[TheForge] Patriotic rant....

[Demon Buddha]

Ralph E Douglass wrote:

> Really?!!!!! So Hiroshama was just a figment? The nuk weapons were built
> to be used.

	The nuclear weapons program, as it rapidly developed after
	WWII, and most particularly after Soviet acquisition of
	nuclear weapons technology, was not of a first strike nature.
	Those folks realized early on just how bad a major exchange
	would be and the entire cold war revolved around a whole lot
	of saber rattling on the one hand and secretly praying to one's
	maker like nobody's business on the other that "they" won't
	push the button.

> As for Bush using them I doubt it. They are still being used as a
> deterent.

	The fact that he would publicly state that he would not rule 
	out first strike use of such weapons in prima fascia evidence
	that he is clinically insane.  Such talk is nuts on its face,
	but given that the responses of other nuclear powers to such
	talk cannot be predicted with sufficient reliability, his
	comments take on a new character of unmitigated psychosis.
	He reminds me a bit of Ronald Reagan, who by his words and
	actions appeared to think he was in another "kill all the
	Japs" WWII movie, except that Reagan had the apparent good sense
	not to run off at the mouth about first strikes against the
	enemies of the US with hydrogen devices.  I'm sorry, but
	Bush is kookoo.  What would happen if Russia just decided it
	has had enough and launched a strike in response to our
	fearless leader's rhetoric.  Sure, it's not very likely, but
	it's not impossible either.  This is the sort of thing one
	doesn't mess with a whole lot if the goal is to not wind up 
	living in a global radioactive wasteland.  OK, we'd wipe Russia
	out, but to what end?  Fallout respects no boundaries.

> Most folks htat are not one of the "super power countries"
> beleived that the nuks were all pointed at Russia etc. Now they know
> that is not the case. How many folks who live on or near the Bikini
> Atoll have extra heads?

	Take a look at people in southern Iraq and in the Ukraine.
	The cancer deaths are overwhelming.  In Iraq the birth defects
	are very high in proportion and severe.  And this has been
	only through the use of DU, which is comparatively mild stuff.
	When you have an area peppered with plutonium and other, more
	virulently radioactive and toxic materials, far worse things
	arise in terms of effects to the flesh.

> Or live down wind of the desert testsites here
> in the US? I admit that there are higher incedents of cancer etc.

	Far higher incidents.  You can say "so what" all you like.
	If it were your parents, or children, or friends dying
	horribly, you might feel otherwise

> ave you ever seen the effects of all the chemicals that we dump all over
> the place? Same story.

	Not even close.  I would take my chances with chemical
	contamination of almost ANY variety over a serious radiological
	hazard andy day.  That is not to minimize chemical contamination
	because that is also very nasty, but to compare it with hard,
	hot radiation is a bit past ridiculous, not only from the
	standpoint of immediate effects, but of persistence as well.

> Yes Nuclear has issues. ANd yes it sticks around a LOT longer. But I am
> not nearly as afraid of it as I am of the various and sundry chemical
> and bio weapons that are out there.

	Bio weapons are nowhere near the threat of a nuke.  At least, 
	none of	the weaponized naturally occuring bugs are.  There may be
	engineered bugs that are of a different kettle of fish, but I
	am not aware of anyone admitting to having made these, yet.

> It is possible for life to continue
> after a nuclear attack, but there are bio weapons out there that if used
> will in all likelyhood truelly kill off all life.

	This is patently false.  There is no known bug that is 100%
	lethal (again excepting for the possibility of some secret
	engineered bioweapon).  Even Ebola is only about 90% effective,
	that being the worst of the bunch.  Marburg, Hanta, Anthrax, etc.
	have lower mortality rates.  Also, delivery of such weapons is
	not by any means trivial.  Delivering a nuke to a city via missile
	is.  A single 150KT IRV would render NYC uninhabitable for a long
	time.  The tactics also changed decades ago from air burst to
	ground burst, which produces far more fallout.

> Already has. Are you any worse for wear? Lest see in the last 10 years
> how many nuclear test blasts has China done?

	The fallout from Chernobyl fell on the Lapps.  They have been
	unable to eat from their deer herds and the cancer rates among
	them has gone ballistic.  Something like 200,000 people within
	some small redius of Chernobyl have died of cancer.  Entire
	towns have been wiped out.

	I don't know how many CHina has done.  Are they doing surface
	tests?

> Or in the last couple of
> years India or Pakistan (flexing thier nuclear muscles at each other) Or
> How about in the '50s and '60s when the US and USSR were detonating
> surface blasts left and right?

	That's right, and cancer rates have skyrocketed since then.
	As for India and Pakistan, I may be wrong, but I believe they
	do subsurface testing.
> 
> My point is that we have all been exposed to nuclear fall out. Still do
> not see any two headed kids running about.

	Got to Iraq.  No shit.
> 
> I still do not think Bush will do it. It was merely him letting the
> world know that we still have weapons like this.

	It was a whole lot more than that.  It was an open threat, one
	that I'm sure several other nations don't cotton to, and let
	us not forget that Russia and the Ukraine still have enough
	deliverable warheads to make America glow in the dark for ages
	to come.  One thing I have learned about people, and by extension
	governments, is that when threatened the responses can not be
	reliably predicted.  Read any serious book on history and it will
	be pointed out time and again.

> And to let the smaller
> groups and or nations who have always thought they were immune, that
> they are not. as I said still a deterent, but now for the whole world
> and not just one or two other potential threats.

	I will be fascinated to see how Bush prosecutes the next war
	with Iraq.  That thing sticking out of his pant leg is not
	a roll of lifesavers.  I think he's drooling on himself to
	come to the right time to strike.  If he used a tactical
	nuke in the field, it would not surprise me an iota.