J: "It has been open for 60 years and I didn't open it, we have the US government to thank for that."
The comment opens Pandora's box for a lively discussion. Although I may have disagreed with a couple of your posts in the past, I fall short of blaming you for the cold war. Hell, why should I presume you're even old enough to have been around back then?
J: "There is a sense of scale though."
J: "There is a sense of scale though."
There certainly is no predefined scale: From multiple warhead ICBM to field artillery. There is no indication that one is predisposed to a certain scale of nuclear warfare.
J: "What does it mean; 'win'?
Ask a military commander. They're using it. They must think they can "win".
J: "Even a limited nuclear exchange (if it is possible -which I doubt)"
It's possible. It's happening right now. However, it's not an "exchange".
Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. They can't be if the US government is willing to use them without warning or provocation.
Mike
Joe Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Mike;
I've stuck a few comments interspersed with yours below;
Michael Redler wrote:
It has been open for 60 years and I didn't open it, we have the US government to thank for that.Joe,"...but as for the nuclear arsenal I think its real value is in the deterent aspect."With all due respect, you're really opening Pandora's box with that one.
There is a sense of scale though. Nukes operate on a scale that makes the thin veil of atmosphere of our planet look a bit like a closed bottle.Our nuclear arsenal doesn't make conclusions about weapons being offensive or defensive. There is no sense of scale nor are there predetermined rules as to where or when they should be used.
What does it mean; "win"? Even a limited nuclear exchange (if it is possible -which I doubt) would release sufficient crap into the environment to be unhealthy to the so called victor.There are two things you can count on when analyzing the behavior of any military entity, whether they be the modern American military or ancient Romans:When politicians recognize that they have a formidable army at their disposal, they will want to use it as a way of implementing policy (von Clausewitz).When military leaders have weapons at there disposal that helps them win wars, they will use them. They are not concerned with the amount of destruction they cause - only the objective. In fact, that's the whole point isn't it?
Yes and there is mounting evidence about just how nasty these clouds of gaslike nanoscale uranium dust really are and the jury is still out on what the long lasting effects are and just how far downwind they are felt.As the US government passes judgment on other countries for developing nuclear weapons, they are leaving behind battlefields in Iraq with nuclear waste in the form of airborne dust and hard shells of glass-like, radioactive coatings on their former targets as a result of using depleted uranium.
Yeah mutal assured destruction is yesterday's theme for sure 'cauze human nature is more modern now than it was during the cold war. That's why the end of the cold war was so stabilizing on the world. Threats never outlive thier usefulness so long as the ugly side of human nature continues to exist. Unless you want to turn the other cheek. We've never seen a serious attempt to implement that strategy on a global scale. Maybe that's a plan. Ok who should go first? Maybe we should draw straws or something. No wait -maybe just when the s--t is about to hit the fan god's hand will come down and squeeze the missle silos between his thumb and index finger like little zits on the face of the planet. And he'll probably level the playing field at the same time. Then we'll be able to start from scratch and everyone will realise they should play nice. Probably no one will want more than they need then. And probably I will look like a movie star and all the women will want me but I will stick with just one. I think it could happen.The US government promises further development of battlefield nuclear weapons as they preach to others how potentially dangerous they are in the "wrong hands".(IMO) there is nothing good about nuclear weapons and MAD (mutually assured destruction) has outlived it's usefulness (as if it ever was useful) and is nothing more than a cold war relic.Mike
J
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
