Saturday, December 31, 2005

The Only Country Crazy Enough To Use Nuclear Weapons?

News came out yesterday that Israel has dropped plans for a pre-emptive strike against Iran. I guess they decided that even if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, Israel still has enough nukes in it's arsenal to wipe Iran out if Iran should try to wipe out Israel. It's that whole Mutual Assured Destruction thing, like that which stopped the US and the USSR from obliterating each other during the cold war. This exemplifies the whole problem created when the US opened the nuclear Pandora's Box in the forties. Like Samuel Colt when he created the Colt .45, the nuclear weapons are the great equalizer, unfortunately, now every country feels that they need them to protect themselves from perceived threats.
Iran, which will develop nuclear weapons under the guise of it's nuclear power program, has no empirical designs. They only wish to protect itself against Israel, which has nuclear weapons to protect itself from other Middle Eastern countries that may wish to attack them. But in the history of nuclear weapons, there has only been one country insane enough to use them. That's right, I'm talking about the good ol' US of A, which unleashed the atomic monster against the citizens of Japan as way to send a message to the Soviet Union that we had them weapons. And starting in 1991, the US has been using depleted uranium rounds, considered to be nuclear weapons, in combat situations.
The US, under the neocon agenda, does in fact have empirical designs, especially in the Middle East. Under the guise of a "war on terror" or the Global Struggle Advocating Violent Extremism as I prefer to call it, it intends on setting up shop all over the Middle East. Next on the list:Iran, of which the propaganda campaign will probably commence in the new year, as ABC news has sent a correspondent to Iran, an inside man to cover the invasion from the Iranian perspective. I'm sure that other news organiztions, such as Faux News, will, too, send their own correspondents there as well.
In fact, in the summer of this year, Dick Cheney, madman that he is, sought to create a military policy to attack Iran with nuclear weapons following a terrorist attack on US soil, even if Iran was in no way involved. And in March of 2006, Iran will commit an act of economic terrorism, setting up a bourse which will trade Iranian oil solely in euros, striking a blow against the US domination of oil markets such as it has enjoyed since the end of WWII.
So while the anti-war movement in this counry is focused on the war in Iraq, and the innumerable atrocities committed there by the US, the only people crazy enough to advocate a nuclear war will strike at another country again.

7 comments:

Lily said...

Well regarding Japan, many people beleive that we needed to drop the bomb to save mass casualties from an American invasion. but under that rationale, why drop the second? There are many people who say that Japan refused to surrender, but there is evidence that not only was there a surrender in the worls but that it was in the works before bomb number one.
Its all a matter of people believing what they want to believe, just as they do today. After attending an anti-nuclear demonstration with a huge Japanese delegation, it amzed me how much they have transformed the experience of nuclear war into a vision of peace and a desire to never see that repeated anywhere. What did we do? We jumped up on a table and said "look what we can do!" to everyone. Domination can force the will of other people, but it ultimately backfires.
Thank you very much for this well-though out post and for your recent writings which have been particularly thoughtful. I appreciate your perspective.

Lew Scannon said...

You're right, Japan was trying to contact America and sue for peace, however, in that, the Soviets would have been able to join the negotiations and we were afraid they would have come away from the table with more than us. Also, the Soviets were perceived as a threat to the American way of life, so Truman dropped the bomb to send the message to Russia that we did have the bomb. the American casualties from an invasion would have been soldiers, the Japanese casualties from the bombs were civlians.

Anonymous said...

Well regarding Japan, many people beleive that we needed to drop the bomb to save mass casualties from an American invasion. but under that rationale, why drop the second?
TO FURTHER CONVINCE JAPAN THAT THEY HAVE NO CHANCE OF SUCCESS, SORT OF LIKE 'DRIVING IT HOME'.
After attending an anti-nuclear demonstration with a huge Japanese delegation, it amzed me how much they have transformed the experience of nuclear war into a vision of peace and a desire to never see that repeated anywhere.
THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF GETTING YOUR ASS KICKED AND LEARNING FROM IT, THAT IS ALL.
Domination can force the will of other people, but it ultimately backfires.
TRUE. BUT IT SURE IS FUN WHILE IT LASTS.
You're right, Japan was trying to contact America and sue for peace...
ALWAYS A BAD IDEA, IT IS MUCH BETTER TO NOT TRY AND SUE FOR PEACE AFTER YOU ARE THE NATION WHO LAUNCHED THE FIRST STRIKE.
the Soviets would have been able to join the negotiations and we were afraid they would have come away from the table with more than us.
WELL SEEING THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY WAS THE ONLY PARTY ALLOWED IN THE NEW RUSSIA, PERHAPS IT WAS BEST THAT THEY WERE KEPT AWAY FROM THE TABLES, AS THAT SORT OF THING IS NOT WHAT YOU ALL SUPPORT, RIGHT?
What did we do? We jumped up on a table and said "look what we can do!" to everyone.
CAN THIS COUNTRY DO ANYTHING RIGHT IN YOUR EXTREME VIEWPOINT? CAN YOU HEAR HOW SPOILED YOU BOTH SOUND, AND I DO NOT DOUBT THAT YOU BOTH ARE SPOILED.
I TOO USED TO BE AN UNCONTROLED LIBERAL, BUT THEN I MATURED, AND STARTED REALIZING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD LIVE BY A SET OF RULES. THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CONTINUE TO BREED, THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KILL UNBORN SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS INCONVIENTENT TO THEM. THAT SOMETIMES WAR IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, LIKE THE WAR IN QUESTION, WORLD WAR TWO.
ON A POST SCRIPT, I ALSO NOTICE THAT YOU TWO, BESIDES THIS BRIEF VISIT FROM ME, SEEM TO BE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO READ THIS BLOGSPOT. WOULD IT NOT BE EASIER TO SIMPLY EMAIL EACH OTHER, OR PERHAPS EVEN SEND LETTERS BY ACTUAL MAIL. THAT WAY YOU TWO COULD REAFIRM TO EACHOTHER HOW RIGHT YOU ARE, AND HOW WRONG EVERYONE ELSE IS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME NO OTHERS WOULD HAVE TO STUMBLE APON YOUR STUPIDITY.
YOU TWO ARE NOT UNBRAINWASHED, YOU HAVE SIMPLY BEEN BRAINWASHED BY THE SAME GROUP. A TRUE "UNBRAINWASHED" PERSON CAN BALANCE TRUTHS, REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY PERCIEVE OF SAID TRUTHS MORALLY, AND THEN CAST A FAIR JUDGEMENT.

Lily said...

Well I suppose we both think its interesting that you are here. If you don't like what we say to each other, why are you reading it? There are millions of blogs. Although we know how people like you enjoy surveillance. And making assumptions about people and how 'spoiled' we are.
Cupcake, there's more to awareness than watching Fox news and blind obedience.
In fact, I also suspect that people like you defend 'freedom' on one hand but seek to suppress it on another. Freedom is not telling people how to live their lives. Try reading the Constitution instead of blogs.
And we email too. We just can't get enough of each other, is all.
Anonymous? Why not stand by your statements?

Lew Scannon said...

"Anonymous",
Even you can't see the hypocrisy prevalent in your statements.
"People should live by a set of rules", you means like the rules set forth by the Geneva Convention? "People should not kill the unborn just because they are inconvenient to them" "(Rights) should not be given to people just because they continue to breed" Is this your idea of "balanced truth", that dropping an atomic bomb on civilians is okay, but aborting a fetus is wrong?
You state that you used to be a liberal, but then you matured, right after launching a tirade of name calling, saying forcing the will of the people is "fun while it lasts", and other examples of an as yet formed mind. obviously, when you "stumbled" across the blog, you must have come back repeatedly to note that "you two are the only ones who read it."

rivermomma said...

I have a hard time comprehending the annihilation of thousands of babies, children, unborn fetuses too since you brought them up...just to drive a point home. What kind of suck fuck are you, anyway?

Lily said...

I meant SICK FUCK but I was trying to drive the point home after all.