It's not even against terrorists any more. We don't fight with people, what do you mean, you are not against terrorism?! It sickens me. Little children are dying. Women are dying. Old people are dying. In the name of fucking war against terrorism. I don't even want to talk about where those terrorists have weapons from. They were very convenient when they could hurt USSR, but now it's over, now they're bad. The most sad thing is that those dying children don't give a fuck about these politics and anti-terrorism propaganda. They won't even have a chance to grow up and understand why they were killed and why their lifes were worthless to the rest of the world, the good civilized part of the world. Where the hell are you people going to wake up and start thinking?
China only has 20 nukes that can hit the U.S. And those 20 can only hit the west coast.
Sounds like a plan to win a nuclear war, and get rid of 50+ stubborn electors as well.
CNN is a lackey of the government through and through. I no longer trust anything I read on CNN. They used to be one of the best. Now they rarely give any real dissenting views on anything and sugarcoat whatever the government is doing and saying.
In fact, it might just be your turn in the barrel.
Will someone please mod this post up? The poster is obviously well versed in the area, and makes several comments worth reading.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
--The Sphinx
So, this is the same Pentagon involved in the OSI (Office of Strategic Influence), which was going to lie, then when that was publicized, it wasn't, then was "disbanded"?
Yeesh.
Technology does NOT make the soldier for gods sake! The US are notorious for just shooting off their guns and throwin bombs at a situation and killing themselves/allies at the same time. Typical US soldier moto I heard from somwhere: "Were out of ammo, lets make a plan!" The US "special" forces are filled with people who think they are invincinble then are suprised when bullets start hurting them. More like a 30 000 feet army i.e lets use other peoples forces and just drop bombs. US can NOT stand seeing their own get hurt, thats why in the past week the "600" or so allied forces only had a FRACTION of US soldiers!
Laptop Reviews
Much better than when Eisenhower's "Massive Retaliation" policy was in place--under that the U.S. would respond to any attack with nukes. Now the U.S.'s policy is to reply in kind, but to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties (e.g., we didn't send a fleet of 747s to Afghanistan in late September). The U.S., however, doesn't have chemical or biological weapons, thus they consider those weapons to be nukes, and they respond in kind.
Unfortunately your logic is flawed. When the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, it was to end a war begun by the Japanese government. Their goverment had the power to cease hostilities. Unfortunately, doing the same thing to an Afghan city will not cause the al Qaeda terrorists to end their violence against the West. If anything, this will only encourage them, as it will be perceived by the Islamic world that the US is fighting the Muslims. Thus, dropping nuclear bombs on Afghanistan will be counter-productive to American goals.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Little boy, the US has always had these plans to use nukes.
You've lived in a shell, and have believed the hype of the last 10 years about world peace and global economic prosperity.
It doesn't work that way. Its too bad that you're too young to understand.
I thought I would repost that for the few who might have missed it. I can only imagine how this reads in the newspapers of other nations. Just like the US will step in when some dangerous maniac is is gaining too much power.... WTF are we thinking?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
When he saw what the united states did with the bomb he helped create he started the anti-nuclear weapon movement. Note just the weapon part he wasn't some anti nuclear energy idiot though some like to point him out as if he were, sigh.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
First, I find it hard to believe what explains away starvation can not explain away nuclear strikes. That is, The US (or West) is attacking Islam. If the Iraqi people are actually supportive of Saddam, they'll continue to be despite whatever attack comes their way.
But Iraqi public support is likely an almost moot point. Saddam does not stay in power due to public support. He has seized and maintains support through ruthless politics. He has gassed disident populations of Iraqi citizens. He has executed groups of Iraqi military officers critical of his policies on multiple occassions. He has executed family members - two sons-in-law who fled Iraq and talked publically about Iraqi rebellion. In short, Saddam and his regime kills its opposition, eliminating dissent, and isolating anybody else who may harbor dissent for that regime.
Public support is not an issue.
America does not passively sit back and defend itself against enemies when they pop up, they spend billions not in defence, but in offence, creating a world where military might controls less powerful countries by force. The lapdog of the UK is no better - sent in where 'diplomacy' and 'peace keeping' would be more effective than direct action - loyal to the last, and the largest aircraft carrier on earth. They cannot be stopped - they are out of control.
America will never be safe as long as the current tyranny is in power.
Terror is defined as illegal use of force to effect foreign powers. In this technique, America reigns supreme.
Look beyond the details and the supposed motives. Look at how the world is controlled. Look at how the gap between rich and poor is getting wider. Look at why humanity is not moving forward. Read some Chomsky.
We are at a pivotal point in history. We now have the ability to clothe, house, feed and educate every human on the planet, bar none, yet we waste our energies bickering over who owns what and killing innocents. Instead of watching the birdie, look at how the puppetmasters are raping the world.
This wasn't a leak - it was a controlled threat made public to keep the people feeling scared and insecure. To keep the inertia of new oppressive laws going. To guarantee the flow of taxes from patriotic Americans to the backpockets of those in power. If Bush was really serious about dropping nukes on those who threaten world peace, he'd drop one on the whitehouse.
'We are all.... gonna die.'
-Archan
Blah to the skins and Blah to the punks and Blah to the world and everybody sucks.
Who's gonna be on the ground painting the target with the laser?
Than why did they choose those targets? They had numerous other places to target up to and inclusing tokyo. Both targets were in valleys and would minimize radiation leakage into the atmposphere that is the reason they were chosen.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
> Peace is purchased with superior firepower.
:(
Well, no. You buy the other guy getting himself superior firepower. And it loops, until it blows.
In the end, what you buy with superior firepower is `charred rubble & dumplings', i.e. *human* dumplings.
Peace is never *purchased*, it's *created*, created through justice and good-will. Nuking people, or threatening them with that, does NOT build justice nor good-will. Depriving other peoples of what they need---read ``Market Economy(TM)''---doesn't promote justice nor good-will, either.
``Si vis bellum, para bellum; si vis pacem, para pacem.'' [If you want war, prepare for war; if you want peace, prepare peace.]
You *should* know better
The *intent* to use nuclear weapons if pushed to that point was always there. It never left.
:)
The primary purpose of a nuclear weapon is as a deterrant. It's a weapon so horrible, so nasty, that *anything* is better than being faced with it.
A deterrant is only credible if the bad guys believe that you will *actually use the damn thing* if the right conditions are met. A weapon that you have, but are too afraid to use, is of no use as a deterring factor.
In my 11 years of military service opinion, it is good to, every once and a while, spell it out to the bad guys that we have these weapons, and that we are very much determined to use them if the right conditions are met.
Note that as bad as nukes are, they PALE in comparison to chemical and biological weapons. A nuke can be aimed at military targets, and the majority of its effects (not all, but most) can be contained to legitimate targets. As for the side effects, they are relatively minor.
We can argue the morality of the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and both sides have good points) but both cities were rendered habitable again in short order. A persistant chemical attack can render an area uninhabitable for _decades_ (not to mention the effects on watersheds and whatnot)
A chemical or biological attack is an indiscriminate attack on noncombatants; it's the modern equivelent of salting the fields and slaughtering the firstborn. The use of nukes on people who deploy chemicals is, in my opinion, showing restraint and mercy.
Now, the Russians.
I have to admit, I found the inclusion of the Russians on the target list to be, at first, a little disturbing. But with some reflection, I have to grudgingly admit that it makes sense.
There are a LOT of extant former-Soviet missiles out there, and there is no promise that they won't fall into the hands of someone inclined to use them. The current Russian government seems decent enough, but there's no guarentee that some future Russian/Former Soviet government might not start thinking about their possible use. Keeping the ability to deliver warheads to Former Soviet territory is good insurence against future use.
And, incidently, the reverse is true. There's nothing at all wrong with the Russians keeping the Americans honest too.
I don't think we need the massive nuclear arsenals that we did in the past, but given that the genie is out of the bottle, it seems that we'll always have a few in the background, just in case.
Governments and policies change, but the weapons will always still be there.
While I'm on the topic of the Russians....
As more and more documents come out of the former Soviet Union, people like myself get to see more and more of the truth - and that truth paints a picture of a far less 'evil' Evil Empire than we were lead to believe in at the time of the Cold War. And furthermore, we get to see things that bring new truths to light - truths like it was the _Russians_ who did all the heavy lifting when it came to defeating the Nazis in WW2, not the West.
Truth be told, I think the Russians get short shrift in Western history books.
So if any Russians are reading this... please don't think that the West still hate, fear, and distrust you. We're learning too.
And if any Russian out there used to command a BRDM recce unit... I'd love to link up with you and compare notes.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
As much as you tried to dance around it, no one objects to deterrence.
The principle of no questions asked nuclear retaliation is a good one. This NPR advocates far more creative uses for nukes than this.
The only other sensical argument that's made which you mostly hinted at, is that if we try to simply appear to be the deranged lunatic nuclear cowboy caricature that is made of us, we dominate our opponents because they will cower to our presumptively depraved tyranny.
The downside to this is that it legitimizes all attacks on us, because we officially endorse the pricinple that "if there is no conventional means, our policy is to use extreme ones."
So first strike nuclear attacks against us, and using civilian aircraft as bombs, are according to our principles, entirely valid within our war morality. Plus, now there is a new justification of pre-emptive retaliation. A first strike against us as a retaliation for our supposedly impending first strike.
Why didn't George Dubbya just say, "My dick is bigger than your dick! Oh, I fuck sheep, and my hot ass daughter two!"
I believe you're mistaking two seperate issues. Would Saddam care if the Iraqi population were killed? No. Would he care if his country was attacked with nukes? Yes. There is a difference.
The Gulf War is a great example of Saddam's strategic thinking. But what we saw was only Act 1. Saddam sent his air force to Iran for safe keeping. He created a buffer zone of expendable ground troops kept in place by his valued Republican Guard who took positions behind the lines. He put on a flashy, but largely ineffective AAA lightshow (even though the US Air Force guys did get to practice some battledamage repair from it). He then waited for huge civilian casualties to roll in from US bombing. Then he could show large-scale genocide against Islam, rally Arab nations to his banner (getting his air force back from Iraq by the way), and become the biggest military leader ever known in the Arab world. The mother of all battles, indeed.
But US technology performed beyond anyone's expectations. Saddam was forced to try to support his genocide-stage plans with footage of errent missiles, casualties from populations seeking shelter in valid military targets, and "baby milk factory" footage. He failed to rally support. The curtain came down and did not go up after Act 1.
What do we get out of this? Saddam uses his civilian poplulation as pawns and has no concern for their welfare. But he does care about his military resources (remember his air force, republican guard, etc - Saddam's military is also his political power base). You can bet if the US began to nuke military resources and infrastructure, he would care. In fact, it is very likely that threat of nuclear strike detured Saddam from wide scale deployment of biological and chemical munitions (assuming the Gulf War Syndrome comes from munitions that were being destroyed by US forces).
honestly, moderators why do you mod up flamebait that agrees with your worldview, but mod down flamebait that is contrarian yet valid?
second: to us Europeans, the US looks like a country full of extremely stupid people, who chose a leader keen on blowing the whole world up. Don't expect to make friends with anyone from Europe any time soon. Expect people to hate you, just because you're from the USA and didn't prevent this from happening... (yes, just like the Germans are still being hated for not doing enough about their rulers 60 years ago)
You know, that's a very short sighted way of thinking . . . You might consider that the WTC attacks
Making war is only rarely going to
Please don't go there.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
In other words:
Georges warning says:
"Don't fart in the USA!!!!"
"Youre homeland well be nuked"
yes, that was stupid.
I agree wrinkledshirt is probably trolling, but please see this article.
Hey where did that comment "global popquiz" go?
Well said. Hussein isn't the only power-hungry madman. America's position of strength allows it to do pretty much what it wants. But if Bush goes too far down this path, he will eventually provoke somebody (terrorists or hostile states) into retaliating.
America's allies (particularly the Europeans) should be acting as the safety valve on American foreign policy to stop Bush doing something really stupid.
I don't think you're doing justice to the situation as it existed. From reading your description, I get the analogy that I've got a gun and you've got a gun. I don't shoot at you because I know you'll shoot back. Close. But not quite right. The situation was more dire.
I have a gun at your head, you have one at mine. We're both intently watching each other's trigger finger. If I begin to squeeze, you'll squeeze and we'll both be dead. But I'm watching closely just in case you get some idea that you can be just quick enough to get me before I can react. And I'm kinda shaking and wobbling. So are you. Or is that you tensing your finger ready for the squeeze?
Again - you must have missed the whole Cold War. Remember the Soviet Union was "the evil empire"? There was no first strike. But we did have guns at each other's heads.
Of course, the world is not a stable place. Governments want nukes not just because the US has them, but because nuclear powers get different treatment. There are areas of the world in constant state of near-war. Any US servicemember stationed in South Korea can tell you that.
Sure - US policy and statements will impact world events and stability. And I'm not sure if current statements have helped world stability. But I'm even less convinced that they are pushing the world in to an unstable tailspin. Look around. The world wasn't that stable to begin with.
I think that everyone is missing the point here. It's not that the U.S. is the only country in the world which has plans for when to use its nuclear weapons, it's that the U.S. is one of the few countries whose policies are open and transparant enough for us to know about them.
Do you really believe that China, Russsia, etc. don't have similar plans? Just because we don't hear about them doesn't mean that they don't exist--just that they are held more closely secret.
Snarkiness is inversely proportional to wisdom because it emphasizes feeling right rather than being right.
Yeah, all that hi-tech gear and quality training facilities and STILL you manage to have the highest score in the not-so-popular field of KILLING PEOPLE ON YOUR FUCKING SIDE!
Only 148 people were killed in the Gulf, BUT A WHOPPING NUMBER OF 207 WERE KILLED DUE TO FRIENDLY FIRE and other accidents.
You lost 4 tanks, ALL to friendly fire.
Listing China and Russia in a possible "hit list"? Wow, I thought we were making some progress, but it seems like someone wants to throw all that away. Mabye the government wants (needs?) another war to justify it's actions. The current administration just needs to slow down, and think things through just a little bit longer, or else the United States is on a highway to self-destruction.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
was not required of Germany in 1918, and by 1936 (the Ruhr valley and the later Austrian "Anschluss") Germany was back in the business of grabbing territory, prequels to Czechoslovakia, Poland and as much else as they could grab by force and terror.
So, Japan was run by a bunch of military invaders who had in 1930 invaded mainland China's Manchuria (and by 1945 a "happy" part of Japan's Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", notwithstanding the bayonetting, live mass burials and such) and had been able at Port Arthur in 1905 to launch and win a sneak attack against a naval base (this time belonging to Imperial Russia). Do you think anything less than "unconditional surrender" would have prevented a subsequent post-war successor to the Empire of Japan from another war? Even with a US occupation after WWII, the Japanese never taught their school children about the wartime atrocities of Japanese Imperial troops, and even today are in massive denial (look at their school history texts describing the "expansion" of Japan onto the mainland in the 1930's, rather than the truth of such actions, or the use of prisoners of war for lethal medical experimentation).
Unconditional surrender of the Axis powers was necessary to avoid what was expected to be yet another war in a few decades, as "The War To End All Wars", subsequently renamed WWI had been followed by "WWII: New! Improved! Nuclear!"
Aggressive militaristic dictatorial superpowers do not co-exist well with children and other living things. That's why we had the Cold War, and why the best thing that's happened since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is the People's Republic of China following the traditional slogan of Chinese New Year (literally: "Let's all get rich!").
Anything less than unconditional surrender of Japan, which had followed the unconditional surrender of Fascist Italy and the Nazi Third Reich, would have planted the seeds for just another war another generation later, at least in the eyes of the people who were winning WWII after having fought and won WWI.
The combination of a country imbued with so much arrogancy of power, led by a
veritable idiot is a sure receipt for a catastrophic future. Pressure creates counter pressure. Injustice generates hate. As long as US foreign policy is without any justice, I wouldn't bet a penny on the safety of your towers.
How many Taliban/al Qaeda/whoever-the-fuck do you think have blown themselves up stepping on their own land mines? None?
Fuckhead.
They simply don't track friendly casualties, and if they did, they wouldn't release them to the public.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
"If a nation is not willing to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers for a cause, then perhaps it should not be involved in the first place."
Perhaps true, however, a nations soldiers are valuable. If a war can be won without sacrificing them, then we should try to do so.
With that said, nuclear weapons should be a last resort. The one time they were used in warfare, the casualties caused by those two bombs were far less than even optimistic casualty estimates... In a situation like that, their use is acceptable if not desirable.
I honestly think the US should leave first strike as an option, and develop nuclear weapons for everythign from erasing cities to taking out bunkers. The more willing we appear to use them and the more variety we have in our arsenal to deal with specific situations, the less likely someone will do something to piss us off. We might not win friends among our target list, but we will likely not have to worry about large scale attacks as much. Noone gos to war if they don't think they at least have a chance of winning. Even Al-Quaeda would not have attacked if destruction of the cause was seen as a possible outcome. They like martyrdom only if there is someone left to inspire. Apparent or actual greater willingness to use nukes will deter more wars.
When the final strategy is done, a firm line needs to be drawn as to when to deploy. I would personally like to see these situations as nuclear responses:
1) Use of WMD against the US. A few anthrax letters in the mail are one thing, justifying a severe though non nuclear response, but if someone cropdusts NYC with large amounts of anthrax, enough to severely stress or overwhelm emergency response and health care... Nuke them.
2) Survival of the United States. Unlikely to come into play, but if the survival of the United States(I mean the 50 states and various territories, not our embassies and overseas military bases) is threatened or another nation is close to conquering parts of our territory, repel them by all means necesary, including nuclear weapons.
3) Attacks such as the WTC attack. I'm sorry... That justified a nuclear detonation right above wherever Bin Ladens most likely hideout was at the time.
4) To counter new weapons that do not exist currently, and the US has no capability to otherwise counter. If, say, China develops an orbital bombardment laser and the only thing we have to deter its use is nuclear weapons, then nuke them if they use it.
5) Killing annoying actors while saving the world:)(Armageddon if you didn't catch my reference)
Um, no. Japan was negotiating terms of surrender not to the Allies, but to Russia, specifically. I don't claim to make judgement to whether the U.S. government's understanding of this at the time was correct or not, but I believe the administration needed to keep Japan from being occupied by Russia; everyone could read the handwriting on the wall that after this it was going to be Communists vs. Capitalists.
yours,
kbs
And, what I meant to say along with that was, he was in the German military long before Hitler was in power. They may have sworn loyalty to Hitler, but it was only because they were sworn already to the physical country and whatever government happens to be in power.
People who joined after Hitler came to power did have a choice, true, but many of them were looking for a paying job when they became soldiers. This was in the Great Depression, you know.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I certainly would agree that the US is too powerful, but everytime we try to decrease its power, the left fights it tooth and nail.
Let me be clearer, The US is powerful because it's government is huge! Reduce the money going to it and the power will decrease.
Michael,
If you are going to quote Shakespear you should get it right:
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war... -- Antony
Act III, Scene 1 Julius Caesar
It's "let slip."
But being a censor, you wouldn't be a big fan of actually reading something would you.
How would you know? Have you actually interrogated each and every single last one of the socalled "enemy" inquiring about such logs?
I agree wrinkledshirt is probably trolling, but please see this article
I've never read that article, but I've read plenty of articles about Rabih Haddad's case. The fact is, he's been in the country for 2 1/2 years illegally. He's had at least one hearing where the judge decided that he should remain in custody. If someone could find me a case where there isn't even a minor visa irregularity, then I'll gladly change my tune.
Now you're just being silly.
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
$karma + $points = $karma;
if $karma > 50 ($karma=50);
50 + 1 = 51 -> 50 (can't be bigger)
50 - 1 = 49
if you'd posted your -1 comment before the other you'd still have had 50.
The slashdot user Dr. Spock's comments on arming Iran, N. Korea, etc, may be twisted ideas, but he does provide a good point: nuclear deterrant only works if two or more nations have the same nuclear capabilities. The fact that the US seems unafraid to use "tactical" nukes indicates that this "deterrant equilibrium" is no longer there. The US is now unafraid to develope more nukes and to threaten the world with the use of those weapons. During the Cold War, nuclear development slowed because of the Soviet/US standoff and because the Soviets made it clear that any US nuclear use would result in immediate retaliation. It seems that now the threat of retaliation is gone.
Everyone worries about terrorists and rogue nations, but we don't realize that terrorists and rogue nations only exist because of the actions that were directly or indirectly supported by the USA. The North Korea situation was improving with the Clinton administration and when Bush came in, the talks between North and South Korea just stopped. Terrorist actions cannot condoned, by why isn't the USA looking at the deep rooted causes of these fanatical groups?
Furthermore, have we forgotten that the US still has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world and spends more money annually on the military than any other country?
This new document just indicates that the US is a warmonger and will ultimately cause a new arms race and possibly endanger the lives of everyone in the entire world.
USA.
Besides, who needs nukes when you have thermobarics? All the terror of mini-nukes, none of the fall-out, and you get a chemical poison-gas weapon as a pleasant, non-Hague Convention side-effect...
The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique--and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.. If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique--and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.. If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.
Defense Intelligence Agency, "Fuel-Air and Enhanced-Blast Explosive Technology--Foreign," April 1993. Obtained by Human Rights Watch under the US FOIA
The effect of an FAE explosion within confined spaces is immense. Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, and thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs,and possibly blindness.
Central Intelligence Agency, "Conventional Weapons Producing Chemical-Warfare-Agent-Like Injuries," February 1990. Unclassified document.
Because the "shock and pressure waves cause minimal damage to brain tissue.it is possible that victims of FAEs are not rendered unconscious by the blast, but instead suffer for several seconds or minutes while they suffocate."
Defense Intelligence Agency, "Future Threat to the Soldier System, Volume I; Dismounted Soldier--Middle East Threat," September 1993, p. 73. Obtained by Human Rights Watch under the US FOIA
Source for these quotes.
Da Blog
No, it wouldn't. If nukes were the only way to ensure no further attacks occurred, sure. But to wipe out an entire people, most of whom weren't responsible, purely for revenge? That's unworthy of a civilized human being, and were you the person that ordered such a thing (or carried out such an order knowing you were deliberately mass-murdering civilians) you would be the worst war criminal since Hitler (and, yes, the analogy is relevant for once).
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The US has been using Echelon to conduct economic warfare against the EU, and the Swedish government weren't too happy when Novell sold them a 'secure encryption' system for confidential use within their government only to find 40-bits out of each 80-bit key escrowed with the NSA. We all know about Microsoft collaboration. The attacks on the EU haven't just hit home in Germany and Sweden but also many other EU countries. France, upon the evidence presented to them on Echelon, did a 180-degree turn on their encryption policy and went from a ban on all encryption to an immediate allowance of strong encryption for anyone for any use. I think we may well see a government push towards open source in the EU except for the UK. The UK hosts many of the spy stations used against our EU neighbours, and in return the USA throws us a few intelligence scraps when they feel like it.
Back on topic, it's interesting to see Bush throwing up the threat of foriegn nuclear weapons as the next excuse to distract attention from his domestic failure. Does he think his pathetic scare stories will drag us back to our Cold War paranoia? Will we then give him a free hand to attack the first on his long list of peeves, Iraq?
And finally can people please stop referring to Pakinstan as a "nuclear superpower" unless they provide evidence the rest of us don't know about. The last report on Pakistan nuclear testing I saw said that their "nuclear bomb" test was the equivalent destructive power of a large lump of TNT and seismologist have shown their tests yielded nothing like their government claims.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Is that Bush wants smaller nuclear weapons developed. Remember when Bush promised to reduce the total ICBM arsenal to 2000 warheads or so (:sarcasm:only enough to destroy the world three times over:sarcasm:)? Now we know why: it's probably cheaper to pull apart the old nukes for spare parts rather than trying to mine all the extra uranium et al. What a magnanimous gesture that was.
BlackGriffen
we are all on a lump of rock floating in what could well be an infinite universe (that's pretty big by the way) and all we do is pick fights with each other. i don't care about anyone's idea of right and wrong, just think for a second, each and every one of us is alive (lets not pick philosophical holes right now), why would you wish to end someone else's life, because of some stupid beliefs hammered into you from birth by whichever society you were unlucky enough to be born into, don't give me that "but they're no better" or "they started it" sh-t, don't tell me how YOU'RE religion just so happens to be the right one, stop making excuses for not wanting to open your eyes. there are no easy answers it seems, so perhaps it's time we all started working together to see what we can do as an intelligent lifeform out here among the stars instead of ending it all with a megaton full stop
Notice I said "only rarely" - yes, I /do/ realise that WWII was necessary, and some other instances where war was justified, but in general, all that wars do is give countries good reason to hate one another.
/all/ like that. Consider all the little wars fought in sub-saharan Africa - they do nothing to change the situations that caused the wars in the first place, and simply perpetuate the hatred. If the US stuck it's oar in on one side or the other, with adequate force to stop a particular conflict, it wouldn't change a thing - they'd be at each other's throats as soon as the US pulled out. On top of that, one side would hate the US for it's interference, and if the climate was right, you'd have a new group of anti-US terrorists.
Vietnam was probably also justified - the country was unstable, artificially divided after the French colonial withdrawl, and the division was propped up by a foriegn power: the war fought by the North Vietnamese was probably quite reasonable, and would have been fairly trivial if the US hadn't gotten involved.
However, most wars aren't at
Most of the wars fought in the world are the second type, and the only way to deal with them is general social changes in the affected nations. 'adequate' force does nothing positive beyond the immediate term, and often makes the long term worse.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
While Europe by the end of the eighteenth century was morally corrupt, with various dictatorships striving for evermore power, the land of the free kept the better parts of the continent out of harms way.
Unfortunately, the evil that made us lose the argument to the totalitarians are gradually persuading your countrymen as well.
Not since the days of Hitler and Stalin - perhaps not ever - has the threat to peace and freedom so blatantly admitted their motives and agenda. They hate the western world for being free, western people for being happy, western countries for being successful. They hate us for being good, and the US for being the best.
In the eyes of Osama Bin Laden and millions of agreeing Muslims, life is not to be enjoyed. Self-esteem is a sin. Since we don't agree, they want us to die.
I can't think of anything more moral than self-preservation. We are presently in a situation where a great number of people are staking their lives at killing the most of us. There is no practical or moral alternative, extinguish all military capability by all actual and potential enemies, or await the size of the next disaster.
Neville Chamberlain thought evil could be appeased by granting Hitler lebensraum in Czechoslovakia. Despite its obvious failure his tactic is the model for present-day liberals in both Europe and the US. Now, as then, the suggested solution is to negotiate with people whose stated goal is to kill you. Is there anyone out there who seriously believes the Muslim fundamentalists are less dangerous or have better motives than the nazis? Is there anyone who believes Saddam will hesitate to push his button when the Iraqi scientists give him the option?
This is not a complicated issue. Bad moral is fooling some into thinking we owe our executors something. We don't.
I'm stunned to realize that the US Military has drawn up plans to use nuclear weapons if so directed by NCA. Shocking, I tell you.
Next you'll be telling me we have contingency plans for invading Mexico and Canada. Oh wait, we do...
how do you make sure that the other guys are really destroying their nukes?
We look like wimps for withdrawing the ground troops today. This will surely send a message to the al queda and taliban. A few americans die and we get all mushy. Of course some of our guys die, it happens in war. When we were weak in somalia after black hawk down, the al queda used it as a propaganda tool.
Its obvious that we cant bomb them into sumbmission, it didnt work in iraq and wont happen here. The use of nukes is a joke, we need to train our ground troops to be competant. We need to have some goddamn balls!
NATO had a 'first use' policy on nuclear weapons for [i]thirty years[/i]. How is this anything new?
I've never seen so many hysterical ninnies collected in one place. All these expressions of shock and disgust at the "insanity" of the Bush administration. And why? Over a document that, in some form or another, has been around for decades and the only difference between now and 5 years ago is that you apparently didn't have a clue it existed. It is not a response to terrorist attacks. It has not sprung from the crazy mind of Dubya. For as long as there have been nations, there have been contingency plans, and for as long as there have been atomic/nuclear weapons, there have been contingency plans that involved them. What rock have you people been living under?
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
the weapons that the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China have now are too big and thus unusable from a political point of view. A smaller weapon that is actually usable from a tactical standpoint would actually be more humane than many of the systems in use now.
So you mean that we're moving away from weapons that we could never possibly use, to weapons that we can?
*whew*
I know that I'm going to sleep better tonight.
Anyone want to get together and watch "Duck and Cover"?
Is this just one more bit of spin to start a new arms race? Anyone with 1/2 clue will see that the arms race with the great evil Russia resulted in lots of new cool stuff and put the US in the lead with technology. Now most of that stuff is made in third world countries and imported. The US has a nasty unemployment problem with its technical sector and an arms race would get enough of the American public behind it to justify the expenses.
You knew that, didn't you? And that corps that pollute american waters and air, that create diseases that kill americans paid more for Bush's campaign than the Chinese ever paid for Clinton's campaign, didn't you?
And that the biggest foreign campaign contributions were by Canada, and that Bush's family has close ties to those who bombed wtc. Also, I'm sure you knew that Bush is supressing info about his involvement (and his father's) with any of this, even to the point of trying to slow down investigation of wtc itself. Wrap that flag around yourself, and drive your suv. Preserve your way of life. Leave me alone. If you don't like my freedoms here then you can move to one of the Bush sponsored dictatorships.
"Avoid strong drink; it makes you shoot at tax collectors....and miss." -- JC I'm reasonably sure that quote is from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long, by Robert A Heinlein. I'd be completely sure if I could find my copy. Here is a site which apparently has the Notebooks transcribed; that quote is included.
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
Whenever life get you down, Mrs. Brown
And things seem hard or tough
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft
And you feel that you've had quite enu-hu-hu-huuuuff
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at 900 miles an hour
It's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned
The sun that is the source of all our power
The sun and you and me, and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour
Of the Galaxy we call the Milky Way
Our Galaxy itself contains 100 billion stars
It's 100,000 light-years side-to-side
It bulges in the middle, 16,000 light-years thick
But out by us it's just 3000 light-years wide
We're 30,000 light-years from galactic central point
We go round every 200 million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whiz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light you know
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
Because there's bugger all down here on Earth
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
If the allies weren't so hell bent on unconditional surrender (for political reasons) its pretty well considered by many experts the the Japanese would have met surrender terms not long after Saipam.
Actually the Japs knew they were beat by Midway, but even then the Japs were still hoping for surrender terms that recognised their conquests in China. Japan Actually had no intention of ever invading Australia, India or the US - they went to war hoping they could quickly force the allies to accept their terms for peace - recognise the Japanese conquests in China & accept Japanese puppet regimes in the Philipines, Indochina, Malaya & the East Indies. By Midway they had given up on the allies accepting terms on the puppet states & just wanted the China conquests recognised, which was still quite rightly unacceptable to the allies. By Saipan their hoped for terms were that the allies would refrain from using the term 'unconditional surrender' (the Japanese obsession with 'face' is obvious here), that their monarchy was untouchable & that they were willing to negotiate in regards to Japanese rule in Manchuria & Korea. By the fall of Germany the Japanese only had one condition left - the monarchy must remain.
The Japs knew they well 'n truelly beat by Saipan (just read any of the Japanese War ministry papers that were released about 5 years ago), gez by then their war production wasn't even replacing loses by 15% or something, let alone matching war loses, or matching the allies. Even the Aussies alone were almost matching the Japanese in war production (exluding capital ships 'n subs) by then. The Japanese only kept fighting because unconditional surrender was unacceptable (actually unconditional surrender's quite rare in war) as they saw it as a risk to their monarchy.
This shows the allies were putting politics before ending the war quickly.
So if they weren't worried about what the voters thought they could have had the Japanese meeting surrender terms not long after Saipan.
Actually the whole 'unconditional surrender' thing started as a policy of faith by Roosevelt & Churchill to Stalin. It became policy in regards to the Nazi regime as an attempt to relieve Stalin's concern/worries/paranoia about the West unilaterally negotiating terms with Hitler. The unconditional surrender policy was only extended to include the Japanese to satisfy American voters, who would otherwise ask 'why are the Germans expected to surrender unconditionally & not the Japs when it was the Japs that attacked us'.
Arround August '95, the British Home Office & Foreign office, released many 1000s' of documents (classified under the official secrets act),pertaining to the war, as their 50 year status had expired - There maybe many other secrets about the war, we have yet to find out about, as apparently there are many other documents that were classified for 100 years.
What happened was that when the Germans invaded Poland, the Russians moved in & took the Eastern half - Mad Adulf & Uncle Joe had got Ribbentrop & Molotov to work this senario out, when they were together signing their little non-agression pact, earlier on. After the invasion the Poles formed a 'Goverment in Exile' in France, which later moved to the UK. The Western allies recognised them as the official Polish goverment. Meanwhile the Russians had made their own Polish Communist cronies form their own Polish Goverment in Eastern Poland, which they had intergrated into USSR as another Soviet Republic (well what was left of Eastern Poland after they gave a bit to the Belarus SSR, & another bit to the Ukrainian SSR). Well after Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of Russia), these Polish communists were forced to run back to Uncle Joe in Moscow, & form their own Polish 'Goverment in Exile' in Russia proper. So now we had 2 Polish Goverments in exile.
Well any way, during their many pow-wows together, FDR, Winnie & Uncle Joe finally agreed that the post war Polish Goverment should include representitives from both Polish pretenders, in London & Lublin. By arround the Summer of '44 Hitler's panzers were in full retreat & there were already Soviet T34s' rolling into the suburbs of Warsaw, across the Vistula from Warsaw proper. The Russian radio stations were beaming across the frontier telling the Poles to revolt, to speed up their liberation from the Nasis'. The Polish exiles in London saw their chance & ordered the Home Army in Poland to revolt against the German occupiers. A funny thing then happen, the Red Army all of a sudden ground to a halt at the Vistula, thereby giving the Germans a free hand to crush the Warsaw Uprising. Once the Uprising was over the Russian T34 tanks then moved forward again & 'liberated' Warsaw. Stalin then 'forgot' about his agreament, & had his Lublin exiles form a goverment on their own. When some of the London exiles flew over to join them, having no Home Army to protect them, they promptly dissappeared. Winnie & FDR (& later Truman) were enraged.
Meanwhile in the Pacific, things weren't going well for the Japanese, & by the early Summer of '45 & the German defeat, they knew there time was up. So the Imperial Goverment started to send out surrender feelers to the allies, via the Russian & Swiss Embassies (Russian did not enter the war with Japan till August) - this was 3 months before Hiroshima. They included only one condition amongst their surrender terms - that they be aloud to keep their Emporer. These were rejected, even though (as the secret war ministry documents show) the US had already decided that the Japanese could keep their Emporer after the war; as it would then be less likely for a communist Goverment to form there. Seeing as Stalin had agreed years earlier, that he would enter the war against Japan, 3 months after Germany surrended, you can see why Truman & Churchill were so concern. Especially when you considered what happened with Poland.
Well any way beacause of what Stalin did to Poland, Churchill & Truman decided to show that they had 'Mojo' to equal Stalins red Army 'Mojo' (you got to remember that the Western Armies were nothing compared to the Red Army then - to every German Soldier fighting the Western allies, there were another 10 fighting on the Eastern front - there was no way even D-Day would have been successful if the Russians werent tying down so many German men. Plus the allies had nothing to compare with the 1000s' of Russian T34, KV & JS tanks, other than almost obsolete Shermans, & much smaller numbers too.). So Churchill obliterated Dresden with his 'Mojo' - RAF's Bomber Command, & Truman was advised by Stimson or paterson (I forget which) to reject Japans surrender feelers, so he could demenstrate his 'Mojo', through nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
The War Ministry papers also show that the nukes, were not even the main reason for their unconditional surrender to the US, but just a face saving way out, as the Russians had by now entered the war against Japan & Marshal Zukhov's Red armies had just Blitzkreiged the whole of Manchuria & Korea, & also crossed over & taken Sakhalin & the Kuril Islands, so were now within sight of Japan itself. After taking 2 million Japanese prisoners, including over 150 generals & 'liberating' more land from Japanese occupation than the Americans, Australians & British had in the previous 4 years of war. There was one thing the Japanese top brass feared more than unconditional surrender to the Americans, & that was an invasion by the Red Army.
Another swaying facter in the droping of the bomb was that it cost 2 billion to develop, & Truman was worried what the publics reaction would be if the secret of the bomb (& its cost) ever came out, without him actually using it. Afterall news of the Baatam death march, etc, had just filtered through to the American public in the preceeding months.
War is war, & the reality is there's no rules in war but the rules of the victors. Afterall Dresden, Hiroshima & Nagasaki was just as bad as any of the 'war crimes' of the Nasis or the Nips - mind you, revenge is sweet.
Thats why I dont beleive Japan should have to pay compensation for war crimes (such as what the British veterans & the Korean woman want), otherwise the US should have to pay compensation for the nukes, & the Brits for Dresden etc. Also it was up to the goverments of the day to set reparation claims when Japans signed formal peace traeties with the 48 allied nations in '52. In other words the Korean Women & the British veterans etc should really be now sueing their own goverments now & not Japan, as those govts signed over those rights in 52.
BTW, this is not revisionist history as I'm not trying to put todays slant on past events, using modern attitudes. As I said before this all came out when the British war ministry released many documents that were classified under the 50 year rule.
The word "hypocrisy" comes to mind... don't know why.
"Linux hackers are funny people. They count the time in patchlevels."
The Chinese are the principal threat to the security of the United States of America (USA). The Department of Defense is aptly making plans to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese.
The Chinese threat cannot be understated. The Chinese (from mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) have long admired Hitler and his Nazi ideals.
-Wolf
2002 March 11
Actually, nothing has changed except someone at the LA Times decided to get overheated about it. One of those things that people forget (repeatedly) is that there's this whole great big five-sided building in the DC area full of people asking "what if this happens?" and working out the answers. Undoubtedly, there are also plans for using nuclear weapons against Israel and even France, if you just check the right file drawer.
There /is/ a valid point somewhere in the middle of all that invective . . .
/did/ stop Iraq from using their biological and chemical weapons against US troops. Great. Pity it didn't stop them from gassing the Kurds, or Iran, or anyone else who lacked such a deterrent. And, most importantly, it didn't stop them from /developing/ the weapons in the first place. And once they've been developed, what's to stop them from being sold to the highest bidder? Like, say, a nicely funded terrorist organisation?
/real/ danger point: terrorists. They couldn't give a flying fuck about nuclear attacks - they /want/ to die gloriously.
/your/ head out of your arse and realise that your country is fighting a different kind of war now, one that doesn't follow the old rules. Not realising that will get lots of you killed. Unfortunately, it'll also kill lots of people who had nothing to do with either side of it.
Apparently the nuclear deterrent
My original point was that none of this large scale deterrent stuff has any effect on the
You should get
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
The Chinese are the principal threat to the security of the United States of America (USA). The Department of Defense is aptly making plans to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese.
The Chinese threat cannot be understated. The Chinese (from mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) have long admired Hitler and his Nazi ideals.
Beware of Chinese traitors working at America's national laboratories specializing in nuclear weapons.
-Wolf
2002 March 11
This makes one think, but what I've been thinking about is a little different
than some of the comments I've read here.
What happens if the U.S. is attacked again, and what if that attack uses
something a little more destructive than the last. What is our response ??
We lost thousands the last time, what if the next time it involves millions ??
MAD worked quite well when it was the U.S. vs. USSR, but who / where is
the enemy now - the situation is at best diffuse.
The working assumption seems to be that only a group with state sponsorship
could pull off such an attack. Hence the leak and the warning - I.E. don't even
think about it.
There is the risk of escalation here though, the down side is having the
named states feel they too need a deterrent and/or offensive capability
of their own.
I have to admit I am torn on this question between the need for a severe
warning to anyone who would even think of such a thing and the need
to avoid escalation. There seems to be no possible upside to playing
the card, but the risks of not doing so could be equally negative.
this isn't even insightful or informative, it's a guy using this story to push his "US are terrorists" claptrap. This post is chomsky-lite on slashdot. How in the world does this offtopic crap get modded up high?
I have no love for the barbaric Chinese, but let's look at facts. At the time of the A-bombing of Japan, a war was raging in much of Asia. The Japanese were still brutalizing and butchering people. If we Americans had waited for the Japanese to surrender instead of outright A-bombing them into surrender, the non-Japanese Asians would have suffered additional months. How the f*ck do you quantify that suffering among non-Japanese Asians to boldly say that it should be extended in order to simply wait for the Japanese to surrender?
Most Japanese (and I hate using the word "most") see World War II in terms of the suffering of the Japanese people. Period. In that sense, the Japanese differ sharply from the Americans. We see World War II in the terms of the suffering of all the participants -- willing or unwilling.
Don't take this comment mean that the Japanese and the Chinese are equivalent in their distortion of history. However, on this one point, most Japanese are just plain ethno-centric and wrong. Other wise, the Japanese, as a people, are far more civilized than the barbaric Chinese.
these words may be more appropos than ever right now...
--| The Distress of Arjuna |---
ARJUNA'S HEART melted with pity,
while he uttered this:
Arjuna.
Krishna! as I behold, come here to shed Their common blood,
yon concourse of our kin, My members fail, my tongue dries in my mouth,
A shudder thrills my body, and my hair Bristles with horror;
from my weak hand slips Gandiv, the goodly bow; a fever burns
My skin to parching; hardly may I stand; The life within me seems
to swim and faint; Nothing do I foresee save woe and wail!
It is not good, O Keshav! nought of good Can spring from mutual slaughter!
Lo, I hate Triumph and domination, wealth and ease, Thus sadly won!
Aho! what victory Can bring delight, Govinda! what rich spoils Could profit;
what rule recompense; what span Of life itself seem sweet, bought
with such blood?
Seeing that these stand here, ready to die, For whose sake life was fair,
and pleasure pleased, And power grew precious:- grandsires, sires, and sons,
Brothers, and fathers-in-law, and sons-in-law, Elders and friends!
Shall I deal death on these Even though they seek to slay us?
Not one blow, O Madhusudan! will I strike to gain The rule of
all Three Worlds; then, how much less To seize an earthly kingdom!
Killing these Must breed but anguish, Krishna! If they be Guilty,
we shall grow guilty by their deaths; Their sins will light on us,
if we shall slay Those sons of Dhritirashtra, and our kin;
What peace could come of that, O Madhava? For if indeed,
blinded by lust and wrath, These cannot see, or will not see,
the sin Of kingly lines o'erthrown and kinsmen slain,
How should not we, who see, shun such a crime-- We who perceive
the guilt and feel the shame- O thou Delight of Men, Janardana?
By overthrow of houses perisheth Their sweet continuous household piety,
And- rites neglected, piety extinct-- Enters impiety upon that home;
Its women grow unwomaned, whence there spring Mad passions,
and the mingling-up of castes, Sending a Hell-ward road that family,
And whoso wrought its doom by wicked wrath.
Nay, and the souls of honoured ancestors Fall from their place of peace,
being bereft Of funeral-cakes and the wan death-water.
So teach our holy hymns. Thus, if we slay Kinsfolk and friends for
love of earthly power, Ahovat! what an evil fault it were!
Better I deem it, if my kinsmen strike, To face them weaponless,
and bare my breast To shaft and spear, than answer blow with blow.
(The BHAGAVAD-GITA, translated by Sir Edwin Arnold,
Chapter 1 - Of the Distress of Arjuna)
Storm's Nest
--
It is a sad day when we must be bound by political correctness. Let's say the truth. Modern-day Islam is not equivalent to modern-day Christianity, and we should show Islam no respect. Why? Homosexuals are executed at noon in Saudi Arabia. Women are raped and butchered under Islamic law in Afghanistan.
Let's be brave like Bill Maher and tell the truth. The Muslims have done more to reduce the Islamic nations -- Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc. -- to barbaric disgusting crap than any conceivable nuclear bombing from American aircraft.
At this point, some crazed Iranian, Arab, Iraqi, etc. will start bitching about how Christianity burned witches in 1624. Well, my response is "learn to read English"; after all, you are fighting with tooth and nail to stay in the United States of America despite the glorious praise that you heap on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. Look at what I wrote. I said "modern-day Christianity", not "medieval Christianity".
As for modern-day Islam, go to hell.
The Soviet have 150-mm nuclear tactical warhead to be fired from a regular 150-mm artillery gun. These warheads are supposed to have a yield of less than a kiloton. The Soviet forces also have nuclear landmines, presumably to blow up large infrastructures.
The US have 155-mm nuclear artillery, such as the W-48 warhead, with a very low yield (less than 0.1 kiloton).
So I fail to see what's so new, exciting and dangerous about deployment of tactical, low yield nukes. Such dangerous gadget have been deployed since the fifties. Just because the poster did not know about it does not make it new.
To be exhaustive, NATO claims that all nuclear artillery shells and tactical surface warheads (anti-ship and anti-submarines) were eliminated between 1991 and 1993. So this article merely suggest that these weapons are returning to the Western arsenal.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
The US does have both Chenmical and Biological weapons.
Anthrax, Nerve Gas and binaries are all part of the US inventory.
I have no love for the barbaric Chinese, but let's look at facts. At the time of the A-bombing of Japan, a war was raging in much of Asia. The Japanese were still brutalizing and butchering people. If we Americans had waited for the Japanese to surrender instead of outright A-bombing them into surrender, the non-Japanese Asians would have suffered additional months. How the f*ck do you quantify that suffering among non-Japanese Asians to boldly say that it should be extended in order to simply wait for the Japanese to surrender?
Most Japanese (and I hate using the word "most") see World War II in terms of the suffering of the Japanese people. Period. In that sense, the Japanese differ sharply from the Americans. We see World War II in the terms of the suffering of all the participants -- willing or unwilling.
Don't take this comment mean that the Japanese and the Chinese are equivalent in their distortion of history. However, on this one point, most Japanese are just plain ethno-centric and wrong. Other wise, the Japanese, as a people, are far more civilized than the barbaric Chinese.
It is a sad day when we must be bound by political correctness. Let's say the truth. Modern-day Islam is not equivalent to modern-day Christianity, and we should show Islam no respect. Why? Homosexuals are executed at noon in Saudi Arabia. Women are raped and butchered under Islamic law in Afghanistan.
Let's be brave like Bill Maher and tell the truth. The Muslims have done more to reduce the Islamic nations -- Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc. -- to barbaric disgusting crap than any conceivable nuclear bombing from American aircraft.
At this point, some crazed Iranian, Arab, Iraqi, etc. will start bitching about how Christianity burned witches in 1624. Well, my response is "learn to read English"; after all, you are fighting with tooth and nail to stay in the United States of America despite the glorious praise that you heap on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. Look at what I wrote. I said "modern-day Christianity", not "medieval Christianity".
As for modern-day Islam, go to hell.
Sure dictators you may get a crackhead, and he stays for a long time.
But start swapping leaders in and out, then you have more potentials for crackhead people who can end the world.
Fuck George W/Ashcroft and Rumsfeld
Colin Powell is the only one with any brains anymore.
God spoke to me
Wake up, please! The Chinese in Taiwan have declared, within their own constitution (the highest law of the land), that Taiwan is part of "One China". So, yes. We Americans should allow mainland China to take Taiwan.
Do you know where the majority of Chinese spies (who steal American military technology to give to Beijing) are born? If you answered "mainland China", you'd be wrong. The answer is "Taiwan". (source: "The Wall Street Journal", 1999)
"It WOULD be appropriate and utterly defensible to use nukes against a country that hit us with chemical or biologicals. Any such country foreits it right to exist."
This is playground logic.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Violence does not justify counter-violence. Threats do not justify counter-threats.
When I'm confronted with lethal force I will first seek a peaceful resolution, then should I run out of ideas I will consider whatever kind of retaliation I can repair should I make a mistake. I would never shoot to kill when I can shoot to wound.
There is always another option.
Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief.
I have no love for the barbaric Chinese, but let's look at facts. At the time of the A-bombing of Japan, a war was raging in much of Asia. The Japanese were still brutalizing and butchering people. If we Americans had waited for the Japanese to surrender instead of outright A-bombing them into surrender, the non-Japanese Asians would have suffered additional months. How the f*ck do you quantify that suffering among non-Japanese Asians to boldly say that it should be extended in order to simply wait 3 weeks for the Japanese to surrender?
Most Japanese (and I hate using the word "most") see World War II in terms of the suffering of the Japanese people. Period. In that sense, the Japanese differ sharply from the Americans. We see World War II in the terms of the suffering of all the participants -- willing or unwilling.
Don't take this comment mean that the Japanese and the Chinese are equivalent in their distortion of history. However, on this one point, most Japanese are just plain ethno-centric and wrong. Other wise, the Japanese, as a people, are far more civilized than the barbaric Chinese.
It always riles me when people enjoy all the benefits of our freedom loving western society whip out the pisser to whiz on, take your choice, our President, our Country, and especially our military. This infantile outlook consists of always plentiful complaints and no alternatives.
The west has enemies. Some of these enemies would think nothing of mass murder. Zealots like Osama and Yasser and the latest Islamofascist leader of Iran are pretty good at sending their underlings to die for their cause. You need to put these creeps at risk. They only understand raw power.
It is instructive to note that most of the wars the west has been drawn into result from our display of weakness or lack of resolve. The Cold War never became hot because we were willing to destroy an enemy that attacks our homeland and our stategic security. This latest nuke document is a refreshing and timely sign that we will kick the crap out of any state that tries to harm us. And please spare me the anti-west/US crap. We do not oppress anybody. Everybody in the world seems to be dying to come here. Even the Islamic terrorists who are trying to destroy us. The west allows them the freedom to practice their unholy version of Islam.
It is instructive to see how remarks on this topic are rated. I would love to know how many people on slashdot have done ANYTHING in the way of military service to help protect their own country. The former B52 pilot gets a big thanks from me. Without people like him, we wouldn't have the life we have now. No internet. And certainly no slashdot.
...everybody in government should have to put a little disclaimer on their policy statements, something like this:
The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer
In this case, the "employer" is We The People of the United States.
I wager that most of us have no desire to nuke Russia, which is making remarkable progress towards becoming a free society. Come to think of it, most of us have no desire to nuke anybody unless they nuke us first.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Quite simply the US has had a standing policy that any attack on the US with weapons of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological, nuclear or otherwise, will be responded to with a nuclear strike. So if a rouge nation used chemical weapons on a US city or interest, we would respond, most likely, with nuclear weapons. This is OLD doctrine.
Read the BBC article. There were three options that they explored in using them. One was for retaliation. Another was for countries who could defend themselves adequately against conventional weapons. The third is a "catch-all" clause -- it's worded so vague that any reason you can think of can be crammed into option #3.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
I have no love for the barbaric Chinese, but let's look at facts. At the time of the A-bombing of Japan, a war was raging in much of Asia. The Japanese were still brutalizing and butchering people. If we Americans had waited for the Japanese to surrender instead of outright A-bombing them into surrender, the non-Japanese Asians would have suffered additional months. Why the f*ck do some Japanese hypocrites say that the suffering among non-Japanese Asians should be extended in order to simply wait 3 more weeks for the Japanese to surrender?
Most Japanese (and I hate using the word "most") see World War II in terms of the suffering of the Japanese people. Period. In that sense, the Japanese differ sharply from the Americans. We see World War II in the terms of the suffering of all the participants -- willing or unwilling.
Don't take this comment mean that the Japanese and the Chinese are equivalent in their distortion of history. However, on this one point, most Japanese are just plain ethno-centric and wrong. Other wise, the Japanese, as a people, are far more civilized than the barbaric Chinese.
The B61-11 can't penetrate more than 20 feet of dry earth according to this report.
Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
To cut a long story short.. Kuwait asked Iraq to fight on its behalf against Iran, resulting in the 80s Iraq-Iran war. In return, Kuwait promised a number of oil fields in payment.
War ended, Iraq came to collect. Kuwait said 'No.' So Hussein invaded to take back what he thought was rightfully his. Of course, he just ended up setting them on fire instead so that no-one could have them.
mogorific carpentry experiments
"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu in the Bhagavad Gita, as quoted by J. Robert Oppenheimer after the test of the first atomic bomb
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Let the nukes fly as they may! I'm going to try to be one of the men breeding with my alotted slate of 10 hot chicks in the mineshafts! Nothing to do but play GT/GTA and try to keep 10 different gorgeous women continuously pregnant! YES!
"...so the women would be choosen for their... ahhh... stimulating sexual characteristics... Mein Fuehrer! sorry... Mr. President... they would breed prodigeously as there would be much time and little to do..."
"Mr. President! We must not allow... a mineshaft gap!"
Heheh... Doktor Merkwerdigleben ist mein lieblings Film!!! (Translation: Dr. Strangelove is my favorite movie!)
Don't beat me up over the quotes from the movie, I know they're not exact, but I'm too lazy to look for the correct ones!
HEY! ISN'T THAT SHADOW GOVERNMENT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT FOR A DAY OR TWO THERE JUST A CLEVER USE OF OUR MINESHAFT SPACE? GET THE FEELING THE YOKELS IN WASHINGTON MAY BE WATCHING DR. STRANGELOVE, AND TAKING IT TO HEART?
Hahahah... truth is stranger than fiction, afterall.
Pray tell.
WHY THE HOLY FUCKING HELL are we still even CONSIDERING using nukes?
Neutron bombs are SOOOO much sweeter.
Hell I said long ago that we should have lobbed a few in ol' ben'ies cave complexs.
Problem would've been solved rather quickly.
But noooo.
Aaaanyways.
Why use that old tech when Neutron bombs just rock so much more? Ok so SOME Nukes would be required, they do destory buildings and all, but hell, Neutron bombs are MUCH scarier, if just for the sake that you can use as many as you need without worry about all of that icky fallout!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
To the person on slashdot with whom I argued that George Bush was not the Antichrist:
I was wrong. I'm sorry.
They proposed the CTBT as an instrument to prevent nuclear have nots from becoming haves. For, in world populated with nuclear weapons, superiority in conventional weapons means nothing. Having a nuke does not constitute an advantage unless the other guy does not have it.
And they berated India & Pakistan for seeing throught this strategem and not signing the treaty. Abd you know what? they themselves haven't signed it.
US posseses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and is the only country to have dropped one. Unless the US can drop nukes on others, and escape retaliation, they are of no use. Hence the missile defense program.
When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson
Quite simply the US has had a standing policy that any attack on the US with weapons of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological, nuclear or otherwise, will be responded to with a nuclear strike.
Wonder what standing policy the nations mentioned have in the case of being attacked. No doubt these would include "terrorism" when facing a foe such as the US.
are you at war with eurasia or oceania?
it's becoming ever more obvious that warfare is domestic rather than foreign politics. being a european I just hope that you make another revolution before this time we have to come over to your site of the atlantic to get rid of the fascists.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Now the U.S.'s policy is to reply in kind, but to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties (e.g., we didn't send a fleet of 747s to Afghanistan in late September).
There were plenty of civilian casualties in Afganistan. That they generally wern't US citizens does not make them any less civilians. Anyway even if the US had sent fleets of comandeered civilian aircraft to the area they would have been carrying (and quite probably crewed by) soldiers.The U.S., however, doesn't have chemical or biological weapons,
The US has vast stockpiles of these agents and counteragents. Also there are plenty of chemical weapons which don't need to be stockpiled since they can easily be manufactured.
Well said. The fruit cakes around here may not mod you up but I strongly agree. There are domestic political issues which caused this turd to float onto the cover of the Times but to anyone with a clue the hysterical rantings of the girls blouses in the media merely serve to show how underqualified and incapacitated they are outside their fabricated media reality warp field. This is not news.
Ah, the classical war monger.
Nukes are weapons and meant to be used. Any body who attacks us must be nuked. we, and only we have the right to exist. So what if generations of the victims would be born wit h horrible genetic defects? So what if complete ecosystem would be destroyed? They dared to attack us, and paid the price. What if the nuclear fallout will cause horrible deaths to their people? So what if there will be babies born without eyes, without livers, mentally retarded? They dared to oppose us, the ones god designated to be above all, to be the most powerful, to rule.
Your military education has completely indoctrinated you to such a task. Remember, you were trained to drop Nukes, and you would have to do that without feeling any remorse at the killing of millions. You will have to be trusted, and therefore were indoctrinated. Your enemy sir, is also human. Treat him like a human. Kill him maybe, destroy his army, but let his young sons live.Don't use nukes to cover up your cowardice.
When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson
Ghandi (a somewhat strange man to drag into a nuclear conflict, but still) once said "the only conflict is between short term goals and long term goals".
In this case, the short term goals is bombs that are a bit more effective.
The problem is that in the long term, this is likely to come around and haunt you. If you start *using* nukes, instead of just storing them and saying "invade us and perish", you get into the very uncomfortable situation of everyone suddenly wanting nukes. Because they *need* them. Suddenly not having nukes is like a late 19th century nation not having rifles and cannons.
Nukes go from being strictly controlled, very rare and very problematic weapons for a very select number of countries, to suddenly being really nifty little things that everyone should have and use, with a thousand household uses.
Basically, if the US, or any other country, feels that it needs nuclear weapons to fulfill their conventional warfare needs, they need to hire some smarter conventional bomb engineers.
We all know the 9/11 disaster that shocked the world ... We all know the US is fighting terrorism.
..
... For the children, that one works too!)
How far will the 9/11 disaster be used/exploited to grant weapons, attacks "for the good cause"
(or in other words
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I wonder if George Jr is building the DeathStar
somewhere out in the Desert???
Just think about it
http://www.Slaveway.com
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
to invade kuwait - how can you say he was "pushing" the USA?
While the rest of the world awaits the US to STOP believing in their superiority bullshit and stop doing rash things.
A 2nd american revolution might make the rest of the world respect Americans again.
Course it won't happen. The malcontents are locked-up or drugged-up. The middle class is kept working 50 hours a week to afford their SUVs and toys... and drugs. And the rich.. Well, they kick back and laff and laff and laff.
(knock on wood (yer f'n skull))
At this moment, the world is in such an unstable state politically, socially, and environmentally, that the use of a nuclear weapon would break the camels back. CEO Bush may not realise this, but he must have someone under his employment with the brains to figure it out and the guts to tell him. Stop playing the game, people. There are other ways to live.
You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace.
You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace.
You wrote: "The U.S., however, doesn't have chemical or biological weapons..."
The US has the largest stocks in the world of chemical and Biological weapons - where do you think the Anthrax came from? US research facilities.
It's also important to note that the US is also the only nation to have ever used a nuclear weapon in battle.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
The militants on either side are equivalently bad, the citizens equivalently innocent. The only significant difference is in the extent of the suffering, the brunt of which is carried by the Palestinians, not because the Israelis are intrinsically worse, but because they are more powerful. Peace would benefit both sides. How then should peace be arranged?
The only peaceful and ethical solution would be a return to Israel's 1967 borders. People have a right to self determination, and the people in the occupied territories don't want to be a part of Israel, and don't want to leave their homes either. Therefore, ethically, they should have a right to stay and the new settlements should be disbanded. But Sharon and the religious extremists in Israel will never take those measures, which is a part of the tragedy.
Where you upset me is in accusing the Palestinians of being uncivilised. Hamas and the other groups have done some terrible things, but so have the Israelis. Ordinary Palestinians, on the whole, haven't, and neither have ordinary Israelis. It is still the innocents who take the majority of the pain. And when Israeli troops fire on ambulances and children, just how 'civilised' are they being? And the 'something' which Israel has made out of the desert has involved destroying as much as possible of the historical buildings and culture of the area which isn't Israeli.
I don't hate the Israelis. I hate the hate.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
I can only that hope this article was the result of a slow news day, with the media boffins wanting for a little reader-generating hysteria. It wouldn't speak well of the author's intelligence if he actually believed that strategic weapons policy reviews are anything new.
In general, modern problems have medieval solutions...
This is a threat to those countries that make nuclear weapons, suitcase or otherwise, that if one gets into a US city by way of black market and Al Queyda, taking out the source, i.e. China or the former USSR, of those weapons is still an option "on the table".
It is wrenching the arm behind the back of these countries to get them to help us track every single one of those possible weapons.
Think about it:
- Create shadow government "just in case"
- Float trial balloons to scare the public
- Finally, issue threat
It will help focus the concentration of these governments who say "You know, it may or may not have been sold on the black market, we're not too sure where it is." Help focus the concentration wonderfully.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
Not to mention the fact that the US used chemical weapons against another state (Agent Orange:Vietnam). By Bomber Harris' logic, the US has _already_ forfited it's right to exist.
Survival of the United States. Unlikely to come into play, but if the survival of the United States(I mean the 50 states and various territories, not our embassies and overseas military bases) is threatened or another nation is close to conquering parts of our territory, repel them by all means necesary, including nuclear weapons.
Under this principle then, Iraq would be morally entitled to WMD US troops if US attempted an invasion?
Furthermore, if Iraq cannot counter the US military through any other means, it should resort to whatever is effective?
I'm curious as to what moral principle justifies only one of these positions.
Survival of the United States. Unlikely to come into play, but if the survival of the United States(I mean the 50 states and various territories, not our embassies and overseas military bases) is threatened
So you want to nuke the Hawaiian nationalists who simply want their country back? That sounds a little extreme. The plebsites for both Hawaii and Alaska both have enough irregulatities to be considered void. I'm not sure off hand about the various US held territories... Quite a bit of what is considered US territory may actually be more correctly considered "disputed".
So Bush is trigger happy fo reiterating a policy outlined by the Kennedys int he 60s, but Clinton is a neat guy you'd liek your daughter to work for despite the fact that he liked to throw missiles at foreign pharmaceutical plants?
So if a rouge nation used chemical weapons
A rouge nation, huh? A country made up of beauticians and hairdressers, perhaps?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Earlytime, I agree with you 100 percent.
I guess he has a point, especially if the report is leaked for the sake of spreading fear/insecurity. Isn't fear == terror?
A terrible newspaper, with an even worse article. This link is an insult to our intelligence.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Seeing others points of view and applying the same standards to everyone (including ourselves) is important in todays world, no matter how good we think we are. It is a necessary ingredient for peace in the world. I imagine that the folks in other countries must think that we Americans as a whole are arrogant hypocrites.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-- Albert Einstein
China has no interest whatsoever to destroy the USA. Its economy is mora and more dependant on trade with teh US so to even think in destruction would be suicide. China may want Taiwan but not at the price of an all out war with the US.
All the above applies in braod terms to Russia.
Neither North Korea, Iran, Syria or Libya have the means to even dream to inflict such damage to destroy the US. The problem with this countries is that they happily sell weapon technology to the higest bidder, which should concern everybody but is no reason to issue such threats.
Finally Iraq. I think the Gulf War should be enough evidence that Iraq completely lacks the strenght to even defend Kuwait. How would they destroy the US?
I think that the one that need to think rationaly is other. Dismount your paranoia horse and think.
The current US goverment have a very particular view of the world, they truly believ the US should be the hegemonic power in the world and nothing will deterr these people to accomplish that. The attacks on Sept 11 were the perfect excuse and it is thanks to paranoid people everywhere that these individuals can get away with such outrageous policies.
In the real world were I live real people die when a bomb is droped. In the real world of these individuals that is called collateral damage. IN which world do you live?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Enviromental chicken littles perhaps are the most loathsome of the peoples you have associated me with. Their luddite temper tantrums wrapped up in mystic mother earth/gaia mumbo jumbo are spectacularly insane. I would gladly sacrifice entire mountian ranges to strip mining if it meant we would be further along the road to space colonization, wouldn't most of you? The cold war space era (more a pissing contest between men made by history instead of those that made it) has passed and people have become weary of change in space policy and stupid with rhetoric against it. Things like the need to facillitate the development of new fusion rocket technology to shorten the time it takes to makes the initial and eventually reaccurring trips to the outer solar system will not come to pass in a world filled with long-term anxiety over short term issues.
Furthermore I do not attack the united states directly or indirectly, instead I call into question the meaning of an event that historically has been justified as a one sided bargaining chip in the poker game of nuclear diplomacy, where calling a bluff may take out 70% of the earth's population. Which by the way should elate the enviromentalists who could finnaly fuck a tree when the massive mutatation rate finnaly makes them sentient and maybe just a bit horny or hungry for human flesh.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I don't know about the Pinochet bit, but we are not starving Cuba to death. We decline to do business with them, yes. That no doubt hurts them financially. However, as you are probably aware, there's a world outside of the US. They can all do business with Cuba if they so choose. We are not running a military blockade of the island, we aren't shooting down airliners going into the country, we're just saying "no thanks, we'll take our business elsewhere." If Cuba is starving, it's because their leader chooses to spend his country's limited budget on military hardware (Cuba has a very respectable air force, given the size of the nation) instead of on feeding the people. It's the old "guns-vs.-butter" debate, and Castro seems to have chosen guns. Is it our responsibility to bail him out of that mess? I think not.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
If our goal was just, we would be willing to sacrifice as many lives as necessary to achieve it.
Apparently, you've never heard of the idea of "combat effectiveness." Sending a bunch of people to die to achieve the goal, when there is an alternative that will keep them alive, is not the most efficient use of resources. It
Taking your argument to its illogical extreme, we should return to unarmed, hand-to-hand combat, because every weapon seeks to improve combat effectiveness--every weapon seeks to help the attacker live, while killing the target. Actually, that's another purpose of a weapon: to outclass the target such that he declines to be a target. It is estimated that in 99% of self-defense cases involving a firearm, the gun is never fired. Why? Because the attacker knows he is outclassed, so he yields before the weapon is used. By making the target feel as though there's no possible way for him to win the battle, the battle can often be avoided. "You don't need to be holding four aces if they think you're holding four aces." As to your calling the poster a coward, well, I don't see you volunteering for unarmed combat. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
During WWII the Axis powers were coming out with alot of new technology. Add in Einstein telling the US that the Germans had his research and could complete the atom bomb soon, and there's a huge imperative for the US to complete it itself. Afterwards, it was used to prevent the need to invade mainland Japan. Projected Casualty figures for this was EXTREME. I think they estimated a quarter million dead US troops in the first week.
I don't read AC A human right
Wadda gonna do, expose us to the smell of your canuck undies? Don't you guys have running water up there?
Prior to WWII, the U.S. had contingency plans for going to war against the -brits-. I'm sure we still do today. That doesn't mean that they aren't our closest allies. That just means we aren't caught with our pants down if something goes horribly awry.
Same thing here. We aren't going to go to war. But we gotta have plans for everything.
The real deal is why it was leaked. Probably by somebody that doesn't like bush.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
The United States owns many nuclear weapons, and total unilateral disarmament is not an option right now.
Having said that, don't you think it would a good idea to draw up plans that spell out under what conditions we would or would not use those weapons?
Or would you rather just "wing it," and not give it any analysis or forethought, and perhaps leave it up to the whims of whoever the president is at the time a crisis arises?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Boy you are a RACIST!!!
The exact thing you are saying applies to US. THAT RIGHT, the USA, Canada and Britian. No other country is that IMPERIALIST as us!!!
Think about it.
I'm amazed that some people like to fabricate things and try to incite hatred. No one is biting though. You've underestimated peoples intelligence.
Why limit yourself to reacting to events when you can create the scenarios you like?
I expect defense stocks to keep going up for the foreseeable future. This will help our fearless leaders' stock portfolios dramatically.
And when the Bushies make their next assault on Americans' rights, they won't just have "terror alerts" to hold over American citizens' heads. We've adjusted to that by now and it doesn't strike the resonant chord of fear anymore. The threat of a nuclear strike from China will do the job much better.
We all know about the policy of FUD, after all... and how those who create it, exploit it.
I am confused. I read the message that bothers you so, yet I do not see a problem with the message. I verified all the links in it, and the cited source, "The Taipei Times", is on par with "The New York Times". Both of these newspapers share articles with each other.
So, clearly, the message is not a troll.
Here. Read the body of the original message again. I listed it below for your convenience.
The Chinese threat cannot be understated. The Chinese (from mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) have long admired Hitler and his Nazi ideals.
Beware of Chinese traitors working at America's national laboratories specializing in nuclear weapons.
That's news but it's also wrong. The Russians have twice as many warheads as the US.
It is one of the few countries that have a habit of nosing into others affairs, and has shown the tendency to use force at the slighest pretext. It funded the mujahedeen in Afganistan, then funded the taliban, it masscared the vietnamese, it has put a stranglehold on Iraq, leading to shortage of food and medicines.
I'm an isolationist and would rather let the rest of the world beat itself to death, so your view is a little odd to me. The mujahdeen were grateful for the funding when the Soviet Union was busy killing the Afgans like rats and leaving their children explosive toys. Without US funding, they would be with their makers or athiests by now as are the Vietnamese. Our abandoment of the Vietnamese and their fate, I'm sure, did much for the Mujadene's self reliance and fanaticism. The US never funded the Taliban, unless you count drug purchases, perhaps it should have. Oh yeah, perhapse that idiot Bill Clinton should have forced the Palestinian/Israeli treaties to a conclusion and we'de have two stable friendly states instead of Israeli "occupation".
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.