Free Koowait!

Owen Byrne owen@permafrost.net
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 
try again.
http://www.thebulletin.org/media/current.html

> 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
>radio.
>
>  
>
>>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.

Owen