One difference from the Cold War era to today is that some theocratic Muslim countries are inching their way towards building nuclear weapons. Their leaders may not have the same qualms about themselves and their people dying because in their religion they would be considered martyrs when they die in a nuclear exchange with us infidels. Martyrdom for them is a one way ticket direct to heaven. It’s not that far fetched. We have seen enough suicide attacks (e.g. 9/11) to know that some of them would relish the opportunity to unleash nuclear weapons on the West.
I’m talking about whatever nation you live in. You don’t get to choose whether or not you have to fight. Part of the bargain for being allowed to live in a society is the requirement to fight for it if required — even if you are against the war. If you don’t like it you can vote for a government that’s more in line with your values or leave the country.
I can’t believe you find a moral equivalency between the so called Anglo-American empire and the Nazis. You know… the regime that tried to incinerate an entire race in ovens.
And what’s your issue with empires? Is there any place on Earth that wasn’t conquered and reconquered many times, over tens of thousands of years? With very few exceptions, there are no true “natives” anywhere on Earth. The natives everyone feels bad about conquered the land they’re on from people before them.
Any weapon that uses radioactivity is a nuclear weapon, no matter if there is some organization that says otherwise or not. I do not have to use only your definitions. And mentioning bananas and humans as ''radioactive'' is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
I suggest you look at the sources of funding for any studies. I suspect much of it comes from the Pentagon or other U.S. government funding sources. Since 1945 most funding for scientific research has been from them. I do not automatically believe any scientific report. I prefer to check the sources of funding for it and the connections of the scientists involved before assuming it is credible.
My understanding is that you generally cannot distinguish a nuclear armed ICBM from a conventionally armed equivalent. For this reason any incoming missile is likely to be judged as nuclear armed in a deterrence scenario (of use them or loose them); and a retaliatory strike could launch nuclear against a non-nuclear missile. This why some of us argue for ending launch on warning policy to make the world slightly safer.
Did you check the link I provided? That claim has nothing to do with any ''conspiracy nutbars''. It rests on testimony from an eyewitness.
Eyewitness tesimony by someone who was there is usually sufficient for a conviction in a criminal trial, so it is enough to at least require a through and unbiased investigation, not arrogant dismissal just because the accused in this case is a government, not just an individual.
There is plenty of evidence. Google ''depleted uranium'' for many articles on the use of radioactive artillery shells in several recent wars. Iraqi doctors are seeing thousands of cases per year more than before the American invasion of miscarriages, stillbirths, birth defects and childhood cancer due to this American weapon.
Vladimir Putin has insisted on having the largest stockpile in the world. Russia is the foil to any reduction efforts. Lack of confidence in the American nuclear umbrella is already spurring proliferation talk in Europe. Reagan understood the need to negotiate from a strong position. Contemporary American weakness is not creating peace.
Sometimes disaster can be averted by a few people. But what happens when we don't have those kind of people when we need them?
See Seymour Hersh's article on how some American military (without Biden's knowledge) cleverly averted a more serious reaction by Israel to Iran "attack."
All this is obsolete. The modern form of nuclear war has already been waged by the U.S. against several countries, including Iraq, Afganistan, Bosnia, Syria, and others where so-called ''depleted uranium'' weapons have permanently contaminated large areas with radioactive dust. The sabotage of the Soviet nuclear reactor at Chernobyl by British agents in 1986 was also an act of nuclear war.
The rulers of America in the Pentagon are insane, but not stupid. They figured out a way to wage a nuclear war without anybody knowing it. Just trump up some excuse for a ''conventional'' war, then deploy low intensity nuclear weapons to have the same long term effect as a nuclear bomb explosion.
They call such covert nuclear weapons an ''Area Interdiction'' weapon and the aim is to render any potential enemy country permanently unable to fight against America ever again because forever after, whoever lives there will have to expend much of their energy and resources caring for the sick.
In contrast to modern nuclear methods of poisoning any potential enemy country with radioactive dust, the old-style nuclear weapon, a World War Two type bomb intended to make a big explosion, is unreliable. The physics of such a bomb is very poorly understood and it fails to detonate so frequently that in any war scenario it could not be depended on.
One difference from the Cold War era to today is that some theocratic Muslim countries are inching their way towards building nuclear weapons. Their leaders may not have the same qualms about themselves and their people dying because in their religion they would be considered martyrs when they die in a nuclear exchange with us infidels. Martyrdom for them is a one way ticket direct to heaven. It’s not that far fetched. We have seen enough suicide attacks (e.g. 9/11) to know that some of them would relish the opportunity to unleash nuclear weapons on the West.
There is no important parallel between DU weapons (used for piercing tanks etc.) and a nuclear weapon detonation weapon. Do not conflate them.
Apropos threats.
https://ufointel.wordpress.com/2024/04/27/ufo-video-2/
I’m talking about whatever nation you live in. You don’t get to choose whether or not you have to fight. Part of the bargain for being allowed to live in a society is the requirement to fight for it if required — even if you are against the war. If you don’t like it you can vote for a government that’s more in line with your values or leave the country.
I can’t believe you find a moral equivalency between the so called Anglo-American empire and the Nazis. You know… the regime that tried to incinerate an entire race in ovens.
And what’s your issue with empires? Is there any place on Earth that wasn’t conquered and reconquered many times, over tens of thousands of years? With very few exceptions, there are no true “natives” anywhere on Earth. The natives everyone feels bad about conquered the land they’re on from people before them.
Any weapon that uses radioactivity is a nuclear weapon, no matter if there is some organization that says otherwise or not. I do not have to use only your definitions. And mentioning bananas and humans as ''radioactive'' is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
I suggest you look at the sources of funding for any studies. I suspect much of it comes from the Pentagon or other U.S. government funding sources. Since 1945 most funding for scientific research has been from them. I do not automatically believe any scientific report. I prefer to check the sources of funding for it and the connections of the scientists involved before assuming it is credible.
My understanding is that you generally cannot distinguish a nuclear armed ICBM from a conventionally armed equivalent. For this reason any incoming missile is likely to be judged as nuclear armed in a deterrence scenario (of use them or loose them); and a retaliatory strike could launch nuclear against a non-nuclear missile. This why some of us argue for ending launch on warning policy to make the world slightly safer.
Did you check the link I provided? That claim has nothing to do with any ''conspiracy nutbars''. It rests on testimony from an eyewitness.
Eyewitness tesimony by someone who was there is usually sufficient for a conviction in a criminal trial, so it is enough to at least require a through and unbiased investigation, not arrogant dismissal just because the accused in this case is a government, not just an individual.
There is plenty of evidence. Google ''depleted uranium'' for many articles on the use of radioactive artillery shells in several recent wars. Iraqi doctors are seeing thousands of cases per year more than before the American invasion of miscarriages, stillbirths, birth defects and childhood cancer due to this American weapon.
Vladimir Putin has insisted on having the largest stockpile in the world. Russia is the foil to any reduction efforts. Lack of confidence in the American nuclear umbrella is already spurring proliferation talk in Europe. Reagan understood the need to negotiate from a strong position. Contemporary American weakness is not creating peace.
Sometimes disaster can be averted by a few people. But what happens when we don't have those kind of people when we need them?
See Seymour Hersh's article on how some American military (without Biden's knowledge) cleverly averted a more serious reaction by Israel to Iran "attack."
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/a-military-solution-to-a-political
All this is obsolete. The modern form of nuclear war has already been waged by the U.S. against several countries, including Iraq, Afganistan, Bosnia, Syria, and others where so-called ''depleted uranium'' weapons have permanently contaminated large areas with radioactive dust. The sabotage of the Soviet nuclear reactor at Chernobyl by British agents in 1986 was also an act of nuclear war.
https://hermajestysothersecretservice.blogspot.com/
The rulers of America in the Pentagon are insane, but not stupid. They figured out a way to wage a nuclear war without anybody knowing it. Just trump up some excuse for a ''conventional'' war, then deploy low intensity nuclear weapons to have the same long term effect as a nuclear bomb explosion.
They call such covert nuclear weapons an ''Area Interdiction'' weapon and the aim is to render any potential enemy country permanently unable to fight against America ever again because forever after, whoever lives there will have to expend much of their energy and resources caring for the sick.
In contrast to modern nuclear methods of poisoning any potential enemy country with radioactive dust, the old-style nuclear weapon, a World War Two type bomb intended to make a big explosion, is unreliable. The physics of such a bomb is very poorly understood and it fails to detonate so frequently that in any war scenario it could not be depended on.