New CBS TV Series Making Nuclear War Thinkable And Great Fun For Everyone

zzpat wrote:

:Frank Glover wrote:
:
: The leaders of Iran and North Korea are my biggest concerns on this
: issue...and I doubt that anything CBS airs or doesn't air will alter
: their views either way.
:
:I seriously doubt Iran or N. Korea wanted nukes before Bush's holy war
"axis of evil"). In fact they had UN inspector and signed treaties
:against nukes. Bush screwed it up, not Iran, Iraq, or North Korea.

Talk about your ignorant revisionism!

North Korea did the bulk of their weapons development under cover
during the Clinton administration. Rather hard to blame Bush for that
(unless honesty isn't your idea of a necessary attribute).

Iran has been trying to develop weapons technology since the Iran/Iraq
War. They bought a lot of their dual-use technology during the 1990s,
which rather predates Dubya, as well.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

: "Mike Schilling"
: Well, add it up:
:
: Any sort of action against North Korea in the 5 1/2 years of the Bush
: presidency: none.
:
: Thwarting of North Korea's nuclear program during that same period: none
:
: Likelihood that the US will attack North Korea in the remaining 2 1/2 years:
: 0 %
:
: Likelihood that the US will cause regime change in Noth Korea during that
: same period: 0 %

Expressions of politicians while posturing and blustering about it: priceless.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

wrote:
http://letterfromhere.blogspot.com/2...thinkable.html


Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Making nuclear war thinkable



What's wrong with this picture? To begin with, if it weren't a
Hollywood special effects shot, the guy would probably be blind from
looking right at the exploding nuke -- he clearly didn't duck and
cover. Also, the whole detached observer quality of the photo
subliminally says nuclear catastrophe is no big deal, something that
can safely be survived at a distance. The biblical name and hint of a
halo even hint at something transcendent.

Nothing wrong with nuking some people as long as the right people get
nuked.
Starting with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Mike Schilling wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Mike Schilling wrote:
Jordan wrote:

Making threats -- I have no idea how "empty" they are

Yes you, do; you just won't admit it.

No really, I don't.

Well, add it up:

Any sort of action against North Korea in the 5 1/2 years of the Bush
presidency: none.

Thwarting of North Korea's nuclear program during that same period: none

Likelihood that the US will attack North Korea in the remaining 2 1/2 years:
0 %

Likelihood that the US will cause regime change in Noth Korea during that
same period: 0 %

Your first two statements are correct: I'm not so sure about the other
two. America would almost certainly attack North Korea if North Korea
attacked an American ally; North Korea has threatened to do so if we
cut "humanitarian" tribute to them; and we have threatened to do just
that. IF America attacked North Korea, depending upon our type of
attack the result might very well be "regime change," and would almost
certainly involve in some way "thwarting" North Korea's nuclear
program.

Meanwhile, we've at least stopped helping the North Koreans build
atomic reactors, and there's very little chance that we will give them
any _new_ forms of tribute. Which is progress over the Clinton policy.

- Jordan

"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Meanwhile, we've at least stopped helping the North Koreans build
atomic reactors, and there's very little chance that we will give them
any _new_ forms of tribute. Which is progress over the Clinton policy.

That is, we've adopted a policy which is a broken stick and no carrot, and
gotten exactly the result you'd expect.

Mike Schilling wrote:
"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Meanwhile, we've at least stopped helping the North Koreans build
atomic reactors, and there's very little chance that we will give them
any _new_ forms of tribute. Which is progress over the Clinton policy.

That is, we've adopted a policy which is a broken stick and no carrot, and
gotten exactly the result you'd expect.

The North Koreans have already agreed to nuclear nonproliferation.
Twice. In the 1980's, and in the 1990's.

They then broke the agreement. Twice.

At this point, they shouldn't get any more "carrot," and I think we
should withdraw the last bits of "carrots" we're still feeding them on
general principles. We are already doing them a favor, continually, by
not applying the stick, and they don't seem to be appreciating it.

What, in general, do you think we _should_ do? Negotiate with them by
offering them some incentive to disarm?

Why? Twice, already, we've done so, they've taken the incentive, and
then broken the agreement. What magic power do you imagine yet another
scrap of paper would have over them?

- Jordan

"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com...


What, in general, do you think we _should_ do?

Invade them and station 140,000 troops there, of course. It worked so well
the first time.

Mike Schilling wrote:
"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com...


What, in general, do you think we _should_ do?

Invade them and station 140,000 troops there, of course. It worked so well
the first time.

So, you don't actually have an alternative policy to propose?

- Jordan

Mike Schilling wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

EMP electro magnetic pulse will wipe out nearly all solid state
electronic devices and fry the power grid too.

terrorists who hate the US could decimate our economy by detonating
just 2 EMP pulse weapons over the central US.....

obSF: _Warday_.

I read Warday recently, very interesting book written by James Kunetka
and Whitley Streiber before Whitley realized aliens were visiting him
at night.

The book takes place five years after a limited nuclear war between the
US and USSR in the late 80's, with a couple EMP devices detonated above
North America and nuclear strikes on NYC, Washington and San Antonio in
addition to many of the nuclear silos in the upper plains. The attack
pretty much dropped the US back into the 19th century as all the wiring
of the electronic village had been burned out by the EMP, and those who
survived had to deal with radiation and epidemics which arose in the
wake of the death and malnutrition which occured after the attacks.

"Jordan" wrote ..
Mike Schilling wrote:
"Jordan" wrote


What, in general, do you think we _should_ do?

Invade them and station 140,000 troops there, of course. It worked so
well
the first time.

So, you don't actually have an alternative policy to propose?

The main thing that seems to make North Korea an insoluble problem is South
Korea, who for years has acted more like an ally of NK than of us. We can
make no realistic military or economic or diplomatic threats against the
North without the South. And it may be that a nuclear dowry may persuade the
South to enter into an anschluss with the North, Which will _guarantee_ a
nuclear Japan.