This was a headline on the internet news on the 26th January 2008. Now that raises a major issue for me. Have any of these military advisors read their history and the effects of nuclear weapons as a whole? Look back at Hiroshima and Nagasaki please. Then look at the effects of a Nuclear power station leaking or malfunctioning and the fall out from that. The Chernobyl plant caused fallout damage right the way to the UK which effects lasted for years. Now think of the power in a nuclear weapon and the devastating effect the use of just one would have on the planet. Are our politicians and advisors really so dense that they can't see the destruction of human life as we know it is imminent if nuclear weapons were to be used? And why can't they learn from history and see that the more they threaten to use these weapons the more the opposition will arm against such a use and with that merely increase the chances of these weapons being used. If you're in an argument in the street and keep shouting at your opponent then it will escalate to such an extent that eventually someone will get hurt or even killed. If, however, we walk away from it or try to stay calm and relaxed with our opponent, then the situation would be diffused and a peaceful solution found. We may even leave as friends and allies. Being an ex- security officer I have been in situations like that many times and have never yet had to result to the use of physical force in any confrontation I had to deal with. So in my opinion it's better to stay cool, calm and look at things logically and rationally than jump in with both feet and cause the situation to escalate to an unmanageable proportion. I know which I prefer.
Not only that but did we not sign the NATO agreement for the purpose of preventing just such a thing happening? This extract from the agreement clearly states what our politicians choose to ignore for their own agenda.



I have to question the sanity of those who make the kind of decisions that could easily mean the total destruction of life as we know it. Why do politicians never look at the bigger picture and the consequences their actions may have on the rest of the world? Is it just me or are we so selfdestructive that we can't think beyond the immediate effect a decision might have?

This post has been edited by cuddleupnow: Jan 28 2008, 08:52 AM

It is now the policy of NATO to use nuclear weapons to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. This policy is not saying NATO will use nuclear weapons in response to an attack with nuclear weapons, or even in response to an attack with conventional forces, or even to preempt an imminent nuclear attack, but will use nuclear weapons to prevent a country from developing the technologies they imagine might be used to make nuclear weapons which they imagine might be used to attack another NATO country at some point in the indefinite future. They further claim that this policy of the preventive use of nuclear weapons is all designed to protect civilisation from the barbarians at the gate. This policy statement is not the product of responsible and sober world leaders, but rather the product of a group of homocidal maniacs so insane with hubris they think they can start a nuclear war and at the same time consider themselves the saviors of western civilisation.

Without a link to the entire story, the quotation appears to mean that many generals are advocating the military planning of how to launch pre-emptive attacks, not advocating that such attacks be made. Contingency planning is a part of military preparedness, and I am sure there are plans in some Pentagon file cabinet for all sorts of events.

And another view of history would show that the threat of nuclear weapons was, during the cold war, a real deterrent to their use, from the blockade of Berlin to the Cuban missile crises.
Z

Sooner or later we are going to blow ourselves up. Its inevitable, we can't put the Genie back into the bottle. With the break up of the Soviet block countries, and all the loose nukes floating around, its only going to be a matter of time.

The amount of nuclear stuff laying around, and some of which is not accounted for, should give us all concern, Vicki. Since the future does not look good for other reasons (oil, climate change, fanaticism) the temptation to use nuclear devices can only increase as does the dispair.
Z

You are Very right Z.

If we don't end up fighting for oil or for food, consider the potential for crises in China and India, where the increased wealth is not trickling down to a large number of people (i.e., peasant farmers who are already, from all accounts, rioting in Chinese villages and are being put down by force), and both of these nations have missiles and bombs enough to do a lot of damage in the wrong hands.
Mene, mene........
Z

Join me in a round of the "Merry Minuet" -

They're rioting in Africa
They're starving in Spain
There's hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain
the Whole world is festering iwht unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don't like Anybody very much.



But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lucky day
Someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away



They're rioting in Africa
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't do to us
Will be done by our fellow Man


-- Sheldon Harnick @1958

It's a shame that humanity has sunk to such a level that we can't resolve conflict without causing such devastating harm. I may be an idealist but I keep hoping that someone somewhere in power will see sense and stop the madness before it's too late. Are we not here to learn and co-exist? Is the ideal to live and let live really so difficult to follow? A little tolerance and acceptance would go a long way towards a peaceful co-existance I think.