Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq
(my editorial preface to the article: they say deep underground targets, but the contingency planning for nuke use isn't restricted to such, and anyone that has studied knows this; that's not to say they're going to do it, but the fact that policy doctrine exists for it should make you angry if you're an Earth Citizen; the insanity must stop, or humanity will go extinct -- PERIOD)
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES (fair use copyright exemption only)
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-nuke25jan25,0,4684654.story
U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq
For what one defense analyst says is a worst-case scenario, planners are studying the use of atomic bombs on deeply buried targets.
By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- As the Pentagon continues a highly visible buildup of troops and weapons in the Persian Gulf, it is also quietly preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq, according to a report by a defense analyst.
Although they consider such a strike unlikely, military planners have been actively studying lists of potential targets and considering options, including the possible use of so-called bunker-buster nuclear weapons against deeply buried military targets, says analyst William M. Arkin, who writes a regular column on defense matters for The Times.
Military officials have been focusing their planning on the use of tactical nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to preempt one, Arkin says. His report, based on interviews and a review of official documents, appears in a column that will be published in The Times on Sunday.
Administration officials believe that in some circumstances, nuclear arms may offer the only way to destroy deeply buried targets that may contain unconventional weapons that could kill thousands.
Some officials have argued that the blast and radiation effects of such strikes would be limited.
But that is in dispute. Critics contend that a bunker-buster strike could involve a huge radiation release and dangerous blast damage. They also say that use of a nuclear weapon in such circumstances would encourage other nuclear-armed countries to consider using such weapons in more kinds of situations and would badly undermine the half-century effort to contain the spread of nuclear arms.
Although it may be highly unlikely that the Bush administration would authorize the use of such weapons in Iraq -- Arkin describes that as a worst-case scenario -- the mere disclosure of its planning contingencies could stiffen the opposition of France, Germany and Middle East nations to an invasion of Iraq.
"If the United States dropped a bomb on an Arab country, it might be a military success, but it would be a diplomatic, political and strategic disaster," said Joseph Cirincione, director of nonproliferation studies at the Carnegie Endowment for Interna- tional Peace in Washington.
He said there is a danger of the misuse of a nuclear weapon in Iraq because of the chance that "somebody could be seduced into the mistaken idea that you could use a nuclear weapon with minimal collateral damage and political damage."
In the last year, Bush administration officials have repeatedly made clear that they want to be better prepared to consider the nuclear option against the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. The current planning, as reported by Arkin, offers a concrete example of their determination to follow through on this pledge.
Arkin also says that the Pentagon has changed the bureaucratic oversight of nuclear weapons so that they are no longer treated as a special category of arms but are grouped with conventional military options.
A White House spokesman declined to comment Friday on Arkin's report, except to say that "the United States reserves the right to defend itself and its allies by whatever means necessary."
Consideration of the nuclear option has defenders.
David J. Smith, an arms control negotiator in the first Bush administration, said presidents would consider using such a weapon only "in terribly ugly situations where there are no easy ways out. If there's a threat that could involve huge numbers of American lives, I as a citizen would want the president to consider that option."
Smith defended the current administration's more assertive public pronouncements on the subject, saying that weapons have a deterrent value only "if the other guy really believes you might use them."
Other administrations have warned that they might use nuclear weapons in circumstances short of an all-out atomic war.
In January 1991, before the Persian Gulf War, Secretary of State James A. Baker III warned Iraqi diplomat Tarik Aziz in a letter that the American people would "demand the strongest possible response" to a use of chemical or biological weapons. The Clinton administration made a similar warning to the Libyans regarding the threat from a chemical plant.
But officials of this administration have placed greater emphasis on such possibilities and have stated that preemptive strikes may sometimes be needed to safeguard Americans against adversaries who cannot be deterred, such as terrorists, or against dictators, such as Saddam Hussein.
Instead of making such a warning from time to time as threats arise, the Bush administration "has set it out as a general principle, and backed it up by explaining what has changed in the world," Smith said.
In a policy statement issued only last month, the White House said the United States "will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force -- including through resort to all of our options -- to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States."
One year ago, the administration completed a classified Nuclear Posture Review that said nuclear weapons should be considered against targets able to withstand conventional attack; in retaliation for an attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments." And it identified seven countries -- China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria -- as possible targets.
The same report called on the government to develop smaller nuclear weapons for possible use in some battlefield situations. Both the United States and Russia already have stockpiles of such tactical weapons, which are often small enough to be carried by one or two people yet can exceed the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, Japan, in World War II.
The administration has since been pushing Congress to pay for a study of how to build a smaller, more effective version of a 6-year-old nuclear bunker-buster bomb called the B-61 Mod 11. Critics maintain that the administration's eagerness for this study shows officials' desire to move toward building new weapons and to end the decade-old voluntary freeze on nuclear testing.
The B-61 is considered ineffective because it can burrow only 20 feet before detonating. The increasingly sophisticated underground command posts and weapon storage facilities being built by some countries are far deeper than that. And the closer to the surface a nuclear device explodes, the greater the risk of the spread of radiation.
The reported yield of B-61 devices in U.S. inventory varies from less than 1 kiloton of TNT to more than 350. The Hiroshima bomb was 20 kilotons.
Discussion of new weapons has set off a heated argument among experts on the value and effects of smaller-yield nuclear weapons.
Some Pentagon officials contend that the nation could develop nuclear weapons that could burrow deep enough to destroy hardened targets. But some independent physicists have argued that such a device would barely penetrate the surface while blowing out huge amounts of radioactive dirt that would pollute the region around it with a deadly fallout.
Wade Boese of the Arms Control Assn. in Washington said there is no evidence that conventional arms wouldn't be just as effective in reaching deeply buried targets.
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-nuke25jan25,0,4684654.story
U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq
For what one defense analyst says is a worst-case scenario, planners are studying the use of atomic bombs on deeply buried targets.
By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- As the Pentagon continues a highly visible buildup of troops and weapons in the Persian Gulf, it is also quietly preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq, according to a report by a defense analyst.
Although they consider such a strike unlikely, military planners have been actively studying lists of potential targets and considering options, including the possible use of so-called bunker-buster nuclear weapons against deeply buried military targets, says analyst William M. Arkin, who writes a regular column on defense matters for The Times.
Military officials have been focusing their planning on the use of tactical nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to preempt one, Arkin says. His report, based on interviews and a review of official documents, appears in a column that will be published in The Times on Sunday.
Administration officials believe that in some circumstances, nuclear arms may offer the only way to destroy deeply buried targets that may contain unconventional weapons that could kill thousands.
Some officials have argued that the blast and radiation effects of such strikes would be limited.
But that is in dispute. Critics contend that a bunker-buster strike could involve a huge radiation release and dangerous blast damage. They also say that use of a nuclear weapon in such circumstances would encourage other nuclear-armed countries to consider using such weapons in more kinds of situations and would badly undermine the half-century effort to contain the spread of nuclear arms.
Although it may be highly unlikely that the Bush administration would authorize the use of such weapons in Iraq -- Arkin describes that as a worst-case scenario -- the mere disclosure of its planning contingencies could stiffen the opposition of France, Germany and Middle East nations to an invasion of Iraq.
"If the United States dropped a bomb on an Arab country, it might be a military success, but it would be a diplomatic, political and strategic disaster," said Joseph Cirincione, director of nonproliferation studies at the Carnegie Endowment for Interna- tional Peace in Washington.
He said there is a danger of the misuse of a nuclear weapon in Iraq because of the chance that "somebody could be seduced into the mistaken idea that you could use a nuclear weapon with minimal collateral damage and political damage."
In the last year, Bush administration officials have repeatedly made clear that they want to be better prepared to consider the nuclear option against the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. The current planning, as reported by Arkin, offers a concrete example of their determination to follow through on this pledge.
Arkin also says that the Pentagon has changed the bureaucratic oversight of nuclear weapons so that they are no longer treated as a special category of arms but are grouped with conventional military options.
A White House spokesman declined to comment Friday on Arkin's report, except to say that "the United States reserves the right to defend itself and its allies by whatever means necessary."
Consideration of the nuclear option has defenders.
David J. Smith, an arms control negotiator in the first Bush administration, said presidents would consider using such a weapon only "in terribly ugly situations where there are no easy ways out. If there's a threat that could involve huge numbers of American lives, I as a citizen would want the president to consider that option."
Smith defended the current administration's more assertive public pronouncements on the subject, saying that weapons have a deterrent value only "if the other guy really believes you might use them."
Other administrations have warned that they might use nuclear weapons in circumstances short of an all-out atomic war.
In January 1991, before the Persian Gulf War, Secretary of State James A. Baker III warned Iraqi diplomat Tarik Aziz in a letter that the American people would "demand the strongest possible response" to a use of chemical or biological weapons. The Clinton administration made a similar warning to the Libyans regarding the threat from a chemical plant.
But officials of this administration have placed greater emphasis on such possibilities and have stated that preemptive strikes may sometimes be needed to safeguard Americans against adversaries who cannot be deterred, such as terrorists, or against dictators, such as Saddam Hussein.
Instead of making such a warning from time to time as threats arise, the Bush administration "has set it out as a general principle, and backed it up by explaining what has changed in the world," Smith said.
In a policy statement issued only last month, the White House said the United States "will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force -- including through resort to all of our options -- to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States."
One year ago, the administration completed a classified Nuclear Posture Review that said nuclear weapons should be considered against targets able to withstand conventional attack; in retaliation for an attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments." And it identified seven countries -- China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria -- as possible targets.
The same report called on the government to develop smaller nuclear weapons for possible use in some battlefield situations. Both the United States and Russia already have stockpiles of such tactical weapons, which are often small enough to be carried by one or two people yet can exceed the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, Japan, in World War II.
The administration has since been pushing Congress to pay for a study of how to build a smaller, more effective version of a 6-year-old nuclear bunker-buster bomb called the B-61 Mod 11. Critics maintain that the administration's eagerness for this study shows officials' desire to move toward building new weapons and to end the decade-old voluntary freeze on nuclear testing.
The B-61 is considered ineffective because it can burrow only 20 feet before detonating. The increasingly sophisticated underground command posts and weapon storage facilities being built by some countries are far deeper than that. And the closer to the surface a nuclear device explodes, the greater the risk of the spread of radiation.
The reported yield of B-61 devices in U.S. inventory varies from less than 1 kiloton of TNT to more than 350. The Hiroshima bomb was 20 kilotons.
Discussion of new weapons has set off a heated argument among experts on the value and effects of smaller-yield nuclear weapons.
Some Pentagon officials contend that the nation could develop nuclear weapons that could burrow deep enough to destroy hardened targets. But some independent physicists have argued that such a device would barely penetrate the surface while blowing out huge amounts of radioactive dirt that would pollute the region around it with a deadly fallout.
Wade Boese of the Arms Control Assn. in Washington said there is no evidence that conventional arms wouldn't be just as effective in reaching deeply buried targets.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
VENEZUELA.
Interconnected to the many spins this episode is unfolding. I can say that we are getting deeper and deeper into a total uncertainty.
The hesitant movements of the Bush administration and its relation to the triangle of oil, which now includes, Venezuela, Iraq Arabia Soudite.
The aim of all this maneuvers seams on one hand, the eventual change of the form of government that exist in Iraq as well as Venezuela, and the further we all know is the oil that the industrial countries so desperately need. In our actual this theories will probably fail, and the reasons are as fallows.
The actuality of Iraq has transform itself into a self defeating game, no matter what the Bush administration does it will fall into the benefit of Bin Laden who seams to be the principal enemy in this adventure. The complexity of the situation and the methods that are employ give the Bin Laden side the advantage of benefiting from any action taking. A diplomatic victory imposed by force over Iraq will certainly weakens South Arabia, and created a vacuum of power which is just what Bin Laden is waiting for.
A reversal of the Iraqi government and an installation of democracy will weaken the kingdom of South Arabia. An armed defeat over Iraq will further enhance the power of Al Queda and bring a more powerful determination for the Arab world to expel foreigners from the Middle East. As you can see, even the UN resolutions are all bind together to a circular predicament. In other words seams you have underestimated the enemy once again.
In Venezuela, you happen to have a similar scenario, the Paro civico that is a force of upper class citizens, in contrast to the Chavez supporters. The main objective of the Paro Civico is to gain back control of the oil revenues of the country and remain as sole rulers of the income.
This general strike of the ruling class is as well doom to failure, exactly for the analogous reasons as the Iraqi catch-22.
The opposition on his desire to regain power has completely excluded the reason by which Chavez won the elections on 1998, their idea of democracy leaves out any progress towards democracy and proposes a return of the failed political parties that existed in the country before Chavez (AD COPIE). It is clear that the Bush administration favors the opposition; the problem is that the context is rapidly changing and the surroundings of Venezuela are no longer the same as there were in 1998.
The same phenomenon is shaping the Middle East now.
A collapse of the Chavez government will bring a divided population into the hands of the few clever businessmen that created the Paro Civico. They will declare democracy but the fractured country will most surely increase the divisions that they already exist, giving as a result a complete collapse of the economy and a possible contamination to a Colombian style guerrillas. The vanquisher will probably hate further more the lifeless.
A stalemate situation most surely will weaken the opposition as well as the government and give as a result a sparking start to a regional decline in the whole continent.
In the end, we got the same enemy we so desperately seek giving us another round of despair.
As you have experienced every single action of the Paro Civico has giving an opposite result. The brain washing of Globovision and local papers have little effect, in fact you can even link in the future both issues of misinformation (Iraq and Venezuela).
The antiwar demonstrations that are increasingly surfacing worldwide are bound to link to the Venezuelan drama ultimately. This will have the effect of a fracture on the global society.
The current system held by the new ego-liberalism has caused the speed up of capitalist system metamorphosis. The system in order to reorganize itself is creating two main poles. We got the profit takers and the believers of an economy that will function only if there is consumption and oppression. Moreover, on the other side you got the other party who happens to believe in a new form of organized method of existence. These two sides are pulling themselves further apart as the adventure continues.
On the Venezuelan side we got this never ending Paro Civico, carried out by the economical empire facing the poor side of the country who cant even afford the privilege of going on strike.
This great economical power of media and diplomatic minds are unable to defeat the underprivileged, the poor and the oppressed.
It is understood that the ruler of Iraq is a despot, but regarding his environment and the circumstances he has being driven to, you will understand that the old fool is a victim of his old friends, who nowadays have no more need of him?
Our friend Chavez might face the same predicament; the old friendly hand giving to him two years ago is the same hand that turns against him.
The logic and lesson of the event are that the main ingredient, the people who have always being name as the, consumer, the follower, and the believer is no longer fallowing the writing rules. This changes the situation completely and as a result, we have an increasing confusion worldwide.
Now we got Lula, and a stream of new presidents who are not on the same line of thought as the pre-Chavez era.
We expose a revolution brewing from Argentina to Mexico and we can include a few immigrants in the US.
We blend this with the drastic clime changes. A certainly you will agree, the world is getting foggier each minute it runs through.
However, it looks as if in the end the Porto allegro side will win.
In the middle of this, we find the new technologies, which are indirectly the saviors and possible, the providers of equilibrium. The new technologies offer the opportunity to moderately modernize the third world; they can advance their research and balance the inequalities that exist in the planet.
This of course will only be possible if the ego-liberalist that control the industry will mend, and develop into conscious individuals of their role in humanity at this time.
Alfred Bremont
In this event the response should not be a tactical nuclear strike. This warrants a theatre response.
Our willingness to respond peacemeal is scary, the response to a nuclear or chemical strike from Iraq should be public policy. Total nuclear destruction of Iraq.
It's hard to imagine you support any leader willing to go against almost all the nations of the world and put our entire population at a far increased risk of attack, even a nuclear attack, by going after oil when NO WMD can be found. I don't think you really have any idea what the consequences would be - if you did you wouldn't be imagining that we'll just trash Iraq and walk away scott free. If we do that we risk huge consequences. It might all seem like a game, but it isn't. Having a leader of an empire who sees it in his power to ignore international law, international treaties, the UN Charter, Human Rights, and on and on is a menace to the world, and the world will eventually respond. Saddam is cornered. He is CURRENTLY not a threat. If we enter Iraq, the whole thing can explode.
a clever way of planting in peoples' mind the truth of a thing--in this case, the existence of Iraqi "WMD"--is to skirt the question altogether and instead pose another question whose hidden clause establishes as fact that thing which is unproven.
then, of course, we get contemptible slugs like MadMikey shouting rocket science like this:
"if Iraq "doesn't have any WMD", then why are you foaming-at-the-mouth peace freaks all of a sudden worried about how the U.S. to an Iraqi use of weapons they "do not have"???
My personal leaning is that if someone gets nuked will be haifa, or some other israeli city that means nothing to Islam. He would be a proud martyr if he killed tons of jews, right?
So far the weapons inspectors have found a handful of empty warheads. This indicates nothing aside from the obvious fact that Iraq posseses empty warheads. Oh dear! Perhaps Saddam will launch empty warheads at... who? Israel?
If Saddam Hussein is such a threat why aren't even his neighbors threatened by him? Remember that these are neighbors that he's attacked before (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and even they're not threatened by him.
Israel is the only country that Saddam Hussein could and would logically attack, and there is little incentive for him to do so because Israel is a nuclear power and they have been very clear in their intent to exercise that power in the event that they are attacked by Iraq.
The only circumstance that Hussein would order an attack on any foreign neighbor is the event that he is invaded and cornered, and even then there is no evidence that Iraq even has the ability to retaliate.
Of course Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell/Wolfowitz would have us believe that Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction are so well-hidden and so far underground that it would be impossible for weapons inspectors to find them. Who is this guy, Dr. fucking Claw? Does he sit in a stainless steel swiveling chair thirty miles beneath the surface of the Earth laughing maniacally and stroking a cat? Even if these supposed weapons of mass destruction were buried so far underground, how the fuck would they constitute a threat to ANYBODY? I assume we all realize that to launch a missile it must first be ABOVE THE FUCKING GROUND.
And if these alleged weapons of mass destruction are indeed ABOVE THE FUCKING GROUND then why hasn't the United States used its satellite imagery to aid the weapons inspectors in finding them?
Oh wait! I just remembered! There aren't any weapons of mass destruction! Iraq has been disarmed for quite a while and doesn't pose a threat to anybody except its own people! Not that a U.S. invasion would even change those circumstances (for reference: the U.S. presence in Kabul -exclusively-, leaving the rest of post-war Afghanistan to the mercy of warlords).
Iraq had tons (literally) of bio and chemical agents. Not all of this is accounted for. Like I said it didn't just evaporate.
And then Israel retaliates. And then Iraq lights its oil on fire and hits Israel in response. Then Israel kills many Palestinians, who are now all 'terrorists.' Then an Arab country retaliates over those deaths. And then the US blows someone up to protect Israel. And then Russia launches something to protect it's interests in Iraq, which are going up in smoke. China joins Russia. And then the inevitable smallpox attack magically appears, doesn't matter where, justifying panic vaccinations, and then . . . ?
This isn't a game. While it might be fun to strategize war games from afar, try imagining the reality. You can't, unless you've been there. And most who have, aren't supporting war games.
During the First Gulf war saddam attacked israel in an attempt to broaden the conflict. Why wouldn't he do the same?
Russia's only interest in money. Thay can not exploit the contracts they have in iraq now. Ironically lukoil has been fighting with iraq to begin developing wells before this escalated. Maybe it's not a zionist conspiracy but a russian one...Russia and china will do nothing, if Iraq went nuclear there would be no one left to light the oil fields it would all be incenerated in the counter attack. You can bet you life iraq is covered with circles that represent the blast radus of warheads on trident missles. At least a gross of them. If they go nuclear they will cease to exist as a country in about a half hour..
Hopefully none of this will ever happen, including any war. No one in their right mind wants a war if it can be avoided.
If the us nukes anybody it would be retliatory, in which case fuck iraq and fuck world opinion. If another nation uses nukes first all bets are off. As for the enviromental threat, read up on above groung nuclear testing conducted in nevada and other parts of the world over a 15 year period. Huge numbers of nukes were detonated with little enviromental effect.
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=5852
Mike McCormick's summary is to the point, but he did make a mistake referring to "Defcon 1" -- it was "Defcon 2," as "1" is in fact war itself.
US strategic doctrine has always been about the ability to fight and win nuclear wars, and for first strike capability. By the 1980s, when it was clear that nuclear winter would result with only something like 100 to 1000 nuclear explosions (debate in science and actual megatonage per explosion being the swing factor), the first strike religious Armageddon freaks that make up the establishment (particularly in the Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. axis of evil) simply chose to ignore the impossibility of a first strike winnable war by ignoring the little detail of extinction of the biosphere.
These days, the "evolution" in thinking is focused on the tactical realm (e.g., the LA Times report, the revelations that came out last year when some freaked out Pentagon folks leaked the Nuclear Policy Review document to the New York Times, etc.). But the insanity of the human race is never in short supply. As but one example of the risks, tactical strikes could trigger Russian early warning systems, stressing their system to the point of increasing risk of accidental nuclear war. For the most part, people are not aware how many times the entire earth has nearly fried by accident. The more obvious issue is the slippery slope of regional escalation.
Ah well..... enough of my ranting for now ;-)
In 62 there were 178 nuclear explosions in the atmosphere. Guess the nuclear winter theory is fucked.
Note the peace loving french have a signifigant nuclear test program...
." After 1963 when the Limited Test Ban Treaty was signed testing for the U.S., Soviet Union, and Great Britain moved underground. France continued atmospheric testing until 1974 and China did so until 1980"
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/atmosphr/
Just a few pictures:
http://www.nv.doe.gov/news&pubs/photos&films/atm.htm
I've got a question for you, when you are that fucking stupid do you know it, does it annoy you to be an ignorant shit?
Are bunker bombs cool and froody for you?
Is killing Arabs for Fun & Profit cool with you too?
Can we launch war against a real threat that has actually attacked us instead - eg: Israel (U.S.S. Liberty, Lavon Affair and links to 911) ??
When was the last time Iraq attacked or threatened to attack U.S. targets?
When was the last time Israel attacked U.S. targets?
Does Iraq have nuclear weapons?
Does Iraq receive $5billion plus per annum from the U.S. for murder machinery and to provide a BETTER STANDARD OF LIVING for Israelis than U.S. citizens are entitled to?
Who is the parasite?
Who is the enemy?
Who wages war by deception?
Where's USAma?
Scroll up read first, then post. Makes things easier for everyone...Context clues...
"In 62 there were 178 nuclear explosions iIN THE ATMOSPHERE."
Incidentally, we can still measure the increased radiation in the atmosphere resulting from these crimes conducted decades ago.
However, these were atmospheric tests - not deep underground controlled tests (which are still a problem).
Bunker nukes represent NEITHER criminal scenario.
Where are the test results for BUNKER NUKES, naziboy?
Does an oft lie repeated suddenly become true, Mike?
Though I doubt it, I hope Iraq does have some serious defence capabilites, and I hope that the U.S., British and Australian terrorists-in-uniform who are "just obeying orders"--as good nazi soldiers do--come home from Iraq in body bags.
When was the last time Iraq threatened to launch an attack on the U.S.?
When was the last time Iraq attacked the U.S. ?
How many illegal-immigrant Iraqi spies were found with with box-cutters, false-passports, fat wads of cash and marked maps of the targets after being arrested in New Jersey after celebrating the 911 attacks from their explosives-tainted moving van?
How many MORE Iraqi civilians should we slaughter?
In 62 there were 178 nuclear explosions in the atmosphere. Guess the nuclear winter theory is fucked.
By saying the above you demonstrate your profound ignorance on the subject. Those nuclear tests were performed in areas where there was next to nothing to burn (Nevada test site, small islands on the Pacific where there was nothing left on the blast testing site given the previous blasts). Nuclear winter is based on the burning of cities and surrounding forests (like the national park system in Southern California or the forests of the Pacific North West that would go up in smoke if many of the cities there were targeted). The most basic research on Google will reveal this information to you if you elect to educate yourself and speak from a position of knowledge. Even as a right-wing reactionary, you could stand to benefit from knowing your material better so as to counter the silly lefties hiding behind trees, under your bed and on Indymedia.
Your messages have consistently demonstrated that you're a right-wing reactionary, and as such, I'm not going to always take the time to rip your arguments to shreds. But I will respond from time to time.
It's a matter of apportioning blame with some degree of understanding of the historical context.
Saddam Hussein is a brutal and corrupt despot who cares more for the maintenance of his own power than in the welfare of "his" people. That has been established. It's not surprising that he would direct resources toward defense of his regime and aggrandizement of himself as those residing within Iraq's borders suffer. But what MadMikey must factor into his arithematic is that Iraq's people have seen their living conditions, in virtually all respects, worsen massively in the past twelve years, and it isn't because Hussein's regime is more evil now than when it was an ally of the US in the 80s. The new set of variables that have made Iraqi's lives so much more intolerable and miserable have been imposed by the US: starvation sanctions, destruction of the water sanitation system, plutonium-tipped bombs etc etc.
Rightists like MadMikey like to explain US support for Hussein in the 80s as anomolous and/or made necessary considering "special" circumstances. Anyone who knows anything about US imperial policies in the past 100 years knows there's nothing out-of-the-ordinary about US support for despots (and brutal mercenary forces). I'll end with these excerpts from a piece about the US role in putting Hussein's B'aathist Party in power in 1963. All hail the American liberators!
By Mohamoud A Shaikh
Iraqis have always suspected that the 1963 military coup that set Saddam Hussein on the road to absolute power had been masterminded by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). New evidence just published reveals that the agency not only engineered the putsch but also supplied the list of people to be eliminated once power was secured - a monstrous stratagem that led to the decimation of Iraq's professional class.
The overthrow of president Abdul Karim Kassim on February 8, 1963 was not, of course, the first intervention in the region by the agency, but it was the bloodiest - far bloodier than the coup it orchestrated in 1953 to restore the shah of Iran to power. Just how gory, and how deep the CIA's involvement in it, is demonstrated in a new book by Said Aburish, a writer on Arab political affairs.
The book, “A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite”h (1997), sets out the details not only of how the CIA closely controlled the planning stages but also how it played a central role in the subsequent purge of suspected leftists after the coup.
The author reckons that 5,000 were killed, giving the names of 600 of them - including many doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors who formed Iraq's educated elite. The massacre was carried out on the basis of death lists provided by the CIA.
The lists were compiled in CIA stations throughout the Middle East with the assistance of Iraqi exiles like Saddam, who was based in Egypt. An Egyptian intelligence officer, who obtained a good deal of his information from Saddam, helped the Cairo CIA station draw up its list. According to Aburish, however, the American agent who produced the longest list was William McHale, who operated under the cover of a news correspondent for the Beirut bureau of Time magazine.
The butchery began as soon as the lists reached Baghdad. No-one was spared. Even pregnant women and elderly men were killed. Some were tortured in front of their children. According to the author, Saddam who 'had rushed back to Iraq from exile in Cairo to join the victors, was personally involved in the torture of leftists in the separate detention centres for fellaheen [peasants] and the Muthaqafeen or educated classes.'
King Hussain of Jordan, who maintained close links with the CIA, says the death lists were relayed by radio to Baghdad from Kuwait, the foreign base for the Iraqi coup. According to him, a secret radio broadcast was made from Kuwait on the day of the coup, February 8, 'that relayed to those carrying out the coup the names and addresses of communists there, so they could be seized and executed.'
The CIA's royal collaborator also gives an insight into how closely the Ba'athist party and American intelligence operators worked together during the planning stages. 'Many meetings were held between the Ba'ath party and American intelligence - the most critical ones in Kuwait,' he says.
At the time the Ba'ath party was a small nationalist movement with only 850 members. But the CIA decided to use it because of its close relations with the army. One of its members tried to assassinate Kassim as early as 1959. Saddam, then 22, was wounded in the leg, later fleeing the country.
According to Aburish, the Ba'ath party leaders - in return for CIA support - agreed to 'undertake a cleansing programme to get rid of the communists and their leftist allies.' Hani Fkaiki, a Ba'ath party leader, says that the party's contact man who orchestrated the coup was William Lakeland, the US assistant military attache in Baghdad.
One of the coup leaders, colonel Saleh Mahdi Ammash, former Iraqi assistant military attache in Washington, was in fact arrested for being in touch with Lakeland in Baghdad. His arrest caused the conspirators to move earlier than they had planned.
Aburish's book shows that the Ba'ath leaders did not deny plotting with the CIA ro overthrow Kassim. When Syrian Ba'ath party officials demanded to know why they were in cahoots with the US agency, the Iraqis tried to justify it in terms of ideology comparing their collusion to 'Lenin arriving in a German train to carry out his revolution.' Ali Saleh, the minister of interior of the regime which had replaced Kassim, said: 'We came to power on a CIA train.'
I've heard anti-nuclear activists (e.g., Dr. Helen Caldicott) speak of this but as of yet I haven't been able to find studies or reports. I haven't researched extensively, however, so I'm being lazy in posting this message here. But in the event that anyone know of any reportage on this, post a comment and URL. I'd like to nail down this issue.
The consequences if true? Total US knowledge of any nuclear bomb of "material" size held by Iraq. Obviously, if true, that would have a profound impact on the way people see the debate. I put "material" in quotes as scare quotes. I don't know what the necessary size for detection would be. But it's not the same thing as "dirty bombs" using radioactive materials that don't emit as much alpha and gamma radiation as enriched uranium and plutonium.
The point is that if spy satellites have this ability, and if the warning would be sufficient, it would seriously dent the arguments about "regime change" as way of preventing the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud (the hyperbolic secretary of war Dr. Rummy Strangelove made that very argument and it's one of the leading collective subconscious nightmares propagandists use to terrorize Americans into buying into "preemptive" war).
The bomb should not be used for bunker busting not because of enviromental concerns. A small device <2-5kt hundreds of feet underground has minimal effect compared to an airburst.
The reason it shouldn't be used is because it blurs the line of conventional and nuclear war. This is bad.
Nuclear winter is a contingency in a 4000 - 8000 mega ton exchange, like what would have happened in a general nuclear war between USSR and the US.
By the way this is a bullshit line of discussion, Iraq will roll over and shit its self like it did in the last war. Cnn cameras will take as many prisoners as the millitary.
Come on ziggy. Shred away.
I posted data not my opinion. Please respond in kind...
Dense lead stops gamma particles. The reason the us/un wants to overfly helicopters is to look for buried metal using a MAD. This is why the navy still maintains an expensive anti sub program using this equipment. If it worked from space it would be scrapped.
The last time iraq attacked the us was when it shot a sam at a jet patrolling the UN created no fly zones.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html
TTAPS is not scientific law. Be sure you understand this when you counter with it. There is plenty of dissent to the report in mainstream science...
=====================
(1)
The U.N. inspectors were ordered out, as we all know by now, naziboy--so why do you insist on repeating this lie?
(2)
Does an oft lie repeated suddenly become true, Mike?
(3)
When was the last time Iraq threatened to launch an attack on the U.S.?
(4)
When was the last time Iraq attacked the U.S. ?
(attacking the U.S. miltary within IRAQ doesn't count)
(5)
How many illegal-immigrant Iraqi spies were found with with box-cutters, false-passports, fat wads of cash and marked maps of the targets after being arrested in New Jersey after celebrating the 911 attacks from their explosives-tainted moving van?
(6) (new questions!)
Why did U.S. forces intentionally destroy the civilian infrastructure in Iraq?
(7) How many Iraqi civilians were intentionaly murdered by the U.S. through this action?
(8) How many more should we murder?
(9) According to the World Health Organisation, what were dietetic conditions in Iraq prior to the war and sanctions?
(10) According to the World Health Organisation, what percentage of Iraqi children suffered from OBESITY prior to the war and sanctions?
Once again, I hope Iraq DOES have some serious defence capabilites, and I hope that the U.S., British and Australian terrorists-in-uniform who are "just obeying orders"--as good nazi soldiers do--come home from Iraq in body bags.
You know, when you elect to not shower people with insults, you actually come across as intelligent. Perhaps you might consider not being so bombastic -- and some real dialog might happen. You get what you put out. All those lefties that you apparently think are stupid are, in part, raising the temperature in response to your habit freely passing insults around the cybertable.
I will review the sites you provided. I haven't done so at this point. But regardless of the data, the fundamental argument you noted was that 1962 atmospheric tests didn't cause nuclear winter, and thus the theory is "fucked." That's rubbish. Nuclear winter is caused by massive fires. 1962 atmospheric tests didn't create massive fires per the nuclear winter theory. Period.
For what it's worth, the 4000+ mega ton exchange you cite is in keeping with the exchange band I noted in my message. We're not arguing about what is the necessary mega tonnage, it would seem.
My primary argument always reverts to the fundamental fact that the US adheres to a delusional notion that nuclear weapons provide safety. In fact, given the overwhelming conventional military power of the U.S., the argument can be made that it would be in the best interest of the US to work towards a world that didn't have nukes. That basically was the logic previous presidents applied when working towards global bans on chemical and biological weapons (never mind the fact that we kept on working on both in secret).
The probability for accidental war is not zero -- it's not quantifiable, but I submit the probability is way too far above zero to be acceptable when the outcome is potential extinction of the human race. The Russian early warning system is so trashed, it ought to make your Sandia friends lose sleep at night.
The probability for accidental nuclear war increases during conventional conflicts. The current administration has right-wing ideologues that have written policy documents that support widespread regime change and escalation of war throughout the Middle East. This is public record. It's quite simple why many people are concerned, including a growing corus of notable Republicans and Pentagon Generals. The right-wing ideologs would be perfectly happy to see the entire region go through a process of change on the order of 1917, and that level of regional upheaveal can cause all sorts of unpredicatble events.
Getting back to nukes, there are many contradictions in U.S. policy that demonstrate screwy priorities. Perhaps at some point in the future, you and I can swap some messages about this. I know you'll have strong views contary to my own as someone that knows a Sandia scientist. But I'm willing to talk to you without calling you names. ;-)
Sci American recently ran a story about how meteors hitting the earths atmosphere can be mistaken for nuclear weapons and make the situation far more dangerous when everyone is thinking one might go off.
The stars a long way from earth, baby, and you obviously know nothing about nuclear physics - so why pretend that you do?
Guess what? All nuclear weapons on earth require FISSION for ignition as minumum requirement.
quote:
======================================
All nuclear weapons so far invented require fission to initiate the explosive release of energy.[...]
All nuclear weapons that are not pure fission weapons use fusion reactions to enhance their destructive effects.[...]
The fusion reactions are used to boost the yield in two ways:
1) By directly releasing a large amount of energy in fusion reactions;
2) By using high-energy or "fast" neutrons generated by fusion to release energy through fissioning of a fissionable jacket around the fusion stage. In the past this jacket was often made of natural or depleted uranium, so that energy is produced by fast fission of cheap U-238. Thorium may also be used for this purpose, although it is inferior to cheap and abundant depleted uranium. Weapons in which there is a premium on weight and size (i.e. virtually all modern strategic weapons) use moderately to highly enriched uranium as the jacketing material.
Bombs that release a significant amount of energy directly by fusion, but do not use fusion neutrons to fission the fusion stage jacket, are called Fission-Fusion weapons. If they employ the additional step of jacket fissioning using fusion neutrons they are called Fission-Fusion-Fission weapons.
The fast fission of the secondary jacket in a fission-fusion-fission bomb is sometimes thought of, or referred to, as a "third stage" in the bomb, and it is in a sense. But care must be taken not to confuse this with the true three-stage thermonuclear design in which there is another complete tertiary fusion stage.
Bombs that are billed as "clean" bombs (a relative term) obtain a large majority of their total yield from fusion. The last and largest stage of these bombs is always a pure fusion stage (not counting the spark plug), substituting a non-fissionable material for the jacket. The fusion-fraction of these designs as demonstrated in tests has been as high as 97% (this was the Tsar Bomba, see below).
Fission-fusion-fission bomb are DIRTY, but they have superior "bang for the buck" and "pow per pound".
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M33C22B33
=========================================
Bang! Kapow! Boom! Dead People! Erect Penis!
Ejaculate, Radian!
=========================================
Now that we've demolished radi-an's military-fetish lies, let's repeat the questions that naziboy Mike is so desperate to avoid:
(1)
The U.N. inspectors were ordered out, as we all know by now, naziboy--so why do you insist on repeating this lie?
(2)
Does an oft lie repeated suddenly become true, Mike?
(3)
When was the last time Iraq threatened to launch an attack on the U.S.?
(4)
When was the last time Iraq attacked the U.S. ?
(attacking the U.S. military during their ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL 'no fly zone' operations in IRAQ does not count)
(5)
How many illegal-immigrant Iraqi spies were found with with box-cutters, false-passports, fat wads of cash and marked maps of the targets after being arrested in New Jersey after celebrating the 911 attacks from their explosives-tainted moving van?
(6)
How many MORE Iraqi civilians should we slaughter?
Once again, I hope Iraq DOES have some serious defence capabilites, and I hope that the U.S., British and Australian terrorists-in-uniform who are "just obeying orders"--as good nazi soldiers do--come home from Iraq in body bags.
And if france is against us going in to Iraq again and kicking ass fuck them. They were not complaining when us and Britan pushed the Nazi scum out of France and gave them control of there country back. Who cares what Europe thinks. They did not get attacked. If France lost there stupid tower they would be begging for us to help them go in and stop the stupidity that is the Iraq government. If any country in the world had been attacked besides us we would have already been at war. If the UN wants to pussy foot around with terrorists let them but we should stand up for the red white and blue and turn Iraq into a big parking lot with oil wells. Stuff your pussy ideas up your ass and if anyone else wishes bad things on our troops fighting for our freedom then I say you should be sent out of this country. It is one thing to state that you are against war but to say you hope our troops come home in bodie bags is unforgivable. You sir should be shot for the well being of America so you cannot have children and pollute America with more of your communist sympathyzing gene. I hope you die in a horrible accident at the hands of one of the muslim people you care so much far because they dont give a fuck about you and would rather kill you than to look at you and If I had my way I would let them have you.
In the Middle East Communists were fighting fundamentalists back when Reagan was helping create Bin Laden and the mujahideen... you know back when Rummy was giving anthrax to Hussein and Reagan was trying to claim Iran rather than Hussein gassed the Kurds..
If you are trained as a professional murderer - a state sanctioned terrorist in unifrom, you don't get my suppot.
I note that Radian hasn't apologised or retracted his naziboy nuclear lies.....
I wonder if he can even pronounce "nuclear"?
The court-appointed simian with its finger on the button can't...
ALL nuclear weapons so far invented require fission to initiate the explosive release of energy.[...]
You have NO right to kill Iraqis, Radian
If you kill them, they should--according to the prisoner's dilemma--micmick your actions by killing you.
I hope they do.
I leave the house go to my shitty job and have to return to your dribble.
Cosmides and her colleague John Tooby have argued that the human mind is specially adapted for detecting social cheats - that is, people who do not fulfil their social obligations or abide by the rules that society has evolved to enable it to function smoothly.
Their argument is based on the assumption that when the human brain evolved into its present form some time late in the late Pleistocene 200,000 years ago, it evolved mechanisms for handling the really important problems of everyday life current at the time and these problems were the social ones of maintaining the cohesion of our social groups. The crucial problem that our ancestors faced, they suggest, is that of the free-rider, the person that cheats on social conventions by refusing to repay debts or abide by conventional rules. It is the person who repeatedly borrows coffee from you and never pays it back, who never buys a round of drinks when out with groups, who begs favours without returning them; it's the one who parks in the no-parking area so blocking the traffic for everyone else, who grazes more cattle on the common pastureland than he is entitled to by the conventions of the village, who avoids paying quite as much tax as he ought by exploiting some ingenious loop in the law, who steals your property instead of working to earn the money to buy his own. It's what Garrett Hardin termed the 'tragedy of the commons': the fact that it invariably pays everyone in the short term to cheat just a little on the system even though in the long term they would all do better in the long term to co-operate with each other by adhering to society's rules.
Cosmides and Tooby's argument builds on earlier work by the evolutionary psychologist Robert Trivers who suggested in 1971 that what he termed 'reciprocal altruism' was an evolutionary viable strategy in a Darwinian world. It's the I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine principle. The only problem is that is is rather susceptible to cheats who enjoy their backs being scratched, but then refuse to pay the debt. Despite this, reciprocal altruism can, nonetheless, be a successful strategy providing the mutual advantages are beneficial and there is some kind of mechanism for detecting and punishing cheats. Generally speaking, the critical requirements are that you have the opportunity to meet repeatedly with the same prospective partner and that you have the ability to remember who did what] the last time you met.
In such contexts, the best strategy turns out to be a very simple one. In the technical literature of evolutionary biology it's called 'Tit-for-Tat' (or TFT for short). It involves behaving co-operatively the first time you meet someone and thereafter simply behaving in exactly the same way as your oponent did on the previous occasion. If your opponent refuses to scratch your back after you have scratched his, then next time you meet you should also refuse; if he scratched your back last time, then you should scratch his next time. It's an extraordinarily simple rule of behaviour, but it works better than any other, as the biologists Robert Axelrod and Bill Hamilton convincingly demonstrated when they held an open competition for solutions to this problem. Axelrod and Hamilton invited game theorists and other mathematicians to submit strategies (or game rules) for playing this game and then ran the rules against each other in a computerized tournament. Each strategy was played against every other strategy many thousands of times, and the strategy that consistently won was the simplest of them all, TFT.
The problem with TFT is that it depends on your repeatedly playing against the same individual. In a one-off game, cheating always pays. If you can arrange your life as a series of single encounters, then cheating on a social convention is a very profitable strategy. Once way for cheats to engineer this is to be constantly on the move, always one step ahead of the individuals that have rumbled their cheating ways. The Swedish biologists Magnus Enquist and Otto Leimar were able to show mathematically that free-riding becomes an increasingly successful strategy as both the size and the patchiness of the population increase. The more the population is broken up into small discrete units that communicate rarely with each other, the more easily free-riders can survive because they can move on to another group each time their cheating habits are discovered. These are obvious features that are particularly characteristic of human societies, both traditional and modern.
So, argue Cosmides and Tooby, humans have evolved minds that are especially sensitive to those who cheat on social rules. Humans live in a particularly social world: the social world has, if you like, been our primary evolutionary adaption, our way of solving the Darwinian problem of survival and successful reproduction. Our survival in the ecological world depends crucially on the success with which we co-operate with each other, for in the natural world we are beset not only by the conventional array of predators but also the marauding bands of humans searching out opportunities to prey on the unsuspecting. Nonetheless, so long as most people co-operate and abide by the rules, it will always pay some people to exploit them and become free-riders. Co-operation occurs in a great many contexts in human society. In most hunter-gatherer societies for example, the produce from a hunt is always shared around the group. The hunter brings his kill back to the camp where it is divided equally between all the families present. Hunting is a risky business, in which successful kills occur at infrequent intervals and meat-sharing probably serves to minimize the risk that any one family will have to go without for any length of time. It seems to be a classic example of long-term reciprocal altruism: I'll let you share in my good fortune now, providing you let me share in yours later when I've been unsuccessful. But hunters always have the option of cheating because they can eat some or all of the kill while still out in the forest, and sometimes they do just that. The trouble is that if too many hunters behaved in this way, the benefits of sharing the meat would be lost. So the practice is frowned upon as morally reprehensible, and offender risk finding themselves socially ostracized. All societies use smear campaigns and snide remarks to enforce the social graces. And we are ever watchful to see that the rules are being adhered to. (at least by everyone else, even if not always by ourselves).
al·ge·bra
n.
[Middle English, bone-setting, and Italian, algebra, both from Medieval Latin, from Arabic al-jabr (wa-l-muq
from Kitab [Book of] Al-Jabr Wa-l-Muqbala, by Al Khwarizmi [algorithm], Baghdad, 835 C.E.]
Give it up, jerk boy. You can't win. Every time you post that crap, we take it down. There is no way to stop us. There's a bunch of us and we sleep in shfts. We can out last you. Show some sportsmanship and save yourself a sore wrist. Resign now. You're beaten and you know it.
And they're too blind to see reality. Such is the turmoil of misfits.
The UN ordered the inspectors to leave because they were not being permitted to do their job by Iraq. The withdrawal was clearly Iraq's fault. Beginning in July 1998, Iraq actively interfered with the weapons inspectors. At various points it refused to allow them to videotape inspections, refused to allow inspectors to photocopy incriminating documents they uncovered, and blocked access to facilities that weapons inspectors had every right to enter.
"The UN ordered the inspectors to leave because they were not being permitted to do their job by Iraq.."
And Iraqi troops tosseed babies from incubators and shot them in front of their mothers, right?
quote:
=======================
"This sequence of events shows the proton-proton chain which is a fusion reaction in the core of SUN-LIKE STARS producing helium from hydrogen. "
=======================
!!
His second link, from U.S. military mouthpiece CNN:
quote:
========================
Dr. Rihab Taha, whom U.N. inspectors nicknamed "Dr. Germ" and the "Bug Lady," is one scientist inspectors would like to interview, according to weapons experts.
Taha directed Iraq's biological weapons program, and her personal papers offer a glimpse of the depth of that deadly work. The papers have never been seen publicly before, but CNN HAS EXCLUSIVELY OBTAINED the U.N.'s English translation of her Arabic work papers.
======================
CNN also gave us the story about babies being tossed from incubators. Until we see more than a corporate arrangement of words, the evidence is just narrative "stuff", radian.
==========================================
Cheryl's Field Guide to ReichWingNut Poseurs.
==========================================
The woods are full of lurking rightwingnuts. By rightwingnut, I mean the sort of deluded soul who worships John Ashcroft as a sort of "preliminary second coming" and who will support the corporate bigwigs to the bitter end, even as said bigwigs are robbing these same loyal supporters of every last dime and shred of security they have left.
----Alas, there is a new class of rightwingnut out there that imagines itself "clever" (unfortunately, when you are talking rightwingnuts, this is a contradiction in terms). Instead of going for the direct approach -- sending obscene notes or threatening those who challenge Bush and his pals with bodily harm -- this type tries to play "subtle saboteur" -- or poser, if you prefer.
----There seems to be about three main strategies used by these folks -- I am sure there are other variations on the theme. In fact we should start a "field guide to posers" here at the site, and have our alert readers add notes and "sightings" to the guide as we go along). Here are the three I have identified:
----1. The institutional poser. This species can usually be found hiding in the bushes of an "institute," (Cato Institute, et al.), "foundation," (Heritage Foundation, et al.) "grass roots group" (ex. "Citizens for Sensible Energy Solutions," "Greening Earth Society," etc.), college-based "think tank" (Baker Institute, Hoover Institute, etc.)., or with a pseudo-scholarly journal (Global Warming Journal, funded by the Coal barons). When you get a good look at this crowd through the binoculars, you soon notice that the bulk of their sponsors and founders are corporations. Or, you discover that the "experts" on foreign affairs are former pharmaceutical execs, while experts on climate science have degrees in business, economics, or biology.
---- 2. The "Man on the Street" Poser. These are the folks who are mobilized to give the impression of "critical mass" behind the rightwingnut movement. They can be found skewing polls (they even have a term for this activity now -- "freeping."), haunting progressive web sites where they put up postings designed to "educate" the misguided progressives, dialing up call-in radio shows, and in general popping up whenever a call for a "man on the street" opinion might give them a foot in the door. (It's kind of scary, actually -- if you go to the Free Republic site, you will find that they offer tips for organizing these efforts to make the few look like many, including how-tos on stacking polls.) Often, when these folks call into talk shows like C-SPAN, they will call in on the Democratic or Independent line and then proceed to either read their manifesto outright, or will pretend to be a "concerned liberal", whilst trashing everything non-rightwing. Some even read from prepared scripts -- you might actually hear the same basic script with a few variations read several times in the course of a 3-hour call in show, if the posers have decided the topic is really threatening to them! After a while, you can spot this species pretty easily. Especially when they stumble repeatedly over the big words in their scripts. Or when, to give themselves added credibility, they claim to be professional types and clearly are not -- like the C-SPAN caller with horrendous grammar ("Them people don't never…") who claimed to be an English professor!
---- 3. The Provocateur Poser. This species of poser is becoming more common as the public becomes more skeptical of the rightwingnuts' direct message. These are furtive, definitely hostile critters, devoted to trying to foment discord and sew doubt among people who hold a non-rightwingnut point of view. There are several subspecies:
----A. "The missionary" provocateur. This type seeks opportunities to convert us infidels. To do this, they will write letters to the editor of a publication or site, claiming to be a "regular reader." They then express "concerns" over some article or letter that has set the rightwingnut buzzers and bells off. The way you can pick these characters out from the sincere readers with real concerns is that they all launch into the same party line, either directly or weaving it in to their interchanges (in the case of a forum). Their aim is to try to discredit information by casting doubt on it in the minds of at least some other readers, and converting them to the "right" point of view. Many Institutional Posers exhibit missionary poser behavior. These are the ones who work at seeding news outlets with letters and press releases that sound authoritative by signing them (for example) "So-and-So, Cato Institute," or "Dr. So-and-so, Ph.D." (of course the Ph.D. might be in elementary education and the topic nuclear reactors!). The pseudo-science babble put forth by some of these folks is amusing to the well-informed, but can sound convincing to people unarmed with the facts.
----B. "Hysterical liberal" provocateur. This sort sends in letters or makes calls to radio talk shows in which they pretend to be an "out of control liberal." The idea being, of course, that anyone hearing or reading this performance will be turned off on all liberals (see, they really are all crazy and dangerous!).. The protestors at the Seattle WTO say they were sabotaged royally by this type of poser and that many (though of course not all) of the window-smashing incidents were actually perpetrated by "hysterical liberal" provocateurs. Some weeks ago, I heard a guy call into C-SPAN (or it may have been NPR's Talk of the Nation) and launch into an obviously contrived routine, pretending to be a paranoid schizophrenic environmentalist wacko who believed the sharks are rising up against the world because of anti-environmentalism. The person I was with at the time happened to have worked at a state mental hospital for several years. He laughed out loud and said "That's the kind of phony act you'd hear from guys trying to get out of the army!" What's even more laughable is that an alarming number of leading rightwingnuts (as in Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson) are real, potentially certifiable paranoid schizophrenics!
----C. "Troublemaker" provocateur. This type tries to get people within a group pissed off at each other, or tries to manipulate an editor, forum participant, etc. into a compromising position. The theme here is discredit, divide and conquer, and/or annoy the hell out of progressive folks. In one instance at a forum I know of, a provocateur kept engaging another forum participant in a dialogue, seeking to draw out incriminating comments that could possibly be construed as "unpatriotic." When the unwitting progressive forum participant finally fell into the trap, he was soon paid a visit by the Boys in Black (FBI). In another instance, someone sent a supposed study by an institute in Pennsylvania that purported to prove that Bush's IQ was far less than any other presidents, while Clinton's was highest. I did not bite, because a little preliminary research revealed no such institute, and in any case, the IQ scores seemed a bit contrived (I don't believe Clinton has a 180 any more than I believe Bush is a 98 -- ignorant, yes, genetically stupid, no). But several liberal sites ran the link and were promptly exposed in an ensuing article that was strategically circulated. The worse troublemaker provocateurs are the malicious ones who infiltrate sites where people go to feel safe -- like one pregnancy forum in New England a young mother I know participated in this past year. Once into the site, one troublemaker rightwingnut started posting pictures of aborted babies and threatening messages. I mean, how low can you go -- picking on pregnant women, and not only that, but those who kept their babies. What made them a target? Some of them had expressed a reluctance when questioned by the poser to condemn other women who did believe in abortion.
----The bottom line with these posers is that THEY ALL USE DECEIPT to get their message across. It seems to me that if you truly believed in your position, you would not feel you had to sneak it under a cover or create fronts to appear to be something you are not.
----Anyway, we have received two prime examples this week of posers. The first was in response to the "Playing with Nuclear Fire" article. The second was in response to my "daring" to present science-based info on global warming.
----Sample number one is an unsigned letter that definitely falls under the "hysterical infiltrator" heading, although it could also be described as having "missionary poser" undertones.
---- Missionary/hysterical liberal example:
"Nuke-you-lar! Nuke-you-lar! Nuke-you-lar!"
********************
----"In fact, radiation-contaminated materials, like spent rods and practically everything else in a decommissioned nuclear plant, whether it be for boiling water (honest to pity, that's how nuclear power is generated, by boiling water) to manufacturing warheads, are indeed dangerous to be exposed to for long periods of time, and will remain that way for tens of thousands of years. About the only safe disposal place right now is into the sun. (What a waste of resources!) The second safest would be to drill a really deep hole in an extinct volcano and send it all back where it came from, into the Earth, where it can all mix back up again."
********************
---- This poser could have at least read my article - which clearly referred to high-level wastes. In any case, this fellow's knowledge of nuclear power was obviously obtained from some rightwingnut pamphlet: "Experts Prove Radioactive Wastes Can Be GOOD for You!"
********************
---- "And yes, I noticed that oil-slick Dick's energy plan makes absolutely zero provision for disposal of nuclear waste, since he of course is also in the front pockets of the nuclear energy CEOs, in fact, he has his hands in the pockets and vice versa into everything EXCEPT the alternate-energy industries, since those will require investment and research before they can make money, and worse (from his point of view), they can't be monopolized. Wind, water, and sun is free."
********************
----Here the guy purports to criticize Cheney, then uses Cheney's own party line, which is that "alternate energy" (maybe Bush wrote this himself) is really useless because it would take too much research and cash to become viable.
********************
----"However, low-level radioactives are a long, long way from the most dangerous chemicals being transported by rail. Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG, transported under pressure is the most powerful chemical explosive yet invented, hundreds of times more destructive than the equivalent mass of TNT. Chlorine gas is also transported under pressure, and a ruptured chlorine tank (or tanker) could kill everything for miles, turning the moisture in your lungs and eyes into hydrochloric acid. The various hydrazines are shipped by rail, which is not only explosive when exposed to anything containing oxygen, not only a deadly poison, but a carcinogen in even the parts per billion range. (While working for NASA, I helped design crash "proof" containment for Poison A and transport-grade explosives, designed to withstand a head-on collision at a combined speed of 100 mph, but nothing is perfect.)"
********************
----If this man indeed were a scientist and worked for NASA, he would most certainly know that high-level nuclear wastes are more dangerous than any of the chemicals he mentions, which though indeed very dangerous, would not cause a fraction of the damage of a single spent rod pool disaster -- nor would the effects last tens of thousands of years! Instead, he doesn't seem to even know that there are different types of radioactive wastes!
********************
----"And low-grade radioactives cannot be made into a bomb. Period. "Weapons grade" uranium and plutonium just means regular old purified metal without the rock and dirt and slag and crud in it. "Enriched" radioactives are necessary to even start on atomic weapons, and that stuff is very expensive and very carefully guarded."
********************
----This incredible mishmash of misinformation must be made up as he goes along!
etc @ http://www.unknownnews.net/cs020602.html
==========================================
Mankind needs to loose some aggression before we all --- Err (is there anyone out there).........