____________________________________________________________________________________

I found this blog on AJE pretty good.

When do we nuke somebody??
Is it better if 'we' nuke somebody first before 'they' nuke us??

Those are some pensive questions.



I think that even the North Korean leader may have had some doubts too...I hope he has.


You think on this. What consequences are there for us if something big is gonna happen over there??


I don't think that we'd be immune to anything happening there.
That's for sure.
Never mind world leaders getting thier fingers ready for 'trigger happiness'.

Radiation does move with the winds, you know..

Remember Chernobyl??

Here's the link:



It's a short blog to read too.

__________________

GreedyTorrent Tutorial

RatioFaker Part I

RatioFaker Part II

well, they are being used for intimidation, but every government that has nukes knows that they aren't particularly useful as they do damage over long periods of time and that the later radiation effects can't be contained to the blast zone only...nevertheless its probably just a question of time before some madman (maybe using the same twisted arguments as this war-monger Bolton does) uses one

as for iran, we know that their alleged nuclear program is just an excuse, similar to the iraqi weapons of mass destruction (which were naturally never found since there were none in the first place), to be able to justify a possible future attack on iran

there are a few more questions to answer, like:

if a country can build nukes, who has the right to stop them, ie. who has a right to the holier than thou attitude

to even discuss a location where a nuke should be dropped is taking things too far, they should be aware that any nuclear attack would be an act of genocide/democide

afaik north korea threatened with a nuke only in self defence, in a case of foreign invasion - the attempt described in this article argues for a preventive (the what if) strike based only on hunches (possibly also manipulated evidence) - imagine what would have happened if they acted on hunches during the cold war...exactly, nuclear armageddon

Maybe that 'madman' is a pretense to other things....maybe an invasion of sorts. I think that's kind of what I'm reading in your words, slik.

Take the point of Iran. That country's leader is using nukes as an excuse to get more money perhaps?

Why do you feel that Iran is building nukes to make a potential future attack on Iraq ( I see you wrote Iran, but I think you meant Iraq, yes??).

Anyways...as for the issue of one country being holier than thou, I am of the opinion that it's a small club of nuclear capable country's that hold this holier than thou attitude and they don't want others, or at least too many, to join this exclusive club of nuclear capable countries.

There's many countries that have nuclear capability, though not all of them make nuke weapons. Just used for power production.

but back to the main point, dropping a nuke on some country is / would be considered genocide. Though who's to make the prosecution when; for example, Isreal does the dropping of nukes??

Probably no-one. Isreal will remain protected and secure with the aid of foreign governments.

Who will cry 'wolf'. Most likely the Arab nations.
But in my view, can you blame them??

Who's the oppressor, then??

__________________

GreedyTorrent Tutorial

RatioFaker Part I

RatioFaker Part II

i was speaking generally, but the rumors/speculations about iran being the next 'invasion' target are spreading

frankly, we aren't even sure if they are building nuclear weapons

actually i was talking about possible usa intentions to invade iran using the alleged nuclear program as an excuse for the invasion (as they used the non-existent weapons of mass destruction issue to invade iraq)

exactly, but they don't inherently have a right to forbid such production, all they can do is to object or protest against it (the democratic response)

i would call it democide (or genocide if the intention is to eradicate the whole population)

as for israel, its a tough question, but i believe that despite of all the influence it has worldwide, such an action would be strongly condemned, ie. (almost) no excuse is good enough to justify a nuclear attack

____________________________________________________________________________________

Ahh, ok. Now I see what your talking about re: a potential invasion of Iran. Yes. I do recall hearing that on the news quite a lot immediatly after the invasion of Iraq.

If memory serves me correct, I believe that even Syria was on that same list.
With Jordan being on the list for possible troops as a jumping ground.

Have there ever been any satellite photos of Iran building nukes??

I don't believe that I've ever seen any on TV let alone hearing of actual evidence either supporting or contradicting that accusation re: nuclear weapons.

Also, I strongly feel that the fewer countries have actual nuclear capability, the better we are as a whole.

Who want's to be threatened at every turn??
(That's just said on the possibility that Iran does have nuclear weapons. Yes, your right. There actually isn't any evidence that I've come across that demonstrates that Iran has nukes. Only just accusations from other countries)

Too much doom and gloom already as there is.
most likely some of these nuclear threats are a pretext for other things. Maybe just a 'feint' of sorts. To achieve other goals as you suggest.

To invade Iran as a pretext for territorial control and influence towards a greater neighbor (read Russia), is most likely a possibility.
I think that some people called it 'containment', yes??

__________________

GreedyTorrent Tutorial

RatioFaker Part I

RatioFaker Part II