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."
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?
... is NOT that it existed, but rather that it was published. Anyone have any insights why it wasn't kept secret?
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
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!
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
How about using firepower that does not contaminate the target area for a large time, nor rise up radioactive dust that does not honor country boundaries much and so on? That's what I hate about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons ; these will cause longer and more widespread suffering and damage than just to a certain spot for much smaller time. Isn't the point of military operations to harm the opposite military, not their descendants and people tens or hundreds of kilometers away?
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
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..."
They had just begun negotiating when they dropped the bombs. The drops were more for show of force and scientific testing (ever wonder why they weren't dropped on an industrustrial target?). The allies have been made out to be the good guys in the war but no one can deny dresden and the like were cold blooded massacres.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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.
1) Japanese negotiation was not especially serious. Certain hardline elements in the military would never have even considered surrender. And even if they were starting to be serious, there was no way for America to know it.
2) The bombs were dropped as a show of force (that ended the war), but the idea that it was some form of scientific testing (other than incidental) is laughable. America had plenty of places to test nukes, and it used them.
2) A large number of Americans, who didn't happen to have started the war, would have died during the time the negotiation took.
3) The bombs worked to end a war that had killed millions, with only a couple hundred thousand casualities.
I'm part of a generation which grew up expecting a nuclear war.
No kidding. I was sure that at any moment during Reagan's presidency there would be a nuclear war. It went away (mostly) after the Soviet Union crumbled, but it's been nagging my brain since Sept. 11.
It's really hard to take a day job seriously anymore, or worring about retirement... it seems like such a joke now. If you're not going to be killed, then some asshole like Ken Lay will vaporize your 401K and you'll spend your retirement years scraping for change, working at McDonalds or something just to get by...
Does this mean I get to do cocaine again?
Well, this is the 21st century. Try Ecstacy, I think it's cheaper. (I admit to being clueless on this front -- I've never tried either...)
Considering it was the Republicans that ended the Cold War... Otherwise we'd be defenseless and the Soviet Union would still be around.
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.
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.
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".
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...
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.
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??
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."
Contigency nuke plans for Canada?!?
:-(
Sheezus, with friends like the USA, who needs enemies?
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
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
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.
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.
More importantly, when you've vaporized all the evidence, you won't have any pesky reporters claiming it was actually a factory producing penicillin instead of smallpox...
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
If you decide to nuke the nut's city to get the nut, how does that make you different from the nut?
Since George W Bush has repeatedly shown his contempt for the rest of the world, international law, the environment, the future of the planet, why aren't other governments justified in nuking Washington to get that nut who's threatening the rest of the world with nukes?
Simply because America happens to be the self-proclaimed "leader of the free world"?
Real leadership can only come if you build respect. The US has dissipated its goodwill in Europe astonishingly quickly -- all the sympathy after Sept 11 took just a few months to evaporate. If the US is to be different from the USSR and other "evil empires", it has to learn to be responsible.
The Japanese military alone murdered *far* more civilians (predominantly in China and south-east Asia), in ways that are at least as gruesome and calculated as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To say the bombing was one of the worst single acts in human history, is only to say that WWII itself was one of the worst times in human history (hardly an arguable statement).
The vast majority of deaths in that war were non-combatants... Nearly 100,000,000 total deaths by some estimates. If anything, the bombs took attention from the horrific attrocities which the Japanese military and government perpetrated, and which they have never even had to officially acknowledge.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
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.
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.
Since George W Bush has repeatedly shown his contempt for the rest of the world
...by saving it from Islamic fundamentalism and nuclear terrorism, right...
international law
There is no such thing as "international law". There are such things as treaty obligations, and GWB has broken no treaties. (Before you start whining about the ABM treaty, that treaty provided that the signatories could withdraw with six months notice. We gave our six months notice.)
the environment
By refusing to ratify the daffy Kyoto treaty, which would result in mass starvation and which other nations are now realizing they don't want to implement?
the future of the planet
As if this somehow were a meaningful statement.
why aren't other governments justified in nuking Washington to get that nut who's threatening the rest of the world with nukes?
... and, if you read the article, you'd see that the United States is not "threatening the rest of the world with nukes", it is assembling contingency plans for what happens if somebody attacks us.
Congratulations. You've won the troll pentathlon.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
Superior firepower only purchases peace from those afraid to die.
Don't forget that either.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
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?)
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
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.
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.
...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"?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
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
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