jump to navigation

The World Can Be Turned Off With the Flick of a Switch (But Nobody is That Stupid) October 6, 2006

Posted by earthlingconcerned in north korea, Nuclear Weapons.
trackback

The nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea have been making headlines for years now. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists his nuclear ambitions are peaceful and that anyone who believes otherwise (most of the western world) are under the spell of the American Empire. Then there’s Kim Jong-il, who wants to make it perfectly clear that North Korea is a force to be reckoned with. Unlike Iran, North Korea claims to already have these weapons in place and nuke.PNGwill test these weapons in the not too distant future. How does the world respond? Sanction this, sanction that, and eventually the test will happen regardless. Just like when he tested, and failed, those long range rockets earlier this year, Kim Jong-il will most likely go through with the nuke tests. And if he succeeds? What then?

I would imagine the same thing that has happened when the other nuclear weapon states learned how to blow the world up. Nothing. As of today, there are nine countries with nuclear weapons capabilities. Depending where you are in the world, most of these countries are, or at least have been, looked upon with great suspicion since they’ve declared themselves ready to play with the big boys. Here they are:

  1. United States (5,735 active/9,960 total): The majority of the world has a lot of problems with how the States is being run today.
  2. Russia (5,830 active/16,000 total): Largest nuclear threat, other than the United States, throughout the cold war. Continues to have largest arsenal out there and their economy/government isn’t exactly the most stable (not that this has anything to do with nuclear intentions)
  3. United Kingdom (200 total): Frowned upon by much of the world because of its ongoing involvement with Iraq. Not exactly a major world power (sorry).
  4. France (350 total): French fries weren’t even invented in France.
  5. China (130 total): Quickly becoming the next super power in the world. Happens to be communist (sort of) and history shows communists and capitalists don’t typically get along.
  6. India (75-115): Worlds second fastest growing economy and population (China is number 1 in both). Just like most of the powers mentioned above, there’s no real danger here. Granted, they aren’t best friends with Pakistan.
  7. Pakistan (65-90): Run by military leader, president, and author Pervez Musharraf in a very undemocratic fashion. Yet, cooperates with the US and is therefore seen as being one of the good guys.
  8. North Korea (0-10): Isn’t clear if they have nukes. We’ll find out soon enough. Closed off country run by someone who considers himself chosen to rule over his people by God. Supposedly he has to prove himself whenever he can. Insecure? I can’t say for certain, I’ve never met the guy.
  9. Israel (75-200): Nothing officially declared yet, but read up on the Vela incident if you have a second. It’s likely they are nuclear ready. Loved by every country in the world, so they pose no threat whatsoever. That last line was something I call a joke (I chuckled to myself while writing it but failed to blow milk out of my nose because I realized the seriousness of not wanting to get destroyed because of an interpretation of God).

Of course there will be concern over another country gaining access to the most powerful weapon ever devised by humanity. Especially when it comes out of closed and paranoid nation like North Korea (I’m still not convinced Iran is any more of a threat then most of the “good guys” on the list of current nuclear powerhouses). But I’m not worried about anything happening because if anything did ever happen, nothing would matter anyways. Thus, the title of this entry.

Imagine the following if you will. The world is a simple room, nothing is in the room but all of humanity and a single light bulb to which there is no replacement for. The light bulb is, and has always been at the ON position. There is however a switch, the plight-bulb-275h.gifroverbial red button, that has an off position. Sadly, for those curious in the room, the switch is one way and cannot be turned back on once turned off. Over the history of this room, the people have played around with the circuitry of the switch and have consequently paid dearly for it. People tried hitting the switch with rocks, and spears, shot at it with arrows and bullets. They’ve tried throwing water and fire at it with mixed results. They’ve even tried gassing it, throwing planes at it, and so on. But the light merely flickered a bit before returning to its beautiful, irreplaceable state of existence. Then one day, someone found a method of moving the light in the direction they saw fit. One day, this person decided to turn off the light for a large portion of Japanese people in the room and they perished as a result. Sadly (or luckily?), the room wasn’t very big and other people saw what this person was doing and soon learned how to do as he did. As time went on, just like gossip in the hallways, everyone knew how to flip the switch, but the switch was never flipped again (except against some birds, fish and possibly desert animals that also supposedly lived in the room).

If you skipped that whole analogy the rest of this entry would still make sense, but I thought it was cute so I left it in. Basically, if anyone uses nuclear weapons in the polarized world we live in, nothing would matter. In 1959, US President Dwight Eisenhower once insisted that if war came, “you might as well go out and shoot everyone you see and then shoot yourself.” There is no rational use for nuclear warfare and both the Soviets and the Americans knew this throughout the Cold War. That’s why the strategy for the US through most of the cold war was one based on the idea of all or nothing. MAD, or “Mutual Assured Destruction” was a policy suggesting that if a nuke was ever launched (in this case, from any Warsaw Pact country onto any NATO member), it would be lights out for everyone. The cold has technically ended, but the cat is out of the bag. The gossip will continue, and the knowledge will spread. There’s no turning back.

But the world is still around and nobody is nuking anyone. There is the idea that things are different now. North Korea or the terrorists (watch out behind you!) don’t follow the same rules as did the Soviets and Americans during the second half of the 20th century. They don’t follow the same rules? Everyone and their grandmother knows that humanity has the capacity to destroy itself at the blink of an eye. We are all following the same rules. So whoever you are, go about your life like you always have (unless you’ve lived your life in fear from nuclear attack, then you should probably change your approach). It’s all rhetoric, fear mongering, propaganda and the like. Remember, sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me. Those are some wise words I heard some time ago. Live by them.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Pat Kelly - October 6, 2006

You are mildly intelligent. You believe you are extremely intelligent.

2. mtylerjr - October 6, 2006

O RLY?

3. earthlingconcerned - October 6, 2006

I would probably agree with you there. Honestly, I’m surprised this, out of all my entries got fark’d. Ah well. Thanks for reading regardless.

4. Justin - October 6, 2006

Did you forget the fact that both russians/americans/others actually enjoy living? Considering some people on the planet seem perfectly content to wrap a metric ton of explosives around their bodies and walk into a shopping mall, killing themselves and others… I dont think that MAD will work this time around.

In short…
Possible boom -> I like living -> no boom
Possible boom -> Heaven is my goal, and if i kill these people ill get there -> boom

Scary when you really think about it, isn’t it?

5. TDOG - October 6, 2006

What about a smuggled Iranian made nuclear weapon going off in downtown NY? Dont forget that the terrorists we are dealing with these days are SUICIDE TERRORISTS. Having their country destroyed in a US counter attack makes everyone a jihadist in the eyes of allah.

6. Jamal Mashburn - October 6, 2006

Worst Fark EVER!!!

7. Joakim - October 6, 2006

You are right. I don’t think any nuclear state, especially fascist America, have a right to decline someone else to have it as well. Talk about double standards.

I wouldn’t mind like Norway or Sweden being furious with North Korea though, as well as being furious at America, Israel the UK and the rest.

8. Biggest Donger - October 6, 2006

Eatshanfe[orthr9uhwrfunrjofnpiue AHHHHHH I’m being nuked right now. jfngig5[uh Extreme light…. ahhhhhh!!!!! I’m dying uhgeudcf….

fading…. blackness….

9. Mike - October 6, 2006

Unfortunately, fundamentalists do not operate in the same plane of reality as you and I. We’re each logical, considerate people who believe humanity’s purpose is best consummated through the continued development of a free society where people can actualize their goals and dreams.

However, there are people who are twisted enough in their view of reality that they would hit the switch for fundamentalist-oriented reasons. While nobody views Stalin and the USSR as the best example of how to run a free, successful society, they were at least logical enough to believe that a protracted nuclear conflict would behoove no one.

By restricting access the proverbial “switch” we can continue to safeguard humanity’s future. If everyone could reach that “switch”, someone would turn it off.

From a utopian viewpoint, you’re right. In reality, you’re wrong. Sorry.

10. KathyB - October 6, 2006

For the record, I came here from Fark and I’m not a dick. I plan on reading more of your blog later today. Rock on.

11. Mike - October 6, 2006

Justin is spot-on, 100% right… I am sure that Mohammad Atta would have much rather carried a suitcase nuke to Ground Zero than crashed a jet liner into the WTC. Thankfully he didn’t have the opportunity.

Call America fascist, etc… that’s fine… I don’t like the Bush Theocracy either, but let’s not lie to ourselves. Stopping nuclear proliferation is in EVERYONE’s best interest.

12. OUKewlDave - October 6, 2006

Ric Romero says your are an idiot.

13. brian - October 6, 2006

Smuggled terrorist weapon is the risk. Korea = supply central, same for Iraq. Net net is we get hit, major city goes dark.

14. Kingkong - October 6, 2006

I think your statement is very fitting

15. Joakim - October 6, 2006

Mike, I see your point and it’s probably true, but that’s not the entire story.

To cut everything regarding nuclear bombs down to a basic mininum we can see that America is the only nation that ever has used nuclear bombs.

As for fundamentalist states it all depends on where in the world you live. Some people see America and Israel as fundamentalist as Iran or North Korea.

brian, I think it’s been proven enough to not drag Iraq in to the nuclear debate. They don’t have it and has probably never had it either.

16. DeepThought - October 6, 2006

“whoever you are, go about your life like you always have (unless you’ve lived your life in fear from nuclear attack, then you should probably change your approach). It’s all rhetoric, fear mongering, propaganda and the like.”

Hardly…

1. Do you remember 3,000 odd people dying in under 10 seconds in the middle of New York?

2. Did that ever happen during the cold-war?

This is a whole different ballgame and the threat is very real. You can’t play chicken with a lemming.

Alfred Nobel thought no one would use dynamite in warfare due to its effects. He was wrong. Its in our nature.

Today, it is a case of when a nuclear strike occurs on US soil, not if.

17. Abraham - October 6, 2006

My religion tells me that the afterlife is better than this one, and that to kill others who actively oppose it is totally moral. My religion is followed by more than 80% of the United States a bare majority of Europe and by nearly everyone in northern Africa and the area around the war-filled “middle east”. My religion tells me that the end of the world will be glorious and that I should look forward to it with glee and happy anticipation.

Most people who hold nukes answer to me and my religion.

18. Cappy - October 6, 2006

You know, whether or not Iran starts making and selling nukes, I don’t think Al Qaeda is going to be using one any time soon. Not only has Bin Laden said that he won’t use one unless one is used on his people, but it makes little logical sense. The goal of your average terrorist, in the scheme of things, is to punish nonbelievers and create a Muslim world. The people in control know that nuking an American city would essentially bring about the destruction of the middle east, and therefore defeat their purpose. I would be more worried about a non-Islamic terrorist group bent on “anarchy,” or even a complete nutjob leader like Jong Il.

19. Odin - October 6, 2006

First of all, Jihad is entirely misconstrueed in this discussion. Second, fundamentalism can refer to any movement aimed at getting back to the original message or teachings (in this sense Protestant Christians are fundamentalists). Third, suicide bombers (in addition to being a small portion of the population) are entirely logical. They believe in dying for their beliefs, just as some Americans are willing to die for what they believe.

Regardless, we aren’t dealing with “terrorists” anyway, we are dealing with nation-states with nuclear cababilities. Think of it: North Korea has been working for how long to get towards a succesful test of a nuclear weapon? And they have a team of highly trained scientists working on it. I doubt that the “terrorists” are this thourough, or well prepared.

Finally, earthlingconcerned’s point still holds. If some nation-state or religio-politcal group decided to use a nuclear weapon against a nation-state with nuclear capabilities, the retaliation would be more than most of us would live through.

20. american - October 6, 2006

If those camel jockeys ever got a suitcase bomb into downtown NYC, The middle east would get their ass invaded and nuked till it is just really big piece of glass.

21. Joakim - October 6, 2006

DeepThought: No disrespect what so ever, it was of course a tragic event, but honestly, 3.000 people on a global scale is nothing, nada, zip, ingenting, null.

Just 12 years ago 1 million people were killed in 100 days in Rwanda during the worst genocide ever.

3.000 people compared to that is like a drip in the ocean.

Don’t fall for the Bush regimes scare-tactics, please. Ignorance is never good, but being scared shitless of terrorists are insane in my opinion.

22. john of sparta - October 6, 2006

the Soviets saw Nukes as just a Bigger Bomb. nothing more.
there are nuclear mines in the FSU unless the Islamowhatevers
put them on their donkeycarts and sold them to Allah’s rep on earth.
fundie change:
old way…”we will bury you”, and take over your land.
new…….. “we will die killing you”.
it’s the old jealosy rap: “if i can’t have her(him), then no one will.”
murder/suicide.
it’s a domestic violence call, which the officers will tell you is the
worst possible. both sides shoot at you.

23. anonymous - October 6, 2006

MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) was a concept that worked because neither side was willing to be destroyed just to destroy the other side. MAD will NOT work if the other side actually desires to be destroyed. Indeed when each individual of the other side believes that the absolute best thing he can do is die as a martyr, it is guaranteed to fail.

So, what saves us today is that the other side does not yet have nukes. When the other side has ONE nuke, then it won’t matter how many we, or anyone else, has. We will not be able to convince the other side not to use that one nuke, so our only option is to prevent them from using it. By far the easiest way to do that is to prevent them from acquiring it.

Do you get it now?

24. The Man - October 6, 2006

No – you assume rationality.

Not everybody is rational.

Sorry – lights out.

25. jamima69 - October 6, 2006

1. Do you remember 3,000 odd people dying in under 10 seconds in the middle of New York?

2. Did that ever happen during the cold-war?

two sentences,entire article proven wrong.

DeepThought wins,end of discussion.

26. Dumb Girl - October 6, 2006

OK people, basically, no nuke smaller than about a cubic yard is going to do jack compared to a modern ICBM carried thermonuclear warhead. A suitcase nuke (which would weigh no less than 75 lbs), would not take out a full city block. Besides, building something like a 1-megaton warhead requires a level of technological sophistication well beyond 90% of the countries on the planet.

27. Random Person - October 6, 2006

Hello pretension and stretched metaphor! I love it when pseudoanalysts try to use reductionism to explain complex issues. It makes me feel joy when said pseudoanalysts then pat themselves on the back through the entire essay.

28. john of sparta - October 6, 2006

my seat belt is fastened even though i’ve never been
in a car wreck. my chances are Way Low, but i defend
my life with ABS, etc.
even if there was a super-small chance of a mega-whatever
nuke exploding in downtown Madison (most likely, Detroit,
home of the “Hadji” High School), we (i) would take extreme
precautions to insure this was averted.
a Nuke/dirty bomb/etc. in any US city would collapse
the economy for our lifetimes.
think about New Orleans. that was just water.
my cousin who lives in Slidell, which is just across
the lake, says that less than 30% of the people returned.

29. M - October 6, 2006

Yeah, the major flaw of this reasoning is the assumption that all people mentioned value life. They clearly don’t. Although, I’m still not TOO worried about nuclear war, because I’m fairly certain an attack on US soil would lead to the utter decimation of whatever sandhole the attackers came from. This is SAD (singularly assured destruction).

30. Mohammed - October 6, 2006

That’s some bullshiat! We’re gonna lob nukes at Israel as soon as we can figure out how to make em!

31. not smart guy - October 6, 2006

jamima69 & DeepThought-
while not in 10 seconds, many, many people died in ‘proxy’ cold wars for decades. they took place around the world (including the middle east) and led to some of the terrorist/radical leaders we have today.

unfortunately, when you attempt to rebut with trite questions that are probably false anyway, you don’t discount the article.

that said, the accessibility of earthinglingconcerned’s red button is the problem. since the ability to press the button or ‘stop the light’ was discovered it has been reachable by only bureaucracy-laden organizations. i.e., it took the approval of hundreds to even consider the button.
in the contemporary setting when many can reach the button, the probability of an individual or small group doing so increases.

most days i hope they can’t reach it.

32. notanamerican - October 6, 2006

perfect solution…american
invade and nuke
in that order
yay!
(yep, I see 2 solutions there….)

33. Sketch - October 6, 2006

the funny thing is… If someone had killed Stalin/Hitler/Mao before they had a chance to kill the millions that they did, people would have bitched and moaned and called the killer “murderers”, “immoral”, etc……. but AFTER the fact that these people killed millions of people, people to this day bitch and moan about not doing enough to STOP them before hand…

Apparently Clinton didnt want to kill Bin Laden at one point because of the “possible” collateral damage…. now, after Bush has sent 2500 soldiers to die, that schmuck is still alive…

my point is kill a few little nuclear-chasing fundamentalist bastards (christian fundies are JUST as bad as muslim fundies) now, or thousands more innocents will die for the inaction – people are going to bitch and moan regardless of what is done…

34. Mike - October 6, 2006

Your point is valid for nation states, China and the US will never come to nuclear blows. But as others have said there are plenty of people out there operating outside of organized political boundries who would love to nuke New York or Tel Aviv. No rational concerns for their own fate will restrain them. The ensuing retaliation by the United States will make the current world situation look like a big happy party but it won’t turn the light off.

35. Jihad - October 6, 2006

we’re all gonna die!

\\imports slashy’s from fark
\\\\imports over use of slahy’s from fark

36. noyb - October 6, 2006

Author,

Are you in high school?

37. Religions R Stupid - October 6, 2006

Religion and civilization are mutually exclusive.

38. Myself - October 6, 2006

People are forgetting when they mention that a suitcase sized nuke wont take out a city block. it may NOT take out a city block but if they have a suitcase full of conventional explosives and spent nuke material.. That boys and girls is the basis of a ‘dirty bomb’ Nuclear fall out is very fun stuff. Radiation poisoning is worse then having your atoms blown away (dont lecture me on how a nuke works either…just an expression).

In any event.. SOMEONE has to have nukes Otherwise whats going to prevent the bad guys from getting and using them? What prevents them now..MAD for most sane people …the unsane? Well.. If they launch a missle of any type from a site in anywhere it will be detected, and another missle will wave as its passing by to take out the missle site. Sure…the US..or UK..or whoever will loose thousands of people..maybe more.. but its gonna happen. Why do you think American cops (and some other countries..I hear UK doesnt) have guns?.. The bad guys do too..and I just recall the old saying, ‘Dont take a knife to a gun fight’.. As fun as it would be for the first .5 seconds..its gonna get real hairy after the fact.

It’d be nice if no one had nukes.. maybe one day humanity will grow up and get beyond its petty differences and not get into petty fights about stupid things like religion, or race or or or or or.. you get the point.

39. Jackson - October 6, 2006

The Bea Arthur Causeway was made of beef snacks and Sweetarts.

40. Sketch - October 6, 2006

Race and/or Religion has been behind EVERY war in the history of man…

41. Ibby - October 6, 2006

The idea of nuclear war doesn’t bother me. I’m moving to Jericho next week…

42. Livviiee D - October 6, 2006

That was interesting, semi-humorous. I enjoyed it muchly.

43. Smiley One - October 6, 2006

Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken.

Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.

Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

/ironic, or not?

44. jackandjill - October 6, 2006

-Jack- they believe in their way of life just as we do. if a man, any man doesn’t have something that he is willing to die for, then his own life is a waste. who are we to dictate how they should live? how would you like it if I came into your home and said you couldn’t spend your own money because I am the new bank in town? the point is that we need to mind our own business. we need to let those people continue to live the way the have been living for thousands of years. WE are the bad guys there and have been for a very long time. there are all shorts of military crimes being committed daily and that is an example of the type of people we have living in our country and in our midst. our soilders represent our society and if they can open fire on civilians it does not say much for us. We need to let them(Iraqi’s/Afgani’s) run their own affairs and mind our own business. we have senators being pedifiles etc.. those who live in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones. -Jack-

45. Bob MacSlack - October 6, 2006

If you think muslim extremists are so illogical that they would bring about the destruction of mankind, you’re just being ridiculous. Their ultimate goal isn’t to kill people, it’s (from their point of view) the preservation of their religion and their way of life. Having a few people blow themselves up to further that goal isn’t illogical. This is their way of life that they are defending, and in that context it’s easy to rationalize a lot of things.

Are they paranoid? Sure, but they will still act rationally with regard to their paraniod reality.

Throwing nukes is hard to justify if it will bring about the destruction of their way of life. It’s completely contrary to their goal. They know that nuking the United States will most likely lead to every muslim on the planet dying, so why would they do it?

46. Obi-Wan - October 6, 2006

I sense a great disturbance in the force.

47. prahaproud - October 6, 2006

It’s annoying how some of the less travelled, self-loathing types really don’t understand the extend mankind is able to oppress others. In spite of your apparent dislike for the United States (which is common; everybody likes to hate the big guy in town), your relativistic perspective ignores real tyranny.

Real people are being oppressed and killed in much of the world by dictators and thugs and you ignore it, while seeking to strap down one of the most progressive nations. We lost family members to Hitler in the Czech Republic (but at least we fought, unlike some others who were so pathetic they gave away our nation to buy them some peace). If you’re looking for developed nation moral evil, look no further than France and the UK.

However, where you really need to look is at yourself. Your kind are the ones who let Hitler rise. My friends in Venezuela who thought “anything was better than their corruption” are terrified now. Some have lost their farms. Others have no jobs because Chavez is stealing it to give to his rich friends. If you oppose him, you disappear.

Yet fools like you let them in the door while you fret about imaginary enemies. Truly the nihlistic are the downfall of civilization.

48. aerojad - October 6, 2006
49. Mark - October 6, 2006

>>As for fundamentalist states it all depends on where in the world you live. Some people see America and Israel as fundamentalist as Iran or North Korea.

Some people are morons.

50. cghj - October 6, 2006
51. Potent_Potable - October 6, 2006

The guy is right, I agree with him. Fear drives our economies and the way we think, vote, eat, and lead our lives. It is done on both sides of the spectrum. North Korean leaders are shoveling the same shit at their people and Iran is polishing that turd too. If I am wrong and we all die in a nuclear holocaust then oh well… sue me, if anything still exists.

52. Me (kj maxey) - October 6, 2006

During the Cold War, each country knew what would happen if they started it, so neither did. For now, the nations/countries with the bomb likewise know they’d be blasted away if they attacked another country. That’s NOT the concern. The rouges are our nemesis. Those “terrorists” (of whatever religious [or political] ilk you wish to blame) –as has been stated elsewhere– WANT TO DIE! And if they do set off a bomb in a US city, who do we nuke in retaliation? A whole country? Which one? A whole region? Those “suitcase” weapons CAN do a lot of damage–certainly morally, psychologically, etc.–as well as physical destruction. Even one–regardless of its impact– is a victory for them and another blow against the US. A lot of people hate us (the US) for various reasons, sensible or not–and will likely continue trying to get us in any way they can. It is a modern fact-of-life that isn’t likely to change soon…even if we get bin-Laden, even if we leave Iraq. This is the new “cold war” and we’re stuck with it, like it or not. Worry? Guess it’s a matter of individual choice. As was also stated earlier, not so much IF, as WHEN. Accept it and hope it doesn’t happen for a long time, but…

53. Dunwitch - October 6, 2006

Small-yield nukes will definitely be used on American soil. It’s not like the technology is THAT difficult, given near-unlimited funding (oil money).

The result, of course, would be EXACTLY what the bombers want (martyrdom) and exactly what the Neo-Caliphate leadership cabal wants (to incite a global holy war). There would be no MAD, because the nuke would be delivered by non-state actors.

The result would be an escalation of the current regional conflicts, and a polarization of world opinion against the Neo-Caliphate, which is exactly what the Neo-Caliphate wants. It’s pretty much unavoidable; you nuke somebody and everyone hates you, which helps in your recruiting efforts. I don’t think it would result in nuclear retaliation, except maybe a few tactical deployments with limited regional effects.

But the global economy would stagnate, and a generation of humans would live a slightly crappier life than they would have if the nuke hadn’t been deployed. Casualties would be high, and areas would be rendered inhospitable permanently. It would be another 9/11, in other words a minor but dramatic publicity event for the Neo-Caliphate. There would likely be a re-occupation of traditionally Muslim lands, which would be great for the extremists.

A second nuclear attack would be far worse, possibly involving retaliatory genocide.

54. john of sparta - October 6, 2006

when Oprah is not on TV because Chicago is shutdown due to a
suitcase nuke, when American Idol cancels ’cause the power is
out in LA, when….well, you get it.
take Natchitoches, TX or Pocatello, ID or Penobscot, ME and
ruin their afternoon TV…..that’s when the reality starts.
just like when 9/11 pre-empted the soaps.

55. buttholesteve - October 6, 2006

Last words:
“If you got’um smoke’um”
“Nuts!”
“Live long and prosper”
“Bring it on”
“Peace”
“We will bury you…..”

56. Preston Miller - October 6, 2006

Good try, but you didn’t think it all the way through. I think you probably understand the shortcoming of your thought by now.

Try alcohol, it’s what I do.

57. » PINOYHACK.COM » If you can not join them nuke them - October 6, 2006

[…] via earthlingconcerned Share this page:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]

58. -:: Madness & Muse ::- » Blog Archive » Nobody stupid enough to deploy nukes. - October 6, 2006

[…] An interesting, if slightly flawed, article that was linked to from fark. […]

59. Denial - October 6, 2006

heres a fucking solution:

quit pissing off other cultures/nations/religions.

is it REALLY that difficult to understand?

this new “cold war” is easily solvable, but solving the issue wouldn’t fatten up the oil guy’s wallets now would it.

60. rosiesbaby - October 6, 2006

Why is that the USA is always demonized as the only nation to have used WMD? They just got the resources working faster than others did at the time. Nasty stuff, to be sure but the war DID end.

61. Ben - October 6, 2006

This was the most ignorant assesment of the present nuclear ambitions of our enemy. Your analagy assumes (1) that nobody in the room want’s to die, and (2) that everybody in the room had the equal ablity to “flip the switch”

Iran want’s to see the end of the world, see that is when they all get the religion of peace to cover the earth, and they all go to paradise. SEE http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_84.html

North Korea is ruled by a maniac, would you want an insane person even able to flicker the lights out?

Go live in your bubble until it bursts.

62. Ian - October 6, 2006

The problem is you assume all parties are rational actors. Regardless of how religious you think Bush is (he’s not), Ahmadinejad is the real deal. He believes the end of the world is coming, and unlike Christian evangelicals who also believe that he’s willing to die to make it happen.

PS: simple demography means Islam wins anyway. Muslims in the Middle East and Europe are averaging 5 kids per woman, while most of Europe, Japan, and the more liberal areas of the US are well under 2 (so their population is halving every generation). It turns out making sex purely a recreational activity *did* have consequences…

63. My BALLS - October 6, 2006

You will destoy yourselves through your homosexual behavior before you ever have to worry about Al Queda and nuclear weapons. All of you faggots go die, and leave the world to those of us who wish to continue it through reproduction.Al Queda have goat sex, and GWB spurts in his own hand. Catch AIDS and die, and quit posting abolut all this nuclear crap. It’s meaningless as long as you have no children, and even then meaningless if they’re gay like you. You are void and insignificant, so STFU.

64. str - October 6, 2006

The only way for Iran or any nation that wishes the US to stop spreading, is to get themselves a nuke….stinky catch22
Oh the horror, if the terrorist get their hands on such destructive forc e!!! but would they use it in the same way a suicidal bomber who doesn’t care for this world would ? BUT WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS?!?! Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as “the unlawful use of — or threatened use of — force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.” Most governments would fit under that description except they do it lawfully =(
Face it, the terrorist label is dangerous, ppl get everything messed up, ben laden, iraq, iran, chavez, hey even the french were boycotted and all this stems from 9/11 and the GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, or the will to crush dissidents maybe? i really wonder…

On the other side, war is profitable for people who happen to be able to wage them..make the working class fear, let them toss away the key of their cells themselves to garantee safety in isolation and order.
Escalation of violence is pointless, if u americans take another hit, don’t jump to conclusions and follow what ur government “believes”, bombing another country again would definitively NOT help=/ some ppl tend to compare the US and the middle east like kids in a fight arguing about who started it, or believing that the US benefits of the right to deal equivalent trade AT THE LEAST for losing an eye…grow up already, that would be catastrophic…
Ack, brave new world ! =(

65. gurzilla - October 6, 2006

I dont think I can just go on my merry way secure in the knowledge that nobody would be so impolite as to bring on a nuclear armageddon. Sorry, I just dont trust governments that much.

66. Damien Walder - October 6, 2006

Well, I hope you’ll eventually get through all that fodder writing (there were flares of intelligence, but apparently some thought you shold have been less earnest, more entertaining.
For my part, I offer my thanks for bothering to get the message out.
The reality of nukes, I might add, is that they represent a system of control (the military-id-destroy-all complex, to parachute-phrase dear old Ike) at its apex. Therefore the anxiety of dirty nukes, or Ebay’d Russian nukes will have to remain an unreasoned and morbid train of thought.
The desire to trump conventional arms was sincere and well-meant by the Allies, but horrified the Japanese no more than the researchers and developers on the first two bomb drops. It is hard for me to imagine anyone developing a conscience without first developing a consequence. Humans break things – we find apologies and reasons later.
There is no trump of Broken Atoms, the omega – we have already uttered “Neutron Bomb” some decades past, but it was a streamlined marketing failure; for some reason no great masses fell in love with the concept of an world void of people with buildings intact. I like to think that the best result of this awe-inspiring weaponry sharpens the love of life for more than a few people. Monotheists, I am thinking of you.
Christ or Mohammed, even Moses (peace be on their names)on their angriest days would not likely wish such weapons used on the world except in surrogacy, as category of “wrath”.
Perhaps the dream of nukes is a shared dream, that we may measure sane behaviour by. It is telling that we are still more horrified by what humans do to one another with machetes and household firearms than by the dull awareness of nuclear options.

67. Damien Walder - October 7, 2006

Sorry, I never closed the first parenthesis!

68. Wale - October 7, 2006

Remember Timmy, when you see the flash, duck and cover!

Attaboy

69. Jay Gee - October 7, 2006

The US is hands down the best country in the world with UK a close second, the rest of you just want what we’ve accomplished, and most of you wouldnt even exist past the 40’s if it wasn’t for the US. As for the muzzelums, your RoP has been demasked, while you may get traction in multiculturalisitc europe the US will forever reject your murderous ways. One nuke on our soil and we’ll have 10-80yr olds signing up to hunt some cloth heads, whatever is left after our deterrental strikes that is.

This story was written long ago and the ending is already known, you lose.

70. James Dobson sucked my peas - October 7, 2006

Well the article must have hit a nerve since so many people cared enough to leave comments.

This article was a simple idea, one that everyone should know already but probably doesn’t consider very often. As such, it’s good to point out the obvious sometimes, lest we forget.

Now do one on fear (peas), and why it’s not a good idea to be so afraid of something that we give up all our freedoms. (I said peas) Some dingleberries still haven’t quite grasped that concept yet. Peas 🙂

71. Phil - October 7, 2006

They rioted for two weeks over a cartoon. And if they managed to get a device into the U.S. and let it rip, we’d be too politically correct to do enought about it. They’ll irritate us to death, and we’ll die of a guilty consience.

Here’s my analogy: We’re myopically taking swings at every loudmouth on the planet, wasting all our engergy, and China is getting big and strong on our money. Ok, I’m not good at analogies either. But live strong or die.

72. Sketch - October 7, 2006

“59. Denial – October 6, 2006
heres a fucking solution:
quit pissing off other cultures/nations/religions.
is it REALLY that difficult to understand?”

BRILLIANT! and please tell us all how this can be done as no matter WHAT anyone does, it pisses someone off? I eat a burger, it upsets the hindus and PETA freaks. I sleep on a synthetic pillow, it upsets the environmentalists. I wear a shirt, it pisses off the human rights people – I wear a shirt NOT made in a sweat shop, it pisses off the seat shop owners and deprives developing countries of much needed hard currency…. I watch a movie, it upsets the indie crowd. I watch an indie movie it upsets the right-wing fundies.

I think your post sucks. now you’re upset… BRILLIANT!!

73. ieeye - October 7, 2006

“Then one day, someone found a method of moving the light in the direction they saw fit. One day, this person decided to turn off the light for a large portion of Japanese people in the room and they perished as a result.”

More people died in the Great Leap Forward, the Holocaust, and by the Soviets in Russia than by hydrogen bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in fact, it probably saved lives.

“Americans during the second half of the 20th century. They don’t follow the same rules? Everyone and their grandmother knows that humanity has the capacity to destroy itself at the blink of an eye. We are all following the same rules.”

Mutually Assured destruction, not anymore, why? Because some people don’t care if they are destroyed in the process, as long as they defeat the U.S./Israel/the West.

74. t0rment - October 7, 2006

Most people forget that the “martyrs” we’re talking about, aren’t any of the people running the show. All the Islamofascists (lol) in high positions over there are just spreading that propoganda to get young, impressionable youths to do their dirty work.

They have agendas, and I doubt it includes every Muslim in the Middle East turning up dead.

75. farteddownurthroat - October 7, 2006

9/11 did not take 10 seconds for them all to die. and 3,000 is nothing compared to … what … close to 7 billion people now? bush sceeerrred you. pwnt

76. bill nye the bong guy - October 7, 2006

/fart

77. phatface - October 7, 2006

Unfuckinbeleivable! The US has already pissed off the world beyond
repair. Wasn’t there just an international meeting of like 100 countries
and we weren’t invited? Ablahamaraghead and Chevas making out in
public? China making secret deals with the same pair of dickheads?
People like You should just STFU and let the adults do the thinking
for awhile!

78. drx1 - October 7, 2006

the time for the USA to mind its own business is over. Its business is your business and you better get used ot it. We minded our business during the 1st Gulf War and peacefully went back to Saudi to protect them … and their oil. We left Afghanistan alone.

Then things changed on 9/11 …

and you really should get a clue – since every country is every other countries business and has been so since the begining of time. Islam has never been about peace and it never will.

Bush Jr. and Dumsfeld have done a bad job, but at least they tried to do the right thing.

79. D Rex - October 7, 2006

I’m sorry but this is one of the stupidest, most poorly written article I’ve read in quite some time. Here’s a hint, you make no sense when you flip flop back and forth.

80. F Rizzi - October 7, 2006

your analogy of a lightbulb in a room is simply retarded. People throw rocks at the light and it won’t break? LMAO! Stick to your day job, please.

81. muzzrphochr - October 7, 2006

earthlingconcerned is right in that typically noone wants to unleash that much destruction upon the world considering we ultimately all pay a price for it.
If you f’in Americans would quit pissin off so many damn countries thinking you need to control everything and everyone then maybe people wouldn’t be so determined to rid themselves of you!!
When Hitler started his campaign to control the world, the world responded and put hitler in his place.FREEDOM REIGNED!!!And ALWAYS WILL!!!
When your nation butts in others business you are comprimising their freedom regardless of who the Fark you think you are.
Personally I would worry about China! I believe they are dead set against Hegemony and Bush is trying his damndest.

82. Tim Sanders - October 7, 2006

How in the world did this thing get Farked?
This article makes no sense.

83. Ray - October 7, 2006

“If you f’in Americans would quit pissin off so many damn countries thinking you need to control everything and everyone then maybe people wouldn’t be so determined to rid themselves of you!!
When Hitler started his campaign to control the world, the world responded and put hitler in his place.FREEDOM REIGNED!!!And ALWAYS WILL!!!”

And what country are you from douchebag? Guess what country stepped in and rid the world of Hitler? That’s right, the U.S., so STFU unless you have some clue as to what you’re talking about. BTW, take a history lesson or two. Hitler doesn’t compare to Bush unless you think like a 3 year old child.

84. t0rment - October 7, 2006

drx1 here…
“Things changed on 9/11 ya’all.

The act of a terrorist organization represents the guiltyness of the whole population of that country, and justifies massive civilian casualty, goddangit.

Despite the fact that I’m stupid enough to think we’re in Iraq because of Bin Laden, my president clearly stated that he is not a priority anymore.

Furthermore, we’ve left the Canadians to do our job in Afghanistan; we’re helping with regular “friendly-fire” parties, and having them clean up our mess becuase their current government can’t do anything but kiss American-Israeli ass.

And I’m SO goddamn retarded, that I truly believe that democracy is an export and present that we can bestow upon a culture that is inherently incompatible with its basic tenets, and that we have truly benefited the Iraqi people by removing a dictator that actually managed to keep the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds relatively unified (regardless of what you think of his methods, most Iraqis will now tell you they’d prefer Saddam). Disregard that the country has resorted to the much worse, every group for themselves, insurgent-style stuff we’re seeing now. Hell, just because we made our bed, don’t mean we should lie in it, dontyaknow!

I truly, honestly believe that the byproducts of my country’s actions has only resulted in benefits such as a country who’s people are under constant fear of being ripped apart by American bombs, who do not want American forces there, who have experienced a MUCH higher quality quality of life when Saddam Hussein was in power, and where things like food, electricity, and a functional, independent economy was a reality for the Iraqi people.

I also super-duper support my country’s actions by continuing to support this farce of a war despite the ONLY “weapons of mass destruction” we found in Saddam’s possession were canisters of mustard gas that were far past their expiration date, and that if actually made useable, would’ve constitued a miracle of alchemic preportions.”

Feel free to correct any misrepresentations I may have made; I just figured since you loved stereotypes so much, you wouldn’t mind if I had a go.

Now…

All this suffering (to the Iraqi people, and young, American soldiers) because of a few planes crashed into towers by Islamic terrorist organizations, who in no way support the opinion of the general populace. You really think your average day-to-day Iraqi cared about Death-To-America before America invaded Iraq, when the Iraqi peoples priorities were taking care of their family with whatever they were fortunate enough to hav? I think if a country invaded America because of the result of a few Christian wackos, I think the Americans would be pretty damn pissed.

Bush and Co. were given the heads up on Bin Laden and what he was up to MONTHS before 9/11 occured; he chose to ignore it for whatever reason.

If you honestly believe the suffering of millions of people is justified because you disagree with their way of life, and believe they are all responsible for the actions of a few people, maybe you should re-evaluate your sacred Western high-horse morality for a second or 60, so it might give you SOME sort of perspective on why Muslims across the world, in addition to most non-Western countries, now do not see where your or their actions differ.

Retaliation for 9/11 would have been finding and hunting down who was responsible for the attacks: Bin Laden. Bush has allowed Canadian troops to pick up the slack in Afghanistan, while clearly stating he DOES NOT CARE ABOUT FINDING BIN LADEN.

Why do you still support this war if it’s not about teaching those responsible for 9/11 a lesson? I mean if you agree with whatever your Administrations current choice of shifting justifications for the war are, then state that justification rather than bringing up 9/11, when it is clearly no longer relevant.

Or wait, it’s because since 9/11, we suddenly woke up to the reality of the sick, animals middle-eastern Muslims are, right? And of course, generalizations are fine. Unless it’s Muslims declaring all Americans to be “infidels” becuase they’re raining bombs on their country…that’s not okay.

The reason so many more Muslims hate America now is because of its increasingly stupid, post-9/11 actions. Are they right for generalizing? No, of course not; but conversely, are the Americans right for doing the same? Don’t romanticize your side when you’re only willing to see the reality of the other.

“I can’t believe these people hate me, I didn’t do nothin’ to em!” Well, put yourself in their shoes…can you see why this unjustified hate springs up? Is it SO fucking hard to understand why conflicts like these only make the situation worse, and embolden our hate for the Muslims, and their hate for you?

And then you have to add in the fact that most reasons you’d probably use as support for the war, are Administration provided, America-ra-ra-ra propaganda. The whole war for oil thing is so cliche, I hate hearing it because you’d figure it’s common knowledge…

…Then I see a post like drx1’s and I realise that many Americans are not very bright. That many people in general are not very bright, I should say.

And really, I’m not saying I’m extremely intelligent, I just think the Western world is setting the bar WAY too low.

Hell, this isn’t even a question of intelligence, much else your lack of moral ethics, when you perceive yours to be superior to the “enemy’s”.

You really think killing innocent Muslims (don’t say it’s not a religion issue, you brought up 9/11, don’t backpedal now), and totally destroying their way of life because you disagree with it is justified because a few extremist wackos flew a few planes into two giant phalluses that you’ve hyped up into some bastion of freedom due to your love for the comfort your ignorant, nationalist blanket gives you?

And most Americans would consider the Nazis monsters. Irony?

85. anonymous - October 7, 2006

Seems ironic that all the people complaining about the dumbness of this article are coming in from Fark, the cousin Digg never talks about.

86. Your Father (kinda drunk) - October 7, 2006

Dunno if you’ll find this in the masses. Uhh.. 3what was i gonna say… The double standard … this is where i think i think what i think. If your arguments or ideas were presented as literature in artistic fashion, people would find it to be a much better point.

“What a deep and meaningful work that touches home with real issues concerning our own lives and mortalities.”

In “real life” people are alot more opinionated on “what is true, what is false” . i guess i think its interesting though that it incited so many comments. i guess because it is an fairly opinionated piece (balls out, AC/DC style). Though maybe 84 out of 17,000 isnt alot and i’m being persuaded by the sheer numbers.

forgetting the other thought……

Oh yeah. id say that this effects you too. like you think you follow international politics more than you follow the soap opera that is the “war on terrorism” (which is a work of literature in and of itself) [[i dont mean this in a scathing way]].

87. Ken - October 7, 2006

Awesome post, one of the most dcecorated post i have ever read. specially the analogy. You could have tried keeping it short. 🙂

But ain’t you too optimistic abt everybody having the knowledge to use switch and will never use it?

i understand that most have fear of they themself burning themself in the fire. as most have prblems with neighbouring countries. India-Pakistan, N Korea – S Korea, Iran _ Iraq, Israel – Middle East, except America and UK, now they have problem with most of the world, but can’t express their disgust due to fear of this weapon.

There is say in Hindi, I hope you know Hindi, Bandar Ke Haat Mein Talwar. It means sword in the hands of a monkey. It does not know how to use, and also does not know how much deangerous it can be. But he loves to play with it.

The fierce tug-of-war between two religions of the earth to capture rest of the others is one day going to reck havoc on the rest of the world. Most monkey’s have swords in their hands.

88. Julie - October 7, 2006

All these comments get quite confusing. First: The idiot that tried to talk about Americans and the war with Hitler: you definitely need to get a life and read up on your History, cause you don’t know shit about anything there dumbass. Without America, that war would have lasted a lot longer. France would be a nazi country, as well as a few others. I’ll shut up about France while i’m ahead, cause they have NO right to fault Americans.
Second: Americans keep your nose out of other’s business????? Hold on here, but if i am not mistaken, those others’ you are referring to—generally ASK us to stick our nose in!!!
Third: Yes there are a lot of Americans that think they are high and mighty. There are also a lot of other countries that have the same kind of individuals living there. People want to downgrade Americans due to jealousy and they manage to find faults with Americans because they wish they were more like us and can’t seem to find anything better to do. Americans are the first to be dogged by others and the first to be called when the same ones that dogged them need help. So basically they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Fourth: I do not agree with the war in Iraq, and i served my country many years ago. I believe that when retaliating for 9/11 it was Bin Laden we should have been hell bent on finding, not the demolishen of Iraq. I believe that Sadam Hussein could have been caught in a different way if our leaders had thought it out a bit more.
Lastly: To that stupid individual who wants to down our American Soldiers for certain things they have done while in a foreign country, fighting to save their own lives, doing things that no 18 -20 something year olds should have to do. BOYS that can’t legally drink in their own country, but can legally die for it. Young men that are barely out of school, that become psychologically confused as to what is even real anymore. Yes these “boys” have made mistakes, but they are in a hell of their own and are scared so they follow the few ‘monsters’ out of fear for their own skin.
Well that person can go straight to Hell or better yet, go live in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever the hell you want, other then this country. Or put your life on the line for something other then your own selfishness.
Nuclear reactors built for electricity or for the good of a country is fine, but to build nuclear warheads – all of them should be destroyed (the warheads and weapons).

89. t0rment - October 7, 2006

*sigh*

I have no desire to fight with ignorance; I learned long ago it was a losing battle. I enjoyed writing that post, hoping maybe at least one person might see might point of view. You’re also entitled to your point of view, as I am entitled to thinking your point of view is shortsighted and flat out wrong.

My main analogy (you know what an analogy is, right?) was that for anation that fought the Nazis, it’s kind of ironic to see a significant portion of the American population support targeting Muslims because they’re all terrorists. How many of those Iraqi Muslims do you know? It was quite dangerous when everyone believed what the Nazis said about the Jews too. It’s startling how you can’t see the relationship. I can’t see any possible way to further convince you. I’d say you could use a lesson in reading comprehension; I never said America = Nazis; I said some of the things Americans are saying about Muslims is startingly appaling for a country that OPPOSES fascism. If you think it’s appropriate to not be disgusted by attitudes like that, again, I can’t argue with someone who has different morals than I; what a useless argument, no?

I’ll add as a final comment however, that I’d suggest you open a History book in a while as your interpretation of WWII seems to have come from Hollywood. America didn’t jump into the war until Pearl Harbor, period. They didn’t give a shit up until that point; did they contribute? Hell yes. If you want to count losses/final battles, TECHNICALLY, the USSR did the “most”, in the sense that they endured the most casualties, and won some of the most pivotal battles. However, assigning ranks to a countries importance in a war like that is quite silly, and really insulting to all parties involved. If Germany had invaded earlier, maybe they wouldn’t have all frozen. If America and Canada didn’t help on D-Day, maybe that battle would have won. I could go on, but I think you get my drift.

90. Chopper Dave - October 7, 2006

*shrugs* What can be said that hasn’t been said? Between the Blame USA First crowd and the Get Them Terrorists crowd, I think all bases have been covered.

But let’s stop and think about the shaved apes that inhabit this planet. They have never gotten along with one another. They most likely never will. Islam will not decide to one day peacefully coexist with Christianity and Judaism. China will remain China, a mostly reasonable country with an economic system applied onto a political system with mixed results (which were disastrous in other countries). North Korea and Iran will continue to ignore the world. The world will continue to hate the United States because the big kid on the block is also the biggest target.

Human nature is born of conflict. Red in tooth and claw, an oversimplification of evolution, is not necessarily inaccurate. We will profess love for our fellow man, all while some hot and nasty inside us wants to hit him with a rake for being different.

And as for the topic… people are that stupid. Again, based on evolution. Bigger, better ways of killing each other is what evolution is about. And if we exterminate ourselves in the process of evolving, well, the cockroaches have been around long enough. I think perhaps they deserve the rock.

91. t0rment - October 7, 2006

Oh and, Julie…

I find the fact that you call them Boys, highly insulting as well. I just spent the past 2 nights partying with one of these “boys” who’s back from Afghanistan for two weeks before he goes back. First of all, it’s quite sad to see how much he’s changed. Later in the night, he kept thinking CSIS was going to bust into the room and arrest us. He was dead fucking serious.

Either way, he talked about his experiences for quite a while, and the shit he told me just confirmed what I thought about the war. And yes, he said most soldiers there don’t agree with the war but of course they understand it’s their duty to serve. I never disagreed with this though; in fact, I even stated pretty clearly that I felt sympathy for the fact that these young MEN are being sent to a country, some to die for absolutely nothing.

Are you proud of the fact that your country is paying back their troops DUTY by treating them like pawns in their political game?

92. t0rment - October 7, 2006

Chopper Dave
As I tried to say (although I understand how it may have been lost in all my ignorant American bashing)that I don’t think either view is right; I’m just sick of people ignoring reality and choosing to romanticize one side or another in the name of patriotism, all the while throwing away logic, fact, or accountability…

Kind of like what your post contained.

Cheers

93. t0rment - October 7, 2006

err I should clarify; I meant your post contained said logic, fact, etc. I guess I should get some sleep?

94. Olivier Ansaldi - October 7, 2006

Julie,
the argument about non-american people being jealous of the american way of life is just plain wrong. What is closer to the truth is that american corporations are pushing this way of life as a one-size-fits-all in every corner of the world. This infuriates a lot of people.
Why would France have no rights to fault americans? Your constitution defends the freedom of speech. You seem to disagree.

95. therealdonquixote - October 7, 2006

I like your analogy. It adds a bit of heart to a very solid op ed piece. A little well written “prosa” never hurt anyone. Especially when the op ed is coming from a mouth that is not attached to a marrionette with strings that reach all the way back to Washington.

Good job keep em comin.

96. Chopper Dave - October 7, 2006

*shrugs* Either way, Torment, reading this particular thread has been enjoyable. Amidst the well-thought out arguments, the poorly- spelled slogan swallowing (which may fall under sarcasm), the flames, the sarcasm, and yes, even the non-sequiturs, I at least enjoyed reading what others had to say.

While I do not hold with Earthling’s hypothesis, at least it got some interesting things for me to read at 6am on a Saturday morning.

97. Shaymus - October 7, 2006

I started to read your blog and thought it was really interesting. well then I got a little peckish and started to eat my brain. I read on and ate on. when I reached the end of your blog for some reason I forgot what it was about or how I even got here. Oh well I dont think I am hungry any more. bye

98. Robert Steinbach - October 7, 2006

Joakim said:

“To cut everything regarding nuclear bombs down to a basic mininum we can see that America is the only nation that ever has used nuclear bombs.”

Watching American nukes explode impressed the Emperor Hirohito, but NOT the Japanese Military so much, believe it or not! They saw bigger cities like Tokyo burned to cinders before the nukes came. The Emperor was forced to surrender to us because of our use of nukes and because of a massacre of his million strong Western Army by the Soviet Union (wikipedia: Emperor_Hirohito and World_War_II). If he had not surrendered Japan to us, we would have likely had to use a few more nukes and invade Japan (wikipedia: Operation_Downfall). If that had happened, there would be many millions FEWER Japanese and Americans alive today. This is fact, not propaganda. Now that you know, was is worth using nukes to speed up the end of the War?

The main point of this post is that the Japanese Military culture of World War 2 seemed to be one of “win or die” and nearly refused to surrender AFTER being nuked. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policies don’t seem to work on such fanatics. I feel ONE nuke in the hands of a crazed fanatic is more danagerous than 5,000 nukes owned by people that wish to live.

But I desperately hope that EarthlingConcerned is 110% right and I and “dead” wrong 🙂

99. Dexter - October 7, 2006

I think you give too much credit to human intelligence. As individuals sitting in a comfortable room, sipping a cup of coffe or whatever you drink, you can ponder these complex questions with great ease and dole out advice like Dear Abby, but the problems are far more complex.

Governments are run by people but governments and institutions have a logic all their own. If I peel away the coles notes history of the Cold War, the crux of your opinion relies on the fact that nobody and their grandmother would want to destroy the world.

The logic is sound but it doesn’t reflect the reality of the human condition. People who seek to win and inflict damange on the other are usually more focused on their opponents than the greater good. While governments, even authoritarian ones may ultimately still be accountable for the population, terrorists and ideologically driven gangs are not. They only seek ‘victory’ over the ‘opressors’ and will seek to inflict as great damage possible.

100. everfever - October 7, 2006

The fundamental problem we “non-americans” see in the american line of thought (this is a generalisation, and is not true for some people) is that they believe the world is constituted solely by americans. They are quick to blame every country for international crimes, yet they fail to see and apologise for the crimes they have committed.
-Who gives you the right to tell which country can or cannot have the weapons to defend themselves? (Iran is under constant threat of war by the US)
-What makes you believe the muslims have nothing to lose, since martyrdom will get them in heaven? (Obviously you have no knowledge whatsoever about Islamic theology, and believe that Muslims consider dying in a battle martyrdom. Sadly such is not the case, and heaven is not that easy for muslims.)
-When nukes are a threat for America, that’s an issue, when it is under US’ or its allies control it’s not a problem, although it was US which is the only country to use it.
-US is not the first empire on Earth and won’t be the last, but not all empires were hated by the rest of the world. Go read some history.

By the way someone said that Christians, Muslims and Judaists will never be able to coexist together. In Beirut, Muslims and Christians live together and see themselves as a whole, as Lebanese people. In Mardin (which is a muslim city in Eastern Turkey pop:100 000) there are over 100 churches and several synagogues for the Judaist. The descendants of the Judaist refugees from the Spanish Inqusition in the 15th century still live in Istanbul, and are respected, trusted and have prospered.

Please know the world, before you comment on it.
For those fucktards who say that “Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims.”: Isn’t IRA regarded as a terrorist group by the UK? You see it fit to label whomever you want as terrorists, in opposition Muslims label you as oppressive tyrants.

101. everfever - October 7, 2006

A correction is necessary: The American’s do not believe the world is constituted solely by americans. They believe the world is United States, and the rest don’t exist (or don’t have the right to). What I really meant was that.

102. Devils Advocate. - October 7, 2006

Comment 1. Pat Kelly.
Qualify judgment please – against what?
Why is earthlingconcerned deemed only mildly intelligent on the basis of a blog?

Comment 5. TDOG
What about smuggled American made nuclear weapon going off in downtown Iran?

Comment 7. joakim.
Hmm.
What is wrong with someone wanting more power than another?
Emotive phraseology – ‘fascist’.

Comment 9. Mike.
Again, emotive phraseology.
Please define ‘fundamentalists’ as you have used it within the context of your comment.

Comment 11. Mike.
Assumption re the suitcase.
Or can you qualify it?
Why is stopping nuclear proliferation in everyones best interests?

Comment 12. OUKewlDave.
Relevancy.
Is Ric Romero an idiot to?

Comment 13. Brian
Why is a smuggled terrorist weapon a risk?
How is Korea the central supply?

Comment 15. joakim.
Suggestion – re Iraq.
(Contentious) They don’t have it until we can find it…

Comment 16. Deep Thought.
How is using dynamite in our nature?

Comment 17. Abraham.
Qualify ‘most’.
51% ?

That’ll do for a moment.
Perhaps if I get some answers to the above, I’ll be able to follow the to-ing and fro-ing of these arguments better…?
Failing that, I could continue down the list…

103. Palle - October 7, 2006

This post is nil

BUT I LIKE TEH CHEESE!!!

IM FROM THAILAND

SAY HAYY!!!!!

104. Martel - October 7, 2006

Everfear, How many churches are there in Saudi Arabia?
Muslims refuses to coexist with Christians unless Muslims are dominant in every way. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Christians have been forced to flee into the Lebanese dispora. In Egypt Christians get kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam.
The (secular) Turkish government recently stopped (Muslim) mandatory circucision of Christian males.

The koran demands Muslims subjegate all non-muslims on Earth.

PS author sounds like he knew nothing about this topic before reading Wikipedia.

105. Fleas. - October 7, 2006

” I am the fact,” said war, ” and I stand astride the path of life. I am the threat of death and extinction that has always walked beside life, since life began. There can be nothing else and nothing more in human life until you have reckoned with me.”
From Mr Britling sees it through, by H.G.Wells.

106. A Swede - October 7, 2006

Interesting discussion here.

My $.02…

America did not develop the bomb because they wanted to blow anyone up. They did it because they were in an arms race with the Soviets and had to acquire the technology as quickly as possible. The U.S. and USSR leaders saw the writing on the wall. They knew the 2nd World War was about over and that their two countries would be left standing to claim the spoils. Their differing socio-economic structures would conflict (religion, anyone?) and they realized they would have to have some sort of upper hand in order to influence global economies and social development. This is right along a previous poster’s comment about bringing a knife to a gunfight. The US and USSR knew that if they didn’t develop the technology, someone else would. The Nazis were already working on it and had made great strides before the war turned sour for them. We are damned lucky that more than one superpower got the weapon in order to balance each other out. In the end, the US built the bomb because they knew the importance of building up enough military might to dissuade other, less-responsible nations with nuclear aspirations. Imagine if the US had been so “morally responsible” as to destroy all of their nuclear arsenal because it is so foolish to have…what would make North Korea hesitate then?

107. Ron - October 7, 2006

Man, are you dumb.

One nuclear weapon wouldn’t destroy the world. Hell, 350 nuclear weapons wouldn’t destroy the world. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that 1% of the world would be destroyed by 350 nukes. 350 is the highest number of nukes owned by a country that is not the US or Russia. It’s France. Ooh, scary.

So for you to have anything close to a point, one nuclear weapon used by terrorists would have to be responded to with ALL of the US and Russia’s nuclear weapons, spread indiscriminately around the world. Do you think it’s safe to say that’s not a reasonable scenario? Do you think that the worst case response would be, say, a few nukes in the country that used them, and hey, problem solved?

Go outside, take a deep breath. Jeez.

108. tellitlikeitis - October 7, 2006

Good post. I would like to add/point out a couple of things:

The principal reason that it is idiotic for North Korea to develop nuclear weaponry is because of humanitarian concerns within its own borders. North Korea has no reliable delivery method for a nuclear device, at least not one that can’t be quickly intercepted, if detected. But in a country where there have been active publicity campaigns encouraging millions of people to eat grass (’cause it’s healthy!) the military spending insisted upon by the dictator in order to perpetrate these dubious non-threats is a horrible crime of mismanagement and of negligence. The surest way to gauge the seriousness of a North Korean nuclear threat is to watch Beijing. When Beijing becomes worried, then there should be cause for alarm elsewhere in terms of a military threat. Until such time, I see no logical (note I didn’t say ideological) reason to consider the Kim regime a threat to anything other than its own populace. The US government realizes this, which is why you will see little more than harsh words or the occasional bombing run issuing forth from Washington, in regards to the problem in Pyongyang.

In Iran the situation is a bit more complex. The principal threat of Iran, so far as the West and Washington in particular is concerned, is its animosity towards the forty year-old illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by our friends in Medinat Yisrael and towards the United States’ own occupation of Iraq. While the hardliners in power in Tehran have adopted some unfortunately brusque mannerisms and policies, these cannot be construed to represent the will of the Iranian people at large, as Ahmadinejad is continually slipping in favorability according to opinion polling. But there is no conclusive evidence that even these hardliners have any intention of developing nuclear energy for anything other than peaceful purposes. The IAEA, as you may be aware, recently harshly criticized a US congressional report on the situation in Iran because the agency stated that US officials had bent and slanted the available evidence to suggest conclusive evidence of such a threat where there in fact is none at this time. This was widely reported in the mainstream media but was quickly swept aside. Iran is not in a position to pose a serious threat to US interests at this time, but still, given the somewhat hostile rhetoric of the democratically elected government that is in power there, that state, like North Korea, should be closely scrutinized in order to ensure that it does not become a threat to its own people or to other powers in the region.

The reasons for which the US seems more willing to be proactive with the “threat” of Iran than with the “threat” of North Korea should be patently obvious to anyone with half a mind: North Korea does not export the natural resources which keep our economy running. Not only is Iran one of the world’s largest oil producers, it ultimately controls the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz. The United States, by taking over Iraq and employing its own private companies (not Iraqi companies) to develop the oil resources of that nation, which at this point are only about 1% depleted, has secured for itself one of largest remaining untapped reservoirs of petroleum on Earth. With the Iranian government largely hostile to US and Israeli intentions and policies in the region (for good reason, in my opinion, though that is irrelevant here), the United States is looking to manufacture some sort of intelligence that will enable it to deliver a devastating blow to the Iranian infrastructure. Just as there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so there are no serious intentions of developing nuclear weaponry in Iran. This is according to the reporting of multinational agencies, not according to the whimsy of the White House or Congress. But if the US is to safeguard the massive bounty of black gold it has procured for itself in Iraq, it must continue to paint Iran as a serious threat in the public mind so that it will be (however loosely) justified in taking action in the future, if necessary.

There is always a great deal of blurring of the cause and effect relationships which govern these kinds of geopolitical crises. In the United States they’re blurred one way, and in the “third world” they’re slanted in another direction. But zooming out and looking at the basic economics of what is going on is almost always the surest way to gauge the realities behind any scenario. While battles are painted as ideological or as military in nature in the media, in reality they are usually concerned with economic considerations before all else. Reality is seldom as neat and clean, as black-and-white, or as ideologically whitewashed as that which is presented in the media. As Bertrand Russell once wrote, “No nation is ever so virtuous as it considers itself.” That ought to be engraved in the South Portico of the White House.

Great post and thanks for the chance to comment.

109. drx1 - October 7, 2006

I think its time Islam stop’s its interference with the rest of the world….
so what is the cradle of civilization, but some barbaric tribes with a lot of weapons and bloody oil money? Read this and maybe you will get a clue:
http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2006/09/observations-on-arabs.html

110. muzzrphochr - October 7, 2006

;: The idiot that tried to talk about Americans and the war with Hitler: you definitely need to get a life and read up on your History, cause you don’t know shit about anything there dumbass. Without America, that war would have lasted a lot longer…
Thank you TORMENT for clarifying things so well!But to clarify a bit more the U.S did get involved before Pearl Harbour when Eisenhower was having the serial numbers removed from American tanks and artillery and sending them across to Canada to help aid the allies in the war.The U.S didn’t get physically involved till Pearl Harbour was bombed because that attack put to end the war treaty pact that the U.S had signed keeping them outta the war.Thus explaining why the serial numbers were removed.
As for Julie you obviously are the one in need of basic reading lessons because I never discredited anyone”s contribution to the allied forces who together brought justice upon Hitler and his counterparts.
It figures you cocky SOBs would credit only yourselves to just about everything except what you are to blame for!!! Naturally you missrd my point entirely cause your patriotic pride has your head so far up your ass all your see is sh_t.
Just what is it you credit your victory to?The Atomic bombing of Hiroshema….nice!!!

111. Suresh Gundappa - October 7, 2006

just scary thinking about what u have written. more than anything I am worried about minds of the politicians who have access to these nukes. It’s one thing to own nukes but an another thing to know the damage it can cause.

112. biophysicist - October 7, 2006

interesting, but not very convincing. or reassuring.

you have great faith in MAD, which means you’re assuming that each person in charge of a nuclear arsenal is a rational actor who ultimately desires life rather than death. it remains to be seen if this assumption is true (in fact, it probably isn’t — as many have suggested, consider suicide bombers).

i think we would be well-advised to maintain a vigilant posture towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons by unstable states.

113. IcArUs` - October 7, 2006

i think this just became the post of the year..

114. JD - October 7, 2006

*flicks the switch*

…and better not question my stupidity again? *trips and falls*

115. DeepThought - October 7, 2006

“DeepThought: No disrespect what so ever, it was of course a tragic event, but honestly, 3.000 people on a global scale is nothing, nada, zip, ingenting, null.”

DeepThought says: Agreed.

“Just 12 years ago 1 million people were killed in 100 days in Rwanda during the worst genocide ever. 3.000 people compared to that is like a drip in the ocean. Don’t fall for the Bush regimes scare-tactics, please. Ignorance is never good, but being scared shitless of terrorists are insane in my opinion.”

DeepThought says: Bush’s actions put America in this position. I’m not listening to Bush’s rhetoric, the entire current administration is beyond moronic when it comes to International affairs. He’s right about the nuclear threat though, he should know, he caused it.

I’m listening to what the terrorists themselves are saying and watching the events unfold.

I’m also well aware the role human nature plays in this. I don’t think you fully understand, historically, any weapon that has ever been created, has been used in conflict.

Constructing a crude atomic device is very simple. All you need is fissionable material of a specific mass and it will self-detonate. After that, it is just a matter of tweaking the setup to allow the fissonable material to mix properly (maximum surface area contact) and to improve containment to allow fission to occur properly.

u235 occurs naturally within deposits of uranium and is fissonable. u235 accounts for less than 1% of a deposit. Separation is the tricky bit and the amount required depends on how good your technology is at managing diffusion during the fission reaction.

Typically, for crude devices fission would take over 50kg of u235. That would require separation of over 5 tonnes of uranium. You don’t need a centerfuge to do this, a calutron will work just as well, but it will take some time.

Designs for calutrons exist on the web, as seen here:

Then small breeder reactors can produce plutonium from the u238. That doesn’t require a large scale setup, although it would help. An operation the size of a good meth lab could produce plutonium in small quantities and be mobile. Its just a matter of collecting the material produced and storing it until you have enough.

The uranium ore itself can also be used in dirty bombs. 5 tonnes is a lot of radioactive material.

Nuclear weapons and the construction of them is about to hit the streets, within the grasp of any nut with a little resources. Its no longer a project that only a government/nation could achieve. The technology is WELL within the capabilities of any terrorist organisation.

So, as you can see, this threat is not only real, but it is also very dire. As time passes, it will only get worse.

As I said before, it is not a case of “if” America is subjected to a nuclear attack, but when…and yes, there are people that stupid and without remorse.

You are really up against it…

116. tsm - October 7, 2006

What if you have a group a people that welcome the end of the world (evangelicals)?

117. t0rment - October 7, 2006

drx1
You have it backwards; why are you so dumb?

Islam is tired of YOUR influence on their affairs, including when you do it indirectly through unjustified, unwaverable support of Israeli terror tactics. Is it nice that they’re retaliating by killing civlians and bombing your (meaningless)symbols of patriotic pride: no. Are you and your kin doing the same thing, and started fueling the fire by sticking your hand in the pot? Yes.

As I said, make your bed, lie in it.

At least the “terrorists” do not try to sugarcoat what they are doing. You’re both guilty of essentially the same thing. Hell, look up the word “terrorist” in the dictionary, and read though all its meanings; I challenge you to tell me how America or Israel would not be covered under the definition.

118. David - October 7, 2006

“Closed off country run by someone who considers himself chosen to rule over his people by God. ”

Bush has said publicly that God tells him what to do. This statement about North Korea could also be applied to the United States… Bush is a crazy fascist wacko who’s only accomplishment in his lifetime has been increasing terror throughout the world with the help of his buddies Dick and Donald.

119. ROb - October 7, 2006

The info in this article is wrong anyways. When the Soviet Union split, most of the nukes where and still are in the Ukraine, not Russia.

120. free blog - October 7, 2006

peace be with you !

121. earthlingconcerned - October 7, 2006

Woah. Thanks for all the support, or, um, comments at least. A lot of the criticism that has been thrown at me was dealt with at some point throughout the threads. A reoccurring disagreement revolves around the nature of the modern enemy (ie. zee terrorists) and how they don’t care about dying for their cause.

I think what Cappy ( comment 18 ) said is sort of where I was coming from: “The goal of your average terrorist, in the scheme of things, is to punish nonbelievers and create a Muslim world. The people in control know that nuking an American city would essentially bring about the destruction of the middle east, and therefore defeat their purpose.”

Of course the article was simply an opinion of a single blogger (namely me) but I figure it’s always good to get discussion going so I’m glad you guys commented at the rate at which you did.

As for North Korea. It is probably true that if they ever did anything really stupid, the majority of the world wouldn’t be in any major danger. North Korea (and the surrounding region may be (direct and indirect results and any retaliation)) probably wouldn’t exist anymore but most countries don’t have the capacity for long range attack.

The Cold War was indeed different. But, at the same time, religious fanatics and political doctrine fanatics are very similar. People are willing to die for their country just as easily as they would be for their God if conditioned properly.

No, I’m not in high school. I accept that this article was fairly rushed but I didn’t expect this specific article to get as much attention (if only for 2 days) as it has.

Light bulb analogy. Yes, it’s true that a rock would break a light bulb. But, well, I don’t know. Not meant to be taken literally.

Using what happened on 9/11 as an example to how the, um, terrorists would be willing to use nukes is only speculation. Obviously right? But I think scale matters. Throughout the first 30 years of the cold war, no one was saying that the US was dealing with an enemy that relied on logic and cared for their lives. Same fear. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong right? 🙂

Also, 350 hydrogen bombs (re: comment 107) would be able to end the world. Random quote from a book on the Cold War I have:

“Twelve days after the BRAVO test Malenkov surprised his own colleagues, as well as western observers of the Soviet Union, by publicly warning that a new world war fought with “modern weapons” would mean “the end of world civilization.” Soviet scientists quickly confirmed, in a top secret report to the Kremlin leadership, that the detonation of just a hundred hydrogen bombs could “create on the whole globe conditions impossible for life.” (The Cold War, John Lewis Gaddis)

Read the Tsar Bomb article on wikipedia.

North Korea is saying they’re going to test a bomb tomorrow (Sunday). It seems like a foolish thing to do, I agree. But I don’t think the world will change too too much as a result. Once again, just an opinion.

Someone said that I bounced around with my point and was walking on both sides. I guess I didn’t word the article perfectly but oh well. Just so you know, the point was that I’m not worried about any nuclear warfare. It’s possible to say that every weapon throughout history that has been developed, has been used, and therefore one shouldn’t think any differently when it comes to nuclear weapons.

But they’re different. Scale matters imo.

That’s all for now.

Thanks for reading, hopefully you check out some other articles on the site (I’d love to get more feedback).

122. allendale2 - October 7, 2006

I guess I’ve never read such a long thread of people concerned about the possibility of a nuclear war with nobody stopping to think we don’t even need nukes to get fried, global warming will do the job. It’s just a matter of what comes first.

And whatever the outcome, the reason would be the same: Some people just never seem to know when to stop to look any further than their selfish, egotistical noses lead them.

Some people seem to be upset with comparisons between Hitler and Bush. Well, here are some analogies for you to consider:

In nazy Germany Hitler thought that the ones to blame for Germany’s situation after world war I were the jews. Now, some people in the U.S think it’s the muslims and the mexicans. Both are showing signs of being cloistered in a sort of cultural ghetto already.

Reagan told the communists in Germany: “Tear down the wall”. Now Bush tells Americans: “Build up the wall”.

As far as the wars in the mid-east, everybody knows they don’t have nothing to do with Bin Laden or even Al-Qaeda. It’s all about oil
wether you want to hear it or not. If Bush spent one tenth of the budget he spends on war on alternative energy sources, there wouldn’t be any need for oil wars. But no! Because the the petroleum industry makes Bush and his friends a bigger profit.

123. Shaymus - October 7, 2006

When the world is newked only 2 things will survive….cockroaches and taxidrivers.

124. dan - October 7, 2006

“The info in this article is wrong anyways. When the Soviet Union split, most of the nukes where and still are in the Ukraine, not Russia.”-Rob

True dat.

125. john of sparta - October 7, 2006

what’s Here and what’s Now:
if you are judged “American” you are on the Hit List.

if you are a “friend” of Merica….u 2.
if you insult Islam……………….. yeah, u.
if Islam don’t like u………………u 2.

opinion….Islam Don’t Make the Rules.
i don’t like Islam trying to make the rules.

action points….resist. confound. sabotage.
do your part to save your life.
or, save MY life. please.
ISlam IS the problem.

126. januarys - October 7, 2006

i didn’t make it through all the comments but i do have a question — do we all have to say if we are a dick or not? i uh… i think i am not? tricky.
tricky dick. ha ha.

i stay away from all things resembling news. this may not make me an informed person but geez, i sleep at night. still i had a little fun reading your article. the analogy WAS cute. and you are not “mildly intelligent” – i think you are just like most writers, myself included, you may think you have to go out with a bang, so you got a touch dramatic up at the end. i do that too because saying “OK Go Away Now I’m Done” looked stupid sometimes.

oh, uh… If God writes history… what if God thinks we have to go out with a bang? does that mean the nuclear thing would happen anyway? (sigh) Do you think God would maybe just go, OK I’m done now.

i am not due for another war/bombs type article for another 2 years so i guess i’ll find out then. seacrest out.

127. I_BE_BOB - October 7, 2006

In any case, either nuclear war will happen, or it won’t. If it does, it is doubtful that anyone will live through the first few weeks, assuming at least 5000 nukes are dropped in different places. The fallout will kill everyone near the area and the nuclear winter will cause a drop in temperatures that will kill almost all of the plants in the world. In other words, you won’t be alive long enough to care that you are going to die, so it won’t matter. Mostly. Don’t worry about it. It’s inevitable, and you might get ulcers if you think too hard.

128. Julie - October 7, 2006

Ugh!! So how many more wish to take my note out of context?? The “boys” i was referring to when it comes to our young men fighting was in reference to the way our country treats them when they are NOT at war. I was making note of the fact that they are “Men” when our leaders want them to fight….but they are treated more like “boys” when they live and work here.

I did not say the war was right, if you re-read it says i am against the war in Iraq. And yes i have muslim friends!

My comment about France was in reference to them putting Americans down even though we helped to rebuild after the war.

We were asked to intervene in WWII, but did not until Pearl Harbor.

129. DeepThought - October 7, 2006

To Earthlingconcerned:

“I think what Cappy ( comment 18 ) said is sort of where I was coming from: “The goal of your average terrorist, in the scheme of things, is to punish nonbelievers and create a Muslim world. The people in control know that nuking an American city would essentially bring about the destruction of the middle east, and therefore defeat their purpose.””

DeepThought says: Firstly, the religous aspect only exists within a core element of Al-qaeda. It is a peripheral cause that the media has latched onto in order to present them as fundementalists and raving loonies.

Al-qaeda are mainly fighting the West due to the imperial conquest of the middle-east by Western governments. For decades, the West has been sending arms to the middle-east and people like Bin Laden said they were sick of carrying the bodies of dead Muslims, with bullets that said “Made In America”.

In addition, Western countries have systematically tried to undermine the religious and cultural aspects of the middle-east. Not to mention the destruction of middle-eastern countries. By provoking conflicts, oil has been kept cheap through undermining the economy and the wages of workers.

Western countries attempt to repress the right to freedom of religous expression. Examples would be Jack Straw’s and his comments on the veil this week, the removal of religious icons in the classroom, etc. These are fundemental rights that are enshrined in law, both in Europe and the US.

The problem is, we have some idiots in power who feel they can ignore these laws (as well as various others), as they rub shoulders with those who are charged with upholding them. There is only one way to deal with people who feel they are above the law.

At the end of the day, all this is as much the fault of the average citizen, as it is the fault of the politicians. They never stood to stop it and still allow it to happen to this day. Its their own stupidity, bigotry and intolerance that fuel wars like this. Ultimately, the will pay the price for their behaviour.

So, as you can see, your point was based upon rhetoric from mainstream propaganda, not reality.

This war has 3 possible outcomes:

1. A truce
2. Destruction of America
3. Mass genocide of Muslims.

Without a truce, one side or the other must fall, to allow the other to survive.

I would prefer option 1.

“The Cold War was indeed different. But, at the same time, religious fanatics and political doctrine fanatics are very similar. People are willing to die for their country just as easily as they would be for their God if conditioned properly.

…Using what happened on 9/11 as an example to how the, um, terrorists would be willing to use nukes is only speculation. Obviously right? But I think scale matters. Throughout the first 30 years of the cold war, no one was saying that the US was dealing with an enemy that relied on logic and cared for their lives. Same fear. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong right?”

DeepThought says: A government and its military have, as the basis of their doctrine, the protection of a nation as a goal. To some extent, the same would apply to the majority of terrorist organisations.

In saying that, when a terrorist organisation starts a campaign of mass murder and sustains those attempts over half a decade, then it becomes clear that the limiting factor of the scale of an attack, is simply technology and expertise.

The lack of will, on behalf of the terrorists, is not an issue.

““Twelve days after the BRAVO test Malenkov surprised his own colleagues, as well as western observers of the Soviet Union, by publicly warning that a new world war fought with “modern weapons” would mean “the end of world civilization.” Soviet scientists quickly confirmed, in a top secret report to the Kremlin leadership, that the detonation of just a hundred hydrogen bombs could “create on the whole globe conditions impossible for life.” (The Cold War, John Lewis Gaddis)”

DeepThought Says: It depends on the type and yield of the devices involved. With salted bombs of 50MT or more anywhere between 800-2000 should do the trick, however, all the weapons on Earth combined do not have such power.

If there was a full scale launch tomorrow, most of the Northern hemi-sphere would be wasteland, but pockets of people would survive. The linear hypothesis, as demonstrated at Chernobyl, is highly unpredictable.

It would take approx 100 times the current nuclear firepower, to destroy the entire planet and modified weapons to produce large amounts of fallout. The estimates by the Soviets are, most likely, based upon a linear development in nuclear technology that never occured.

“I guess I didn’t word the article perfectly but oh well. Just so you know, the point was that I’m not worried about any nuclear warfare. It’s possible to say that every weapon throughout history that has been developed, has been used, and therefore one shouldn’t think any differently when it comes to nuclear weapons.

But they’re different. Scale matters imo.”

Perhaps to you, to a group that thinks nothing of mass murder, scale is everything. In fact, the greater the scale of the attack, the better the negotiating position becomes.

Why?

Well, you wouldn’t want a second, or a synchronised attack on multiple cities. In addition, a nation’s nuclear capabilities would not be an option…who are you going to nuke??? Civilians??? We’re back to genocide again and America would end up in a full scale nuclear attack from nations across the planet.

No one will tolerate genocide for a split second.

As you can see, this is a more complex issue than you origonally thought, however, you have managed to start the ball rolling on an open debate. I feel the latter is more important and the ultimate goal of your article.

Thanks for sharing.

130. bob - October 7, 2006

42

131. Kris - October 8, 2006

Who cares?? Just live your farking lives and what will be will be. Death is inevitable for us all, nukes or no nukes, terrorists or no terrorists. PIss on ’em all. Live your lives, people. LIVE.

132. Julie - October 8, 2006

Well said DeepThought.

133. charmedquark - October 8, 2006

“Who cares?? Just live your farking lives and what will be will be.”
Hedonism+apathy with a vengeance lol
If normal people like you and me don’t look around and debate and discuss and argue about important issues like this one, then things can get out of hand, and change for the worse. “what will be will be” – that may be true in some circumstances, but in the meantime there are a lot of things you can do to change “what will be”.

MAD – mutually assured destruction. There has been a lot said in response to earthlingconcerned’s statement that this would deter nations from initiating a nuclear strike.
Responses have mainly centred around the idea of suicide bombers.

Firstly I would like to point out that terrorists and fundamentalist groups are a minority, and there certainly aren’t any sovereign nations that are comprised solely of people with this mentality.
Secondly, minority groups such as these do not have the funds or resources to create nuclear weapons.

The biggest threat to humanity isnt found in nuclear wars; it can be found in exploited and repressed countries.
Africa, South America, and even the Middle East are examples of this. Millions of people die from a want of basic needs, due to corrupt officials, usually backed by western countries. The poverty found here finds its roots in politics and capitalism – the desire of the wealthy to exploit the poor for profit.

Another pressing concern is global warming – currently being promoted by Al Gore, for those of you who haven’t seen “An Inconvenient truth” I recommend it.

Also, I’d like to point out that religion isn’t the cause of wars and acts of violence – it’s used as an excuse for them.

134. jewsie - October 8, 2006

truce is not an option with radical muslims. that’s a fact. if you’re not with them, you’re on their shit list (kill the infidels ring a bell?). and i’m not interested in reading your theories on why they have a legitimate argument against the west- they dont, you’re wrong, end of story. if you’re defending them, you’re defending racism, bigotry, domestic abuse, rape, and i could keep going because these cocksuckers are the epitome of evil. if you support them, you’ve been duped. if you defend them, you’re on the wrong side of right verses wrong.

and i assume most/all of you are under 25 and you’re probably in high school or college. you fancy yourselves as armchair henry kissingers but i should warn you…..billy joe from green day may write cool songs but he doesn’t know jack shit about foreign affairs. hairy brown men in robes who want to kill you.

grow up.
accept responsibilty.

135. DeepThought - October 8, 2006

Jewsie, life is not so simple. Of course there are legitimate aspects to their war with the West. America did create the Mujahideen after all…and taught children how to murder, so that they could fight the Russians.

“Former Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook, who admirably resigned in protest of the 2003 Iraq invasion, penned a piece in the London Guardian shortly before his death that shed light on the true genesis of the name.

“Al-Qaida,” states Cook, “literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

Al-Qaida was a branch of the CIA…the worm that turned. A branch of the CIA attacked America on 9/11…not religious fundementalists, as you have been led to believe by the media.

Both sides are in the wrong…America is not the good guy in this conflict, its just as bad as Al-Qaida, always has been.

Why don’t you put some effort into cleaning up America’s political system and spend some time reading the history?

It would help a lot and keep you from posting childish comments.

136. Aaron - October 8, 2006

Whatever happened to imperialism? Rome, The British, etc. Imperialism, when done right, can work. Ok, after 9/11, we went over to the middle east for retribution, great, but after we took Afganistan, why are we giving it back? Look, the United States helped those asshats fight the Soviets back in the 70’s, thus training the very pieces of shit who have now turned their sights on us. Great. Anyway, I’m rambling, back to my point. Ok, so we attacked and completely overwhelmed Afganistan…so…why give it back? It’s OURS now. Sure, other than a huge ass opium, they really don’t have much in the way of natural resources that can be an asset to us, but ok, now that we’ve conquered, we should go to work showing how we can improve the country. Yes, it is sort of “high fallutin'” but, I mean, schools, hospitals with the best technology, food, a semi-stable economy and government. Sounds like they’d be making out rather well.
And then came Iraq. Lord, what a mess. It was really rather stupid to go charging into that country, but since we did, why are we bothering to give it back? I mean, oil, they have some oil and it’s oil we could use. And with the financial gain of taking over that particular part of the oil market, the US can afford to give to Iraq the same ammenities and fairly decent quality of life I mentioned above with Afganistan. We can’t afford to give the countries back. We HAVE to play world police. Someone does, anyway, might as well be the “greatest nation in the world.” Why? The middle east is a shithole that’s been brewing nothing but violence for more than a thousand years. Killing killing killing. I can’t say the US is much better as we’re known for an overly violent country, but it has to stop.
This goes into the nuclear debate also. If there was a way to act as some sort of world police and eventually create a vast empire (as if the UN, NATO or ANYONE would look the other way), and if it’s done right and justly, we can create a peaceful way of living eventually. Yes, the omlet and broken eggs scenario enters, of course. Violence begets violence, yes, but there’s always an end. The nuclear weapon is an abhorred nightmarish thing, and their invention and subsequent use has done nothing but propagate fear. Yes, those who have them, for now, seem to value life to the point, at least, that they use them only as a “who has the bigger dick” contest, but there are irrational people in the world such as Kim Jong Il(sp). If someone like him were to, just on a whim one day, launch a nuke because it feels good, well, then we go into a nightmare scenario too horrid to go into, and to an extent, redundant as many of you have already played it through your heads. If there was one unifying power in the world, or at least a very strong power, making up at least half of the world’s economy and population, it would lead to better things…IF done judiciously and properly. These are all if statements because the nature of man is to eventually destroy himself. But there is still a great amount of good in the world and if there was an Imperialist Super Power bent on perpetuating the good, the world would be a better place for it.
I hate to say it, but many people in this world are drunk on their own power, the US currently stands in line when it comes to this statement. Greed and corruption is rampant and unnerving. The constant threat of nuclear holocaust looms nearer and nearer to our heads (planted between our knees, I might add), there is a desperate need for control. The world is a buggy out of control, the driver’s dead and someone needs to take the rei(g)ns.
If such a wonderous thing occured, it could mean the end of nuclear weapons as, if this superpower was indeed right and just, one of its first acts would be to abolish such soul scarring weaponry.
Sigh…but what am I talking about…fiction I suppose. Absolute power corrupting absolutely…no matter how good the intentions of the united states may be, if it were my fictional imperialistic super power, there would always be death and destruction for that is the way of man. Since we crawled out of the ether, we have done nothing but destroy each other and everything around us. Whatever we touch turns to ruin and decays ever onwards, back into the mire. So now my mottled rant has come to another question… Since there can be no one great power governing the world and led by human hearts and human minds (for both are weak and given to temptation, emotion, destruction), perhaps the original commentor was right in his blog to tell us not to fear a nuclear doom. It is the only salvation we, as a species, has left. And it is what we have been working towards since our inception into the world. Our ultimate end.
Simply stated…Fuck It. Let them have their nuclear bombs, let them have all the guns and explosives and whatever else they want, for in the end…none of it will matter, and all of the joy which we have worked so hard to create against our destructive nature will be obliterated because fools in ties deem it necessary to kill for money and power when living, ultimately, just living…happy and peacefully, should be our true goal as a species.
Meh…this is just the billionth comment in a blog no one will see anyway. Some may ask what my point was, and to that question I have no answer. In the begining, I may have had one, but over the course of time, it was lost, and ultimately destroyed. Metaphor? Perhaps I just felt like throwing things out there for people to chew on. When the bombs fall like fire from the heavens, obliterating all, it will cease to matter anyway, as will all things. Religion, Oil, Eye for and Eye mentality, The preciousness of life, culture, history, love, feeling, experience, EVERYTHING, will be obliterated. It’s nightmariish, and yet, destined. Many have forgotten the things that truly matter. False golden idols have replaced them.
So why are we still surprised at horrid acts of violence? It is what we have become…all of us. The majority anyway. And the majority always ALWAYS rules.
Until the end.
And the rocks and dust rule.
I’m going to bed now…with the faith that tomorrow I’ll wake up, and the next day too, but one day, maybe wednesday, I won’t.

137. unoalgiorno - October 8, 2006

The basic problem of nuclear weapons is that the man who can switch the button has not enough good sex with her wife or girlfriend.
Sex and love are the salvation of the world.

138. mcclaud - October 8, 2006

You all lose because no matter if you do or don’t believe in his article, you just gave him 500 hits to his insignificant blog. Way to go.

139. john of sparta - October 8, 2006

and the hits just keep on coming.

thanks for listening to radio 911 “the Martyr”.

in today’s show we have Crazy Al-Kite-Ah with our
Hollywood Update. Sean Penn is doing it again!
also, from Buttwipeistan, our Cash for Camels continues.
so far, the total is $202 or 71 virgins. there’s a reason
these 71 are virgins. look under that Burkha!
in our next segment, Donnie Rummie will give us the
latest downloads on the down low. his posse is a
party with a purpose.
thanks for tuning our way, and we’ll be right back with
some Chicken Noodle Soup for the troops.

140. positivenergyoutput - October 8, 2006

Interesting article. Reminded me that energy is what is being fought over. Nuclear energy, and oil are the big sores in American foreign policy. We’re threatening others to not develop what we have. It just shows that Nuclear power is not a sustainable option if it will lead to conflict.

The whole world needs to understand the importance of Energy Indepedence. This means that every country produces its energy domestically using sustainable and environmentally friendly resources such as solar power, wind, biomass, geothermal, and human power [pedalling is fun!]. Other sustainable technologies are being developed right now. The way to Energy Independence is very possible within my lifetime. We just need to have the spine to make a difference, using our voices and actions to change the course of our future. Each of us is responsible for our children’s future.

141. eric - October 9, 2006

I agree with you.

Our fear of North Korea is more dangerous than their nukes. Sure the place is a disaster. But the answer isn’t sanctions and such. The answer is trade with them as much as possible – expose those people and that state to prosperity and ideas.

word? word.

142. barry - October 9, 2006

Joakim, if you view America and Israel as being as fundamentalist as the Taliban, you’re wrong, you’re a moron, and you don’t know how to draw distinctions. But what can we expect from some Eurotard who thinks himself in the vanguard of progressive thought because he refers to America as “fascist”? Grow up, get a life, and get on your hands & knees to thank whatever god or goddess in whom you do or don’t believe that the USA exists, for without the USA, you Eurowarmongers would have destroyed the Earth or turned it into a charnel house. 😉

143. barry - October 9, 2006

Jesus Eric, is it possible for one person to be so stupid?

Why don’t you ask what Hans Brix (sic) thinks of your idea?

Tard.

144. ctd - October 9, 2006

The post was mildly interesting. I’ll mull over the analogy, being always interested in other ways of thinking of things.

Oddly, the content was the exact opposite of what (with no other basis for it) I thought the content would be, that being (summarized):

Lots of people are getting terribly wound up about this whole idiots-with-nukes problem, and understandably so. Flick the switch (on your TV, computer, radio, whatever) and the problem goes away. Seriously, and I’m not trying to be/sound stupid here. You’re at far more risk of dying from a car wreck, lightining strike, bathroom fall, lottery-win-induced heart attack, or a host of other ways to die. Yes, psychotic despots with nukes will eventually kill people – lots of them. But consider that governments kill 10x more people in peace time than in war! and that even if nukes came into play, short of an all-out M.A.D. exchange by superpowers, there will be far fewer (albeit still a horribly tragic number) dead than in most normal wars.

Nukes are like Ebola: hideously horribly lethal, yet don’t get far because the hosts die off so quick.

The best way for most people to stop most of the world’s problems is TURN OFF THE DANG TV. You’ve got far more to worry about from your toaster. Half the world’s land mass is rank barren wilderness. Most of humanity is crammed into a few small places. Nuclear weapons suck horribly – but in the scheme of things it’s best to, in a sense, turn off the world with a flick of a switch and deal with your own little part of it.

145. haley - January 18, 2007

Sketch ur funny
but you r a potty mouth 2

146. haley - January 18, 2007

its fun 2 talk 2 people!!!!!!!

i want a little picture 2!!!!!!

147. haley - January 18, 2007

how do u get the pics?

148. haley - January 18, 2007

we should just turn off the tv!
I agree!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: