Which country will deploy nuclear warfare ?

[Roughneck]

as many above pointed put that history is written by the vicotrs

Sorry to break the thread but I've read this expression more than once and thought I'd respond.

That is BS.

History isn't "written" by anybody - history just "is". History writing is not a special privilege of 'victors' (a meaningless term for non-contemporary history anway). Anybody can write it.

Anyone who goes to the library can see hundreds of books written by the losers, from Thucydides and Xenophon through French generals in the Napoleonic wars, essays by the losers in the European revolts of 1848, William Walker's filibusters in Central America in the 1850s, Confederate generals in the American civil war, French officers in the Mexican civil war of 1957-1869, French officers in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), the various losers' memoirs from the Mexican Civil War of 1910-1923, White Russian accounts, Nazi and various German accounts of WWII (not to mention numerous revisionist secondary history books), French accounts of the loss of the battles for Indochina and Algeria, American accounts of the Vietnam war, Soviet accounts of Afghanistan campaigns -- frankly, their numbers are legion.



Gordar: Wow! Yes, quite similar indeed. Like minds think alike

cheers,

 

[squallumz]

Actually it really doesn't matter WHO will depoy nuclear warefare because we will all lose!


There are no winners of that kinda war!

ah ha! this is true. are we ready for a nuclear winter? i dont think so. imagine the enviromental effects a nuclear war would cause. jesus help us.

and quotes sound fun too. let me try my hand at one.

*clears throat*

"I don't know how man will fight World War III, but I do know how they will fight World War IV; with sticks and stones." - albert einstein


oh yeah.

 

[Legzman]

*clears throat*

"I don't know how man will fight World War III, but I do know how they will fight World War IV; with sticks and stones." - albert einstein


oh yeah.

Excelent quote and more than likely true! I've heard that one before but don't remember where, still love it. A nuclear war won't kill ALL humans on this planet, concievably 95% of them I'll give you that. But seriously, there are over 6 billion people on this planet, located everywhere. We will not become extinct because of the effects of WWIII, but the few who survive will be in a dramaticaly different world. Parts of which won't be inhabitable for a very very very long time due to all the excess radiation. These places would of course be everywhere in the mid-east as well as the whole of america!
But yea regardless, when (I say when because it WILL happen someday, just a matter of time) this happens, we are all fucked one way or another!

 

[void_expression]

It's gonna be US with bush around.

 

[pickles&cumquat]

It's gonna be US with bush around.

Despite Bush's attempt to try and change the laws to run for a third term, it isn't going to happen. I find it unlikely the Republican's will win the next election, but then again, you guys let Bush buy his first win :scream:

I agree with the theory of spinning, we have all seen this happen even more so now that the world is so connected via the net and media. Paranoia is a great way to control the masses.

One thing the US is guilty of doing is declaring war on everything, but not really doing anything about it. Between dictators, drugs, terror, and communism, what has the US really achieved in these wars????

This is not to single the US out. When your the global police your dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

My opinion is this, the US should just trade goods with nations and let all other countries handle their own disputes.

This way when the genocides, famines, disease, civil wars, terror strikes, among other disasters strike other parts of the world the US can just sit back and watch as the rest of the world falls into chaos.

take some of what I say with a grain of salt..... after all, I AM CANADIAN !!!

Seriously though, since the world will never agree on when to intervene (the UN anyone) in disputes, what the heck is the US supposed to do?:2 cents:

 

[Member2019]

Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive

At least now we know where our leaders get their inspiration from.

Interesting that you bring up Nazi Germany, because it was appeasement and pacificism that resulted in the saying, "appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive. In fact, one could argue about that both pre-1991 Iraq as well as pre-1996 Iraq (before Clinton finally started realizing Hussein had no interest in disarming).

Despite all the media to the contrary, the fact that US has declared war on many terrorist organizations has actually decreased new recruitment. It's a rather interesting study, because no longer do these organizations get the flock of average Joes who can be unchecked bullies. What you're seeing now is only those who are really dedicated. Yes, there are still plenty of them, but not nearly as many people willing to subject to their cause as before.

 

[D-rock]

I do think there is a good chance we will someday see another nuclear weapon used by a country in battle. All it will take is for some country that knows it can't win by conventional means, like Pakistan against India, to use it because it feels desperate. Maybe they will assume that the other side will never use them, similar to a game of chicken, until it is to late and something has happened. You might think mutually assured destruction would prevent that, but there are things like uncontrolled factions that could go at each other and bring each country into a war it can't get out of, or you could just have a psychotic dictator who is insane or doesn't care any more. Things change and leaders have made stupid decisions throughout history, it will probably happen again. After all if they always did what was for the best the world wouldn't be as screwed up as a place as it is now. I think the highest probability of them being used is where two countries go to war despite both of them knowing they have them and the ability to use them on each other, especially if one is more powerful conventionally then the other one.

If a few nuclear bombs were set off it wouldn't have a large impact on areas other than the zones that were directly hit. However if enough of them go off at the same time it can eject enough particulate matter into the atmosphere to cause nuclear winter which would affect all the world or at least most of the northern hemisphere. That would be more devastation than the localized radiation or blast would cause.

 

[Aegis]

I'm leaning towards that it won't be countries like Iran, North Korea etc. who bomb some city in another country. What's more likely is a terrorist organization setting off a nuclear bomb somewhere, or that it will be some kind of tactical nuclear strike or bunker-buster or whatever they are called. For the strikes against military or terrorist targets, I'm more considering the US or Israel to be most likely countries to do so.

 

[alpha85]

I am not american so please pardon my lack of knowlege of amercian politics. but did Bush seriously try to change the laws so he can have a third time in office, this man never stops to amaze me. didnt he also try to change the definition of torture under the human rights convention so they can torture more guantanomo prisoners. i cant even take him serious no more, the guy is a fruitloop. no offence to teh people that voted him in.

 

[alexios]

What about the prospect that it won't be a state? What about organizations?

 

[Member2019]

Off-topic non-sense ...

Nice of you to hijack the thread ... but to answer your non-sense ...

but did Bush seriously try to change the laws so he can have a third time in office,

No, you've been fed utter BS. That non-sense has been going around awhile. Trust me, W. -- like every President or any other federal politician before him -- understands that politicians must be elected by the public, under the laws of the US Constitution and its Amendments. To demonize him in such a way is to demonize American leaders in general -- Democrat or Republican. If you think the 2000 election didn't follow the Constitution and W. (or his brother) somehow rigged it, you should read the detail of the judgements of all the individual Supreme Court Justices.

About the only thing that scares me is the possibility that Al Quieda will make a massive attack between November 1st-3rd, 2008 to disrupt US elections on November 4th, 2008. No one, and I mean no one -- W. included -- wants to see that, because that throws a wrench into everything. I'm sure Al Quieda would love to do it to push W. into calling for Martial Law and pushing back the elections, and that's when everyone (including myself) would raise well. At the same time, if the elections still did go forward, plenty of people would bitch about the turnout and inaccuracy of those who voted, because the total number who voted would be a small subset of registered.

It's a scenario I hope never occurs. Because it would just cause all sorts of issues by disrupting the thing we hold most dear here in the US.

this man never stops to amaze me. didnt he also try to change the definition of torture under the human rights convention so they can torture more guantanomo prisoners.

The problem is that the media has done a poor job of defining "torture," and you've been fed a lot of BS.

The "torture" the US has committed so far ...
A. Very cold or hot rooms (but not enough to cause permanent damage)
B. Very loud music (but not enough to cause ear damage)
C. Nude and other embarrassing moments (commonplace in any prison system, typically to wash down as well as check for weapons)
D. Scaring/threatening to do real torture acts (which are never done)

Again, when you see the actual "torture acts" defined, it isn't torture under the Geneva conventions. The only possible Geneva convention violation to date are legal ones -- e.g., access to attorneys, speedy trial, etc... -- stuff that isn't guaranteed in many other country's legal systems, but are in the US (and therefore the Geneva convention applies selectively, long story). That's what the Supreme Court has taken issue with, and the US Congress finally moved to address after extensive debate with the White House.

You should really read up on how the various parts of the Geneva convention apply. They are not always absolute across all countries, but relative in many respects to the legal rights in the country in question. The US' legal system gives more rights to combatants than virtually all other countries (sans maybe the UK and a handful of others), including several in NATO. That's where the US Supreme Court has taken issue.

The "torture" non-sense in the media has to stop by the media defining the actual "acts" of alleged "torture." People think of cutting and other things. Forcing someone to listen to Eddie Van Halen at 60db in a 5C (41F) room for 4 hours is not torture -- you'd have to go up well beyond 80db and at least freezing to cause physical harm that is more than just temporary discomfort, but actual audio damage and frostbite.

i cant even take him serious no more, the guy is a fruitloop. no offence to teh people that voted him in.

Again, you've been fed a lot of BS. Try to cut through the rhetoric and get to the facts.

BTW, 9 out of 10 things I hear people complaining about with W. were also done by Clinton.

 

[Member2019]

Nuclear winter is a farce ... even Sagan retracted (among every scientist)

like Pakistan against India

That has been the most likely scenario played out over the last 25 years. Iran might throw an interesting curve into the mix as well, but I don't think they would openly use a weapon, it would be more clandestine.

If a few nuclear bombs were set off it wouldn't have a large impact on areas other than the zones that were directly hit. However if enough of them go off at the same time it can eject enough particulate matter into the atmosphere to cause nuclear winter which would affect all the world or at least most of the northern hemisphere. That would be more devastation than the localized radiation or blast would cause.

Nuclear winter is a farce, and now well disregarded by the scientific community. With development of gigaflop and, later, teraflop computing clusters in the '90s, virtually all scientists retractacted their belief that it was even possible, as simulations showed. Carl Sagan was the most notable.

A global-wide winter cannot be created by mankind with any weapon systems. We could airburst nuclear weapons over every inch of the entire land mass of the world (collectively several tens of gigatons of TNT equivalent) and it wouldn't throw up enough dust. It would take several teratons of TNT equivalent -- the amount to airburst destroy the planet 100x over.

Thermonuclear weapons, as well as thermabaric and many other "massive airburst" weapons, thrive on "pressure down" on ground zero. They aren't very good at "throwing up" material. That's why it's much easier for a single volcanic erruption to spew material into the atmosphere, than a combined total of many tens of gigatons of TNT equivalent (enough to airburst all over the planet) that is a much greater "explosion" over all. Volcanic erruptions use almost their entire force in spewing into the atmosphere, whereas a tiny fraction (less than 0.01%, or 1/10,000th) of a weapon airbust does the same.

The threat of thermonuclear weapons are very much limited to their instanteous mass destruction, and any lingering by-products (largely inhalation/injestion after the flashpoint).

 

[Member2019]

I don't like Truman

Absolutely right! Green rep points for Harry Truman!

There's a lot of things I don't like about Truman. I don't like how he handled dropping the bomb. It had to happen for a variety of reasons -- some, sadly, geo-political.

And then as we learned about all the "extra effects" in the years that followed Manhattan and the two drops, he then tried to "make up for it" with the Atoms for Peace document. The $2B (literally hundreds of billions of USD today) blueprint on all you need to refine uranium and build an apparatus for a reaction -- including a critical reaction that has no use for anything but weapons.

That document has been the basis for creation of every atomic weapons program in every rogue regime. So the US itself is most guilty for giving away the most basic of nuclear weapons design information. Sigh. We are just too naive and giving at times, not realizing it can and will be used against us by that small minority.

 

[Roughneck]

Hi Prof,

Allow me to disagree on two issues (though only slightly).

The problem is that the media has done a poor job of defining "torture," and you've been fed a lot of BS.

I don't essentially disagree - if you hear some versions of the media, it would almost seem that we've reinstituted the rack!

The "torture" the US has committed so far ...
A. Very cold or hot rooms (but not enough to cause permanent damage)
B. Very loud music (but not enough to cause ear damage)
C. Nude and other embarrassing moments (commonplace in any prison system, typically to wash down as well as check for weapons)
D. Scaring/threatening to do real torture acts (which are never done)

Ummm, not exactly. The government has accepted that we *might* (hint: political speak) have used "waterboarding". Whilst we claim to use a "humane form" of it (basically where the prisoner's head is held in a dependent position so that he cannot aspirate the water and drown) - it comes down to defining if a "humane form of torture is still torture".

Again, when you see the actual "torture acts" defined, it isn't torture under the Geneva conventions.

This whole busshit began because the adminstration refused to classify the detainees as either POWs or as Criminal Detainees/Defendents.

The Geneva conventions are quite clear on WHO can be considered legal/lawful PoWs :

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.


C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

I'll continue in the following post....

 

[Roughneck]

... continued from my last post:

Given what Geneva Conventions "considers" legal PoWs, I really found it hard when the Supreme Cabal (er... excuse me, the Supreme "Court") declared that the detainees were eligible for Geneva Convention protection. I didn't think that was right then and I still don't think it's right today.

However, if our readers/posters will bear with me, I think I should also highlight some more details that are pertinent.

The Geneva Conventions didn't appear of their own accord. They were in many ways, built upon the older "Laws of War" (As a retired "soldier" I must tell you how absurd a concept such as "lawful combat" is... but I doubt anyone could truly grasp it's meaning). But anyway, the older laws were the "Hague IV" conventions. Shall we take a look?

Personally, I think this is treading a thin line here.

Not because belligerents captured in battle don't deserve humane treatment or not - but because the Geneva Conventions doesn't exactly apply to these cases! Let's take a look at some primary reference documents:

The "Geneva Conventions" initially reference the following conventions - namely, the Convention Between the United States of America and Other Powers, Relating to Prisoners of War; July 27, 1929

which by itself references the older Hague IV conventions referencing 'classification of belligerents' in War.

Annex to the Convention
REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS
OF WAR ON LAND
SECTION I
ON BELLIGERENTS

CHAPTER I
The Qualifications of Belligerents

Article 1.

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
Art. 2.

The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.
Art. 3.

The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.

[NB:Those captured in Iraq donot fall under the definition of "combatant" as listed in hague IV - they are in violation of namely:


- To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
- To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

And in certain cases, they are also in violation of the following:
- To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
- To carry arms openly]

Thus they aren't combatants - but they can't qualify under Article 3 either - as they certainly aren't non-cobatants.

Other Articles and Laws that are relevant to discussion:

In every place where there are prisoners of war, they shall be a allowed to appoint agents entrusted with representing them directly with military authorities and protecting Powers.

This appointment shall be subject to the approval of the military authority.

Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the armies of the detaining Power.

Judicial proceedings against prisoners of war shall be conducted as rapidly as the circumstances permit; preventive imprisonment shall be limited as much as possible.

To be continued...

 

[Roughneck]

Finally:

Every prisoner of war is bound to give, if he is questioned on the subject, his true name and rank, and if he infringes this rule, he is liable to have the advantages given to prisoners of his class curtailed.

Prisoners of war liberated on parole and recaptured bearing arms against the Government to whom they had pledged their honour, or against the allies of that Government, forfeit their right to be treated as prisoners of war, and can be brought before the courts.

I mention this one because the law qualifies what ought to be done incase a beligerant forfeits his right to PoW status - he can be brought before courts of law.

Now ------

The only possible Geneva convention violation to date are legal ones -- e.g., access to attorneys, speedy trial, etc... -- stuff that isn't guaranteed in many other country's legal systems, but are in the US (and therefore the Geneva convention applies selectively, long story).

Long story or not, I still have questions regarding those buggers holed up in our prisons - are they criminals? Or are they PoWs?

That's what the Supreme Court has taken issue with, and the US Congress finally moved to address after extensive debate with the White House.

And I honestly believe that neither the US Congress nor the Supreme Court have the best interests of our system of governance at heart when they issues those stupid edicts...

You should really read up on how the various parts of the Geneva convention apply. They are not always absolute across all countries, but relative in many respects to the legal rights in the country in question.

This is true.

The US' legal system gives more rights to combatants than virtually all other countries (sans maybe the UK and a handful of others), including several in NATO. That's where the US Supreme Court has taken issue.

This is also true.

The "torture" non-sense in the media has to stop by the media defining the actual "acts" of alleged "torture." People think of cutting and other things. Forcing someone to listen to Eddie Van Halen at 60db in a 5C (41F) room for 4 hours is not torture -- you'd have to go up well beyond 80db and at least freezing to cause physical harm that is more than just temporary discomfort, but actual audio damage and frostbite.

You're probably right. Infact, maybe you're 100% right on what amounts to "torture" and what doesn't.

Me? I just don't think we have to even pretend to stoop to the level of those bastards to gain "intel". 'Cuz if we even remotely admit to it - how does that seperate US from THEM?


cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

Last but not least:

I don't necessarily disagree with the Prof.
Most of what he said is true - the main stream media has no clue what its babbling about... Just because they bring "experts" doesn't make them "credible".

The world thinks we are "breaking the Geneva Conventions" at will. That is simply not true.
At the same time, there are those in the US who think that the recent Senate ruling (especially given that Sen. McCain is behind it) is some sort of "safeguard" against 'torture' in the United States... NO IT'S NOT!


Am I happy about the Gitmo detaines? NO
Am I happy with the way the government has handled "terrorism" so far? Absolutely not.
Do I think those who criticise the government know what they are talking about? A very few do - the large majority donot.


cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

Re: I don't like Truman

That has been the most likely scenario played out over the last 25 years. Iran might throw an interesting curve into the mix as well, but I don't think they would openly use a weapon, it would be more clandestine.

I don't think India and Pakistan are that stupid. If we keep our meddling paws of them - I bet 100 to 1 that they'll work themselves out.

There's a lot of things I don't like about Truman. I don't like how he handled dropping the bomb. It had to happen for a variety of reasons -- some, sadly, geo-political.

And then as we learned about all the "extra effects" in the years that followed Manhattan and the two drops, he then tried to "make up for it" with the Atoms for Peace document. The $2B (literally hundreds of billions of USD today) blueprint on all you need to refine uranium and build an apparatus for a reaction -- including a critical reaction that has no use for anything but weapons.

That document has been the basis for creation of every atomic weapons program in every rogue regime. So the US itself is most guilty for giving away the most basic of nuclear weapons design information. Sigh. We are just too naive and giving at times, not realizing it can and will be used against us by that small minority.

This post strikes a chord with me - my old man was one of those slated to have carried on from Okinawa to the invasion of the home islands.

I'm not trying to argue if the dropping of the bomb was right or wrong - I just know that given my father's combat history (had served in three campaigns already) that, if the slated invasion of the home islands had gone through, I doubt he would have come back alive...


cheers,

 

[alpha85]

so far hurray for the UK :nanner:

 

[Member2019]

Roughneck, thanx for the excellent filler there. One of W.'s biggest issues is that he tries to explain himself to the media, when Clinton and Reagan just did not, especially when things need not be explained (e.g., "torture"). Once again we largely agree on many things, and I'm glad you see you expand upon what I stated, and clarify several details with excellent analysis.