Slashdot Mirror
Flash From the Past: Why an Apparent Israeli Nuclear Test In 1979 Matters Today
Lasrick writes: Stanford's Leonard Weiss writes about growing evidence that Israel and South Africa cooperated on nuclear weapons testing in the 1970s, and in fact conducted a test: "On September 22, 1979, a US satellite code-named Vela 6911, which was designed to look for clandestine atmospheric nuclear tests and had been in operation for more than 10 years, recorded a double flash in an area where the South Atlantic meets the Indian Ocean, off the coast of South Africa. The detection immediately triggered a series of steps in which analysts at national labs in the United States informed their superiors that the recorded signal had all the earmarks of a nuclear test... The event has been a subject of controversy ever since, but is now recognized by most analysts as the detection of an Israeli nuclear test with South African logistical cooperation." Weiss goes through the history of the investigation and new evidence that has come to light, and relates it to the rhetoric surrounding Iran's nuclear energy program and the recent agreement Iran struck with the P5+1, as well as to efforts for a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. Terrific cloak-and-dagger read with plenty of technical details.
Who would israel use nukes against? Only a fool would nuke your neighbors, even if they hate you.
Why does the US and UN continue to allow Israel to have them? They don't really need the weapons, they can't use them in anyway without starting a massive war that will basically eliminate their country.
By having the weapons, it causes their neighbors to want them to keep forces equal. So you have fucking crazy states like Iran constantly trying to even the playing field with Israel.
The only reason I can see for Israel to have them is leverage over the US and other countries. As long as their nukes exist (or everyone thinks they exist), there's a kind of cold war that can be easily sparked into actual war, so the US, UN, etc can't unilaterally do anything to either side without potentially sparking an even bigger war.
Since Israel is one of the bigger powers in the region, this unstableness prevents the larger powers from getting involved and gives more slack to do what they want.
(this isn't meant to be anti-israel rant, just a theory. I'm generally pro Israel as a western style democracy in an otherwise fucked up region of the world).
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Have you read your own link?
According to a report in The Nation, the author claims that James Cheek, United States Ambassador to Argentina at the time of the bombing, told him, "To my knowledge, there was never any real evidence [of Iranian responsibility]. They never came up with anything." The hottest lead in the case, he recalled, was an Iranian defector named Manoucher Moatamer, who "supposedly had all this information." But Moatamer turned out to be only a dissatisfied low-ranking official without the knowledge of government decision-making that he had claimed. "We finally decided that he wasn't credible," Cheek recalled.[94]
In 2013, American investigative journalist Gareth Porter cast doubt on the alleged involvement of Iran and Hezbollah, reporting that the link depended centrally on just claims from the People's Mujahedin of Iran, a controversial Iranian anti-regime group that has been described as terrorist by some nations
I don't know who did it, but neither do you.
how might the World look if elected officials didn't put personal considerations ahead of national or earthly considerations.
Except the problem is really not the elected officials - its the people doing the electing. (the voters)
Imagine, for a moment, that we somehow elected a full slate of conscientious politicians. They're goal is not to pander and get reelected, their goal is to do right by the country, its citizens, and the world in general. Hooray! ... now what happens? Well, more likely than not, they'll piss off some constituency. That means that while they might be great in their one term, they'll lose in their next election. So someone else gets a shot at the job.
If they're also a conscientious person, we're back in the same boat - a one term wonder. But what if, by chance, a smarmy people-pleaser gets elected? His main goal is getting reelected, not being conscientious. Now, as his main goal was to avoid pissing off the electorate, chances are that he *will* get reelected, and go on to a second, third, fourth ... term. Now imagine that happening across all seats? The contentious people will slowly get phased out by the reelection-oriented ones, even if contentious politicians are more numerous than the reelection-oriented ones. (Even if the conscientious politicians are five times more prevalent than the reelection oriented ones, if a reelection oriented one get ten terms for every one a conscientious one gets, the selfish politicians will outnumber the conscientious ones 2:1 in Congress.)
So the problem here is not really the politicians. Even with an excess of conscientious politicians, most seats in government will be occupied by people who can get reelected. It's really the fault of the *electorate* for being such a fickle bitch. If conscientiousness is not a major factor in the choices of the electorate, then it's very difficult for conscientious people to stay in politics - they're racking up "cons" without anything in the "pro" column.
When's the last time you looked at a politician and said "I disagree with the position he's taken, but I respect his integrity, so I'd vote for him anyway." ... I don't think I ever have. I doubt most other people have either. But that's really what you'd need for things to work out. You'd need people in the electorate willing to overlook a few disagreements about position but respect their conscientiousness enough to vote for a politician anyway.
P.S. Another solution that presents itself as obvious is term limits. If you keep people from getting reelected (so no one has 10 terms), you "fix" the bias I talk about above.. But that's not really a solution in practice. This just pushes being smarmy for "getting reelected" down to being smarmy for "getting elected in the first place". You also can't expect people to dump any sort of campaign promises and start acting conscientious when they're a lame duck, for the simple reason that endorsements, party affiliations, protégées, etc. all mean that performance while a lame duck can have adverse influence on similar people later. That is, if the Conscientious Party lame duck pisses you off, there's a possibility that you'll switch your vote to the Smarmy Party candidate.
No radioactive fallout was detected
that rules out a nuclear test. We should be able to go out to the sea floor of the site right now and detect fallout. I believe it's been since concluded that this was a meteor.
I have lived amongst many Muslims here in africa. Not one has even mentioned converting me.
However on my first trip to Atlanta, i got given a bible on day one
I'm not anti-semetic by any stretch of the imagination, but perhaps a little history might do you some good - try examining the roots of modern 'terrorism' followed by the role of the Haganah (which later became the backbone of the IDF) in pre and post-WWII Zionism. Israel was, quite literally, founded through terrorism.
Israel murders plenty of people - in fact they're rather famous for being so good at it; however, so does our own government.
Saying that, yes, Iranian religious leaders are pretty much your typical religious zealots - assholes to a one.
Loading...
So you're saying Americans weren't celebrating the death of 350000 Japanese civilians that resulting from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima? There's plenty of citations in this paper that suggest otherwise.
I'm an atheist and even I know religion is not going to die. Faith/superstition/curiosity about the ineffable is part of the human condition, religions will always emerge to prey on that aspect of humanity just as humans exploit other human vulnerabilities (disparities in power, wealth etc.). There is no way any clever argument is going to prevent humans taking advantage of other humans.
The best hope, to my mind, is to try and reduce the disadvantages with which so many in the world find themselves encumbered, teach them to read, join them to the internet etc. Allow people to travel freely across national borders (fat chance of that happening), treat people fairly no matter their origin, protect the vulnerable (especially children).
Inequality is fertile soil for the corralling effect of religions. I certainly admire the great works done in the name of various churches, but I think we should remember that these were achieved by humans that could just as easily been inspired by a personal faith as one of the "name brands" without the incumberance of fighting between the brand leaders.
There are plenty of things to fight over, lets strike religion off the list and work on overcoming the others
Nullius in verba
I don't hate believers in Islam. I don't really hate anybody.
However I have a rational self-interest in the preservation of Western Civilization and freedom in general. Islam is incompatible with those things. Since Islam is not likely to change soon, then belief in Islam must be ended.
I suggest converting them to Christianity. I know you'd prefer they be enlightened atheist secular humanists, but I believe their brainwashing is so ingrained they could never let go of belief in the supernatural. An Abrahamic religion would be the easiest for them to slide in to. Now, call it a hunch, but I think conversion to Judaism is unlikely. That leaves Christianity. They already consider Jesus to be a prophet, so just ditch the Koran and push the New Testament.
Now they're all turning the other cheek and shit instead of raping and beheading. Give that a generation or two with your rock and roll music and your dungeons and dragons and your Porn Hub and shit and you've got a bunch of smug atheist fucks for your grandkids to play with.
One could accomplish this by invasion of course, but that is messy. Best place to start is the refugee camps in Europe.
Set up a nice comfy camp in Germany (they have experience with this sort of thing. Minus the "comfy" part). Food, water, shelter, no prob. Around the perimeter of this camp, allow any religion except Islam to set up shop. Catholics over here, Methodists over there, Buddhists, Mormons, atheist secular humanists, whatever. Refugees are free to shop around. Take as long as you like. Years even!
When you're ready to leave the camp, you go through the Welcoming Ceremony.
1) You have to eat a bacon double cheeseburger and chug an ice cold refreshing Coors Light, and then say "Ah, I love that frost-brewed Rocky Mountain taste!"
2) Then you have to draw a picture of Mohammed getting Eiffel Towered by Jesus and Moses. Bonus Euros if you do a really good job of expressing just how much Momo loves those cocks in his mouth and ass. Also, if your name is "Mohammed" you must change it to "Dave."
3) Finally, you put your Koran in the combination toilet/furnace. First you shit on it, and then you light it on fire while singing "AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!"
Do all of that, and welcome to Western Civilization! Please enjoy our freedom, mutual respect, art work that isn't just squiggles and squares, sexual promiscuity and pornography.
Otherwise, rot in the damn camp until you can grow up and pick a belief system that isn't a violent, backwards shit show.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I don't see your point. Christians denounce the rare Christian atrocity. Muslims are totally fine with the frequent Muslim atrocities.
Assume you're locked in a room with a random Chrisitan. What's the odds that random Christian will try to murder you for not being Christian?
Run that same experiment with a Muslim instead.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.