threat to u.s.

[Leonis]

What's that line from 'The Peacemaker'? - "I'm not scared of the man who wants 100 warheads but I'm terrified of the man who wants just one" ? Something like that.

The greatest threat of nuke usage is by terrorists IMHO. But the likelyhood is low. Worry about threats to your own civil liberties, threats to truth, humanity, way of life etc... from your own government, corporations etc - look at what is happening to us now, what's scarier than any future threat is the lazyness and apathy as our rights, ideals and values are being stipped from us more and more each day.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: According to the current polls, it Looks like the only thing we have to fear is ourselves. As a child in the U.S. during the early 1980's I feared nuclear war. I lost sleep over it on a nightly basis, waiting for the emergency sirens that would give me time to prepare for death. I was nine. Every where my family moved, I would find out how big of a target that place would be to the Soviets. Practically obsessed. Fear like that is a mind killer, a soul killer. Especially in the openness of a child. That kind of fear is unnatural. I Thank God that fear is neither permanent, nor all-powerful. This is why we should get rid of nukes altogether, they may work as a deterent for some situations, but are way to big a liability for our future.

Having served in the US intelligence field all throughout the 80's, Im not sure why you were frightened, they were nothing like the late 50's or early 60's. Heck even the 70's was more dangerous...though I guess its a matter of perspective. I was pretty relaxed all thru the 80's...the Falklands thing got a bit dicey for the brits and some intel types from the US Our tussel with Old Mo-mar Quadaffi (pick a spelling any spelling) were dealing with a petty tyrant who sponsored terrorism.....Israel had some sticky probs, China had not yet bought the technology to guide their missiles to the US untill the 90's...but for all that it was a quiet decade....comparatively speaking. I guess each generation has its own bug-a-boos....when I was growing up I was afraid of going to Vietnam but it wasnt all that big a fear.

As for geting rid of nukes, yeah Im for getting rid of the intercontinental kinds, but there are legitimate uses for tactical nukes....some not even related to warfare. Id be happy if they got rid of all the ICBM's both Sublaunched and land based. Nuke Bunker Busters and Nukes used in mining and terraforming though are good tools. There are quite a lot of global engineering projects that would be feasable if they used the nukes as demolition charges.

[ 09-03-2002, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: According to the current polls, it Looks like the only thing we have to fear is ourselves. As a child in the U.S. during the early 1980's I feared nuclear war. I lost sleep over it on a nightly basis, waiting for the emergency sirens that would give me time to prepare for death. I was nine. Every where my family moved, I would find out how big of a target that place would be to the Soviets. Practically obsessed. Fear like that is a mind killer, a soul killer. Especially in the openness of a child. That kind of fear is unnatural. I Thank God that fear is neither permanent, nor all-powerful. This is why we should get rid of nukes altogether, they may work as a deterent for some situations, but are way to big a liability for our future.

Having served in the US intelligence field all throughout the 80's, Im not sure why you were frightened, they were nothing like the late 50's or early 60's. Heck even the 70's was more dangerous...though I guess its a matter of perspective. I was pretty relaxed all thru the 80's...the Falklands thing got a bit dicey for the brits and some intel types from the US Our tussel with Old Mo-mar Quadaffi (pick a spelling any spelling) were dealing with a petty tyrant who sponsored terrorism.....Israel had some sticky probs, China had not yet bought the technology to guide their missiles to the US untill the 90's...but for all that it was a quiet decade....comparatively speaking. I guess each generation has its own bug-a-boos....when I was growing up I was afraid of going to Vietnam but it wasnt all that big a fear.

As for geting rid of nukes, yeah Im for getting rid of the intercontinental kinds, but there are legitimate uses for tactical nukes....some not even related to warfare. Id be happy if they got rid of all the ICBM's both Sublaunched and land based. Nuke Bunker Busters and Nukes used in mining and terraforming though are good tools. There are quite a lot of global engineering projects that would be feasable if they used the nukes as demolition charges...I read somewhere that the Chinese wanted to use them on their Yangtze Dam project...or what ever that major Hydro-thing is that they are doing[/QUOTE]

[Lox]

I'm a peace-nik, but the argument for total nuclear disarmerment is moot. I'd like to raise a chicken, but I already made the omelette. I voted for the United States because I worry that all of our post 9-11 saber rattling and propaganda may provoke a deadly response from somewhere. (Pick a country, any country, just about all of them hate us). I think the most likely location of a nuclear weapon being used is in India or Pakistan, but that is a threat to the world, not just the U.S. I don't fear a nuclear attack on our country by another nation. Terrorists..... maybe but I don't it. Not in the next 5 yrs or so.

Now I may have pissed of a lot of people with my use of the term propaganda so let me clarify myself a little. Under his banner of the War on Terrorism, the Bush Lite administration has rolled back way too many civil rights. People are being held without being charged with crimes, without access to lawyers. Outside of government, people are treating Islam as a "persona non grata." I forget exactly where it happened, but somebody was protesting a proposed college class about Islam saying that Americans shouldn't learn about it. Maybe an isolated case, but how can you solve a problem if you don't learn about what the problem is. [Don't even get me started on the War on Drugs.] And I know what you will say. These people (being denied their rights) aren't American citizens. They are illegal aliens at best, prisoners of war at worst. Well if our Bill of Rights is so good, if our democracy/republic is the model for the world, as a lot of the Patriotic Americans (like George Will and Cal Thomas) seem to believe, then shouldn't non-Americans have the same rights as we do? Well, ok, maybe not the POW's, but my god, it's been around 9 months or so that we've had a bunch of guys living in chain link cages in Cuba? What is Bush going to do with them?

Ok, that's enough, sorry to offend anyone, but that's how I feel. I could probably make a better case in person. Getting my point across in print is hard unless I spend a good length of time on it.

Originally posted by Lox: People are being held without being charged with crimes, without access to lawyers. Outside of government, people are treating Islam as a "persona non grata." I forget exactly where it happened, but somebody was protesting a proposed college class about Islam saying that Americans shouldn't learn about it.

I think what you are refering to is actually several cases in California where they are having "Islam" classes in the PUBLIC schools. The program included reading from the Koran, dressing in Approved Islamic garb, and in general being educated in the ways of ISLAM. Now if it is totaly off base to teach from the Bible in public schools, Im pretty sure that these classes on Islam are also not kosher (hehe small joke) [img]smile.gif[/img]

Anyhoo thats the hooohaw that I heard about....never heard anyone telling a college what they can and can't teach.

Umm just a response to your last inquiry..why should not non-americans have the same rights that "we" do. We meaning US citizens...well for one thing...it is the US constitution and why should the US afford them any more rights than they have in their own nation? Your outrage over their detainment and the way they are being held is colored by some rather biased reporting as well. Im not saying that some of them may have had rights issues, but I believe that if you read the laws that apply to these individuals thay are actually being held under well defined rules. Its not like the Justice department has no precidence for what they are doing. Just because a journalist isn't aware of every detail doesnt mean his conclusions are correct.

All in all right now I think it would be in everyones best interest to be a tad skeptical of journalists who are gunning for headlines and less interested in their factual accuracy. If Congress actually had any proof that the Bush Administration was breaking wantonly violating laws, you can bet your bottom dollar the Dems would have a motion to have him impeached in a heartbeat.

The truth is neither on the left nor the right, but somewhere inbetween.

I just thought of another thing Lox [img]smile.gif[/img] The prisoners in Quantanimo Cuba are actually in better health and better fed than they were in their own countries.
They have access to better medical and dental care than some Americans as well. I would hardly classify them as being in humanely treated.

[Lox]

Originally posted by MagiK: I think what you are refering to is actually several cases in California where they are having "Islam" classes in the PUBLIC schools. The program included reading from the Koran, dressing in Approved Islamic garb, and in general being educated in the ways of ISLAM. Now if it is totaly off base to teach from the Bible in public schools, Im pretty sure that these classes on Islam are also not kosher (hehe small joke) [img]smile.gif[/img]

Good one. I love a good pun.

I agree with you that the situations as you describe above seem a bit out of place in public schools. I have always been one to argue for "separation of church and state" and can see your point about changing Islam to Christianity. [For what it's worth, my dad was an Episcopal minister, and I was raised in the church. I used to say that made me an aetheist, but I have lost the hubris of youth and now consider myself an agnostic.]

What I was refering to was different. I did some research and found out what I was remembering. At UNC this fall, incoming freshmen are being required to read a book about the Koran ("Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations," by Michael Sells, a religion professor at Haverford College.) and take part in discussions. "Members of the Virginia-based Family Policy Network and three unidentified UNC-Chapel Hill freshmen contend that the assignment is unconstitutional because it promotes Islam" and challenged (and failed) to stop the entire freshman class from participating in the discussions. I'm quoting from this article
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020820-92348488.htm

Originally posted by MagiK: Umm just a response to your last inquiry..why should not non-americans have the same rights that "we" do. We meaning US citizens...well for one thing...it is the US constitution and why should the US afford them any more rights than they have in their own nation?

My point was that we Americans have a very high opinion of our constitution and bill of rights. If we believe that these are the best set of rules, then shouldn't we apply them to everyone? I don't think I'm making my point very well. We (as a nation/culture) get upset when we hear about the human rights abuses against women in countries such as Afganistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. We want these countries to treat women fairly as we do (hehe small joke there, do you see it?). But we don't want to grant these people the rights we grant ourselves.

Another way to put it is, "All humans should have the same rights"

Originally posted by MagiK: Your outrage over their detainment and the way they are being held is colored by some rather biased reporting as well. Im not saying that some of them may have had rights issues, but I believe that if you read the laws that apply to these individuals thay are actually being held under well defined rules. Its not like the Justice department has no precidence for what they are doing. Just because a journalist isn't aware of every detail doesnt mean his conclusions are correct.

I don't really want to get into a discussion of the Cuba detainees, so I probably shouldn't have brought them up in the first place. Those guys surely deserve to be incarcerated in some form or another (although I still think they are entitled to a trial). I am sure that there has been yellow journalism on both sides of the issue, and that I am not getting the entire story. However I find it hard to believe (and I have no evidence to back me up here, just a gut feeling) that all of the soldiers guarding those POWs are treating them according to the rules laid out. I mean, those Marines must be PISSED! Here they are, on guard duty, when other soldiers get to go kick ass in Afghanistan. I'm sure one or two has gotten out of line. Not that I can blame the Government or military for this, but it does bother me.

[Now that I think about it, I seem to recall the Administration saying something about the Geneva convention not applying to these guys. Can anyone confirm or deny?]

Originally posted by MagiK: All in all right now I think it would be in everyones best interest to be a tad skeptical of journalists who are gunning for headlines and less interested in their factual accuracy. If Congress actually had any proof that the Bush Administration was breaking wantonly violating laws, you can bet your bottom dollar the Dems would have a motion to have him impeached in a heartbeat.

Healthy skepticism is always a good thing. I think is as important or more important that we be skeptical of the government. And I think that all in all, journalists are more concerned with their factual accuracy than you think. They may phrase their stories in ways to make their point, but I think you would see a lot of reporters getting sued if they didn't get the fact right.

Also, I don't think the Dems would be so quick to impeach Bush. Although his popularity has been flagging, it would be politcal suicide to criticize Bush too loudly. Most of the politicians that have questioned Bush's foreign policy lately have been Republicans. Things may change a bit after the elections of course.

Originally posted by MagiK: The truth is neither on the left nor the right, but somewhere inbetween.

True. True. But I think its a little left of center

[Lox]

Originally posted by MagiK: I just thought of another thing Lox [img]smile.gif[/img] The prisoners in Quantanimo Cuba are actually in better health and better fed than they were in their own countries. They have access to better medical and dental care than some Americans as well. I would hardly classify them as being in humanely treated.

Hehe. The fact that they have better medical coverage than a lot of Americans is probably the most appalling thing about this whole issue.

[img]smile.gif[/img] LOL Lox you are alright. I agree skepticism is a good thing [img]smile.gif[/img] And yes it is sad that the Cuba Detainees get something for free that a lot of us can't. I think things will be quite interesting once all is said and done and we have moved beyond this current "war on terror" and the "secrets" of today are aired publicly.

[john]

Maybe the big super powers won't be the problem it may just be some wacko with a small nuke in a lunchbox.These are the threats and worries of the present times ALL nukes should be eliminated.There is no sane reason to have such a device around,We should never have used them in the past and never again in the future.To me it was just as bad as being part of the holocost!! Please lets get rid of Mr.Bush he may start the next war with his lack of tack and brains.