You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
We Are Doomed [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Log in

View Full Version : We Are Doomed


The Blowhard
03-09-2002, 11:51 AM
A friend sent this to me:

Everyone knows that a nuclear weapon has to be pointed somewhere. It's one of the realities you try not to think about during the average day - whether you're a street cleaner or a world government. So the story published in today's L.A. Times presents an interesting problem in world diplomacy - and by "interesting," I mean "extremely alarming." The story says that the Bush administration has commissioned specfic new plans on how to use nuclear weapons against seven nations. Call it the Axis plus four - China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and, of course, North Korea.

The report also said the Pentagon has been directed to start building "tactical nukes," small nuclear weapons intended for use in battlefield situations - and that's a "first strike" option, one of a couple first strike scenarios outlined in the Pentagon's playbook. This is about the United States using nuclear weapons for purposes other than "deterrence" or retaliation.


"This is dynamite," said a nuclear arms expert interviewed by the Times. And indeed, it is. Everybody knows the nukes are pointed at someone; we don't talk about it because you can't talk about it usefully. It's a no-win discussion, and it is best kept out of sight. The specific naming of nations - in addition to the terrifying notion that this administration is examining tactical nuclear strikes - gives this story the potential to really, uh, blow up.


The development also potentially represents strike three in our relationship with China, after the spy plane incident and our bugging of their presidential jet, both in the last year. We entered the Dubya administration on a decent footing with China, the world's largest nuclear superpower. George Bush Sr. oversaw the dismantling of the Cold War, but Dub seems determined to revive every single one of our old global emnities and create a few new ones in the process.


I was born and raised under the shadow of instant global nuclear destruction, under the constant threat of fire from the sky, an apocalypse which could be unleashed at any moment. I don't want to die under that shadow, returned there by a thoughtless fool whose reckless words and careless acts have unraveled the stability of the world in a mere 15 months. It will be a pathetic coda to our civilization if the first shot of Armageddon is fired by such a small, small man. This is the way the world ends - with a bang and a whimper.




<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/hoodsAnimation.gif>
"If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators would be dead"

DarkHippie
03-09-2002, 12:06 PM
do i even need to speak my mind on this? i'm sure we all know where I stand

<IMG SRC=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/inkgrrrl99/images/hippiesig.gif>
compliments to inkgrrrl on the fine fine work
<i>support your local 420: union of brotherhood

living on the road, my friend, was supposed to keep us free and clean.
now you wear you skin like iron, your breath's as hard as kerosene-- townes van zant "the ballad of poncho and lefty"</i>

ROMEO
03-09-2002, 02:04 PM
Scary stuff Heck,don't you sometimes just what to smack the f-ers up side the head,and say what the F are you thinking.I guess we just have to have faith in mankind. SCARRRY I'll keep my faith where it's at ...though .

<HTML>
<img src="http://members.hometown.aol.com/boogertaste/images/typicalmaleromeo.jpg">
</HTML> GOD BLESS, tx oz

seagullbeagle
03-09-2002, 05:25 PM
i dont think the heckler's fiend voted for bush....

"education without action does nothing."----ignite

Supervixen
03-10-2002, 12:34 PM
everyone should hide in Long Island. see, I figure if
I stay in Brooklyn, and they send that crap toward
the city, ill die by default, but I think LI is far enough
East to get away from the big cloud of gas and
toxins, and no one wants to blow up the suburbs.
everyone can hide in my dorm room. but bring your
own pillows



..

.




<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/babyanna.jpg">

*Baby Anna*
......continue to shine.....

dicAMan
03-10-2002, 12:39 PM
i always thought we had nukes pointed at every country, i mean we have enuff of them. And I bet we do, at least that is what I want to see. We live in a world full of dangers, one of them is having nukes possibly being fired at us and we have to be prepared to defend ourselfs. You don't think everyone of those countries that have nukes arn't pointed at us? and the ones that haven't gotten them yet wont when they do? then you need to stop hugging that tree and open your eyes. I don't want to see us nuke another country more then the next guy, but we have to prepare for all eventualities. And if china was a powerful as us they would have attacked taiwan a long time ago. Our government is not stupid they know a lot more then we do about threats. As long as they don't have nukes pointed at my house, I am satisfied. This post isn't directed at anyone personally, just everyone who thinks we can just shut our eyes at all the people that want to hurt us, and they will go away.

Fact: A cat will always blink when hit on the head with a hammer. Thats a fact.



This message was edited by dicAMan on 3-10-02 @ 5:04 PM

Yerdaddy
03-10-2002, 02:51 PM
You don't think everyone of those countries that have nukes arn't pointed at us? <P>
China and Russia = Yes. Russia's biggest threat is the

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/babystaple.jpg" >
BILLY STAPLES FAN SINCE DAY ONE

Yerdaddy
03-11-2002, 12:39 AM
What's up with my posts getting cut off? Here's the rest:

China and Russia = Yes. Russia's biggest threat to us is the "dirty nukes" that went missing when we were too busy sucking up to Yeltsin to stop it, (that was Clinton's dumb ass). China has up to 20 nukes capable of reaching the US, while we have over 14,000 deployed all over the world.

France, Britain, Israel, India and Pakistan = No. The first three are obviously close allies of ours, and Israel's longest-range missile is about 1,000 miles. India and Pakistan have their nukes pointed up each others' asses and their fingers on the buttons. India's longest-range missile is 1,500 miles, and Pakistan's is 1,000.


<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/babystaple.jpg" >
BILLY STAPLES FAN SINCE DAY ONE

IRISjr
03-11-2002, 03:52 AM
I think hecklers long post can count for me, so I can write about nothing :).
___________
________
__________

good stuff heckler

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/rundog2001/myhomepage/irisjr-new.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US"></center>

<font><FONT FACE=" comic sans ms">
<marquee>IRIS loves ya</marquee><font>
<font color "blue"><marquee>but IRIS jr probably doesn't</marquee></FONT>

<marquee>Monkeys in Suits Rule!!!
</marquee></FONT> </BODY>

furie
03-11-2002, 06:26 AM
what scares me, is some small nuke being smuggled in and set off in the US, and the military strikes out at anyone out of rage or revenge.

That could be the end.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/stpatrick.jpg" width=300 height=100 >
Thanks Fallon!

JerryTaker
03-11-2002, 06:36 AM
we were too busy sucking up to Yeltsin to stop it, (that was Clinton's dumb ass).
Don't even try to blame Clinton, that's insane. We were sucking up to Yeltsin since day one in the "Bush part 1" era.

Also don't forget about Reagan helping to propogate the whole "arms race" like having 1 more nuke then the "evil" Rusians would make a lick of difference, meanwhile, the Russians put every dime in their economy into keeping up with us in arms, until they were bleeding to death, now they have nothing to export except... well, nukes, and guess what Oil rich countries have the money for them....

and, here's some sunshine for you to ponder... I'm sure we have nukes pointed at other strategic, shall we say "geological features" just in case we start to lose a nuclear war....


Thanks to Hosp for the Idea:
<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/sigpic2a.GIF">
"Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?"

This message was edited by JerryTaker on 3-11-02 @ 10:39 AM

wilee
03-11-2002, 10:54 AM
just in case we start to lose a nuclear war....

Jerry- once one ICBM gets launched from any country at the US, it is likely to trigger a full retaliatory strike. Especially if it is determined that the missle was not launched in error, but as a deliberate attack. In this case, it is unlikely there would be anyone on this planet left to say they "won".

Brinkmanship is never fun. The egotism of all leaders of America and the USSR have put us in the current state that we're in. Both countries believing that they would stay superpowers forever, and that at some point in time, (from the American point of view) if America won, everything would be hunky-dory and birds would sing, or if Russia won, we'd all be working for the government, eating our rations and smiting our breasts talking about how it used to be.

Military intelligence, however, probably never did an in-depth analysis into what would happen should the USSR go bankrupt, or anything like that. They worried about "rogue nations" or "stolen nukes" but how many scenarios for "Krazy Ivan's ICBM Garage Sale" were floated? Not many I would guess. Now we have multiple possible agressors. Needless to say, its getting rather crowded in this handbasket....

<IMG SRC="http://cwjr.home.infi.net/rocket.jpg">

furie
03-11-2002, 01:56 PM
just in case we start to lose a nuclear war....


The W.O.P.R. said it best:
The only way to win is not to play
there is no way to win a nuclear war, even a limited one. This is a fragile eco-system.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/stpatrick.jpg" width=300 height=100 >
Thanks Fallon!

Yerdaddy
03-13-2002, 08:58 AM
Don't even try to blame Clinton, that's insane.

I don't just blame Clinton, but it was his administration that was in office when the possibility of the suitcase nukes came to light. Representative Curt Weldon was informed of the existence of them on a congressional delegation to Moscow, and the administration appears to have accepted the official Russian denials outright. (read Weldon's statement here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hr_012400.htm ) Nobody can verify or deny the existence of these weapons, but they have been shown by independent scientists to be within US and Russia's capabilities to build them. http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/News/Lebedbomb.html Although Rep. Weldon's motivations for criticizing the Clinton administration may be political, it seems that Clinton downplayed the threat in order to not embarrass Yeltsin at the time. It may very well be that he privately ordered some of the various monitoring organizations working in Russia to investigate, but my friend at the Federation of American Scientists couldn't tell me off-hand if that took place.

My opinion is that to be able to fully address this type of problem you have to be open about it. Otherwise it stays in the shadows as a political football, prone to more finger-pointing rather than settling the question and dealing with it. (If I hear different from a friend at Globalsecurity.org, I'll post it.)

On your second paragraph I agree with you.

just in case we start to lose a nuclear war....

In case we start to lose a nuclear war against who? There are only 7 other nuclear powers in the world and only Russia poses a strategic threat, but not much of a political threat anymore (notwithstanding the issue of the security of their nukes, and their massive selling off of their conventional weapons stockpiles for cash). Right now the big question is how to keep nuclear threats from growing in the future. Failure to pass the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and going forward with National Missile Defense will do the opposite by giving our "enemies" the incentive to build a better decoy, while increasing their nuclear stockpiles (see my post on "the war, my worst fear" for my views on that.)

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigruby.jpg" >
BILLY STAPLES FAN SINCE DAY ONE