How Many Years Does the US Have Left?

[mr. scruff]

Im not so sure that not allowing certain countrys nuclear weapons is wrong, because they are fundementalist, and some of these dictators might use them, which would ultimatly bring about the end of the world. Ponder that if you will.

[Dav]

Im not so sure that not allowing certain countrys nuclear weapons is wrong, because they are fundementalist, and some of these dictators might use them, which would ultimatly bring about the end of the world. Ponder that if you will.

thing is western nation have them in case thay are attacked by these dictatirs. isnt it possible thay in fear of america nations obtain WMDs, im not saying its wromg to disarm nations, accually i think its a way to peace, byut the us should practice what it preaches and remove its necular arms as a show of good will.

[madhaha]

The DU issue is a contentious one. Please refrain from statements such as:

the announced "safe" level is probably 100 times less than the real safe level

as they are both extremely misleading and presumptious.

 

DU or U238 produces 0.7 times the amount of radiation as natural uranium with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. The human body is usually capable of passing the material out before it can cause any damage if it is ingested. The same does not apply if you've got some embedded in your body (the most potentially damaging sources being shrapnel wounds) or if you're in constant physical contact with it.

 

The exact risks are unknown with some claiming that DU radiation is harmless while others claim it is the cause of Gulf War and Balkan syndrome. Both sides have conducted studies and presented plausible evidence.

 

What IS known is that DU is chemically rather unhealthy. It is a known carcinogen (even department of defense studies agree), as are its compounds (which is important considering much of the s-*BAD WORD*- burns up on impact). Uranium oxide dust has been identified as a possible neurotoxin (again the department of defense is conducting a study after much prompting). DU is a heavy metal like mecury or arsenic. Water soluable compounds can contaminate the water supply.

 

 

To conclude, the exact effects of DU radiation are unknown and contentious, hence we can not declare it "safe" with any certainty, especially in the face of mystery illnesses a la Gulf War syndrome which have strong physical symptoms. At the same time we have no conclusive evidence linking DU with symptoms normally !@#$%^&*ociated with radiation poisining. However, we do know that DU has extremely nasty chemical effects. Would that make you happier?

 

 

Random conspiracy theory material thrown in for those interested:

 

On February 27, 1997, the Pentagon admitted that eight days of logs do-*BAD WORD*-enting chemical exposure have "disappeared." These logs were stored on disc and hard copy in different places.

 

All of this is pretty irrelevant seeing as we were on the brink of nuclear war between India and Pakistan, North Korea has been dropping threats and conducting nuclear tests of its own while the US has openly re-openned its own nuclear research. Nuclear warfare is viable or else people wouldn't be spending big money on it to build better ones.

[Aileron]

They are weapons Madhaha; health concerns should be one of the last things in mind for the design of them.

 

The point is that the nuclear component is a side effect. It would be nicer for us if they were not radioactive at all. It really isn't part of the desired weapon. In a real nuke, the radioactive component is a integral and necessary part of the design. In U-238 s-*BAD WORD*-s it is merely a side effect.

 

However, it still exists. The "conspiracy" can be explained though. First, one factors in that these things' ideal target is vehicles. Then, of the minority that don't hit vehicles, most will either kill their victims; an American artillary or tank round will do a lot to an unprotected infantryman. Of the ones that wound their victims, most will either go straight through them or be easily removed. Then factor in the fact that this is pretty low-level material. Overall, the potential number of people to be effected by these grows slim. When one weighs the amount of casualties averted by superior weaponry vs. the number of unprotected persons getting injured by tank rounds in the particular fashion required, one can see that it could very well be likely that these weapons avert more pain than they cause.

 

 

That however is beside the point. What we are talking about is weapons here. Weapons are designed to hurt and kill people. These are tools of war, which also cause pain and death. We cannot remove these factors from either case.

 

Wars have to be justified to be moral. If the proper justification exists, then the pain and death caused by the war are outweighed by the cause. The cause has to be indeed lofty, because it has to justify the pain and death of many people, some of them innocent. If the cause is indeed important enough to justify that, it is immoral to minimize pain and death at expense of the cause, because the cause is of the greater importance.

 

Thus, we should design of weapons, training, and tactics to further the cause first and minimize pain second. The U-238 s-*BAD WORD*-s are a good example of this. The pain cause by them was put into consideration, but not enough to overrule the effectiveness of the weapon to advance the cause of the war.

 

 

As for any conspiracy involving these weapons, there definitely is none. Given the history of conspiracies and common sense, when somebody does try to cover up something, they do not mention it at all. If there was any major problem with these s-*BAD WORD*-s, their very existence would be classified. Take for example the infamous Area-51. They don't claim that the base exists and they don't do anything unusual there, they claim that the base does not exist. If U-238 s-*BAD WORD*-s caused problems, it would be much safer to disavow their existence or use.

 

 

As for the question of whether or not nukes will be used, get a crystal ball. They may be, they may be not, its really pure conjecture. The only point I will make is that they are generally a tool for the desperate. To that end, the more a country has to lose, the less likely that they want to use them. The US frankly is the last country in line to have the desire to drop a nuke. The first person in line would be some suicidal fanatic.

[nosut4321]

The US might fall but you cannot forget the fact the US is one of the worlds hardest working countries i mean otehr countries LAUGH at your life styles people in england could go and take an entire month off of work and they do and be fine go back at the end of the month no problems while 2 try something like that in the US u get canned since the US is so hard working we grow faster and stronger day by day if a war was to hit and we focused all our work on to the war we would do insane things weapons upgrades everything 2 think what if ever inventor scientist reacher and any other person tryed 2 make a new type of weapon (not that thats a good thing) what would happen i mean come on if we work so hard we deserve to be a superpower it that work that makes us what we are how do you think we went from the 13 colenies to what we are today dont forget other contries have copies us example japan had copies our indrustrial life style if we work so hard and are so good at what we do we should be able to take on whoever

[Aileron]

First off, please use periods.

 

Secondly, it is infact a problem with the US is that we work too hard. Our problems with unemployment are a result of this. An American company will usually remove one employee and expect another to do the work of two. What we need to do is lower the standards for employed people so that the unemployed can pick up the slack.

[Dav]

us work too hard?

 

well in the UK we have a heigher quility education, and when going to university at age 18, uk students are 1 year more advanced the students in the USA.

 

secondly, a moth off work. it can happen but ood reasonyou will be fiored if its not for a good reason and not supported by a doctors letter or somthing. We do nhave paid holiday that equated to about 4 weeks buy you wont be alloud to take it all at ounce usually.

 

-EDIT-

 

also, the UK is said to work too hard in comparison to the french. we have a 39 - 40 hour standard week where as in france its somthing like 32 hours. Also, in the UK people genrally work past the standard day to get things done.

[Dav]

The US might fall but you cannot forget the fact the US is one of the worlds hardest working countries i mean otehr countries LAUGH at your life styles people in england could go and take an entire month off of work and they do and be fine go back at the end of the month no problems while 2 try something like that in the US u get canned since the US is so hard working we grow faster and stronger day by day if a war was to hit and we focused all our work on to the war we would do insane things weapons upgrades everything 2 think what if ever inventor scientist reacher and any other person tryed 2 make a new type of weapon (not that thats a good thing) what would happen i mean come on if we work so hard we deserve to be a superpower it that work that makes us what we are how do you think we went from the 13 colenies to what we are today dont forget other contries have copies us example japan had copies our indrustrial life style if we work so hard and are so good at what we do we should be able to take on whoever

13 colonies to modern america happend because the population grew so much the occupied areas coulny suppoert them so people migreated accross america becaue they had no choice. its the way it has always been. since the first humans existed and multiplied people have moved out to find new places to live.

[mr. scruff]

britain owns america at making and inventing things, thanks, good bye

[Dav]

-*BAD WORD*- yea, we got 3 nobel prizes and the us got none.

[madhaha]

Dav & Scruff + other jingoist "patriotic" types from either side of the Alantic please keep your views and at!@#$%^&*udes to yourself. You're not doing anyone any favours.

 

Aileron:

 

Health concerns and humanitarian considerations are extremely important when designing weapons, especially ones that are likely to have longterm effects. This is why there is now a worldwide ban on laying new landmines. It is also the main reason why chemical, biological and nuclear warfare are banned along with other weapons that cause unneccessary suffering such as dum dum bullets, explosive rounds and weapons designed chiefly to maim but not kill the target under the Hague Convention. You sound like you are ADVOCATING these weapons. The purpose of modern warfare is not to kill your enemy but to render him incapable of fighting a war against you with emphasis on taking out production and communication/command structure, limiting his intelligence sources (rounding up scouts/spies and destroying radars) and causing them to doubt their ideology/leadership. Killing and destroying as much as you can is easy but futile as the population will continue to resist you. The main aim is to stop the escalation of war as this is bad for both sides. A quick transition is preferable to a prolonged game of hide and seek where you aim to exterminate every last tank and soldier by supremacy of weaponary. Its also less expensive.

 

It is interesting that you consider a single throwaway factiod concerning a possible conspiracy theory to be worthy of so much of your discussion. It is irrelevant. However I thought you might find this article amusing/interesting http://www.inebriantia.org/2003/07/the_topsecret_j.html . Many strange things are classified but when confronted by a direct challenge, officials often admit to facts. What I suspect in this particular case is someone leaked the snippet of information the media and when directly confronted, an official let slip that the material has "gone missing". Most probably there was a -*BAD WORD*--up in the recording of data and the information was never recorded in the first place (even though it should have been) and the official was trying to cover for these mistakes and in doing so looking extremely suspicious.

 

It has been proven that DU weapons can have strong secondary effects yet they are still actively used in warfare because we don't currently know the true extent of how big these longterm effects are. This strikes me as extremely insensative. Similarly the fallout of nuclear weapons are not treated as an unfortunate byproduct of an extremely big explosion but an interesting bonus which the military have looked at increasing by lacing hydrogen bombs with additional radioactive material to actively increase the radioactive fallout. It is also alarming that there are new weapons are under development based on these technologies designed for use in the near term, despite the fact their use would contravene international treaty with terrorism being given as the excuse.

[Bacchus]

and Ail, the point is that DU is killing innocent people as well. You wouldn't go as far as to say that those are "justified" if the cause is right...would you?

 

 

Here's some sample material for you to chew upon:

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

 

note the part on danger of DU, birth deffect and the map about DU in the world.

 

It is quite easy to find stuff about DU:

 

google -- > depleted uranium

 

have fun

[mr. scruff]

Ah so your views are alowed but ours arent? Nice.

[Dav]

if uoy think that a patriotic view not to be shared then ok, but later in this discussion i may bring up diffrences between bristish handed situations vs american in the iraq war.

 

anyway to the point in hand.

 

you say WMDs are banned, in reality thay are banned in nations that the west views as a threat. These are nations like cuba, iraq and noth korea mostly dur to their politcal situation.

 

the reason i make this point is because the western world still has WMDs for use at any time the leader of the nation wishes. The uk has 1 necular missile, the USA has some also alng with russia, china and prehaps pakistan and india.

 

what i fail to understand is that if some nations arent allowd WMDs where as others are, how will we ever reach a peacefull world situation?

 

i believe that all WMDs should be banned fir every single nation, and any nation that does not comply will be delt with by the UN. that way there will be no situation where necu;lar war can begin because if it does that will be the end of us all.

 

In saying that, NASA should be allowd very large space capapbe necular weapons but only for the destruction of asteroids that threaton the survival of this planet. These weapons should however be under full UN control.

 

 

Talking about the UN, i also fail to understand why iuraq was forced to comply with UN resolutions when israil still breaks multiple resolutions, one of which is carried evry year by the UN. There will never be stability in the middle east until the panistilian and israil conflict is resolved.

 

What happens to p[revent any action being taken to enfore the resolution is that america alwys vito the motion whn every other nation on the securitrh council has supported it.

 

this all goes to show how america, the UK and other western nations are very much concerned with their own power, and only act if it is in the intrest of holding their postion in world polotics.

[mr. scruff]

The US and Russia both have over 1000 nuclear warheads, enough to kill every living organism in the world many times over. Britain has in the region of 150 - 200. Isreal has 150. China has roughly 500 I would say. France has about 100.

 

Nuclear warheads are as common in the west and comunist nations as pie.

[Dav]

exactly my point the west cseems to do what it likes and uses its power to fiorce the rest of the world to conform to western values. Thats just wrong.

 

the americans have forced people to thir values since its outset. Their "Manifest destiny" was to take all of the new wold given to them by god and use it for thier needs. They also believed everone in america should be cristian so they imposed this on the native americans, they took thier land and in the end made ther children attend christian schools and belive in god!

 

that is neieve and immoral in my view, mabye people didnt see it then but the western sociaty in my view hasnt evolved much since then.

[»ZiGNoTZaG]

what pray tell would you define as an innocent person. dont take this in any literal sense. but free your mind. are these "innocent" civilians and thier fathers the same ones that allowed thier contries to reach such a awful state of decay and allow OBVIOUSLY CORRUPT leaders to gain control of them like they are just sheep? these "innocent" civilians that are so un-educated they will blindly follow?

 

so then after thier own ignorace leads them down a path to foolishness and poverty. with borderline insane leaders. leaders that are not fit to rule. but what are a bunch of un-educated heathens gonna do about it?

 

steps in big brother to fix the problem created by those very same "innocent" victims.

 

i dont say this out of malice or hate. mearly a differant view. which i may or may not really believe myself.

 

ignorace is not an excuse.

 

if your not part of the solution then your part of the problem.

 

 

post thought..... for an example...a pretty undeniable one. imagine for a moment that the US and your country of origin are at war. does that make you an innocent civilian in my eyes? do i become one in yours? what does history show us?

 

-*BAD WORD*- no, you are the NME, even if you are Joe friggin Blow the candle maker. that what history shows us.

 

is that right? is that fair? is that even sane?

 

well whatever. you decide. thats the way things are. thats humanity. there is no good answer. which makes it quite a good debate.

[Dav]

the thing is some people follw blindly, some are attracted by false promises. i the post part the pople remain innocent, thay can only know what is told to them and trust those that seem trustworthy.

 

unfortunatly somtimes mepole are manipulated by what can only be described as properganda.

[madhaha]

Zig:

 

That is a complex question. I think that the Stanford Experiment and Milgram's experiments on the influence of peer pressure and authority figures show that normal, intelligent people can be lead through the crudest of methods to commit attrocities. It is in our nature to "follow the herd". What's more, this is re-inforced by clear and present danger in the form of beatings, kidknappings, murders, torture etc. And even then there are resistances which we help crush by supplying these regimes with armanents and occasionally training.

 

The term "poll rigging" also come to mind. You may remember that even your own enlightened country suffers from this. How can you resist when your enemy claims support from everybody, is better manned, better armed, better trained, better educated and more ruthless than you are? It is extremely difficult to lead an uprising on desperation alone.

 

Also remember that education is controlled by the wealthy and the state. In almost Any country, state policy and social bias is indoctrinated into children. Many of our racist and otherwise politically incorrect nursery rhymes and playground slang have been discretely removed but even now I'm sure you can name half a dozen examples. In North Korea the children sing their praises to their Great Leader as we once did about Jesus (regardless of personal beliefs). In China children are taught to adore the fact that they're an only child.

 

If you were raised from childhood worshipping the great warhero Saddam and the daily news reinforces what you already know (and "bad people" routinely get dissapeared), do you thing its fair when ZiGNoTZaG says that you deserve getting the -*BAD WORD*- bombed out of you for not overthrowing Saddam?

[madhaha]

Dav:

 

Repeating every news article you've heard and read the last few months does not increase understanding and knowledge nor does it encourage progressive discussion. Please go one main point a post, take a deep breath and don't type anything until you're looking at it objectively.

[Aileron]

and Ail, the point is that DU is killing innocent people as well.  You wouldn't go as far as  to say that those are "justified" if the cause is right...would you?

Did you even read my post? To answer your question, yes. In war people suffer, whether you are using nukes or snowballs. Invariably, some of them are innocent. In a just war, the cause has to be so lofty to include the suffering of innocents. Its a logical contradiction to say that a war was justified but the suffering of innocents not. My theory doesn't include weapons being used in unjust war, but in that event I figure we would have worse moral problems.

 

I think I could beat Madhaha's point, but I think I speak for all of us by saying I would rather see the UD debate die than revive it.

 

 

Back to the current discussion, Madhaha's pretty much right in this case. Although it is a lot more subtle and less controlled than his wording implies. Overall, you cannot blame Iraqis for having an Iraqi opinion. Their views mostly came from the society they live in. Propeganda is a part of it, but not all of it.

 

That is also in my opinion what the war on terror is really about. The society they have generates their opinions, and their opinions generate terrorism. To destroy terrorism, we have to remove the those opinions and thus their society. The War on Terrorism is really going to have to be a long war against virtually the entire Middle Eastern society.

 

To justify it, we would have to prove their society is in and of itself wrong. First, note that it is possible for one society to be right and another wrong because the ethical theory of normative cultural relativism cannot be proven logically.

 

As for our justification, we have several angles. The first is that they are clearly violent. The peace generated by their removal can justify action. The second is that they are oppresive to their own people. Third, they have stronger defined social classes than necessary. Those two can justify the evils of the society itself.

 

However, that whole paragraph is unneeded. We have endured several terrorists acts, which qualify as acts of war. The War on Terror is a defensive war - the ultimate cause is that we don't get attacked again. Defensive wars really do not have to be justified.

[Dav]

Dav:

 

Repeating every news article you've heard and read the last few months does not increase understanding and knowledge nor does it encourage progressive discussion. Please go one main point a post, take a deep breath and don't type anything until you're looking at it objectively.

i am not, throughout history properganda has caued to vote to go toward corrupt leaders, i am mealy ststing this point in the context of this disccusion

[Will+]

Interesting.

[Dav]

Bush was like "a bling man in a room full of deaf people"

 

how very true, and ill say the same for blair.

 

blair went against the views of the public when going to war - political suicide if you ask me

[madhaha]

Dav: Point missed again. You've gone straight for the soundbite and missed the entire topic of the article. Not only that, you've misunderstood the metaphor.

 

"A blind man in a room of dead people". The blind man would not see the deaf people and the deaf people would not hear the blind man. The point being made is that what Bush says and does is totally independant of what his party is doing behind his back. This has NOTHING to do with the public. I don't know what to make of the "revelations" but I'm sure they'll sell lots of wood pulp.

 

Aileron: Very disturbing. You condone the use of banned weapons in warfare because, you reason, if you go to war then the war is a significantly just cause to justify their use. It is particularly disturbing because the reason we were at war with Iraq was because Iraq was thought to be developing banned weapons and we feared they would be used against us by terrorists believing they're fighting for a just cause.

 

I state again: this is not an issue about you or me "winning" an argument. Its about basic humanitrian welfare.

 

In one sentence you say that the cause for war is strong enough to justify the means yet in another you say that the war does not need justification because it is defensive. How do you defend yourself from an enemy you cannot defeat with firepower? Not by invading other countries. The official line of reasoning is that the enemy government is supporting terrorism and as soon as we remove the government, terrorism will be substantially reduced. This has not turned out to be the case. Does this justify the deaths of innocent people killed both directly (blown to bits) and indirectly (starved to death, killed by mobs, innocently killed in terrorist attacks aimed at us)? No it does not. Does this call for the use of bigger weapons? No it does not. Can we consider attacking another country to root out a minority group defensive? No.

 

I really do not know know how you can disagree with that or why.