Sign in to follow this  
AJ Oliver

Help Abolish nuclear weapons

Recommended Posts

On 2/17/2020 at 9:53 AM, Saorsa said:

No weapon ever invented has been given up and eliminated.

Treaty has done that. Unless the nation involved either isn't a signatory to treaty or violating treaty, some weapons are banned and essentially extinct; exploding bullets, poisoned bullets, plastic/glass/ceramic shrapnel, nonmetal landmines. 

And we're somewhat in the process of extincting nuclear weapons, as we gradually reduce inventories and the fuel production gradually dies off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Treaty has done that. Unless the nation involved either isn't a signatory to treaty or violating treaty, some weapons are banned and essentially extinct; exploding bullets, poisoned bullets, plastic/glass/ceramic shrapnel, nonmetal landmines. 

And we're somewhat in the process of extincting nuclear weapons, as we gradually reduce inventories and the fuel production gradually dies off.

"This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

"This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine."

Yeah, treaties are violated all the time, obviously. But when was the last time you heard about anyone getting shot with a poisoned bullet?

That's just a straight-up douche weapon ... "just in case the bullets don't immediately kill, there will be a layer of poison in the tip to be certain the enemy dies painfully and with even more misery.

Or undetectable shrapnel ... if anything, I would imagine that would have otherwise because popular as a cost-savings measure, to make the fragments out of glass instead of metal because it's cheaper. But even suicide bombers seem to favor detectable fragments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep , rules of warfare :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

And we're somewhat in the process of extincting nuclear weapons, as we gradually reduce inventories and the fuel production gradually dies off.

That would be 'we' as in the USA, right? Not North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, France. Dunno about the UK, they may not have the financial resources to maintain nukes any longer.

Point being that nukes aren't going away any time soon.

The other stuff - yeah like poison gas after WW1 and - so far - biological weapons. We know how to make them, the tech (chemical weapons anyway) is pretty well sorted, just an agreement not to do it. I sincerely hope it holds.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The rotary engine:

Size of a 4, power of a V6, fuel consumption of a V8 :P

My brother bought an RX7 Turbo II back in the late 80's and that fit pretty well.

It was fun to drive. It had four wheel steering and I once got up to around 50 going round and round a small traffic circle on the inside lane. I got scared long before it had trouble hanging on. It was also kinda dangerous. The computer that controlled it didn't react well if you spun the tires on a wet road, nearly causing me to get in an accident when trying to turn into a gap in traffic.

He blew a tire on the interstate and the four wheel steering immediately sent him spinning into the median. Fortunately, nothing was in the way. He sold it pretty soon after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

That would be 'we' as in the USA, right? Not North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, France. Dunno about the UK, they may not have the financial resources to maintain nukes any longer.FKT

Russia has reduced their nuclear arsenal by thousands of warheads. France & the UK have both been reducing their arsenals for decades. Israel stopped production (reportedly) in 2004.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

That would be 'we' as in the USA, right? Not North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, France. Dunno about the UK, they may not have the financial resources to maintain nukes any longer.

Point being that nukes aren't going away any time soon.

The other stuff - yeah like poison gas after WW1 and - so far - biological weapons. We know how to make them, the tech (chemical weapons anyway) is pretty well sorted, just an agreement not to do it. I sincerely hope it holds.

FKT

Talk to the Kurds about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

That would be 'we' as in the USA, right? Not North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, France. Dunno about the UK, they may not have the financial resources to maintain nukes any longer.

Point being that nukes aren't going away any time soon.

The other stuff - yeah like poison gas after WW1 and - so far - biological weapons. We know how to make them, the tech (chemical weapons anyway) is pretty well sorted, just an agreement not to do it. I sincerely hope it holds.

FKT

Yeah, agreement, if we no longer have the means to make the weapon then then the deser treaty isn't needed.

China, Russia and France are NPT compliant. So they would be "we" too. Israel never signed the NPT, and India and Pakistan changed their status. North Korea is non-compliant.

The point about all nuclear weapons is that the means to mine, refine, and enrich the fuel is gradually going away because the power is expensive, and the fuel is not profitable in the long term.

The NPT is the most successful treaty in history. The NPT will likely continue to hold because it's so profitable for the member states to stay compliant. The bigger danger is a terrorist getting hold of plutonium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Russia has reduced their nuclear arsenal by thousands of warheads. France & the UK have both been reducing their arsenals for decades. Israel stopped production (reportedly) in 2004.

Also, South Africa was a nuclear power and willingly disengaged to become an NPT member.

Israel will likely disengage for the same reason as South Africa once their internal demographics make it necessary.

India and Pakistan will likely disengage in our lifetimes, that feud is beginning to run on fumes anyway now that India is poised to become the New China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2020 at 3:07 PM, SloopJonB said:

One thing that no-one has mentioned here is that nukes have had one major success - they put an end to large scale war.

This view is shared by many, but it is flawed. 

A large scale nuclear exchange or strike could well end civilization, such as it is. And as Sloop notes we have come close on more than one occasion (1962 and 1973 at least). JFK himself estimated that the risks of nuke war in '62 was between 1/3 and 1/2 - actually it was likely greater than that. A Russian nuclear sub commander was ordered to fire nuke torpedoes during the crisis, but refused the order. 

Do the math - the longer nukes are around, and even if the odds of nuke war are only one percent per year, we should have had one already. 

As the peaceniks are wont to point out, one nuclear war can ruin your whole day. 

https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2012/10/remembering_when_they_nearly_b.html

And being criticized by the monkey for incivility in pretty rich. 

Lemmie tell ya, Monkey as his Mango Mussolini of a leader have given up any right to respectful treatment - even though I sorta try most of the time. 

The Reich does not respect its opponents (even our right to exist), and deserves very little in return. 

(Sorry my responses have been delayed - we wandering around old Florida and cannot always do the internets.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mikewof said:

Also, South Africa was a nuclear power and willingly disengaged to become an NPT member.

Israel will likely disengage for the same reason as South Africa once their internal demographics make it necessary.

India and Pakistan will likely disengage in our lifetimes, that feud is beginning to run on fumes anyway now that India is poised to become the New China.

The only effective, active, development program is North Korea. By that I mean they are the only program that’s tested a weapon this Millenia. Iran wants to make a bomb. Everyone else is riding fumes. Some are still producing shit (China, India, Pakistan) at low production levels (5-10 a year?) ones pretending to care (russia). The others realize it’s silly, or a desperate PR play.

sure it’s just engineering, but it’s weird engineering in the modern world. You need to spend lots of $$$ (or use the barrel of a gun) to keep really smart weirdos entertained & work8ng hard to get this shit done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Talk to the Kurds about that.

I made that point many posts back. Also Iraq against Iran.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Russia has reduced their nuclear arsenal by thousands of warheads. France & the UK have both been reducing their arsenals for decades. Israel stopped production (reportedly) in 2004.

Russia is broke.

Israel probably figures they have enough so why make more.

I sense a bit of goalpost shifting here - those who've got them are keeping them albeit maybe in scaled back amounts.

Point being - which countries that had nukes have voluntarily given up both the weapons and the tech to build more?

You can argue Ukraine if you like but that's a special case IMO. And I'll bet they wish they didn't these days.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Point being - which countries that had nukes have voluntarily given up both the weapons and the tech to build more?

My argument is that anyone not actively testing & refining radioactive material for weapons  and actively testing & developing weapons is, after a decade or two, voluntarily giving up the tech to build more, and because weapons degrade, giving up weapons.

I think that’s very generous. Applying that standard to sailing Santa Cruz Yachts is still something, and sailing is much less expensive and intensive.

Long ago i was offered a job at los alamos for an operation that doesn’t exist anymore, in a role that doesn’t exist, at a place that doesn’t exist effectively anymore. I’m arguing the conception of nuclear weapons development is a relic of the 40s and fit for society’s of the 40s... like North Korea 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

My argument is that anyone not actively testing & refining radioactive material for weapons  and actively testing & developing weapons is, after a decade or two, voluntarily giving up the tech to build more, and because weapons degrade, giving up weapons.

I think that’s very generous. Applying that standard to sailing Santa Cruz Yachts is still something, and sailing is much less expensive and intensive.

Long ago i was offered a job at los alamos for an operation that doesn’t exist anymore, in a role that doesn’t exist, at a place that doesn’t exist effectively anymore. I’m arguing the conception of nuclear weapons development is a relic of the 40s and fit for society’s of the 40s... like North Korea 

As a child born in the early 1950's I would really like to believe you're correct. Sadly I don't.

There's also the issue of weapons research versus weapons tech. Once you know how to do something, the rest is engineering. Getting rid of fissiles is the only way to ensure no more nukes can be built. I'm aware that the weapons degrade over time and need periodic maintenance.

I'm not even sure that the total elimination of nuclear weapons, even if possible, would be a nett positive. WW1 and WW2 stand as evidence of what's possible without them. The small towns of Australia are littered with the monuments to the fallen, going back to the Boer War.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the small towns of the world will be littered with the bodies (or outlines) of the dead if someone finally decides that their weapons can out kill the other guys and their own people at home are simply collateral. (imagine that:rolleyes:)

The questions are now,

is the deterant factor still valid? 

 and what if it's not? 

We dont need 10,000 warheads to keep the peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

As a child born in the early 1950's I would really like to believe you're correct. Sadly I don't.

There's also the issue of weapons research versus weapons tech. Once you know how to do something, the rest is engineering. Getting rid of fissiles is the only way to ensure no more nukes can be built. I'm aware that the weapons degrade over time and need periodic maintenance.

I'm not even sure that the total elimination of nuclear weapons, even if possible, would be a nett positive. WW1 and WW2 stand as evidence of what's possible without them. The small towns of Australia are littered with the monuments to the fallen, going back to the Boer War.

FKT

I understand what you are saying, but at least for the US the knowledge of how isn’t being transferred.... I mean, they were desperate to hire a c grader like me. The US labs are barely on life support. I haven’t seen much evidence the rest of th west either , and Russia are getting the good peeps because there’s so much more money available elsewhere 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 5:42 AM, cmilliken said:
On 2/18/2020 at 3:07 PM, SloopJonB said:

One thing that no-one has mentioned here is that nukes have had one major success - they put an end to large scale war.

Does anyone doubt for a moment that the cold war would have turned hot in their absence?

Hell, even with them it came to a razor edge more than once.

It's definitely shifted the theater.

Would there even have been a cold war, like the one we saw, if there weren't nukes?  How much fear and paranoia, which resulted in the nuclear arms race, would there have been without nukes?

Reagan and Gorbachev came very close to ridding the world of nukes at their Reykjavik meeting, which turned into a summit.   But paranoia, distrust and immense pressure from the military industrial complex couldn't be overcome.  

Yes, we are reluctant to enter into an all out war because there are nukes but one day someone will push that button. 

Great leaders are capable of ending the insanity.  Problem is what it takes to be a great leader is not the same as what it takes to become a leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2020 at 4:44 PM, Fah Kiew Tu said:

After WW1 there was an agreement not to use chemical weapons in warfare. Except they got used in the Iraq-Iran war and internally by both Iraq on the Kurds and Syria on its own population, plus the tech is still well known. 

It was the US that supplied Saddam's gas - as a wag remarked, "We know he has gas wmd's because we kept the receipts." 

And on the NPT - the US is in clear non-compliance with Art 6 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jules said:

Would there even have been a cold war, like the one we saw, if there weren't nukes?  How much fear and paranoia, which resulted in the nuclear arms race, would there have been without nukes?

We start to get very speculative here.  Without the arms race, there might not have ever been a space race either. 

There's some evidence to suggest that because of nuclear weapons, wide scale fights are essentially impossible therefore all conflicts are local.  The advantage being that local conflicts create less overall disruption and allow for broad economic progress in the areas not directly fighting.  The downside to the fights being local is that there's far less reason to resolve them if everyone NOT involved just keeps on making money.  Sort of unintended expression of the tyranny of the majority.

The original Star Trek series had a commentary on 'war without suffering' in one of it's episodes in the late 60s that touched on that issue.  Proxy wars fought in other countries are easy to continue because the fighting is remote and the suffering invisible to the principle architects.  Wars are fought until BOTH sides think they might LOSE.  As long as one side thinks isn't losing, the fight continues.

One area I think we are in agreement - we definitely don't need as many and arguably don't need any nukes.  We went through that phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jules said:

Would there even have been a cold war, like the one we saw, if there weren't nukes?  How much fear and paranoia, which resulted in the nuclear arms race, would there have been without nukes?

Study your history a little more Jules.

Without nukes there is no doubt that the USA and the rest of the West would have gone to war with Russia.

No doubt.

None.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Study your history a little more Jules.

Without nukes there is no doubt that the USA and the rest of the West would have gone to war with Russia.

No doubt.

None.

I have read quite a few books that covered U.S-Soviet relations but none primarily about the question of would the U.S. have attacked the Soviet Union had they not had nuclear weapons?

After WWII, the general consensus was that the Soviet Union was our ally.  Not our friends, but our allies.  It wasn’t until Meredith Gardner cracked the Soviet codes that we discovered they had been spying on us.  But that did not create a desire to go to war with them, as far as I am aware. 

When the U.S. discovered Americans turned Soviet spies Rosenberg, Fuchs, Greenglass and others had provided the Soviets with U.S. military secrets, including the formula for The Bomb, there had still been no desire to go to war with them. 

While it’s true those American Soviet spies handed U.S. military secrets because they feared the U.S. would become global bullies, I don’t know of any historical facts that confirm any U.S. administration had intended to do so.

Granted, after obtaining a nuclear arsenal, the Soviets did things that may have caused the U.S. to want to go to war with the Soviet Union, but saying they definitely would have is speculative.  It’s like going up to someone and saying, “If you weren’t so big, I’d knock your block off.”  But if you weren’t so big, would you have done what you did to cause me to want to knock your block off?

This is not to imply I am necessarily correct.  I am only saying, based on what I have read, I believe it is speculative to say the U.S. would have definitely gone to war if the Soviets didn’t have nuclear weapons.  If you have any suggestive readings to the contrary, please share them because I find this kind of thing interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??? Pretty much the entire Republican Party of the 1940s, and a fair number of the Democratic Party, were virulently anti Communist and anti Russian.

Gen. Patton famously advocated to turn all the captured Germans loose, re-arm them to fight Russia, and keep right on driving east with his tanks.

I'm curious what you've been reading that suggests we were palsy-walsy with Russia in 1946~1950

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What most of you miss is that atmospheric testing of nukes was an awful (criminal actually) idea - but nations did it anyway. 

It was only stopped by a global mass movement of outraged citizens, of which the Golden Rule was a part. 

ICAN and Vets For Peace, and others, want to repeat that success with nuclear arms abolition - thus our voyage. 

And a Rule visit to the Marshall Islands is important. They and their people were used as nuclear guinea pigs by the US. 

See the doco  Nuclear Savages for a good look at US racism vis a vis the Marshallese. 

The major US nuke waste site in the Marshalls is sinking under rising seas, and falling apart. The radiation levels there are ten times higher than Chernobyl. 

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/28826

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

??? Pretty much the entire Republican Party of the 1940s, and a fair number of the Democratic Party, were virulently anti Communist and anti Russian.

Gen. Patton famously advocated to turn all the captured Germans loose, re-arm them to fight Russia, and keep right on driving east with his tanks.

I'm curious what you've been reading that suggests we were palsy-walsy with Russia in 1946~1950

- DSK

The Dead Hand
The Moscow Rules
The Spy and the Traitor
In the Enemy's House
The Billion Dollar Spy
The Last Goodnight
The Widow Spy
A Spy Among Friends

and others

It's not that we were plasy-walsy with Russia, it's that we weren't thinking about going to war with them.  We just finished WWII.  I have yet to read anything that says the U.S was targeting the USSR for another go at war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jules said:

The Dead Hand
The Moscow Rules
The Spy and the Traitor
In the Enemy's House
The Billion Dollar Spy
The Last Goodnight
The Widow Spy
A Spy Among Friends

and others

It's not that we were plasy-walsy with Russia, it's that we weren't thinking about going to war with them.  We just finished WWII.  I have yet to read anything that says the U.S was targeting the USSR for another go at war.

Thanks... in a bit of a hurry at the moment and will return to this.

FWIW agreed, not "targeting" but certainly an atmosphere of geopolitical opposition

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jules said:

After WWII, the general consensus was that the Soviet Union was our ally.  Not our friends, but our allies.  It wasn’t until Meredith Gardner cracked the Soviet codes that we discovered they had been spying on us.  But that did not create a desire to go to war with them, as far as I am aware. 

If you have any suggestive readings to the contrary, please share them because I find this kind of thing interesting.

Gouzenko defected in Ottawa in '45 - his documents proved the spying on the West.

I only have a lifetimes experience of the cold war to back my belief of the inevitability of another world war. Without nukes I feel sure it would have happened by 1955.

Look how often it almost happened even with the prospect of their use. Nukes kept the conflicts down to the level of Korea and Vietnam.

Obviously since it never happened it can only be opinion either way.

But my opinion is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

But my opinion is right.

Never doubted you for a moment. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 1:14 PM, SloopJonB said:

Study your history a little more Jules.

Without nukes there is no doubt that the USA and the rest of the West would have gone to war with Russia. 

A lot of what people believe to be true about history is wrong. 

The USSR was actually not much of a threat, and the West knew it. 

Read Cockburn's The Threat. 

As I mentioned above, the flaw in Sloop's logic is that it only takes one large nuclear exchange to cause incalculable damage. 

As Robt McNamara put it, "The indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 3:49 PM, SloopJonB said:

Gouzenko defected in Ottawa in '45 - his documents proved the spying on the West.

I only have a lifetimes experience of the cold war to back my belief of the inevitability of another world war. Without nukes I feel sure it would have happened by 1955.

Look how often it almost happened even with the prospect of their use. Nukes kept the conflicts down to the level of Korea and Vietnam.

Obviously since it never happened it can only be opinion either way.

But my opinion is right.

Decades ago, I enjoyed playing those big complex war games. They were never complex enough for me, for example, one of the things I wanted to add to the Warsaw Pact WW3 in Europe scenario games, was the economic resources of extended warfare. The games tended to assume that the economic resources of the game board (ie countries you could conquer) could not be put into production within the time frame of the war itself, and recent history tends to bear this out. However, instead of saying "the Warsaw Pact gets X number of new tanks and Y number of new planes per turn" put into the game the factors of transport, and labor resources available. Yeah NATO has to assume the USA is cranking up war production and can defeat the USSR's submarines in the North Atlantic (could we? Ajax would be a better judge than me). Yeah the Warsaw Pact has to assume that their factories beyond the Urals can stay open and have enough labor force, after the men are all drafted.

Etc etc etc

It is very tempting to use that first tactical nuke on an opponent's transport or C3 hub. But what kind of exchange does that lead to?

Long, grinding, full-scale conventional war would not end civilization. Shucks, without attendant slave labor & epidemic deaths, it didn't even reduce the population, last two times we tried it. Nukes could have (and still could, although IMHO the probablility is dropping in the absence of two superpowers in a MAD pact) destroyed all life on the planet.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

As Robt McNamara put it, "The indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations.

That's right - quote a guy who was wrong about everything he ever touched to support your argument.

I don't like nukes any more than anyone else but the fact remains they have been a very effective "doomsday device" for my entire life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

A lot of what people believe to be true about history is wrong. 

The USSR was actually not much of a threat, and the West knew it. 

There's a section in the book The Dead Hand where the Soviets inexplicably allowed American scientists and politicians to tour the building where Reagan and the military industrial complex said the Soviets were working on their version of SDI.  The Americans took thousands of pictures and were even allowed to take a video.  What they found was a half-completed, dust filled facility that was poorly constructed and far from capable of ever producing anything close to an SDI type weapon.

But what was most chilling to me was the work the USSR was doing in the area of biological weapons.  While Gorbachev was working to rid the world of nukes, the Soviets were pouring hundreds of millions into germ warfare.  One such weapon was a virus based on Legionnaire's disease that would initially induce Legionnaire's and kill off some people, the rest would recover.   About two weeks after that, the myelin that insulates the nerves would begin to break down and the body would destroy the nervous system.  It was a particularly gruesome death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2020 at 2:09 PM, SloopJonB said:

That's right - quote a guy who was wrong about everything he ever touched to support your argument.

I don't like nukes any more than anyone else but the fact remains they have been a very effective "doomsday device" for my entire life.

So we should instead believe little ol' anonymous you? 

Take that Stanford course and get back to us. And while you are at it, look at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

They have a whole lot  more cred than you. 

I enjoy many of your informative posts - but here you are off the rails. (Look out CN!) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2020 at 2:29 PM, Jules said:

But what was most chilling to me was the work the USSR was doing in the area of biological weapons.  

But you are kewl with the US bio-weapons labs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edumacate yo'self . . . 

To all learners currently enrolled in one of my online courses, Living at the Nuclear Brink and The Threat of Nuclear Terrorism:  I am very pleased to announce the March 2020 launch of my new podcast, At the Brinkwhich is free and open to the public. This podcast grew directly out of my online courses, and will offer new and personal insights from people on the front lines of the nuclear age.  We have over 35 outstanding guests, from former presidents, cabinet members and ambassadors, to scientists, historians, activists and Hiroshima survivors.  If you would like to continue to hear from me about deterrence and the threat of nuclear disaster, and you are interested in the podcast, go to AtTheBrink.net to sign up for email notifications. In the meantime, both courses from Stanford Online will be available in Spring 2020 via edX.org at https://www.edx.org/school/stanfordonline.

Thank you,     Bill Perry       19th U.S. Secretary of Defense 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

But you are kewl with the US bio-weapons labs? 

Why would you assume that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Jules said:

Why would you assume that?

I did not write that I was making such an assumption, but . . . 

to me the US bio-war effort was (is?) equally alarming. 

My hero . .     https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/9/18301321/biological-weapons-xrisks-future-of-life-institute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

I did not write that I was making such an assumption, but . . . 

to me the US bio-war effort was (is?) equally alarming.

FWIW, I consider biological weapons particularly nasty and those who engineer those pathogens despicable.  And the problem always begins with the leaders. 

But we will never have great leaders until those who choose their leaders create an environment that seeks greatness rather than one benefiting those who are simply skilled at getting elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Jules said:

FWIW, I consider biological weapons particularly nasty and those who engineer those pathogens despicable.  And the problem always begins with the leaders. 

But we will never have great leaders until those who choose their leaders create an environment that seeks greatness rather than one benefiting those who are simply skilled at getting elected.

I understand that sentiment - but, please permit me to share a perspective that might flavor your perception:  The US Army bio-labs primary objective is to protect against bio-attacks.   They can't do that without an awareness and understanding of the pathogens and dissemination vectors.  The point I'm making is that not every person who engineers these things is doing so with sinister intent, and at least here?  They're doing so with the objective of creating a viable counter to those things. 

 

To the second - Amen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I understand that sentiment - but, please permit me to share a perspective that might flavor your perception:  The US Army bio-labs primary objective is to protect against bio-attacks.   They can't do that without an awareness and understanding of the pathogens and dissemination vectors.  The point I'm making is that not every person who engineers these things is doing so with sinister intent, and at least here?  They're doing so with the objective of creating a viable counter to those things.

My reference to engineering was to those who work to find pathogens both highly deadly and easily spread.  The scientists who work to prevent such pathogens from killing people should be commended.  In a way this symbiotic relationship is a lot like what we see with explosive weapons.  And it never ends until someone at the top stops it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The US Army bio-labs primary objective is to protect against bio-attacks. 

Oh yeah, I forgot. "Our" bio-weapons are actually totally defensive, cuddly almost. But of course those of the "other" are threatening, scary and terroristic. 

Exceptional R US 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate that "show new posts" also shows those for idiots that are on ignore.  AJ - you really ought to not comment on things that you obviously don't understand - and quit trying to foment partisan divide where none exists.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

AJ - you really ought to not comment on things that you obviously don't understand - and quit trying to foment partisan divide where none exists.  

I've been around long enough to not buy into the "exceptional" meme. 

Are you saying that this did not happen? This does not sound too awful "defensive" to me. 

Sen. Robert Byrd - A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases.  

And more on topic, the Drumph also sold nuclear technology to Saudi. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-saudi-arabia-iran-weapons-republicans-national-security-risks-2019-6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 7:16 PM, Shortforbob said:

is the deterrent factor still valid? (I would argue that it has always been iffy, as best)  We dont need 10,000 warheads to keep the peace.

Hey Short - Why don't you join the Golden Rule crew? They will likely need someone in 2 or 3 months for the voyage to Japan. 

Here is a cool pic of Sister Wong, a Prof from Chaminade Univ. in Hawaii, with her environmental ethics class. 

Image may contain: 9 people, sky and outdoor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sean said:

Iran Crosses a Key Threshold: It Again Has Sufficient Fuel for a Bomb

Many analysts, including me, regard Iran as not much of a threat. They have not invaded anyone for around 300 years. Can the US say that? 

I doubt that Iran will build a bomb - their religious leaders have declared those weapons to be "un-Islamic" 

But given their treatment at the hands of the West - they have every right to do so, certainly as much as the US or Israel. 

Why doesn't anyone seem to worry about Zionist religious fundies getting their hands on the Israeli nukes ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this