Life in the Horse Lane: More Discussion on Nuclear Weapons
Moderator: Steve Plonk
-
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: December 12th, 2009, 4:48 pm
Life in the Horse Lane: More Discussion on Nuclear Weapons
All these opinions require more contemplation. I have contemplated and
decided that I can't answer everybody. However, I can venture my own opinion and that is: I wish nobody could use nuclear weapons.
However, we can't turn back the clock, so we should try to limit nuclear manufacture and use. Our treaties aren't as effective as we would like
and the people of the world are afraid of what may happen if an accident turns into a war by mistake. So, the United Nations tries to mediate disputes with treaties and so on. We are part of the United Nations.
As an integral part of the United Nations we have tried, as a country, to limit the widespread manufacture of nuclear weapons. Peaceful use of nuclear power is harder to regulate but needs to be kept a close eye on.
I imagine nuclear power would be another topic for discussion.
Responsible use of nuclear energy is not just up to our country. That is why we try to comply with and have treaties. I remember when we were
in the "duck and cover" era of civil defense. Now we know that nuclear war would cause horrific casualties and a nuclear winter around the globe.
I have seen radiation injuries. They are not a pretty picture. So, anyone
who thinks any "tom, dick and harry country" should have nukes should think again. We used the bomb twice against the Japanese. Please read Hershey's book HIROSHIMA. Realize that these things have happened in the past and that we, collectively, as a species should realize that this destruction should not happen again. There's that word "Collective" again.
Yes, we need to get it into our "hard drive" and ban the bomb as many places as we can.
decided that I can't answer everybody. However, I can venture my own opinion and that is: I wish nobody could use nuclear weapons.
However, we can't turn back the clock, so we should try to limit nuclear manufacture and use. Our treaties aren't as effective as we would like
and the people of the world are afraid of what may happen if an accident turns into a war by mistake. So, the United Nations tries to mediate disputes with treaties and so on. We are part of the United Nations.
As an integral part of the United Nations we have tried, as a country, to limit the widespread manufacture of nuclear weapons. Peaceful use of nuclear power is harder to regulate but needs to be kept a close eye on.
I imagine nuclear power would be another topic for discussion.
Responsible use of nuclear energy is not just up to our country. That is why we try to comply with and have treaties. I remember when we were
in the "duck and cover" era of civil defense. Now we know that nuclear war would cause horrific casualties and a nuclear winter around the globe.
I have seen radiation injuries. They are not a pretty picture. So, anyone
who thinks any "tom, dick and harry country" should have nukes should think again. We used the bomb twice against the Japanese. Please read Hershey's book HIROSHIMA. Realize that these things have happened in the past and that we, collectively, as a species should realize that this destruction should not happen again. There's that word "Collective" again.
Yes, we need to get it into our "hard drive" and ban the bomb as many places as we can.
-
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: December 12th, 2009, 4:48 pm
See my earlier topic in General Discussion
Also see my earlier topic in General Discussion.
First, I'd like to welcome you to the S8 Columnists, Steve, and hope you enjoy the company around this place of many peoples with many (great) ideas, as you may have gathered since your arrival.
_________
My own reply (in General Discussion) I realize sounded a bit flippant, which it was intended to do. But we (Americans) have a very unique Constitutional right to 'Bear Arms' which the rest of the world does not have. It is our ingrained right that we are raised with and conditioned in believing to be the right thing for people to have, despite being a relatively small percentage of world population. But it is this same country that feels it has the right to determine which country can have and cannot have nuclear power, and it's evil twin nuclear weapons. If you were a citizen in another country who saw America and it's Constitutional right to bear arms and seeing this same country as the leader in nuclear weapons judging who and who cannot have nuclear weapons, you may very well have a bit of fear in who is running this country that is armed to the proverbial hilt while so many other countries, including your own, is one who may be judged to protect it's own sovereignty without the nuclear deterrent that the U.S. and eight other countries do have to protect their own sovereignty.
Would not this imbalance seem a tad unfair, especially the leader in nuclear weapons being the same country that touts their freedom to bear arms?
But I do agree with you that "Our treaties aren't as effective as we would like and the people of the world are afraid of what may happen if an accident turns into a war by mistake." This is problematic for the world and very problematic for our own country which makes us sound hypocritical in a very real sense... on one hand we guarantee the right to bear arms and on the other we do not approve any other country the right to protect themselves with the same weapon systems as ours (and the other eight).
How to solve the dilemma and still feel other countries have at least the same freedoms as our freedom loving country?
_________
My own reply (in General Discussion) I realize sounded a bit flippant, which it was intended to do. But we (Americans) have a very unique Constitutional right to 'Bear Arms' which the rest of the world does not have. It is our ingrained right that we are raised with and conditioned in believing to be the right thing for people to have, despite being a relatively small percentage of world population. But it is this same country that feels it has the right to determine which country can have and cannot have nuclear power, and it's evil twin nuclear weapons. If you were a citizen in another country who saw America and it's Constitutional right to bear arms and seeing this same country as the leader in nuclear weapons judging who and who cannot have nuclear weapons, you may very well have a bit of fear in who is running this country that is armed to the proverbial hilt while so many other countries, including your own, is one who may be judged to protect it's own sovereignty without the nuclear deterrent that the U.S. and eight other countries do have to protect their own sovereignty.
Would not this imbalance seem a tad unfair, especially the leader in nuclear weapons being the same country that touts their freedom to bear arms?
But I do agree with you that "Our treaties aren't as effective as we would like and the people of the world are afraid of what may happen if an accident turns into a war by mistake." This is problematic for the world and very problematic for our own country which makes us sound hypocritical in a very real sense... on one hand we guarantee the right to bear arms and on the other we do not approve any other country the right to protect themselves with the same weapon systems as ours (and the other eight).
How to solve the dilemma and still feel other countries have at least the same freedoms as our freedom loving country?
_________________________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow not destiny to intrude upon Now
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow not destiny to intrude upon Now
-
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: December 12th, 2009, 4:48 pm
Treaties
That is why our country participates in the Non-Proliferation treaty.
It isn't just up to us unilaterally. In addition, we mediate through our state department and the United Nations. The "right to bear arms" seems
like a catch all phrase to some folks. I think it is common sense to ban
the wholesale manufacture of nuclear weapons. Come let us reason together, the saying goes.
It isn't just up to us unilaterally. In addition, we mediate through our state department and the United Nations. The "right to bear arms" seems
like a catch all phrase to some folks. I think it is common sense to ban
the wholesale manufacture of nuclear weapons. Come let us reason together, the saying goes.
sounds good, and I actually agree with that in terms of the broadest principles, but don't forget, our country also participates (often primarily for self-interested gain) in crap invasions of other countries weaker than us in military power and weapons capability, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of (invisible) others 10,000+ miles away. you don't think mccain would have bombed the crap out of iran by now, if he was elected? I imagine the invadees, or bomb-ees, actual or potential, might be a little fed up with this situation, and might like a deterrent, perhaps. ok, I'm kidding with this stuff, you understand. mostly. sort of.
and we may "mediate through the united nations" sometimes. when it suits us. otherwise you got a bunch of trained FOX bobbleheads sitting around mouthing their favorite pundits or john bolton saying essentially to hell with the UN. I mean, let's be realistic.
sorry, I guess I'm a little punchy tonight. or maybe the last 7 years. or maybe longer. I believe in this place, but when we interact with the world, it seems too often we pretend that our own shit doesn't stink, and the world's problems are entirely elsewhere.
and we may "mediate through the united nations" sometimes. when it suits us. otherwise you got a bunch of trained FOX bobbleheads sitting around mouthing their favorite pundits or john bolton saying essentially to hell with the UN. I mean, let's be realistic.
sorry, I guess I'm a little punchy tonight. or maybe the last 7 years. or maybe longer. I believe in this place, but when we interact with the world, it seems too often we pretend that our own shit doesn't stink, and the world's problems are entirely elsewhere.
- stilltrucking
- Posts: 20607
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
Speaking of Fox News and opinions
wrote
When he was bombing North Vietnam back into the stone age. Which has not much to do with this thread sorry.
Best wishes for the column Steve Plonk.
We are not the honest broker in the middle east, maybe we were at one time but no more. But we still want to "believe our country just in all her projects and inexhaustible in her resources."
Steve P.Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... v=hcmodule
wrote
I remember that LBJ was real fond of that saying.Come let us reason together, the saying goes.
When he was bombing North Vietnam back into the stone age. Which has not much to do with this thread sorry.
Best wishes for the column Steve Plonk.
We are not the honest broker in the middle east, maybe we were at one time but no more. But we still want to "believe our country just in all her projects and inexhaustible in her resources."
Good luck with your column, Steve.
Mnaz: when we interact with the world, it seems too often we pretend that our own shit doesn't stink, and the world's problems are entirely elsewhere.
NS: Nicely stated!
That, “we never ‘stink,’ it’s the other guy,” smell is the opinion distorting odor of propaganda. When a nation is as morally superior, in its own mind, as ours is, it can preach nuke abstention to its ‘inferiors’ while itself possessing thousands of warheads, and not even blink. It can invade with unquestioning impunity (and a small dash of massaged data) while censuring any other nation’s “evil” invasion of another. There is a double standard: one for us and ours, and another for everyone else. Most of our countrymen are too chauvinistic (see original def.) to marvel at the extravagant hubris of it all.
Steve: As an integral part of the United Nations we have tried, as a country, to limit the widespread manufacture of nuclear weapons.
NS: Who takes serious a, “do as we say, not as we do,” sermon? Especially when, the preacher holds the title for ‘country most likely to invade yours; unless you got nukes.’
Steve: So, the United Nations tries to mediate disputes with treaties and so on. We are part of the United Nations.
NS: Just a “part”? Not a permanent member of the controlling 5 member Security Counsel? No extra weight had in being sole super power: economically, culturally, and militarily? “Mediation” requires some degree of being non-partisan, uninvolved. Put a 5 foot shark in a 50gal aquarium, and let him mediate among the goldfish.
NS (Nuclear Sunset)
Mnaz: when we interact with the world, it seems too often we pretend that our own shit doesn't stink, and the world's problems are entirely elsewhere.
NS: Nicely stated!
That, “we never ‘stink,’ it’s the other guy,” smell is the opinion distorting odor of propaganda. When a nation is as morally superior, in its own mind, as ours is, it can preach nuke abstention to its ‘inferiors’ while itself possessing thousands of warheads, and not even blink. It can invade with unquestioning impunity (and a small dash of massaged data) while censuring any other nation’s “evil” invasion of another. There is a double standard: one for us and ours, and another for everyone else. Most of our countrymen are too chauvinistic (see original def.) to marvel at the extravagant hubris of it all.
Steve: As an integral part of the United Nations we have tried, as a country, to limit the widespread manufacture of nuclear weapons.
NS: Who takes serious a, “do as we say, not as we do,” sermon? Especially when, the preacher holds the title for ‘country most likely to invade yours; unless you got nukes.’
Steve: So, the United Nations tries to mediate disputes with treaties and so on. We are part of the United Nations.
NS: Just a “part”? Not a permanent member of the controlling 5 member Security Counsel? No extra weight had in being sole super power: economically, culturally, and militarily? “Mediation” requires some degree of being non-partisan, uninvolved. Put a 5 foot shark in a 50gal aquarium, and let him mediate among the goldfish.
NS (Nuclear Sunset)
-
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: December 12th, 2009, 4:48 pm
Replies
Here are replies. Being non-partisan has a different feel in the United Nations. We try, as permanent members of the security council, to
mediate disputes with other members and members of the council.
The general assembly is kind of like the House of Representatives, and the security council is like the Senate, but has more power to resolve disputes. Try as we might, we do look after the world problems, but politics of our own nationhood gets in the way at times.
The shark in the goldfish tank is an extreme metaphor. If true, it would be tasty. However, there are barracudas in there, too, to extend the metaphor. So, sharks, watch out. This is kind of what Dubya assumed...
Dubya thought that all were goldfish, but there were shape-shifting barracudas in the tank as well. Iraq jammed up much more than sandstorms.
mediate disputes with other members and members of the council.
The general assembly is kind of like the House of Representatives, and the security council is like the Senate, but has more power to resolve disputes. Try as we might, we do look after the world problems, but politics of our own nationhood gets in the way at times.
The shark in the goldfish tank is an extreme metaphor. If true, it would be tasty. However, there are barracudas in there, too, to extend the metaphor. So, sharks, watch out. This is kind of what Dubya assumed...
Dubya thought that all were goldfish, but there were shape-shifting barracudas in the tank as well. Iraq jammed up much more than sandstorms.
-
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: December 12th, 2009, 4:48 pm
Addendum
Addendum:
OBAMA SUBMITS RUSSIA NUCLEAR TREATY TO SENATE
From the Associated Press:
May 13, 2010
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration has submitted to the Senate a nuclear arms treaty reached with Russia last month.
President Barack Obama and Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev signed the deal to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Control Treaty. If ratified by both countries, the deal would slash the former Cold War rivals' warhead arsenals by nearly one-third.
Ratification in the Senate will require 67 of the 100 possible votes. That means Obama will need support from Republicans, something he has found hard to come by on other issues. The deal has been held up as improvement in U.S.-Russian relations and failure to ratify it would be a setback.
Obama and Medvedev discussed the treaty and other issues in a telephone call Thursday.
OBAMA SUBMITS RUSSIA NUCLEAR TREATY TO SENATE
From the Associated Press:
May 13, 2010
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration has submitted to the Senate a nuclear arms treaty reached with Russia last month.
President Barack Obama and Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev signed the deal to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Control Treaty. If ratified by both countries, the deal would slash the former Cold War rivals' warhead arsenals by nearly one-third.
Ratification in the Senate will require 67 of the 100 possible votes. That means Obama will need support from Republicans, something he has found hard to come by on other issues. The deal has been held up as improvement in U.S.-Russian relations and failure to ratify it would be a setback.
Obama and Medvedev discussed the treaty and other issues in a telephone call Thursday.
-
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: December 12th, 2009, 4:48 pm
Re: Life in the Horse Lane: More Discussion on Nuclear Weap
The US Senate just ratified the new nuke arms treaty. It took seven months to get it ratified. So, now it is law & official foreign policy.
-
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: December 12th, 2009, 4:48 pm
Re: Life in the Horse Lane: More Discussion on Nuclear Weap
North Korea just recently, within the past week, set off a third underground nuclear bomb test. We've negotiated with North Korea & they have defiantly set off another device.
I wonder if China would do anything to dissuade North Korea from another repeat performance. It is just dangerous in that close in area to set off underground nuclear tests.
North Korea has proved that they can set one off. Now they need to quit doing it. The
radiation being released is just too dangerous. At least, that's my take on it.
Then there's the continued threat of Iran getting ready to set off a nuclear bomb. We probably can't prevent them from doing so, no matter what some folks think. The Iranians
claim they are only using the fuel for nuclear power. Yet they won't let the United Nations
experts come in and verify that "fact". What's up with that!?
I wonder if China would do anything to dissuade North Korea from another repeat performance. It is just dangerous in that close in area to set off underground nuclear tests.
North Korea has proved that they can set one off. Now they need to quit doing it. The
radiation being released is just too dangerous. At least, that's my take on it.
Then there's the continued threat of Iran getting ready to set off a nuclear bomb. We probably can't prevent them from doing so, no matter what some folks think. The Iranians
claim they are only using the fuel for nuclear power. Yet they won't let the United Nations
experts come in and verify that "fact". What's up with that!?
-
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: December 12th, 2009, 4:48 pm
Re: Life in the Horse Lane: More Discussion on Nuclear Weap
China joined the United Nations Security Council in sanctions against North Korea's
nuclear program this week.
nuclear program this week.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests