Sun, 19 Jan 2003 11:54:17 -0400
Eugen Leitl wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Owen Byrne wrote:
>>Where are the opponents to be found on this modern "battlefield?" I'm
>>sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, when only one nation has an armed
>I'm not sorry at all that the days of Cold War are over. We wouldn't be
>having this conversation had things taken a slightly different course
>during the Cuba crisis. Both of us would be most likely lacking the
>crucial property of existance, and this medium wouldn't exist.
Yes, the US almost destroyed the world there. They seem determined to
> More than 31,000 nuclear weapons are still maintained by the eight
> known nuclear powers, a decrease of only 3,000 since 1998. Ninety-five
> percent of these weapons are in the United States and Russia, and more
> than 16,000 are operationally deployed. Even if the United States and
> Russia complete their recently announced arms reductions over the next
> 10 years, they will continue to target thousands of nuclear weapons
> against each other.
> Furthermore, many if not most of the U.S. warheads removed from the
> active stockpile will be placed in storage (along with some 5,000
> warheads already held in reserve) rather than dismantled, for the
> express purpose of re-deploying them in some future contingency. As a
> result, the total U.S. stockpile will remain at more than 10,000
> warheads for the foreseeable future. Russia, on the other hand, seeks
> a verifiable, binding agreement that would ensure retired U.S. and
> Russian weapons are actually destroyed, a position we support.
> Despite a campaign promise to re-think nuclear policy, the Bush
> administration has taken no steps to significantly alter nuclear
> targeting doctrine or reduce the day-to-day alert status of U.S.
> nuclear forces. If Russia is no longer an adversary, what is the
> rationale for retaining the ability to incinerate more than 2,000
> Russian targets in as little as 30 minutes (or at all)?
> Meanwhile, the U.S. national weapons laboratories, with the support of
> some in Congress, are hard at work refining existing warheads and
> designing entirely new weapons, with a special emphasis on those able
> to attack and destroy hardened and deeply buried targets. And to
> ensure that such new designs can be tested, the U.S. administration
> seeks to shorten the time required to resume testing to as little as
> twelve months—a move that can only encourage other countries,
> including India, Pakistan, and China, to consider resuming testing.
> Although the United States has not conducted a full-scale test since
> 1992—and the administration says it has no plans to resume testing at
> this time—it refuses to recognize the overwhelming international
> support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and refuses to
> participate in international meetings to discuss implementing the
> treaty. Should the required signatories, including India and Pakistan,
> fail to ratify the CTBT, thus jeopardizing its entry into force, the
> world will lose an essential tool in halting the further development
> and spread of nuclear weapons.
>>forces, the future of warfare is what you saw on your telivision on
>>Sept. 11 - because nobody is capable of standing up to the US armed
>I didn't. I got the news in realtime over email, and then switched on the
>>forces. The more money you spend on gee-whiz weaponry the greater it
>>will be so, the more the other side will look to shoe bombs,
>>hijacking, ricin, and 'hit 'em where they aint.' And the only way to
>As long as you're not seeing an advent of a new power axis, yes.
>>fight that, as the British learned against the IRA, is hurt yourself -
>>reduce civil rights, increase surveillance, and even then, you'll
>>probably end up making peace in the end.
>We're not talking warfare here anymore. We're talking terrorism. Warfare
>is something different.
That would be an American word since Sept. 11 - most of the world has
gone back to recognizing the
difficulties inherent in it. I have memories of listening to
http://www.wbaifree.org/radiofreeeireann/rfehome.html on the radio
in New Jersey circa 1995, openly raising money for the IRA. (Shutdown by
the FBI Sep. 26, 2001 - reopened with "permission") .
And as I understand it now, US $ still go to Pakistan, which go directly
to "terrorists" in Kashmir.