Is Nuclear War inevitable?

Jump to Last Post 1-29 of 29 discussions (166 posts)

72
rhamsonposted 14 years ago
With Irans new revelations that they have a secret site for the nuclear capabilities is this the latest step in the path to a nuclear war?
reply report
1. 82
  manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I personally have no doubt...that such a powerful weapon will ultimately be used...on a massive retaliative scale like dominoes falling...after someone starts the chain reaction. Mankind should not possess such a weapon...it is bigger than we are! The question is who will start it?
  reply report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is like the story of the tower of Babel. We are so smart, brilliant in fact, to have the intelligence to create something from what we cannot see. The vast energy and time spent on discovering and making such a huge destructive instrument could be the undoing of us in the end.
  
  I am reminded of a scene in a movie The Treminator when the question was posed after witnessing two boys playing cops and robbers with toy guns, We don't have a chance. The reply by The Terminator was "you can't help it, it is your nature".
  
  I guess if we bicker enough and choose the easy way through violence it will be a no brainer.
  reply report
  82
  manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes...Yes...Yes! That one simple line from that movie...may be the greatest truth of them all!
  reply report
2. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Iran is being held at bay by Israel's nuke capabilities. Israel has both Mecca and Medina targeted. But who knows how crazy Iran actually is. When I hear about suicide bombings, and the fact that they send their wives and kids to do it, I kinda wonder.
  reply report
3. 59
  Kaabiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I thought it was pretty hilarious that Iran wanted to buy enriched uranium from us for "medical purposes." Yeah, like we would sell them the key ingredient for our destruction under a false pretense. Uranium does have medical uses, but it's blatantly obvious their goal is not to use it in that manner.
  reply report
4. 59
  David Bowmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have always doubted that a country like Iran would be so foolish as to use a nuclear weapon knowing full well that it would be turned into a glass parking lot in retaliation. It would be akin to someone like me taking a poke at Mike Tyson. I might get in one good lick by surprise, but he would murder me in response. It would be an act of self-destruction.
  reply report
5. 60
  dutchman1951posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I hope not, I really do.
  reply report
6. 68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't matter who gets the weapon when, the fact of nuclear war is inevitable.
  reply report
60
readytoescapeposted 14 years ago
With the question you now have the answer to the reason for the “War on Terror.”

Every responsible government in possession of nuclear arms has come to the same conclusion. As President Reagan declared in a radio address, “A Nuclear War cannot be won, only fought and the fight has to be avoided at all cost”. The new “Nuclear War” is preventing rogue nations and terror based organizations intent on their use from ever obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

That is the definition of “at all cost.”
reply report
1. 72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I understand your answer with the more appealing "War on Terror" but do you really believe that Iran will unleash the weapon knowing the inevitability of a devastating counterstrike.
  
  I think you have to look at the relationship India has with Pakistan in that they both have nuclear weapons but have chosen the detente method of having them. It was a very volatile climate when the Khashmir conflict came into being and Pakistan wanted a way to back India off the idea of invading them. I have probably over simplified that situation but only for times sake.
  
  Korea on the other hand wishes to blackmail the world into allowing them the status they want and be gifted all sorts of favored trade and importing opportunities from their demands.
  
  If Irans purpose for creating this weapon was to deploy it on Israel why would they make it so well known? They or I should say their president stirs the pot with the threat Israel has to his country by their possesion of the nukes.
  
  I have no answer for this dilema but I feel we should understand where the common ground is before we make movements we cannot reverse.
  reply report
  60
  readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don’t think anyone can consider Iran’s build up to be just posturing as North Korea’s appears to be. I and many others have no doubt that Ahmadinejad, given the opportunity, would target Israel as soon as he has the capability. Even if there were to be some restraint in Iran, he would use it before he lost power. And if it were not a direct strike, the Iranian regime would find a way to provide that weapon to Palestinian radicals for an attack on Israel or to Al Qaeda for an attach on US or European targets an then claim “plausible deniability.”
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  that's what i was thinking also...
  reply report
  80
  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know. For the past twenty years or so someone around there has been trying to be the "big dog" on the block. Saddam succeeded for a while even though he didn't really win his war against Iran. Israel will never admit or deny having nukes, but quite a few experts think they do anyway. There always this struggle for power going on there. If Iran had nukes (or pretended to) it would give them "big dog" status.
  
  All that said is it worth the risk that he's just posturing?
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  it's that posturing that frightens me. all too familiar scenarios reminiscent of the pre-Iraq days, only this time there most likely ARE weapons of mass destruction.
  reply report
  80
  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Shoot! I meant to say "if he's posturing."
  reply report
60
stuart747posted 14 years ago
I belive and hope that Nuclear Weapons are just a show of some countries power, and don't belive any one would be stupid enough to start a Nuclear war. I'm probably wrong!
reply report
51
shamelabboushposted 14 years ago
It's happening soon! The world is a boiling pot and if you don't believe, have a look at the religious forum here...
reply report
70
sunforgedposted 14 years ago
I like to hope that Mutual Nuclear Deterrence works, as it seems to have through the cold war.

The worry is if a group with no borders, or one filled with zealots managed to get a hold of one AND have a long range deployment system

Warheads are supposedly still trickling around from soviet russia BUT really big catapaults dont cut it and supposedly and hopefully most of these small groups dont have access to icbm technology and would be noticed if they attempted to gain such.

Key word hopefully.

Im still gonna lean towards no, whats the point of nuking something - you cant go their afterwards and take advantage of the newly emptied land, its poisoned!

Biological weaponry is where my fears would lie, luckily deployment is still an issue for those (from what I know) as the explosive force that deploys the agent also kills it.

But a superflu could be engineered and spread around pretty easily - it worked on the native americans
reply report
1. 72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The worry is if a group with no borders, or one filled with zealots managed to get a hold of one AND have a long range deployment system
  
  I wonder if Israel could be grouped into that?
  reply report
0
ralwusposted 14 years ago
That would be a bad day for a whole lot of somebodies, that's fer sure.
reply report
60
sooner than laterposted 14 years ago
God destroys the earth before man.

100 time out of 100- mankind would eventually destroy itself completely. We are like red ants and cockroaches mixed together.

sad really.
reply report
0
ralwusposted 14 years ago
Why don't those suicide bombers just buy their way into paradise like some Christians do? I'm sure they could still find a virgin or two to take with them.
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - they get the virgins after they get there - for doing God's work, that is.
  reply report
87
Shil1978posted 14 years ago
I don't know about war, but certainly the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used, especially by rogue elements (terrorists included) is certainly greater now than ever.

As far as nation states, the likelihood of countries such as Iran (if they successfuly make the bomb) or Pakistan using nuclear weapons is far more greater than the other declared / undeclared nuclear weapon states!!
reply report
80
Tom Cornettposted 14 years ago
The last words of the last human....."The End"
reply report
65
Flightkeeperposted 14 years ago
I think we're closer to nuclear war than ever before. You've got two very unstable leaders in Ahamawhatever and Kim something who are either unafraid or crazy enough to use it to achieve their purposes.
reply report
1. 82
  manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  here all this time...I thought I was about the only one who couldn't remember or spell their names..most of the time
  reply report
  65
  Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Manlypoet, I just don't want to be bothered with knowing the names of those worthless people.
  reply report
  82
  manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  that surely does make a lot of sense...
  reply report
72
rhamsonposted 14 years ago
Whats ironic in this conversation is the ommision of the fact that we are the only nation to ever deploy a nuclear weapon on another country.

Are we the only right ones in the bunch?
reply report
1. 82
  manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No...we were not right in using the bomb for what it did to those two cities...It is a horrible killing device. However...I believe it did stop the war.
  
  Also, It was only a matter of time before the Germans invented and/or produced one...On the History Channel...I saw where the Japanese were trying to build one as well. How do you second guess the End of the War..personally...I don't know the correct questions to start asking...to get to the correct answers. It was a Bad "World War" ...and many things would have changed...had it had...other various other outcomes...? My guess is that back then...the race was on to control the most powerful weapon. No one looked ahead 50-60 years...to see that weapon could be invented/ and produced a 100 times over...and more than enough times to wipe out life on the planet!
  reply report
2. 65
  Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why is that ironic? It was used in the context of a world war. Would you have preferred that the Germans or the Japanese beat us to it and we ended up getting bombed?
  reply report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your observation prooves my comment. We were right to use it because of the outcome. If that were the case for other countries then they are right by using it on us.
  
  There were other atrocities done to the Japenese because of war including the firebombing of Tokyo and the internment camps of the Japanese during World War II.
  
  The politics of this issue has failed us and as long as we pursue violent means to end them we are going to be in a world of war without end.
  reply report
  80
  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't forget Dresden!
  
  I often wonder how much cheaper it would be to help the "other guy" threatening war because "he" needs something that we have. But there's the politics right there. Why give "him" something when we can profit from it?
  reply report
  59
  Vladimir Uhriposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting.
  I just recently hear from medical doctor who lived in Soviet bloc that Japanese had secret weapon, deadly disease nobody could cure. They themselves had immune serum. It was transmitted by body lice. To the end all workers died except few. Anyone heard about it?
  reply report
  80
  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is known that they were injecting captured American and British soldiers with something. Of course the survivors do/did not know what it was. The survivors did state that whatever it was made them quite sick.
  reply report
  65
  Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You make the assumption that the Axis and the Allies are equal in terms of goals. You don't make the distinction that it was Germany and Japan that started the second war and wanted to control their regions and for the Allies very much a defensive fight. If all outcomes seem equal to you then it really shouldn't matter much to you who wins in a fight. I can't say the same for myself. I would prefer to live in a republican democracy than I would in a sharia-dominant society or under a dictator.
  reply report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There are two sides to an argument is all I am saying. Of course I don't agree with an obvious atrocity such as the Nazis or the cruelty of the Japanese Imperial Army but where I begin to have a problem is with the manner by which our politicians feed us a war. Was war inevitable with Germany? Probably. Was war inevitable with Japan? Maybe not.
  
  My point is that war is the failure of politics to come to a compromise agreeable to all. The politicians who are greatly influenced by the lobbyist constituency are the ones getting us killed. Further ignoring this paradigm furthers the inevitablity of war.
  
  Who is right no longer matters because we are all dead.
  reply report
  80
  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Once they declared war on us it was inevitable. This was right after the attack on Pearl, though the declaration should have been delivered before.
  
  Exactly.
  reply report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't you think there was a manipulation by us to restrict the amount of oil we witheld from the Japanese that fueled the flames of discontent so to speak?
  
  There has been much speculation about the way we entered World War II because of our economical status and our priorities. Our politics of the day had a great deal to do with the Japanese entry and the way sides were drawn.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So you feel its ok to bomb pearl harbor because we withheld oil but its not ok for the US to defend itself?
  reply report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course I don't. But if you rub a stick in a dogs eye until he is mad at you do you expect it to just walk away?
  
  There seems to be a symbionic relationship between what we believe as Americans and what the politicians feed us. Once the decision to do something is made are we to never go back and review what part we played in the issue? Blindly following the whim of misled trumped up circumstances?
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You just said a whole lot of nothing!
  reply report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Are the words confusing?
  
  Let me spell it out.
  
  I am okay and you are okay as long as we agree. If you don't agree then you must be one of them and we don't like them. Bad them.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nope still nothing! Nice try though
  reply report
  59
  Vladimir Uhriposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Tell me please what "rubbing eyes" we Christian did to the terrorists? And what Israel? They hate us no matter what we do or not.
  reply report
  65
  Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So what you are saying is that you think the Japanese had an excuse to attack Pearl Harbor and Subic and virtually eliminate our navy because we withheld oil? Their goal of controlling and dominating Asia including the rape of Nanking when China was under such turmoil being one of their efforts didn't go into your revisionist history?
  reply report
  82
  manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  rhamson...do you always take the apologists approach in every issue against the "Bad" America...? So...if we held oil from them...which...since there was a Depression going on...I doubt we did...to a very large enough degree sufficient to justify them to attack our entire Naval Pacific Fleet...(minus our Aircraft carriers...which just luckily...happend to be out at sea)...
  reply report
  80
  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh certainly that particular political manipulation was going on. But I've also heard the the oil restrictions were put in place to stop Japanese expansion. By this time they'd already invaded China and had their sights on other island nations nearby.
  
  Certainly, as well as all the treaties we were party to and all the treaties Japan and Germany were party to. In many ways it resembled the beginning of WWI. Sides were being chosen long before any formal declaration of war by us, the Japanese, or the Germans.
  
  For some historians I'm quite certain it was frightening to see all of this unfolding again. And I've even heard some state that WWI and WWII were the same war with an intermission thrown in.
  
  So from those points of view it was inevitable. I'm also convinced that the U.N. was a re-visitation of the League of Nations that Woodrow Wilson tried so hard to create. Congress killed that. Much like some in Congress are trying to kill the U.N. now.
  reply report
  59
  Vladimir Uhriposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  After the WWII US and Soviet communists created UN. It is not good org. They all are against us.
  Their idea was to negotiate instead of fight. Since their existence there were more wars as wars of our modern era, perhaps 1000 year or so.
  All secretaries were socialists and undersecretaries were soviets. All names are Russians.
  reply report
  80
  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And for all of that we have veto power. And one veto is all it takes to kill a resolution. One.
  reply report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The one type of war that has not taken place is a nuclear one. Perhaps that is all we have to be thankful of for the UN.
  reply report
  65
  Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm glad that you see that there are two sides. And your answer to Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor was that we might not have had to declare war against Japan means that you would allow your own citizens to be attacked and let it go. Well then would it have been alright with you if they attacked Alaska next? Would you never draw a line to keep peace at all costs?
  
  I understand your point. But you don't seem to understand that there are people who don't want to avoid confrontation and war and will initiate if it means that they get what they want.
  reply report
59
Vladimir Uhriposted 14 years ago
Sad we do not have wise leaders.
I remember Chernobyl disaster. Russians and former Soviet regime always live on fear. An explosion cause terrific fear. My country Slovakia also had an effect radiation clouds. But I was here in US at that time.
Hiroshima stop the senseless war of fanatics.
One nuke in Iran will take care of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well.
See Terrorists are cowards. They shoot from behind the corner. When they got bitten they all cry from hurting on TV - you know propaganda. Otherwise they do not show their identity.
I am against the war. But future is not looking good without God.
Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama should take all soldiers from the world, to unite families as he promised. I did change my mind recently.
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL You have to bring your ridiculous beliefs into every discussion don't you? Why is that? Stirring the pot? Bet you are waiting with baited breath for the war. Just what you want huh?
  
  Not looking good without you god dropping a bomb?
  
  Don't you worry - I am absolutely certain you believers will cause the final conflict. That is what you want and pray for is it not?
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The same might be asked of you.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Aww. See - you didn't buy that dictionary I recommended did you? Too bad. let me know when you have had some sort of education and we can speak on the same level. You still did not answer the question some one asked you though:
  
  [b]<No personal attacks in the Forums.{/b]
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please refrain from personal attacks.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Dude - try the Oxford English. Really - you will learn sum werds. Honest....
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please refrain from personal attacks.
  reply report
  60
  sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  <Insults deleted - no personal attacks in the Forums.>
  reply report
  59
  Vladimir Uhriposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mark absolutely not. I hate war. I went through it. I do not believe there will be nuclear war. Nuclear bombs are only for political purpose. It is just for threat. I just put down my thought. Did you ever put s**** words on paper once a while? The word means "silly" and nothing else. The future will show many thinks I said. However, you consider from your side as stupid. You remember you called me names?
  I am out for now.
  No, I don't think nuclear war will come!!!
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  BS - you guys crave the "final conflict" and we already had a nuclear war - The good Ole US of A dun dropped two bombs already. Or did you forget? You know - that "christian nation" ?
  
  Of course a conflict is coming. Are you blind? I wish I could stop it - and am trying - but all the time you have the words of God/Allah in your head and the only thing wrong is "it is not looking good without god," it is inevitable. Why do you think I am so against it?
  
  Inevitable.
  reply report
  80
  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But, but, but Mark! It is written; therefore it will come to pass.
  
  Or some such nonsense.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Does that mean that anyone who disagrees with YOU is blind? And, if you can see the future, when exactly is this conflict coming?
  reply report
  59
  Vladimir Uhriposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Spasiba charasho.
  reply report
  80
  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Smacking the hornets nest with a stick again eh Mark? Mind if I join you?
  reply report
60
Valerie Fposted 14 years ago
Only some fundies might crave some "final conflict," not that it would even be relevant, as some believe they'll be "raptured" prior to that.

I would request a bit of research into what mainstream Christians really believe before painting a whole, diverse group of people with one brush.

I believe that the "final conflict" of which you speak was already won some 2,000 years ago.

As for nuclear war, the US and Japan learned how to escalate a conflict to the point of deploying atomic weapons- and hopefully how to avoid doing so in the future.

The arms race with the Soviet Union was, in my opinion, inexcusable on both sides, and I think it reflects poorly on the human race how much the rest of the world insists upon repeating our mistakes.
reply report
1. 80
  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I always thought "Mutual Assured Destruction" was the craziest thing of all, but it did work to prevent another nuclear conflict...at least it seems to have worked.
  
  I am mindful of the fact that after "the flood" the next promise of destruction was to be by fire. Nuclear explosions are quite hot you know. Capable of vaporizing people and turning dirt into glass.
  reply report
0
A Texanposted 14 years ago
I think war is just fine with Rhamson as long as its the US being attacked!
reply report
1. 72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Have I hurt your feelings again?
  
  War is never okay but I keep seeing your answer is that it is as long as you get what you want.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Have you ever hurt my feelings? You can't say you hate war and then decide that war is ok as long as there is a good reason, I just don't take you seriously anymore!
  reply report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thats okay because I don't think you ever did. Your answers to my questions and your statements are single minded and reflect an inability to compromise anything.
  
  It almost always sounds like "Kill 'em all and let God sort out the rest"
  
  I digress and I apologize and sorry for the seemingly personal attack but I don't feel I can ever get through your image and relate on a more calmer and intelligent plain.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You're funny, one side of your mouth "war bad" other side "war good as long as there is a good reason"
  
  You finally figured out that I have convictions that will not change because you want them too?
  
  If this passes for intelligence then I will step aside and watch the train wreck!
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Never?
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I actually have to agree with you. Sometimes you must go to war no matter how you feel about it.
  
  However, I don't feel nuclear war is inevitable
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  agreed and agreed
  reply report
0
\Brenda Scullyposted 14 years ago
ah no..... i still believe that god promised that the earth would be to time indefinite, and he isn't going to change, it wont be blown up....... now some of the people might, not in nuclear bombing though...... why blow up the whole earth, when it can be fixed.......
reply report
57
Dame Scribeposted 14 years ago
I believe that Israel can live quite peacefully side by side with others. It is possible and I think it's poor behavior and poor leadership on the part of the *government* leaders to show malice towards other nations. Their own behaviors tells others 'it's ok' to behave this way. They (bad behavior leaders) are the ones that should be removed and instead should have leaders that are for the world not just themselves. Israel has been on the offensive for years and nobody should have to live like that. I think the adjoining countries to Iran will not allow Iran to make any sort of nuclear war since they themselves would also be affected by the fallout and retaliation.
reply report
0
ralwusposted 14 years ago
Yeah, ain't it scary? Self destruction, they all go to paradise together as martyrs.
reply report
1. 59
  David Bowmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You make a good point. When you factor in the religious aspect, all manner of insanity is possible.
  reply report
61
sannyasinmanposted 14 years ago
Can you imagine that your neighbour has a big shotgun pointed at you, and you go to the gun shop and are told that you can’t have one? Your neighbours can, but you can’t. Do you say “Ok that’s fine, give me a bow and arrow instead”, or do you go to another gun shop to try to get one there?

The world did not want India and Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons, but now that they have, it’s all OK. Nobody batted an eyelid when Israel went nuclear. That was OK too. It’s one rule for US, and another rule for THEM. Can you honestly blame Iran, Iraq or any other country for that matter, for wanting nuclear weapons when their neighbours and “enemies” have them?

I don’t think that there will ever be a nuclear war. What would be the point of the Iranians gaining victory over Israel if there was then, no-one left in Iran to enjoy it? M-A-D isn’t it? Do you really think the Iranians are that stupid?
reply report
0
cosetteposted 14 years ago
haha...damn the typedoes, full speed ahead!
reply report
81
dohn121posted 14 years ago
I hope all of you guys spent the summer building bomb shelters and stocked them with canned foods and fresh water, because if Iran and North Korea ever create an alliance, it's definitely gonna come in handy And don't tell me it can't happen either!
reply report
1. 0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  yep.
  
  that's what i am afraid of.
  
  well, i'm off to Costco!
  reply report
  81
  dohn121posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'll see you there! I'll be in the guy with the forklift hording all the rice
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  haha!!
  
  you know what?
  
  i got this giant bag of Basmati rice because it looked so good and i am like only 1/4 of the way through it...
  reply report
  81
  dohn121posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Have you read my hub on 15-minute rice? It just might help.
  reply report
  65
  Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not a bad idea to have a pot luck after the nuclear fallout. I'll bring the dessert.
  reply report
  0
  cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  partee!
  
  (p.s. i'll go check it out. thanks. later, you guys)
  reply report
  81
  dohn121posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
61
sannyasinmanposted 14 years ago
And another thing. It has been known ever since the end of the Iraq war that the USAs next target would be Iran. All that was needed was to create another pretext, to justify “taking out” Iran, as our military friends like to say, just like they did for Iraq.
Bush and Cheney knew full well there were no WMD’s in Iraq, as did the IAEA inspectors, but something was needed to justify a war, so they went to great pains to flesh out the lie. This is now beyond any doubt.

Now it is Iran’s turn, and a really big problem needs to be manufactured so that we can have another war to sort it out. Nuclear weapons threat? Perfect! The US gets the oil of course, and also makes billions in war profits. Does no-one hear the echoes of Iraq again here?
reply report
1. 80
  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Eh? What happened to the oil we were supposed to get from Iraq? Didn't Wolowitz say something about $2.00 a gallon?
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Its not about the price of gas at your local gas station. There are cartels that control prices.
  Its about the US securing control over oil supplies. Who do you think has the stranglehold on Iraqi oil? Which companies get the lions share of reconstruction, security and oil contracts? And who makes the biggest profits from the War? Companies like Halliburton (based in Texas, was run by Cheney), DynCorp and Blackwater.
  
  Do you doubt that the invasion of Iraq was really about the oil? Apparently Iraq has reserves to equal Saudi Arabia, and who controls it now?
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Iraq does.
  
  Another brilliant conspiracy bears fruit!
  
  reply report
  65
  Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  With so many conspiracies bearing fruit it's a wonder we haven't made a gigantic fruit salad.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh we have, we have...
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Bush and Cheney, the Fairy Godfathers of the Western World, protecting us all from Bid Bag Saddam and his WDMs . . how can we ever repay you . . .ah, no need, they already took care of that themeslves.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You ever speak to an Iraqi during the Saddam years?
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There were no WDMs in Iraq, and there was no justification for invading Iraq other than to take control of the country's oil, and to make obscene profits from the war (which is still going on today). Most people understand that by now . . well most people.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You may be right about WMDs he probably used them all on the Kurds, what a wonderful man Saddam was!
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If the US military is such an altruistic institution, intent on saving the world from the "bad guys", half of Africa could do with their help. There are enough viscious dictators there to keep them busy for years. Why no action in Africa?
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No oil.
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You do know that the Military just goes where its sent? Maybe you don't, If I were you I would find a Marine or Army Ranger and call them out on their selective fighting, that should work real well for you!
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The actual question is: if the US is so intent on protecting people from vicious dictators (ie the reason for invading Iraq - I take it you accept there were no WDMs) then why do they not deal with the vicious dictators in Africa, where there are many?
  report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is obviously something more in Iraq, and the whole middle east politically, than oil and/or evil dictators. The 48 contiguous states, not even including Alaska, have more oil than the entire middle east put together. None of this is about oil.
  report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I agree that there are other political factors at play here. But, the US has 4% of the worlds population and consumes 25% of the worlds resources. Yes the US has a lot of oil, but it is not enough. The US is not self-sufficient in oil but it is still completely dependent on it. Now with control of oil supplies from Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran . . .
  report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  As it should be!
  report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Long live the consumable society eh Texan.
  report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Works for me!
  report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Does it really?
  Have you not lost brothers or family members to these wars?
  Are you working longer hours to make up the difference inflation and the costs of living have made?
  Watching the American Dream evaporate before your very eyes?
  If any of these things are happening in your life then I would submit it is not working for you. Or if you don't have any of this happening in your life then God Bless You and keep you and your family well. You are sufficiently insulated from the rest of us and you cannot understand what the rest of us are feeling.
  report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I have lost family members to these wars, I have almost lost my life to war, but would go again if needed or if they would take me. I'm retired and have been for 3 years I worked hard my entire life and towards the end of my working days finally put things together and made some money! However I just put an offer on a house to try and flip so I might be going back to work.
  
  I will not apologize for being sucessful if that is what you are looking for then you better look elsewhere! The American dream is there just keep going until you find it, whining about it evaporating is a defeatist attitude and will get you nowhere.
  report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The question is not whether you should feel sorry for what you have obtained through hard work and wise business decisions. But would you agree that with the gigantic transfer of wealth that has taken place over the last decade that there are fewer opportunities because of an economic meltdown and loss of resources that we shall never recover? And that these wars we are constantly waging are at a tremendous expense both emotionally and economically?
  
  This is not working for Americans and it is going to break us just like it did the Soviet Union. There is an old saying "For if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.
  report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Wise business decisions", thats a good one, most decisions I made early in life came back to haunt me later. Its time to pull out of these Countries if we are not in it to win and I don't believe we are anymore, or at least the Government isn't!
  
  For every one acre of forest cut down for wood 60 were planted to replace it. I do not believe in Global warming I believe the earth is doing just fine. Obama is the one making decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan tell him what you want maybe he will listen, doubt it though!
  report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't have to tell him as the country elected him to go this direction in the first place. Sure he has all the trappings that any skilled politician needs to be successful but he was voted in by us to try something. Look I don't like the slime that operates in DC any more than anyone else. I really wonder how people can really get behind any slimeball politician but what do you expect? If the business of politics is so slimy and dishonest would it not be reasonable to accept that the slimiest get to the top? That goes for Bush and Clinton as well.
  
  I am waiting to see where this all goes but in the meantime I do believe in the constitution and I believe in our form of government but I do think it is a little broken now and we need to put our heads together and stop fighting among ourselves to get to the solution.
  report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think Obama was elected to end the wars as much as it was a protest against Republicans! I am sure that a majority of people have turned their eyes away from the wars and thats usually when we get bit!
  
  Obama is proving himself to be the incompetent most conservatives figured him to be, he speaks well but is not taken too serious by the big boys (China Russia)we need a real leader not an arrogant socialist! I know you will not agree but that is to be expected, it took me four years to figure out Bush was an idiot, but they took him serious!
  report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When?
  report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Which of those dictators is creating, supporting, and exacerbating conditions that represent a threat to US security and economic interests?
  report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What interests?
  report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Um, see right there where I said "security and economic" interests?
  report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  what interests?
  report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Security and economic interests. (is there some language barrier at work here?)
  report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I can't make the question any simpler for you.
  report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You really think there's no oil in Africa?!
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Some may think it intelligent to pick out a single word, or phrase and then twist it to their own purpose. I don't. If you have a real position or argument, then let's hear it, instead of this destructive invective.
  report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?
  report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You don't think there is any US military action in parts of Africa today?
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Some may think it intelligent to pick out a single word, or phrase and then twist it to their own purpose. I don't. If you have a real position or argument, then let's hear it, instead of this destructive invective.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What action?
  report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What action?
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.eucom.mil/English/FullStory. … 711F321%7D
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm glad it's all so simple for you.
  
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The truth often is.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, not really.
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed it is.
  reply report
2. 60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah yes, the great American conspiracy to trick Iran into developing a nuclear weapons program.
  
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It worked with Iraq.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh it did? We tricked them into developing a nuclear weapons program?
  
  Hmmmm...maybe not. Maybe Israel took care of that one for (all of) us.
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is no coincidence that the "saviours of the western world", Bush and Cheney, have attacked countries which have huge oil reserves. Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran is next.
  
  This thread reminds me of a comment once made by a very famous American pop star, not noted for her intelligence. When asked about the politics of George W. Bush, she replied "I believe everything he says. He is the President". Period. End of story. No discernment necessary.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Kinda sounds like the Obama supporters now.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So true!
  reply report
  80
  jiberishposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Except Obama supporters bow first.
  reply report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's no wonder were are in the predicament we are now because of those two. Think less act more seems to be the warcry.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You mean exactly what many people here have said about Obama?
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Which people?
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Read all the posts of the past several months and you'll see.
  reply report
  61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, once again no arguments or facts - a deflected answer with no substance.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually my observation correspond to TK's in this regard.
  reply report
82
manlypoetrymanposted 14 years ago
Hasn't history shown that those that want to take the iniative and show that they have the means to do so...always end up doing so...? What if they do have many covert plans in place to where they think that they could make Israel stand-down for some reason even for a short time...while they commence operations. Not trying to sound paranoid...but to me that is a huge what if. We are all thinking on the level...ground level that is...all these guys got bunkers 1/2 way to China...Iraq had tunnels all over the place...Huge ones...just like Germany. We have one Mountain base for the leaders all to crawl into...and probably thousands more. Pakistan...probably has several for sure. What if the ultimate plan by someone with their hand on the trigger is to escalate problems and then go underground for an ice tea...and a long nap...for how ever long it takes to deradiate naturally.

Hmmm...take cybergenic technology down in the ground with you...a few buildozers...Jeeps...Trucks...and Tanks...and all the sudden things ain't looking too hopeless for you to start rebuilding...after the hibernation period is over. Sound crazy...I pose to you that you aren't thinking out-of-the-box...if you're a smaller nation with less to rebuild...maybe even have decided to let the big boys on the block take each other out...and then you will come along after its' over and take anything that is left standing...once their gone. Still sound crazy...I bet there is a plan...somewhere on the face of this Earth...that calls for this as very thing as a Plan "B" in case of all out nuclear warfare. I would be shocked if some of this thinking hasn't been implemented already...by countries with a lot of money. Countries who are on the inside track of the dealings that are going on...and have figured out that a nuclear war against fueding nations or economic powers wretling for control...is ultimately inevitable! But then, I was just thinking out loud...anyways.
reply report
80
earnestshubposted 14 years ago
Iran has done nothing illegal. It does not have to notify the world of the second nuclear facility until 180 days before it is up and running, the same as all the other nuclear countries.

What is scary is the rhetoric from the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‎.

Know one knows exactly how many oppose him, as they usually wind up dead or tortured. The best indication of how many hate this dictator is the number of Iranians who risked their lives and even lost their lives protesting against his illegal Government.

Bomb Iran and it is not just Iran that will retaliate either.
Nuking Iran could start world war three.
reply report
1. 0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If the government is illegal then wouldn't that make anything it does illegal?
  reply report
2. 79
  Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  With you on that, Earnest - I love Iranians but detest Ahmadinejad.
  reply report
3. 82
  manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Deep down in my own little brain...I'm just a normal working dude...trying to pay his house note...keep food on the table...and make sure his yard stays nice and mowed. In my very average world of an average person...I know that with out a doubt earnest is correct in believing that could start WWIII! I just have a feeling like they are the powder keg to the whole thing...like pulling on that string makes the whole thing come unraveled...Oil, Money in that Region, Russian, American, European, and Chinese interests in the region, the need for a wealthy country like Iran to flex a little muscle, the religious power hold it holds over many/to much of the whole region...Careful footing is going to have to be required or the results equal...nothing good!
  reply report
80
jiberishposted 14 years ago
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1
reply report
59
VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years ago
For any misdeed of an erratic or rogue country, America is accused. It looks very bad. As far as Iran is concerned, the weapon capacity was transferred from Iraq during the last days of Saddam Hussain..
(Reports at that time said that train loads of arms were heading eastwards from Iraq... One such train was blasted, taking a toll of a number of villages in Iran.)
reply report
59
VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years ago
No one need to overestimate the power of a nuclear weapon... It can destroy a portion of mankind. There will certainly be an equal reaction from the affected country. And the destroyer will be destroyed before it is too late.

No one need to underestimate the capabilities of Israel, which is most likely to bear the brunt. They will do wonders at the appropriate time.
reply report
0
A Texanposted 14 years ago
"If the US military is such an altruistic institution, intent on saving the world from the "bad guys", half of Africa could do with their help. There are enough viscious dictators there to keep them busy for years. Why no action in Africa?"

No, the above was the actual question! If you want to change it feel free. Why do they not go to Africa? I don't know but if they did you would whine about it, so who cares?
reply report
1. 61
  sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I find it disappointing that that you resort to personal insults, instead of discussing the subject at hand.
  So, to recap, there were no WDMs in Iraq; the US did not invade Iraq to save Saddam's people from their dictator (otherwise they would be saving other nations from their dictators right now, especially in Africa).
  No-one needed a crystal ball to see, years ago, that Iran would be next, long before there was any nuclear weapons scenario.
  Let's see if you can answer without insults. Give it at try
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thats a personal insult? Goodbye!
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Take a look at his hub. It may add a new dimension to this discussion.
  
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-Do-You-Beli … nt-1669747
  reply report
  72
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Take a look at this to further the discussion as to what was going through Bushs' mind when we invaded Iraq.
  
  http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele … blix.shtml
  reply report
0
sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago
I think ____ _______ __ ______,____ _____ _______,_____ __ ___!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Is Nuclear War inevitable?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Is Nuclear War inevitable?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies