NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tennant/tennant14.html

What a way to bring about world peace. :rolleyes:

[url]
What a way to bring about world peace. :rolleyes:


I like it okay.

Haven't you realised by now, that nothing is barbarous by neocon standards, as long as it achieves their objectives.

Maybe if the US kills a few million Iranians, we can hold a conference to decide if it ever really happened.

I like it okay.

Do you think it's got anything to do with world peace though, or is it more a move to solidify US power (and I'm not asking whether or not it would succeed in either aim, just what you think the aim is)?

I invite those who consider using nuclear arms to come to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see, first hand, what happens when they are used.

Of course, out of the whole of the United States government, only the previous US ambassador, Sen Boxer (CA) and former President Carter have stopped by to see.

Neo-con stands for neo conservative now, pretty soon it will stand for new-convict.


Dropping nukes for peace...Bush should just use it as a slogan.

I'm always amazed where they get the nerve of calling others fascists.

Hey, I have an idea. Why not in the mean time just drop a bomb on North Korea, Lebanon, Syria, and everyone else who thinks the slightest bit bad about America? That'd work GREAT! *sarcasm*

Us dropping a nuclear bomb will ONLY lead to more war. Everyone remebers Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no matter what they think. If they see it happen again, see the suffering happen again, there is no doubt in my mind that they WILL unite against whomever caused the suffering.

Hey, I have an idea. Why not in the mean time just drop a bomb on North Korea, Lebanon, Syria, and everyone else who thinks the slightest bit bad about America? That'd work GREAT! *sarcasm*

Us dropping a nuclear bomb will ONLY lead to more war. Everyone remebers Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no matter what they think. If they see it happen again, see the suffering happen again, there is no doubt in my mind that they WILL unite against whomever caused the suffering.
You ever get the feeling sometimes that these people heard Randy Newman's song and took it seriously?

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around even our old friends put us down
Lets drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-But are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so lets surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So lets drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

Erm... wouldn't it be a bit stupid and lead to many attacks on whatever country dropped the bomb?

You ever get the feeling sometimes that these people heard Randy Newman's song and took it seriously?

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around even our old friends put us down
Lets drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-But are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so lets surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So lets drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

That is a parody/sarcastic song, right? I can't exactly imagine Randy Newman actually thinking that... And besides. We don't have enough bombs to wipe out all of civilization besides the U.S.

Erm... wouldn't it be a bit stupid and lead to many attacks on whatever country dropped the bomb?

The thing is, if people think that the country has no qualms about dropping the bomb on one country, then obviously that country will have no qualms about dropping it on theirs. It's more a matter of survival to them, not retaliation.

That is a parody/sarcastic song, right? I can't exactly imagine Randy Newman actually thinking that... And besides. We don't have enough bombs to wipe out all of civilization besides the U.S.
Yes, that was a sarcastic song, a very, very sarcastic song.

And the US stockpile can destroy the world a few times over by itself, sadly. :(

Using atomic weapons would be incredibly dangerous to our regional allies, turn us in to a murdering pariah, and overall ruin any chance the US has of retaining its respect as a world leader over the next few decades. Ahmadinejad's already ruined their economy, so most Iranians are facing poverty, unemployment, and severe inflation as is...no need to worsen their suffering through an act of murderous aggression.

Honestly, it's not like they could vote to stop it because they'd probably end up being whipped to death or shot on trumped up charges. It makes a lot more sense to assassinate the people who are threats and spare the innocent people of Iran whose only ties to their nuclear program are that they live in the same country.

I'd have no problem with target airstrikes against nuclear facilities or assassinating key leaders in the regime, but a nuclear war would be nothing short of murder and totally unjustified in this situation.

Yes, that was a sarcastic song, a very, very sarcastic song.

And the US stockpile can destroy the world a few times over by itself, sadly. :(

Approximately 25k Nuclear warheads.... Yeah. I guess so. Damnit. Maybe we won't have a chimpanzee for a president when the bombs finally drop.

Hey, I have an idea. Why not in the mean time just drop a bomb on North Korea, Lebanon, Syria, and everyone else who thinks the slightest bit bad about America? That'd work GREAT! *sarcasm*

Us dropping a nuclear bomb will ONLY lead to more war. Everyone remebers Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no matter what they think. If they see it happen again, see the suffering happen again, there is no doubt in my mind that they WILL unite against whomever caused the suffering.

for one i don't think the EU would stand by and let the US murder millions of innocent civilians...
how about china? russia?


sounds like a great way to start WW3 if you ask me :-S
remember that violence only begets more violence

You ever get the feeling sometimes that these people heard Randy Newman's song and took it seriously?
snip
I can never take Randy Newman seriously anymore, not after that Family Guy episode where the world ends.

Wait .... since when do neo-cons have standards?

I can never take Randy Newman seriously anymore, not after that Family Guy episode where the world ends.

Left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot ...

Neo cons ??? what a new prisoner going to do to effect the world outside of the prison they are in ?


Your mad if you think EUROPE will do BALLS ALL about anything but talk alot.....

So when are the PEACE KEEPERS going to show up in Lebanon again ?

When are you going to finsh cleaning up Kosovo / Serbia etc. mess ?

Europe has NO balls to do much except whine alot about things...

send nasty letters..

And bitch a little more .

Iran and the rest of the world laughs their ass off at Europe..because you NEVER back up your words with action .

Great Britain is the only country in that part of the world with any stones what so ever...


Name ONE time Europe came through and did anything except destroy itself ?

the problem is that only the main nuclear powers see nuclear weapons (please don't say atomic, that's a different type of weapon) as detterents. the coutries developing nuclear arms, along w/ india and pakistan, consider nuclear weapons almost like a first-strike weapon. ever since the 60's we've believed in the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). what this guy is talking about is probably the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator(RNEP) that was under development at Los Alamos. Sadly, funding was dropped for FY2006 and the project will probably be mothballed for years. if anyone is interested in the RNEP, here's the site.http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm

Approximately 25k Nuclear warheads.... Yeah. I guess so. Damnit. Maybe we won't have a chimpanzee for a president when the bombs finally drop.

Oh, but we will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Zaius).

Approximately 25k Nuclear warheads.... Yeah. I guess so. Damnit. Maybe we won't have a chimpanzee for a president when the bombs finally drop.

No, we'll have an orangutan. But at least he'll be a doctor.

http://i4.tinypic.com/2n00ok7.jpg

Oh, but we will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Zaius).

Damnit, you beat me to it.

Isn't this from a Canadian newspaper? From a random op-ed columnist? Why is this ridiculous, irrelevant factoid getting this much attention?

That is a parody/sarcastic song, right? I can't exactly imagine Randy Newman actually thinking that... And besides. We don't have enough bombs to wipe out all of civilization besides the U.S.

ROFLMBLAO!

Yes. It's sarcastic. Randy Newman is known for his particularly piquant sarcasim, which, being from N'awlins, is the musical equivilant of a bottle of Avery Island nectar.

Wait .... since when do neo-cons have standards?

lmao

Isn't this from a Canadian newspaper?

I'm not sure I'd describe the Toronto Sun as a newspaper.

I invite those who consider using nuclear arms to come to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see, first hand, what happens when they are used.

Of course, out of the whole of the United States government, only the previous US ambassador, Sen Boxer (CA) and former President Carter have stopped by to see.

I've been to Hiroshima. I prefer what we did to the alternative - decades of suicidal resistance by every last man, woman, and child on the Japanese islands.

How can you rationalise using nuclear weapons against Iran. Even if Iran should get bombed (and it shouldn't) conventional weapons would do fine. People are way too happy to casually present the nuclear card, especially on the internet.

How can you rationalise using nuclear weapons against Iran. Even if Iran should get bombed (and it shouldn't) conventional weapons would do fine. People are way too happy to casually present the nuclear card, especially on the internet.

Oh, as for me, if I were in charge of the US, I would tell the EU that if Iran nukes something, it's their problem.

They sold them the centrifuges, so it's their problem.

Iran has a few missiles that can reach southern Europe, but not the US.

Once again, Europe's problem, not ours.

If Iran does what they've been talking about, and either use the threat of nuclear weapons to force Europe to take back the Jews, or they nuke Israel, or something else Europe holds dear, it's Europe's problem.

Once a few cities are blasted into rubble by Iranian nukes, don't come calling for help.

Using a nuke against Iran now would be too drastic a solution. However, it saddens me that the enforcement of the NPT has been so lax, especially by certain Asian and European countries. I think it would be wise for the US to draw a clear line in the sand: the next nation to try to obtain nuclear weapons without US permission will get nuked. Period. We should do our utmost to stop the proliferation of nukes, even if it includes such extravagant measures. We should also set a date for Iranian disarmament. If Iran refuses to comply, dropping some nukes might not be that far-fetched of an option.

How can you rationalise using nuclear weapons against Iran. Even if Iran should get bombed (and it shouldn't) conventional weapons would do fine. People are way too happy to casually present the nuclear card, especially on the internet.

Well, they are quite "light in the head."

Oh, as for me, if I were in charge of the US, I would tell the EU that if Iran nukes something, it's their problem.

They sold them the centrifuges, so it's their problem.

Iran has a few missiles that can reach southern Europe, but not the US.

Once again, Europe's problem, not ours.

If Iran does what they've been talking about, and either use the threat of nuclear weapons to force Europe to take back the Jews, or they nuke Israel, or something else Europe holds dear, it's Europe's problem.

Once a few cities are blasted into rubble by Iranian nukes, don't come calling for help.

Not quite the compassionate type, are we?

Name ONE time Europe came through and did anything except destroy itself ?

I don't know...creating western civilisation was pretty cool.

I've been to Hiroshima. I prefer what we did to the alternative - decades of suicidal resistance by every last man, woman, and child on the Japanese islands.

That myth has been refuted more times than I can count, not that that's related to this thread...

That myth has been refuted more times than I can count, not that that's related to this thread...

Not a myth, but not exactly correct either. It would have just been unbelievably bloody.

I would have liked a link to the original article that the OP article was criticizing...

I've been to Hiroshima. I prefer what we did to the alternative - decades of suicidal resistance by every last man, woman, and child on the Japanese islands.
I'm not even going to bring that point up because I am more than tired of those damn threads.

But to clarify, while I feel that the dropping of the bomb DID end the war, there was a very terrible cost that was paid for that. Those who advocate repeating that with even more powerful weapons had better DAMN well know what they are advocating.

The orginal article (That was refered to in the article reffernced in the OP) refers to some people being killed and that's just a fact of life. That is unaceptable to me once you see what that being killed actually means. If we use them, it better be because we have no choice in the matter.

Leave it to SUN Media to give Coren yet another soapbox. The pompous ass.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tennant/tennant14.html

What a way to bring about world peace. :rolleyes:

Nuking Iran would be counter-productive and an inefficient use of force. The better alternative is to instigate regime change. Most young Iranians already hate the mullah-cracy. Many Iranians are also angry that the last election was rigged by Khamanei to ensure his hand-picked butt-monkey A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket won. Find a way to support a revolution in Iran, let the Iranians themselves do the actual fighting, and then enjoy the sight of Khamanei and the rest of his gang of bombheads lined up against a wall and shot.

Yes, that was a sarcastic song, a very, very sarcastic song.

And the US stockpile can destroy the world a few times over by itself, sadly. :(

Approximately 25k Nuclear warheads.... Yeah. I guess so. Damnit. Maybe we won't have a chimpanzee for a president when the bombs finally drop.
A visual aid. (http://www.truemajority.org/bensbbs/)

Not quite the compassionate type, are we?

You're expecting compassion from Mr. "Sterilize t3h 3b1l |\/|0zl3|\/| 80rg ©0lle©71\/3"?

Oh, as for me, if I were in charge of the US, I would tell the EU that if Iran nukes something, it's their problem.

They sold them the centrifuges, so it's their problem.

Iran has a few missiles that can reach southern Europe, but not the US.

Once again, Europe's problem, not ours.

If Iran does what they've been talking about, and either use the threat of nuclear weapons to force Europe to take back the Jews, or they nuke Israel, or something else Europe holds dear, it's Europe's problem.

Once a few cities are blasted into rubble by Iranian nukes, don't come calling for help.
Since that's not going to happen, you can tell Europe whatever you want.#

I notice how you have used you usual red herring strategy. Still can't rationalise using nuclear weapons against Iran, can you?

You're expecting compassion from Mr. "Sterilize t3h 3b1l |\/|0zl3|\/| 80rg ©0lle©71\/3"?
Yeah, it's like requesting embroidered skirts from Satan.

I notice how you have used you usual red herring strategy. Still can't rationalise using nuclear weapons against Iran, can you?

Sure can. I could use the same rationale we had during the Cold War.

If they use one, we waste the whole place with nuclear weapons.

A well approved and well accepted policy for decades.

A visual aid. (http://www.truemajority.org/bensbbs/)

We're so f*cking screwed

We're so f*cking screwed

Aren't you amazed that the US has reduced its arsenal from over 50,000 nuclear weapons down to 3500?

Do you really think it's a good idea that while we're reducing our nuclear warheads (by over 90 percent) that other nations should step out of the NNPT and go ahead and build more nukes?

Really?

Aren't you amazed that the US has reduced its arsenal from over 50,000 nuclear weapons down to 3500?

Do you really think it's a good idea that while we're reducing our nuclear warheads (by over 90 percent) that other nations should step out of the NNPT and go ahead and build more nukes?

Really?

Kimchi, I was wondering...

those 3500, are they not more powerfull and include weaponry with multiple warheads?

Do you know?

Sure can. I could use the same rationale we had during the Cold War.

If they use one, we waste the whole place with nuclear weapons.

A well approved and well accepted policy for decades.

Notice I bolded the word "if." For such a short word, it packs a wallop. There's a big difference between nuking Iran if they nuke us first and nuking Iran pre-emptively. If we nuke Iran pre-emptively, it will be the beginning of an evil USA. People will see it as equivalent to, if not far worse than, Rome's destruction of Carthage, and that's the point at which many historians believe Rome went sour. Trying to instigate a revolution and turn a hostile Iran into a friendly one seems like a pretty sound strategy to me as long as we don't screw it up again.

If Iran sends a nuke our way, and D.C. ends up a smoldering crater, well, we'll just have to move the capital somewhere else, mourn the dead, and turn Tehran into a glass parking lot. And the world will have to understand. Piss on those who don't.

If Iran sits with its thumb up its ass instead of launching a nuke, and we turn Tehran into a glass parking lot, all of a sudden we're the bad guys. At best, the world hates our government and cuts us off; at worst, more nukes fly.

Aren't you amazed that the US has reduced its arsenal from over 50,000 nuclear weapons down to 3500?

Do you really think it's a good idea that while we're reducing our nuclear warheads (by over 90 percent) that other nations should step out of the NNPT and go ahead and build more nukes?

Really?

Firstly, I have to agree with statement below quote. Secondly, we still have MUCH more nuclear weapons than anyone else, and still enough to blow up the world ten times over.

Kimchi, I was wondering...

those 3500, are they not more powerfull and include weaponry with multiple warheads?

Do you know?

That's the total number of WARHEADS.

Do you realize that literally hundreds of above ground nuclear detonations, most far larger than the Hiroshima bomb, have already taken place? Of the US tests, most of them in Nevada?

Firstly, I have to agree with statement below quote. Secondly, we still have MUCH more nuclear weapons than anyone else, and still enough to blow up the world ten times over.

If you knew anything about the inverse square law, and how it applies to blast effects, you would know how stupid your statement sounds.

Mmmm... whirled peas....

Mmmm... whirled peas....

Now look, boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches, but I got a pretty fair idea that something doggone important is goin' on back there. And I got a fair idea the kinda personal emotions that some of you fellas may be thinkin'. Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about nuclear combat. I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a-countin' on you and by golly, we ain't about to let 'em down. I tell you something else, if this thing turns out to be half as important as I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for ever' last one of you regardless of your race, color or your creed. Now let's get this thing on the hump - we got some flyin' to do.

Kimchi, I was wondering...

those 3500, are they not more powerfull and include weaponry with multiple warheads?

Do you know?

Actually, we've generally gotten rid of our big warheads in favour of smaller, more accurate ones. While true MIRVs remain tantalizingly out of reach technologically, we've still developed multiple warhead missiles that can destroy any possible target without the wasted fissionables and overkill of 1960's era 10 megaton citybusters.

"Smaller and smarter" has been our nuclear project catchcry as much as our conventional one.

That's the total number of WARHEADS.

Do you realize that literally hundreds of above ground nuclear detonations, most far larger than the Hiroshima bomb, have already taken place? Of the US tests, most of them in Nevada?

nation number of above ground detonations years total yield
United States 216 1945-1962 153.8 mt
U.S.S.R. 214 1949-1962 281.6 mt
United Kingdom 21 1952-1958 10.8 mt
France 46 1960-1974 11.4 mt
P.R.C. 23 1964-1980 21.5 mt
South Africa 1 1979 0.003 mt

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/atest00.html

Do you realize that literally hundreds of above ground nuclear detonations, most far larger than the Hiroshima bomb, have already taken place? Of the US tests, most of them in Nevada?
Yes, and the downwind'ers are paying for it.

Yes, and the downwind'ers are paying for it.

My point is:

Between all the nuclear nations, well over a thousand above ground nuclear detonations, most far larger than Hiroshima, have already taken place. In some cases, thousands of times larger than Hiroshima.

And yet the world was NOT blown up several times over. Not even close, as you can see.

And yet, with only 3500 warheads, most under 200 kilotons (about 10 times Hiroshima each or less), the US is, in this thread, assessed at being able to "blow up the world several times over".

That statement is obviously false. We're talking about two to three times the number of detonations that have already taken place.

Downwind fallout, yes. But as a recent study indicates, far less death (by an order of magnitude) than originally predicted.

While any death is tragic, it doesn't fall into the category of "the whole world several times over".

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=mj02norris

DK - thats 3800 by 2007....

Unlike the counting rules agreed to in the SALT and START treaties, only operationally deployed strategic warheads will be counted. Warheads removed from weapon systems in overhaul are not included in the projected levels.

hmmmm....so what about the other catagories?

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=mj02norris

DK - thats 3800 by 2007....

Unlike the counting rules agreed to in the SALT and START treaties, only operationally deployed strategic warheads will be counted. Warheads removed from weapon systems in overhaul are not included in the projected levels.

hmmmm....so what about the other catagories?

My argument still stands:

Even if it's 4000 still around, that's not "the ability to blow up the world several times over".

My point is:

Between all the nuclear nations, well over a thousand above ground nuclear detonations, most far larger than Hiroshima, have already taken place. In some cases, thousands of times larger than Hiroshima.

And yet the world was NOT blown up several times over. Not even close, as you can see.

And yet, with only 3500 warheads, most under 200 kilotons (about 10 times Hiroshima each or less), the US is, in this thread, assessed at being able to "blow up the world several times over".

That statement is obviously false. We're talking about two to three times the number of detonations that have already taken place.

Downwind fallout, yes. But as a recent study indicates, far less death (by an order of magnitude) than originally predicted.

While any death is tragic, it doesn't fall into the category of "the whole world several times over".
Um... you DO know the difference between making holes in the middle of my home state and making holes in the middle of populated areas, correct?

Not to mention the whole nuclear winter bit should everything go off at once.

Of course, strictly speaking, of course the US can't blow up the planet 7 times over, releasing every nuclear device in a criticle way wouldn't even dent this hunk of rock, it'll wipe humans and a lot of the ecosystem out, but won't touch rock.

Um... you DO know the difference between making holes in the middle of my home state and making holes in the middle of populated areas, correct?

Not to mention the whole nuclear winter bit should everything go off at once.

Of course, strictly speaking, of course the US can't blow up the planet 7 times over, releasing every nuclear device in a criticle way wouldn't even dent this hunk of rock, it'll wipe humans and a lot of the ecosystem out, but won't touch rock.

3500 is not "blowing up the world several times over" even if you blow up the world's major cities. And nuclear winter was a scenario if the US and USSR blew up all of their 50,000 warheads each, not 3500 warheads. There's a definite threshold.

Still not blowing up the world several times over. Probably not even destroying civilization.

Rough times, yes. Dead people, yes. But not the "oh noes, we'll all die and the world will freeze and the survivors will be hideous mutants"

My argument still stands:

Even if it's 4000 still around, that's not "the ability to blow up the world several times over".

Thats the point DK...its not.

All the NPR is doing is reclassifying, moving stock and rebranding.

With regard to a pre-emptive strike on Iran by the US....not a good idea.

Bye Bye US.

Not through military means though....but sanctions and blockades. Are Americans ready to live like the North Koreans? With the added spice of an armed population?

Things could get pretty dicey.

Thats the point DK...its not.

All the NPR is doing is reclassifying, moving stock and rebranding.

The US disarmament involves dismantling warheads and destroying launch vehicles. You can't really retaliate with a plutonium pit and the rest of the warhead missing.


With regard to a pre-emptive strike on Iran by the US....not a good idea.
Never said that. But some say it's not OK to use nuclear weapons against Iran at all.

I'm more than happy to vaporize everyone living there now if Iran uses one first.

It's the same policy we had with the USSR. Use one, and we blow your whole country away at once.

And it worked.

On the Nuclear Winter issue, that almost certainly wouldn't happen even if we still had the 50 000. Maximum destructiveness is acheived by airbursting nukes, which causes little or no fallout and dust throw. The only groundbursts anyone would set off would be the attempts to destroy enemy command and control bunkers and other hardened facilities, and there just aren't all that many of those.

The US disarmament involves dismantling warheads and destroying launch vehicles. You can't really retaliate with a plutonium pit and the rest of the warhead missing.



Never said that. But some say it's not OK to use nuclear weapons against Iran at all.

I'm more than happy to vaporize everyone living there now if Iran uses one first.

It's the same policy we had with the USSR. Use one, and we blow your whole country away at once.

And it worked.


Pits - sure but that is not what I am talking about. Rebranding....from operationaly deployed to responsive force warheads....oh look problem solved.

Nuking Iran - that was not aimed at you in particliar..just me throwing in my 2p's worth.

I figured you were not into pre-emptive strikes...I don't know where you get this reputation from as a gun wielding nuke hurling loonatic...:p

I figured you were not into pre-emptive strikes...I don't know where you get this reputation from as a gun wielding nuke hurling loonatic...:p

I am a gun wielder. Yet I don't go around shooting people. And I would hurl nukes wholesale, but only under the appropriate pretext.

I have considered hypothetical means (non-nuclear) to commit genocide, but that doesn't mean I want to run out and do it right now.

Think about it this way. All women have the equipment to be prostitutes, but that doesn't mean that all of them are going to run out and be prostitutes.

Not through military means though....but sanctions and blockades. Are Americans ready to live like the North Koreans? With the added spice of an armed population?

Things could get pretty dicey.

Of all the countries in the world, the US is probably the only one that could get by with a decent standard of living in a total isolationist situation. There'd be a decline in living standards, for certain, but not total collapse.

Of all the countries in the world, the US is probably the only one that could get by with a decent standard of living in a total isolationist situation. There'd be a decline in living standards, for certain, but not total collapse.

Can the US produce enough oil to be self sufficient?

Can the US produce enough oil to be self sufficient?

Probably not.

The problem with sanctions is this:

Not everyone will participate. There is plenty of historical precedence to show this.

The US economy is about 70 percent internal, 30 percent external (foreign trade). That's a big hit to the US, but also a big hit to other countries.

Sure, we owe the world a lot of money. But if we suddenly stopped paying, the banking systems of the other countries would collapse overnight.

Have fun with your revolutions after that.

Probably not.

The problem with sanctions is this:

Not everyone will participate. There is plenty of historical precedence to show this.

The US economy is about 70 percent internal, 30 percent external (foreign trade). That's a big hit to the US, but also a big hit to other countries.

Sure, we owe the world a lot of money. But if we suddenly stopped paying, the banking systems of the other countries would collapse overnight.

Have fun with your revolutions after that.

If you nuke the middle east then its a fairly safe bet that the middle eastern nations that provide most of the worlds oil will participate. The US can survive the sanctioning of most things but oil will bring it to it's knees. It is too heavily reliant on the black stuff, after all having large food reserves in the farming areas of central USA is no use to the large populatiob centers on the coast if you don't have the oil to transport it to them.

If you nuke the middle east then its a fairly safe bet that the middle eastern nations that provide most of the worlds oil will participate. The US can survive the sanctioning of most things but oil will bring it to it's knees. It is too heavily reliant on the black stuff, after all having large food reserves in the farming areas of central USA is no use to the large populatiob centers on the coast if you don't have the oil to transport it to them.

And when the banking systems of the world collapse under the default of US debt, the rest of the world plunges into revolution.

Good move.

And when the banking systems of the world collapse under the default of US debt, the rest of the world plunges into revolution.

Good move.

The US is important economically but the rest of the world will survive without it. And after the collapse of the US as a power we can come in and strip mine the place to pay for the debts you defaulted on :)

I invite those who consider using nuclear arms to come to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see, first hand, what happens when they are used.

Of course, out of the whole of the United States government, only the previous US ambassador, Sen Boxer (CA) and former President Carter have stopped by to see.

How about everyone who whines about how evil the A-bombs were go to every country the Japanese ever invaded, and look up a little about how the locals were treated.
Unless we have all just forgotten about Nanking, The Bataan Death March, and everything else.
Or how about the death toll an invasion of Japan would have caused, on both sides. Millions dead.
Only a fool would think that the death of millions of people would be better than the use of the two A-bombs.

How about you read some history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

What do you think this guy would think?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1a/LeonardGSiffleet.jpg/174px-LeonardGSiffleet.jpg

The US is important economically but the rest of the world will survive without it. And after the collapse of the US as a power we can come in and strip mine the place to pay for the debts you defaulted on :)

No, the rest of the world would be collapsing with us.

Like me, you would probably be shooting out of your bedroom window at looters and rioters, guarding the last of your food.

No, the rest of the world would be collapsing with us.

Like me, you would probably be shooting out of your bedroom window at looters and rioters, guarding the last of your food.

not in the UK...they'll be doing that to the local kabab shop...

No, the rest of the world would be collapsing with us.

Like me, you would probably be shooting out of your bedroom window at looters and rioters, guarding the last of your food.

Why would it collpase? The money would simply be spent in other places, importing the goods we need from elsewhere. Like I say, the US is important but not irreplacable.

Why would it collpase? The money would simply be spent in other places, importing the goods we need from elsewhere. Like I say, the US is important but not irreplacable.

Foreign banks are holding (in essence, not having) trillions of dollars in US debt.

The money is in the US. It wouldn't come back, and the promise of the interest alone is a staggering income for those banks. Which would evaporate.

The investors who held those notes would be cleaned out in an instant.

The economic systems of those countries would go into free fall.

We're all connected at the hip through the banking systems.

Why would it collpase? The money would simply be spent in other places, importing the goods we need from elsewhere. Like I say, the US is important but not irreplacable.

Because in his world vision, America the Beautiful is America the Never Wrong and America the Lynchpin of Existence. He couldn't imagine the world going on without the United States as an economic entity but the thing is, political pressure after nuking Iran without justification is going to be enough to make diamond out of coal. And any nation caught trading with a post "n00k t3h 3b1l |\/|0zl3|\/|z" United States is going to suffer accordingly.

Once news reaches of how Iran has a mushroom cloud wafting from it, China of course is going to be pissed at how a potential oil source has gone foom and nix its artificial support of the dollar. And boy that's going to really be a sledgehammer to the testicles of Uncle Sam.

Can the US produce enough oil to be self sufficient?

No, but it can provide itself with enough energy to keep the lights on across the country, even without oil. Probably a painful time period where the transition occurs to other fuel sources, but if a total embargo were placed on the US, the country would survive.

Nowhere did I say that a situation with a totally isolated US woud be pain free.

And boy that's going to really be a sledgehammer to the testicles of Uncle Sam.

Your ignorance of world economics is astonishing.

If the US defaults on its debt, the banking systems around the world will collapse. And not because we're something special, as you seem to imply that I think. But because so much is owed, promised, and the systems COUNT on it.

It's not like Brazil defaulting on something. And it's more like you cutting off your own testicles and burning them in front of your face (as if Hugh Despenser had done it to himself).

And you can't be arsed to read the thread and note that I'm not in favor of a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran.

Of course you can't - you love to kneejerk and make asinine accusations without merit. It's your style of posting.

Of course you can't - you love to kneejerk and make asinine accusations without merit. It's your style of posting.

Before you make evaluations of people's posting habits, you might want to check yours out first. Declaring sexual gratification over killing Muslims and then trying to pass out a mass sterilization as reasoned and rational thought ranks significantly higher on the Assinine scale than me pointing out how you'd be part of the crowd getting hard over mushroom clouding Tehran. It goes hand and hand with your wet dream of reducing the world population of Muslims after all.

No, but it can provide itself with enough energy to keep the lights on across the country, even without oil. Probably a painful time period where the transition occurs to other fuel sources, but if a total embargo were placed on the US, the country would survive.

Nowhere did I say that a situation with a totally isolated US woud be pain free.

But you would struggle to transport food around the counrty without oil and that would probably be the major issue.

Declaring sexual gratification over killing Muslims and then trying to pass out a mass sterilization as reasoned and rational thought ranks significantly higher on the Assinine scale than me pointing out how you'd be part of the crowd getting hard over mushroom clouding Tehran. It goes hand and hand with your wet dream of reducing the world population of Muslims after all.

Never declared sexual gratification over it. I merely proposed it as a technical solution to a technical problem.

Does discussing all possible hypotheticals count as asinine? No.

Does failing to read the thread and seeing that I don't support something that you say I do count as asisine? Most certainly.

But you would struggle to transport food around the counrty without oil and that would probably be the major issue.

Not to mention thanks to the lobbying of the petroleum industry, practical and efficient alternative energy sources that can apply to transportation and mass power output is either next to nonexistent or spread out thinly.

Of course economic woes are the least of the worries if Tehran was nuked without justification.

Really, though, how can we peacefully deal with Iran?

Really, though, how can we peacefully deal with Iran?

By dealing peacefully with as you do with other regionl hegemons

Not to mention thanks to the lobbying of the petroleum industry, practical and efficient alternative energy sources that can apply to transportation and mass power output is either next to nonexistent or spread out thinly.

As long as you still use electricity (and oppose the burning of coal and the use of nuclear power, which are the only current viable alternatives) and drive a car or ride a bus, you're supporting the petroleum industry.

Same for the use of any plastics, fertilizer, etc. Or anything made from them.

Give me a shout when you're living in a hut with a peat fire, and wearing wool, and growing potatoes organically in your garden and walking everywhere.

So, the idiotic neocon wants to make America into a rogue state by cowardly murdering men, women and children? Well, that's really his problem. He won't get the legitimacy to attempt that, and it's more likely for him to get in the cushioned room he deserves.

That's the total number of WARHEADS.

Do you realize that literally hundreds of above ground nuclear detonations, most far larger than the Hiroshima bomb, have already taken place? Of the US tests, most of them in Nevada?

No wonder it's so crappy there.

Neo-con stands for neo conservative now, pretty soon it will stand for new-convict.

.

Thanks, I was wondering what a neocon was. I presume it is essentially the Bush type far right loonies.

After all, writes Coren, in full British imperialist/Israeli general mode
The Israelis don't think like this. If Israel uses force against Iran, it will not be to intimidate them. It will be to deprive them of their ability to harm Israel.

And they won't use nukes, unless:
An Iranian nuclear attack is imminent
AND
Conventional arms will not be enough to disable the Iranian nuclear arsenal

Israeli military logic is survivalist. Unlike the US, Israel sees its existence as under attack, and they would rather risk massive international outcry than let their nation be destroyed.

How about everyone who whines about how evil the A-bombs were go to every country the Japanese ever invaded, and look up a little about how the locals were treated.
Unless we have all just forgotten about Nanking, The Bataan Death March, and everything else.
Or how about the death toll an invasion of Japan would have caused, on both sides. Millions dead.
Only a fool would think that the death of millions of people would be better than the use of the two A-bombs.

How about you read some history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

What do you think this guy would think?
1. I am not arguing this because it has been done to death on this board.

2. You are probably in violation of the rules against posting graphic or violent pictures.

3. LOOK AT MY BLOODY LOCATION BEFORE YOU ACCUSE ME OF NOT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT JAPAN!

I invite those who consider using nuclear arms to come to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see, first hand, what happens when they are used.

Of course, out of the whole of the United States government, only the previous US ambassador, Sen Boxer (CA) and former President Carter have stopped by to see.

Yes, and Japan is a stronger country now than it was then because of us. Whoopty-doo. Using the nukes in that case saved lives. Or, more accurately, it saved the lives of American soldiers embroiled in a war the Japs started. So, in certain cases, I am quite fine with the usage of nukes.


Against Iran? Right now? Erm, no.

3. LOOK AT MY BLOODY LOCATION BEFORE YOU ACCUSE ME OF NOT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT JAPAN!

He said go to the countries the Japanese invaded. That doesn't include Japan. Like, Korea. I've been there. Have you? Go check it out. You can buy stuff cheap, bring it home. Anyhoo.

There's nothing more peaceful than a desert of glass.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tennant/tennant14.html

What a way to bring about world peace. :rolleyes:

Are you sure it wasn't a typo? They must have meant "bring about the world in pieces."

Yes, and Japan is a stronger country now than it was then because of us. Whoopty-doo. Using the nukes in that case saved lives. Or, more accurately, it saved the lives of American soldiers embroiled in a war the Japs started. So, in certain cases, I am quite fine with the usage of nukes.


Against Iran? Right now? Erm, no.
*sighs* One last time... I AM NOT CONDEMING THE USE OF ATOMICS IN JAPAN! Get that through your head before you decide to jump on me. That issue has been done to death, I am tired of it, I am tired of the general lack of knowledge about it, and I don't even want to remotely start it.

For whatever reason, good or ill as you may define it, we dropped the bomb. Justified or not (your POV here, NOT mine), it caused terrible suffering that has lingered through the years. My point being that ANYONE who calls for a nuke and then off handedly says, "Some innocent lives will be killed, sadly, but it's ok" should know what the hell they are talking about when they talk about the death that awaits those in the path of a nuclear bomb. Not the archive footage of the Nevada tests, not the pretty pictures of the Bikini mushroom clouds, but coming to Japan and seeing the chared remains of a three year old's tricycle, hair and fingernails, shadows on walls, tin roofs, crumpled like paper, and photos of people so badly bured, they could not be identified. Then, I feel, does a person have a proper appreciation of what it means to casually nuke someone.

THAT'S the point I was making. If you want a Hiroshima and Nagasaki thread, go make it yourself.

He said go to the countries the Japanese invaded. That doesn't include Japan. Like, Korea. I've been there. Have you? Go check it out. You can buy stuff cheap, bring it home. Anyhoo.
No, he said go read history. That is what I was responding to.

Haven't you realised by now, that nothing is barbarous by neocon standards, as long as it achieves their objectives.

OH so your saying that the US kills innocent people then covers it up. your saying that we treat our military casualties like ahmadinejad treats the hollocaust, like it never even happened. your obviously wrong.


why say stuff that you know is just completely idiotic?

There's nothing more peaceful than a desert of glass.


That should be sigged :D

That should be sigged :D

No surprise at all from Meir Kahane Junior.

If news broke about Iran getting nuked, you and Deep Kimchi would be sitting together in front of a TV jerking off like Bob Crane and John Carpenter watching porn.

No surprise at all.

No surprise at all from Meir Kahane Junior.

If news broke about Iran getting nuked, you and Deep Kimchi would be sitting together in front of a TV jerking off like Bob Crane and John Carpenter watching porn.

No surprise at all.

Ew... Just ew...

Please... PLEASE don't ever make me think of DK and NM jerking off. EVER. AGAIN! :p

There's nothing more peaceful than a desert of glass.

You see, that's curious because these people you call terrorists think exactly that, too, only about New York. So, you're different from them how?

No surprise at all from Meir Kahane Junior.

If news broke about Iran getting nuked, you and Deep Kimchi would be sitting together in front of a TV jerking off like Bob Crane and John Carpenter watching porn.

No surprise at all.

No surprise at all that you didn't read my post on the subject.

Ew... Just ew...

Please... PLEASE don't ever make me think of DK and NM jerking off. EVER. AGAIN! :p

Pleasant dreams, honey :p

One wonders what will be the next attack on the right once this one fails to materialize. Gosh. There are a lot of loonies out there. We are not on the brink of the apocalypse. Nor are we even close. Take your sandwich board and go home.