Bush approves nuclear response

[ZupanGOD]

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm

Any thoughts?

[Jizosh]

one comes to mind...

fuck.

[vox2000]

ill second that ~ :(

[HexRei]

they are only approved in the case of an attack with WMD, such as chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

I mean really, what's worse? a nuke that takes out a single city, or a smallpox strain that sweeps across the nation killing 1/10 people?

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by HexRei
they are only approved in the case of an attack with WMD, such as chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

I mean really, what's worse? a nuke that takes out a single city, or a smallpox strain that sweeps across the nation killing 1/10 people?

Yeah, but the lesser of two evils is still evill. And two wrongs don't make a right. And many other cliches apply too.

Where's the handbasket?

[burnt]

Originally posted by HexRei
they are only approved in the case of an attack with WMD, such as chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

I mean really, what's worse? a nuke that takes out a single city, or a smallpox strain that sweeps across the nation killing 1/10 people?

as if a nuke isn't going to create disease after its been launched.

many terrorist factions are already alive and thriving here, in the U.S. in my opinion, launching a nuke will result in the propogation of a biological counterattack........which is actually great for the economy, as long as you've invested in a pharmaceutical company! =)

*runs off to buy a share or two of Merck*

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm

Any thoughts?

<Phew!> Thank the good spirits that Americans were smart enough to vote Bush's opponent the victor in the 2000 election. However, too bad that Reagan's old Supremes weren't that smart (no big surprise there), and we got stuck with this idiot anyway.

Well, now at least we all know what happens when a dumb-as-toast, fundamentalist Christian mouthpiece for Big Corporate gets installed as President of the USA. Within in just over 2 short years the economy is the shit, we're at "war" that will never end, and now we're rolling out the nukes to boot. Super, just super.

Peace

D-d0g

[HexRei]

Originally posted by burnt


as if a nuke isn't going to create disease after its been launched.

many terrorist factions are already alive and thriving here, in the U.S. in my opinion, launching a nuke will result in the propogation of a biological counterattack........which is actually great for the economy, as long as you've invested in a pharmaceutical company! =)

*runs off to buy a share or two of Merck*

True. However...
The amount of radiation sickness caused by a Hiroshima-sized nuke or two would pale in comparison to the damage even a natural disease like smallpox could cause in the modern day of instant round-the-world travel. And smallpox is weak sauce compared to some of the engineered horrors sitting in labs around the globe.
Ever seen 12 Monkeys?

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Boyd Main


Yeah, but the lesser of two evils is still evill. And two wrongs don't make a right. And many other cliches apply too.

Where's the handbasket?

Nukes are not "evil", they are tools. The point of a nuclear weapon is to completely and utterly shatter the morale of the enemy. In some cases a nuclear weapon might actually save lives. For instance, a quick and decisive nuke attack might immediately end a war, at a high initial cost in lives, as opposed to the same war being dragged out for a year or two with conventional weapons, potentially killing more over the course of the war than the nuke would.

As the article said, prior to this, the US' stance on nuclear retaliation for CB weapons was simply "ambiguity". All Bush did was make it clear that we are willing to use them if necessary, rather than leaving it up to the imagination.

[burnt]

In some cases a nuclear weapon might actually save lives.

*staggers*

.....um, Hex, dude.....the lives we'd be saving, by dropping a nuke, are lives of soldiers. the quick and decisive lives that we'd be murdering in order to drop morale, would be Iraqi civilians. and Red Cross clinics.

...um.....like.....thats fucked up, yo.

understand one truth: the greatest terrorist threat, is not sitting in a palace in Iraq, the threat is in various ghetto apartments throughout America and Europe.

the "leader" of these terrorists, is more of a shaman or figurehead, than a general. destroying him, does not equate to destroying terrorism. rather, it martyrs him. and most certainly, further destruction of a terrorists' homeland will only further their one-sided beliefs.

this is not a typical war. our enemies' morale is *already* damaged. hence, part of the reason they're willing to commit suicide in order to further their ugly causes.

this is not 1950, and our enemy is not bunkered down in a clear and visible position. cold war tactics will not work, they will only further enrage the short-sighted, orthodox followers of various Jihad factions......including factions *outside* of Saddam's "leadership."

the U.S. Military's Commander In Chief has the authority to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to battle. he does *not* have the authority to prevent battle and expose me, and my friends and family, to local, hostile counterattacks.

I don't like most soldiers anyway. I mean, personally. they used to pick on me in high school and fuck my girlfriend when I wasn't looking. so to hell with em! send them off, let em get their asses gassed......thats the career they chose.

so, if we're gonna go to war......fine.....fine, lets fuck the economy even more, and go to war. whatever. but none of this nuke bullshit. throw yer flakjackets on, GI Joe, and go grab the badguy. drag ass, get into the desert, and physically grab him, so that we don't have further complications in another ten years. and this time, make sure you actually fucking *get Saddam* before you come home.


or, we could do this the smart way. we could send in some CIA psy-ops to train a bunch of Arabs on how to be a pimp. we could install some McDonald's in Afghanistan, comp em a few Pepsis and skateboards, and try to re-introduce "Glasnost." we could reverse-engineer the terrorists we've already caught, and lean on their families....and their friends families. we could inform Iraqi media of economic ties between Saddam and the Bush family, a-la Enron-style.


you see, threat of nuclear attack was a great tactic with the U.S.S.R., but not only because nukes are scary. the scariness surrounding the nukes, stagnated the U.S.S.R.'s economy. this frightened the U.S.S.R. leadership, because they knew that a frightened economy would result in a coup...and the U.S.S.R. leadership didn't want to leave their cushy deskjobs.

in the case of Afghanistan, however, they're already broke as fuck, and bombed as fuck. what, you think dropping more bombs on a wedding party is gonna calm them down???

destroying the leader's morale, the figurehead's morale, the shaman's morale....exposing the person......THAT'S a smarter way to calm down a terrorist. make em realize, "holy shit, Saddam and Usama are just as sinful as Ken Lay and Dubya!"

but dude...."nukes save lives"??
....thats just silly..

[Jeffro]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD

Any thoughts?

Yeah.

Time to start drinkin' again.

[Effendi]

.
UK sells chemical weapons to the world

BRITAIN is supplying chemical warfare technology to 26 countries including Libya, Syria, Israel and Iran -- which was labelled part of the 'axis of evil' by the United States.
A Sunday Herald investigation has revealed that the UK is allowing the export of the lethal chemicals, which are illegal under international law and controlled under the chemical weapons convention because they can be used in weapons of mass destruction.

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which authorised the sales, has admitted that it does not know whether the exports will be used to create chemical weapons once they are exported, or not.

Among the countries to which Britain is exporting 'toxic chemical precursors' (TCPs) is Sudan. The US bombed a factory in the Sudanese capital Khartoum in 1998 with the full support of the Blair government for allegedly producing the deadly VX nerve agent.

The UK is also exporting chemical weapons technology to countries that are not signatories to the chemical weapons convention and therefore do not recognise the international ban on chemical warfare.

Sudan and Jordan, which the UK also exports to, have signed the convention but not ratified it, making the treaty virtually meaningless there. The other nations Britain exports TCPs to are: Cyprus, India, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda and Yemen.

TCPs are known as 'dual-use chemicals' as they can be used for harmless activities like farming or adapted or turned into chemical weapons. The DTI admitted the sales were on-going, but said the weapons were sold 'in the belief' that they would be used 'benignly' in agriculture or as detergents.

The DTI said it relied on assurances from foreign governments in the form of 'end user undertakings' that they would not use British TCPs to make chemical weapons. A spokesman agreed that this was in effect nothing more than a promise that could be broken.

'We aim to minimise risk,' the spokesman said, 'but obviously it is very difficult to say what happens to these things once they get to their final destinations. It is impossible to clamp down 100%. It is impossible to know what happens to them in the stages that come after they leave Britain.

Labour MP Ann Clwyd, who sits on international development, human rights and arms export committees, is to raise the Sunday Herald investigation with the Prime Minister in the Commons.

She wants the Arms Export Bill, which is currently going through parliament, to be amended to give MPs the right to scrutinise and approve all weapons exports before they leave the UK. The government has so far refused to give MPs these powers.

She said claims by the DTI that it monitored chemical sales were 'a myth' and 'did not stand up to scrutiny'. Clwyd added: 'We have no idea what happens with these chemicals when they get to their final destination. If we are going to sell these things we have to be 100% sure what happens to them when they are sold. If we can't be sure, we shouldn't sell them.'

Clwyd accused the government of having a 'skewed morality', adding that the suspicion now hung over the Blair government that it was 'aiding and abetting dodgy regimes in the development of weapons of mass destruction'.

Professor Julian Perry Robinson, a chemist at the Science and Technology Research Unit at Sussex University, said TCPs were the main constituent of chemical weapons. Robinson, who worked on the drafting of the chemical weapons con vention and is a member of its UK National Authority Advisory Committee said reve lations about trade in TCPs were of great public concern. He explained how one TCP, dimethyl methylphosphonate, could easily be turned into lethal sarin nerve gas -- the same agent used by the Aum Shinrikyo cult to kill 12 people on the Tokyo subway system in 1995.

Robinson said it was easy for countries buying chemicals from the UK to lie about their end use, and backed calls for parliamentary scrutiny of export licences, saying: 'It is impossible to say whether the current safeguards work.'

Richard Bingley, of the group Campaign Against the Arms Trade, warned that Britain was selling chemical weapons technology to regimes that could one day turn the capabilities Britain is giving to them back against it and its allies.

l The revelations of Britain's trade in chemical warfare follow an anti-arms trade demo nstration outside 10 Downing Street yesterday. Prot esters were calling for a ban on weapons sales from the UK to India and Pakistan as the two nations teeter on the brink of war.

http://www.sundayherald.com/25366



Maybe we should just Nuke London?

Scott!!

[burnt]

^^
so lemme get this straight. many of the rogue nations in that list, are currently undergoing tarriffs and other sanctions.

so even though they can't purchase wheat, they can still purchase

dimethyl methylphosphonate
is that about right?

niiiice....nice checks and balances there.....werrrrrd...

[Cedwyn]

I mean really, what's worse? a nuke that takes out a single city, or a smallpox strain that sweeps across the nation killing 1/10 people?

a nuke. the after-effects of small pox eventually stop.

[UrbanAssualtCutie]

Originally posted by HexRei


Nukes are not "evil", they are tools. The point of a nuclear weapon is to completely and utterly shatter the morale of the enemy. In some cases a nuclear weapon might actually save lives. For instance, a quick and decisive nuke attack might immediately end a war, at a high initial cost in lives, as opposed to the same war being dragged out for a year or two with conventional weapons, potentially killing more over the course of the war than the nuke would.



Yes nuclear weapons may indeed be decisive, yes they may crush the opponent, but as naive as this sounds, there is something to be said about remembering our own humanity as a nation before we use nuclear weapons. When we consider the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki it is important to consider that it is always the victors that write the history, and so that bombing is seen by many of us as a perfectly justified act of war. We should also remember that beneath the clouds of the bombs thousands of people were killed. Human Skin was burned raw, people desparate for water died in agony, those who lived had their bodies cells destroyed causing various pathologies, children in these places for years have been born with microcephalia (accute mental and physical retardation). The human misery the use of nuclear bombs causes for generations should be a concern! I do not doubt the use of biological weapons would be awful, I do not doubt those things, but my god, what is this world coming too when we cannot even see our own humanity or the humanity undeserving of needless suffering in those we seek to destroy. I have came to the point that I am positive this war will commence no matter what people do to oppose it, but I am sad, for us and the people abroad that will suffer.

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by UrbanAssualtCutie


Yes nuclear weapons may indeed be decisive, yes they may crush the opponent, but as naive as this sounds, there is something to be said about remembering our own humanity as a nation before we use nuclear weapons. When we consider the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki it is important to consider that it is always the victors that write the history, and so that bombing is seen by many of us as a perfectly justified act of war. We should also remember that beneath the clouds of the bombs thousands of people were killed. Human Skin was burned raw, people desparate for water died in agony, those who lived had their bodies cells destroyed causing various pathologies, children in these places for years have been born with microcephalia (accute mental and physical retardation). The human misery the use of nuclear bombs causes for generations should be a concern! I do not doubt the use of biological weapons would be awful, I do not doubt those things, but my god, what is this world coming too when we cannot even see our own humanity or the humanity undeserving of needless suffering in those we seek to destroy. I have came to the point that I am positive this war will commence no matter what people do to oppose it, but I am sad, for us and the people abroad that will suffer.

Not to mention that, as the facts came declassified over the decades, it turns out we didn't have to drop nuclear bombs on Japan to end the war, or end the war faster. And we certainly didn't need to drop TWO. The strategic thinking of those bombings was more about demonstrating the bombs and how horrible they were - and thus putting the U.S. in a strong geopolitical position for the future - than about World War II.

Fortunately, we still have enough laws about de-classifying documents in our country that we can learn the truth of things like this - even if it takes decades. Of course, I'm sure Ashcroft the Chosen is working hard to change those laws but hey he'll be out of a job in less than two years which hopefully isn't enough time for him to succeed.

John Ashcroft, the only person who has ever lost a Senate race to a dead man.

Nuclear weapons are no more an "innocent tool" than are torture decides. "Tools" that have no purpose whatsoever save the massive destruction of life aren't tools, they are hell come to life. Sometimes we have to dance with the devil to prevent even worse catastrophes, but it behooves us to remember who it is that we've chosen as dance partner.

America, the ONLY country that has ever dropped nuclear bombs on civlians.

Peace,

D-d0g
ddog@wrinko.com
http://www.wrinko.com

[djLefty]

Originally posted by D-d0g
Well, now at least we all know what happens when a dumb-as-toast, fundamentalist Christian mouthpiece for Big Corporate gets installed as President of the USA. Within in just over 2 short years the economy is the shit, we're at "war" that will never end, and now we're rolling out the nukes to boot. Super, just super.

Peace

D-d0g

that about sums it up.

[bungle bliss]

This opinion article claims we will use nukes preemptively against Iraq.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-arkin26jan26001512,0,7527503.story?coll=la%2Dnews% 2Dcomment%2Dopinions

[LordWoon]

This sounds like this is more of a response to Iraq's threat that we would have our "neck broken" and 9/11 would be nothing compared to what we shall receive if we attack them.

Bush Sr. said the same thing during the Gulf War about using Nukes in the event that Saddam uses any chemical or biological weapons.

[Justin]

I hope this is just talk. It's critical in diplomacy to act all crazy and say "yeah, we'd shoot em. No second thoughts about it." That's just deterence. However, as actual policy in this case it seems insane.

Like Saddam gives a flying fuck about his people. How will wiping Bagdad off the map change anything for the better for America, whether we're attacked or not? It only changes things if Saddam is dumb enough to be in Bagdad at the time.

[Tecknowledgy]

Oh fuck. How can this be happening?

[vox2000]

Bush Sr. said the same thing during the Gulf War about using Nukes in the event that Saddam uses any chemical or biological weapons.
thats called dick waving.. ' ha ha, look at my penis, . . .its bigger than yours!"
its just too bad his balls are bigger than his brain..

[skloot]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
Like Saddam gives a flying fuck about his people. How will wiping Bagdad off the map change anything for the better for America, whether we're attacked or not? It only changes things if Saddam is dumb enough to be in Bagdad at the time.

Yeah... What about history tells us that Sadam would give a fuck if we vaporized (and burned, and irradiated...) a few hundred thousand of his people?
I'm sure there has to be some legitmate logic to this decision....

[Justin]

I'm reminded of Mao's "Paper Tiger" nuclear stragegy, developed when on the brink of war with the USSR.

Mao figured that the USSR did not posses enough nuclear weapons to kill more than half of the Chineese population, so as long as Mao and the military survived, he could "afford" a nuclear war.

[TeknoAXE]

Both former officials and arms control analysts say that making the classified text public might raise concerns among Washington's allies but has little military significance. On the other hand, they note, the nuclear deterrent has little value if a potential adversary does not know what it can expect.



This is the key to the article. The U.S. is letting Iraq know the consequences of using chemical weapons. So they know, Iraq is more inclined not to use them.

AXE

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Cedwyn


a nuke. the after-effects of small pox eventually stop.

a) the effects of radiation do eventually stop. radiation dissipates.

b) smallpox is small potatos in the world of diseases, these days. It has much bigger brothers that could wipe out large chunks of the world's population before we can even figure out what pathogen we're dealing with.

c) compared to germ warfare, nuclear strikes are precision weapons. A nuclear strike is deadly because of the explosions and the secondary radiation fallout, which can spread for many miles. This is a well-contained in comparison to an airborne disease which, upon being dropped into an airport drinking fountain, could be in every major US city, indeed, every major WORLD city, in a matter of hours.

[Cedwyn]

nuclear fallout can contaminate food and water supplies long-term, with little in the way of remedies/antidotes.

[LordWoon]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the "after- effects" of both radiation and small- pox (and other deadly biological agents crafted by the hands of mad scientists) is usually DEATH. :D

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
nuclear fallout can contaminate food and water supplies long-term, with little in the way of remedies/antidotes.

Potentially, yes. Did you know that present-day Hiroshima is a thriving city of some 1.1 million people, and that it was rebuilt on the same site? Did you know that there is a memorial tourist attraction directly below the epicenter of the explosion? Doesn't sound all that long-term.

But yes, as Hank said, they both end in death. Hopefully noone will get nuked or diseased.

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by HexRei

b) smallpox is small potatos in the world of diseases, these days. It has much bigger brothers that could wipe out large chunks of the world's population before we can even figure out what pathogen we're dealing with.

Please cite evidence to support this statement, Hex. I think you are fear-mongering about the actual, proven (or even substantiated to any degree) potential threat of bio and chem warfare agents as large-scale killers. From my reading, there are no known biological agents that have anywhere near the deadliness and fast-replicating qualities that you are conjuring out of thin air.

Perhaps you've just read one too many pop thrillers about "Killer Bugs On The Loose!" Remember, Hot Zone was not based on facts; it was just a story.

The nuclear arsenals currently maintained by the "declared" nuclear powers (if memory serves they are France, USA, Russia, China, Pakistan, India) and the "rogue" nuclear states (known with 100% certainty to include Israel, used to include South Africa, and might include others) combined could annhilate all life on earth many, many times over. Incidentally, the materials used in modern nukes are far different from those dropped on Hiroshima; current generation nuke technology relies on isotopes with far longer half-lives for the fallout created from the reactions. Additional, the power of moder nukes is orders of magnitude higher than those "old" bombs from the '40s and '50s. It is like comparing a .22 rifle to a fully-auto, .50 caliber, water cooled, belt-fed monster.

For a cute story about how nuclear "tactical strikes" in the Middle East could easily escalate to global nuclear holocaust, read the first few chapters of Swan Song. Not a spectacular book (and not a spectacular author overall), but the logical flow of the escalation scenario is well presented, in my opinion.

Having a "president" of our country who is running around the world threatening other countries with our massive nuclear arsenal is stunningly fucking idiotic. Only someone who believed God in Heaven was watching out for the True Believers would do such asinine things. . . oh, wait, that describes Little Bush perfectly. :mad:

Peace,

D-d0g

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by vox2000

thats called dick waving.. ' ha ha, look at my penis, . . .its bigger than yours!"
its just too bad his balls are bigger than his brain..

Actually, with respect to Little Bush, that's not really saying all that much. . .

. . . small little mouse balls and really, really tiny little brain :rolleyes:

Peace,

D-d0g

[Cedwyn]

yes, they are talking pre-emptive. because we *know* they are going to use WMDs, dammit! :rolleyes:

in the short-term battle, they might make sense. but the long-term repurcussions of using nukes pathologically defies reason...in terms of life, they make no sense whatsoever.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by D-d0g

[quote]
Please cite evidence to support this statement, Hex. I think you are fear-mongering about the actual, proven (or even substantiated to any degree) potential threat of bio and chem warfare agents as large-scale killers. From my reading, there are no known biological agents that have anywhere near the deadliness and fast-replicating qualities that you are conjuring out of thin air.

Perhaps you've just read one too many pop thrillers about "Killer Bugs On The Loose!" Remember, Hot Zone was not based on facts; it was just a story.


That's a good point. I don't have any proof that this sort of thing exists. We do know that many nations have conducted biological research and few if any have produced any disclosure. Given the already formidable natural airborne diseases, and the relentless inventiveness of man (when it comes to finding new ways to kill each other) it seems likely to me that someone, somewhere, has one-upped mother nature by now.

But hey, if you need some inspiration, here's some of the nice nasty airborne baddies we do know of:
http://www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Whittam/apdbase/

Look around. There are certainly diseases that spread very rapidly, and hey, an airport drinking fountain is the perfect transfer medium. Even better, have an employee at the McDonald's do it. Either way, you've got people heading to all corners of the globe with your little payload.


Incidentally, the materials used in modern nukes are far different from those dropped on Hiroshima; current generation nuke technology relies on isotopes with far longer half-lives for the fallout created from the reactions. Additional, the power of moder nukes is orders of magnitude higher than those "old" bombs from the '40s and '50s. It is like comparing a .22 rifle to a fully-auto, .50 caliber, water cooled, belt-fed monster.


We have possession of more powerful and dangerous nukes now. That does not necessarily mean we will use them. Why use a .50 calibre when the .22 would do?


For a cute story about how nuclear "tactical strikes" in the Middle East could easily escalate to global nuclear holocaust, read the first few chapters of Swan Song. Not a spectacular book (and not a spectacular author overall), but the logical flow of the escalation scenario is well presented, in my opinion.


Wow. Moments after accusing me of gleaning my information from fiction novels, you quote one as evidence of what will happen in the case of a nuclear strike. Righto.

edit:
By the way, Swan Song looks like a really good book. I love post-nuclear stuff. I'm gonna go pick it up ASAP.

[Cedwyn]

Look around. There are certainly diseases that spread very rapidly, and hey, an airport drinking fountain is the perfect transfer medium. Even better, have an employee at the McDonald's do it. Either way, you've got people heading to all corners of the globe with your little payload.

precisely why we should *not* nuke

i don't know about shrubya and babs, but my mommy always taught me that it isn't smart to tease the bees....

and dog cited nothing as evidence, merely presented an acknowlegedly fictitious model that he found plausible and interesting...

(sorry...had to...)

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Cedwyn

precisely why we should *not* nuke

i don't know about shrubya and babs, but my mommy always taught me that it isn't smart to tease the bees....


Hey, I'm against a pre-emptive strike too. We're talking about retaliation for use of WMD's on us.


and dog cited nothing as evidence, merely presented an acknowlegedly fictitious model that he found plausible and interesting...

(sorry...had to...) [/B]

Well geez, I didn't even mention HotZone, and d-dog didn't hesitate to chastize me for using it as a factual reference :D

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by HexRei

That's a good point. I don't have any proof that this sort of thing exists. We do know that many nations have conducted biological research and few if any have produced any disclosure. Given the already formidable natural airborne diseases, and the relentless inventiveness of man (when it comes to finding new ways to kill each other) it seems likely to me that someone, somewhere, has one-upped mother nature by now.

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. Earlier in the thread, you state that:

The amount of radiation sickness caused by a Hiroshima-sized nuke or two would pale in comparison to the damage even a natural disease like smallpox could cause in the modern day of instant round-the-world travel. And smallpox is weak sauce compared to some of the engineered horrors sitting in labs around the globe." (by my estimates, that would have to include fatalities in the 300,000+ range)

Further, you cite unnamed biological threats that could kill "1/10th" of a country's population.

However, you cannot back up these direct assertions with any facts at all. Now, I'm not an expert on biological weapons - far from it. However, what I have read leads me to believe that they are easy to develop in the lab, but really hard to spread around effectively to cause high fatalities. The transmission vectors are the key. Researchers have worked for decades on ways to spread pathogens, from water supplies to bombs that burst over major metropolitan areas. However, none (that are known or even rumored) have proven to be foolproof.

The New Yorker ran an in-depth piece on biological threats last year (if memory serves), in which they interviewed a number of retired but formerly top bioweapons experts (many from South Africa, where work on bioweapons was broad and deep prior to the fall of apartheid, and well-funded despite its clandestine nature). Nowhere in this article - even in the most fanciful estimates - were threats within an order of magnitude of what you are pulling out of your fertile imagination.

Again, we know with 100% certainty that nuclear weapons ready and waiting today could easily eradicate ALL life on earth - not just the idiotic humans that built and used them, but every other sentient being to boot. That is not a fucking joke, and not a "tool" to be bandied about by an insecure, infantile "leader" who lost his election.

With bioweapons, we mostly have less-than-ideal techniques more suited to psychological attack (the panic caused by fear of infection) than actual large-scale munitions use (the infections themselves). If anyone in the world has these uber-bugs, it is the USA. We've spent more on bioweapons than any other country in the world. And while it is illegal for the USA to work on this research today, nonetheless the research goes on unabated in the name of "defensive analysis." In any case, if the bug exists and is super secret within the USA's increasingly super-secret military apparatus, then theoretically some fanatical fundamentalist shouldn't get their hands on it, now should they? Well, not counting Little Bush and Ashcroft the Annointed, who are both religious fanatics. . . but I digress.

Which is the greater threat? Nuclear weapons, with an imbecile threatening to use them, or non-existent super-bugs dredged from Hex's imagination alone?

Peace,

D-d0g

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn


precisely why we should *not* nuke

i don't know about shrubya and babs, but my mommy always taught me that it isn't smart to tease the bees....

and dog cited nothing as evidence, merely presented an acknowlegedly fictitious model that he found plausible and interesting...

(sorry...had to...)

What is that supposed to mean exactly?

:confused:

[HexRei]

Originally posted by D-d0g
I'm going to call bullshit on this one. Earlier in the thread, you state that:

The amount of radiation sickness caused by a Hiroshima-sized nuke or two would pale in comparison to the damage even a natural disease like smallpox could cause in the modern day of instant round-the-world travel. And smallpox is weak sauce compared to some of the engineered horrors sitting in labs around the globe." (by my estimates, that would have to include fatalities in the 300,000+ range)

Further, you cite unnamed biological threats that could kill "1/10th" of a country's population.

However, you cannot back up these direct assertions with any facts at all. Now, I'm not an expert on biological weapons - far from it. However, what I have read leads me to believe that they are easy to develop in the lab, but really hard to spread around effectively to cause high fatalities. The transmission vectors are the key. Researchers have worked for decades on ways to spread pathogens, from water supplies to bombs that burst over major metropolitan areas. However, none (that are known or even rumored) have proven to be foolproof.

The New Yorker ran an in-depth piece on biological threats last year (if memory serves), in which they interviewed a number of retired but formerly top bioweapons experts (many from South Africa, where work on bioweapons was broad and deep prior to the fall of apartheid, and well-funded despite its clandestine nature). Nowhere in this article - even in the most fanciful estimates - were threats within an order of magnitude of what you are pulling out of your fertile imagination.


Ah, so I'm supposed to take your uncited word? right.
Evidence I cite below shows that smallpox has a 30% mortality rate, transmitted via airborne proximity. Probably wouldn't translate to 1/10 of the population in the US, since we could mobilize vaccines (after the 2 week gestation period, and symptoms begin to be diagnosed) but in third world countries the disease could rage unchecked for much longer -smallpox just loves dense, dirty cities. The article below quotes 10-20 secondary infections from a single infected person, and diseases don't see nation or racial boundaries.


Again, we know with 100% certainty that nuclear weapons ready and waiting today could easily eradicate ALL life on earth - not just the idiotic humans that built and used them, but every other sentient being to boot. That is not a fucking joke, and not a "tool" to be bandied about by an insecure, infantile "leader" who lost his election.


And all the nukes on earth being launched seems to me about as likely as all the disease stockpiles being released. Or can you prove otherwise? Perhaps with another fiction novel?


With bioweapons, we mostly have less-than-ideal techniques more suited to psychological attack (the panic caused by fear of infection) than actual large-scale munitions use (the infections themselves). If anyone in the world has these uber-bugs, it is the USA.


Evidence, please.


We've spent more on bioweapons than any other country in the world. And while it is illegal for the USA to work on this research today, nonetheless the research goes on unabated in the name of "defensive analysis." In any case, if the bug exists and is super secret within the USA's increasingly super-secret military apparatus, then theoretically some fanatical fundamentalist shouldn't get their hands on it, now should they? Well, not counting Little Bush and Ashcroft the Annointed, who are both religious fanatics. . . but I digress.


Evidence, please. Oh, so it's ok for you to speculate, but not me?

By the way, haven't seen any proof of this yet, Lucy seemed to think you were wrong:
Incidentally, the materials used in modern nukes are far different from those dropped on Hiroshima; current generation nuke technology relies on isotopes with far longer half-lives for the fallout created from the reactions. Additional, the power of moder nukes is orders of magnitude higher than those "old" bombs from the '40s and '50s. It is like comparing a .22 rifle to a fully-auto, .50 caliber, water cooled, belt-fed monster.

So, how bout some facts:
Natural smallpox alone has amazing transmission vectors:
http://www.biohazardnews.net/agent_smallpox.htm
Some highlights:
The virus is highly stable and can remain contagious for long periods outside the host. To survive it must be passed from person to person, through inhalation of air droplets or aerosols. The infectious dose is presumably very small, and it's possible that one could get the disease from inhaling a single particle of smallpox.

Smallpox is very contagious. It's most easily spread during a cool, dry winter season. The disease is most transmissable after the patient has developed a skin rash. Most contagious are patients with a cough, or with the hemorrhagic (bleeding) form of smallpox.

Experiences from outbreaks in Europe during the 1960s and the 1970s suggests that as many as 10 to 20 second-generation cases were often infected from a single case. In Germany, a smallpox patient with a cough, although isolated to a single room, infected other people on three floors.

A smallpox outbreak can run in successive waves, infecting as many as ten times more people every two to three weeks.

Mortality

Smallpox has a case-fatality rate of 30% or higher. Children have a higher mortality rate.


This article mentions a Russian strain of smallpox transmissible via air up to 24 miles. To boot, the CIA believes it may have been given to Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/843360.asp

Russians have 120 strains of smallpox. Another mention of the virus believed to have been given to Iraq- it's called "resistant to vaccines".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/04/wirq304.xml

As if the effects of NATURAL smallpox weren't nasty enough... 30% case fatality, transmitted via airborne proximity, 10-20 secondary infections from a primary infection... yah, don't sound to pleasant to me.

[Cedwyn]

zupan - i reiterate: learn to read. my comments make plenty of sense.

as for nuclear strikes: retaliatory or pre-emptive is 100% irrelevant. the repurcussions (both political and biological) and damage remain the same.

[angry_bob]

or, we could do this the smart way. we could send in some CIA psy-ops to train a bunch of Arabs on how to be a pimp. we could install some McDonald's in Afghanistan, comp em a few Pepsis and skateboards, and try to re-introduce "Glasnost." we could reverse-engineer the terrorists we've already caught, and lean on their families....and their friends families. we could inform Iraqi media of economic ties between Saddam and the Bush family, a-la Enron-style.


werd!

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
zupan - i reiterate: learn to read. my comments make plenty of sense.

as for nuclear strikes: retaliatory or pre-emptive is 100% irrelevant. the repurcussions (both political and biological) and damage remain the same.

Ohhh kay.. riiiigggghhht

-Jason

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Cedwyn

as for nuclear strikes: retaliatory or pre-emptive is 100% irrelevant. the repurcussions (both political and biological) and damage remain the same.

Although I agree with you that the aftermath would produce the same result, there is one HUGE difference between "retaliatory or pre-emptive"..that huge difference is the CHOICE of the US. Retaliatory is definetly going to happen. (At least the world needs to believe that) Pre-emptive we have the choice NOT to be the ones to begin using nuclear weapons.

Scott!!