[barmar]

Winstonm, on May 7 2008, 10:04 PM, said:

Consider this: Israel has nuclear weapons; Iran does not. Iran cannot confront Israel by conventional means as Israel could respond nuclear. What avenue is left for Iran to affect political change than terrorism?

Umm, diplomacy?

I've been tempted for a long time to start a thread asking why the world is so violent. Yes, violence is a natural reaction when we feel wronged or threatened, but most of us are taught as children to suppress this, and only fight as a last resort (and war should be a response to the most eggregious wrongs). I'll bet this was just as true for Sadam Hussein, Bin Laden, etc. What happens to these lessons when people take charge of countries or political movements? Are they sociopaths who managed to get too much power? Is it just the "power corrupts" principle?

But what about ordinary citizens -- why did a disputed election in Kenya result in violent protests? Surely these people know that there are more constructive ways to resolve the problem than inter-tribal massacres?

I realize this is a bit naive and idealistic. I'm just incredulous that supposedly mature people never learned how to "get along with others" -- it's a basic rule of civil society. Sure, there are some bullies who never grow out of it, but how do they become presidents of countries (hmm, maybe they bullied their way into the position)? Shouldn't world politics be better than a playground full of adolescents? It's like the world is run by people like Tony Soprano, who take hits out on anyone that gets in their way.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on May 7 2008, 07:35 PM, said:

Quote

And again, I don't regard disagreement as insulting at all.

To be clear, the reason for pointing out your comment was simply to give an example of how the majority of Americans get their news - so was not intended as a personal disparagement but as a criticism of our news organizations.

What so few realize is how much doubt and puzzlement there is outside the mainstream media about this incident. The White House (you remember them, don't you, the guys who knew Sadam had WMD and knew where they were) suddenly comes out 8-9 months after the incident and says, "Oh, yeah, well Syria and N. Korea were in cahoots building a nuclear reactor and it was set to go online in 2 weeks, so Israel bombed it."

As Mr. Hersh points out, that may be completely accurate, but the timing of the announcement is extremely odd, and the facts comprising the "proof" are quetionable. Demanding a fuller and more comprehensive explanation and proof used to be part of journalism's job, but now they simply parrot the press release.

That type of cynical, questioning journalism is simply not mainstream anymore - mainly, IMO, because it is cheaper, and thus more profitable, to hire talking heads who look good and can read the headlines. As long as we tolerate and support that as "our" news, it will continue.

Me, "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!" - (Network - 1979?)

Can you give a link for the Hersh article. Instead of "Mad as Hell" I am right now "Busy as Hell" but I would like to read it in a few days if things settle down.

Whatever the reason for the Israeli action, actual nuclear facilities, supposed nuclear facilities, some other reason entirely, my point was that this action, and the earlier action against Iraq, give some clue (not a strict prediction) as to what might occur if Iran continues with its nuclear ambitions.

I am trying to judge as well as possible what is happening and what may happen. Iran wanting nukes seems to me to be a near certainty. Iran developing nukes seems highly likely. Israel acting seems, well, not unlikely.

The thought of a cold war scenario, as you suggest in another post above, with Iran and Israel playing the roles of the US and the USSR worries me greatly. When I was around 16, I was driving up a street and saw a friend at the other end driving down the street. We both moved towards the center and hit the gas. It was very close before we both steered away. We agreed it was a tie, and we very much agreed we were not interested in a tie-breaker. On the nuclear stage, I don't want a rerun of October '62.

Ken

[mike777]

I see open war has broken out again in parts of the Middle East as I watch CNN now. One does wonder if these groups could obtain nukes they may or maynot be willing to poison for a hundred years the very ground they want. One wonders if suicide by nukes is a viable option.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

Try this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02...11fa_fact_hersh

Some good comments on this thread and I, for one, appreciate the civility of tone amongst those have have disagreements.

Quote

I am trying to judge as well as possible what is happening and what may happen. Iran wanting nukes seems to me to be a near certainty. Iran developing nukes seems highly likely. Israel acting seems, well, not unlikely.

I think you summed it up well. The main concern I have in these issues is in examining what is real versus what is spun for agenda's purpose.

Quote

What happens to these lessons when people take charge of countries or political movements? Are they sociopaths who managed to get too much power? Is it just the "power corrupts" principle?

Good questions - maybe the definition of insanity should be wanting this kind of power. I have read a pychiatrist's opinion that George Bush displays the behavior of somene suffering Narcissistic Personality Disorder - perhaps, other than George Washington, who had the presidency thrust upon him, all others have had some degree of need to control or arrogance of the poor self imaged?

Quote

One does wonder if these groups could obtain nukes they may or maynot be willing to poison for a hundred years the very ground they want. One wonders if suicide by nukes is a viable option.

Yes, that is certainly a valid concern. The question is how much of a possibility?
I don't think the problem is so much in governments having nuclear arms as in the splinter groups having that access.

[kenberg]

AS a thought experiment, and since I mentioned '62, try this: In 1962 the Soviets began installing missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba.

a. Of course our only proof was through surveillance photos so we did not "really know". Although we did really know, and it was true.


b. Cuba is an independent country and if we just g by cold logic, it would seem that they have a right to let the Soviets place missiles in their country if they wish. What business is ot of ours?

c. Of course we acted. I well recall a Soviet ship heading towards Cuba and the American announcement that we would stop that ship and board it. One hell of a game of chicken but Kennedy, rightly or wrongly, saw it as worth taking us to the edge of nuclear war to prevent these missiles from being installed. I'm no expert on missile warfare but missiles 90 miles from the coast are presumably a bigger threat than missiles a few thousand miles from the coast.

Ir seems to me this is how things are done. We said "No way on hell are you putting those missiles in" and somehow we got through it. (We gave more than a little ground in return for the removal of the missiles I think.) It was not settled as a matter of fairness but rather of survival. Right or wrong, the result was no missiles in Cuba.


I am not so sure where this leads us, except to a way of looking at the world.

[barmar]

mike777, on May 8 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

I see open war has broken out again in parts of the Middle East as I watch CNN now. One does wonder if these groups could obtain nukes they may or maynot be willing to poison for a hundred years the very ground they want. One wonders if suicide by nukes is a viable option.

Sometimes the attitude may be "I want that land, but even more important, I don't want them to have it." So they'll sacrifice the land in order to wipe out the people who took it wrongly (in their opinion), if they don't see a viable way to take the land away from them.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on May 8 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

AS a thought experiment, and since I mentioned '62, try this: In 1962 the Soviets began installing missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba.

a. Of course our only proof was through surveillance photos so we did not "really know". Although we did really know, and it was true.


b. Cuba is an independent country and if we just g by cold logic, it would seem that they have a right to let the Soviets place missiles in their country if they wish. What business is ot of ours?

c. Of course we acted. I well recall a Soviet ship heading towards Cuba and the American announcement that we would stop that ship and board it. One hell of a game of chicken but Kennedy, rightly or wrongly, saw it as worth taking us to the edge of nuclear war to prevent these missiles from being installed. I'm no expert on missile warfare but missiles 90 miles from the coast are presumably a bigger threat than missiles a few thousand miles from the coast.

Ir seems to me this is how things are done. We said "No way on hell are you putting those missiles in" and somehow we got through it. (We gave more than a little ground in return for the removal of the missiles I think.) It was not settled as a matter of fairness but rather of survival. Right or wrong, the result was no missiles in Cuba.


I am not so sure where this leads us, except to a way of looking at the world.

I happened to be in 6th grade during this event and have memories of how tense was Mr. Sullivan, our teacher. Even though our day-to-day existence was business as usual, you could tell this wasn't the everyday crisis but something much more worrisome.

Your point about the Cuban missile crises is a good one - did the U.S. have any right to stop this transfer of arms? What about now? What if Russia or China elected to sell Iran nuclear missiles - would Israel or the U.S. have the right, duty, or responsibility to halt that sale?

The best solution is for no one to play - to outlaw nuclear weapons from every country, including the U.S.

It's either that or wait for Gort and Klaatu to show up and stop all the world's electricity for an hour....

Bonus points: Translate: "Gort. Klaatu barada nikto."

[Gerardo]

Wasn't he Klaatu?

[Winstonm]

Gerardo, on May 8 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

Wasn't he Klaatu?

Yes, and it was Gort, not Gott. Thanks. Corrected above.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on May 8 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

kenberg, on May 8 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

AS a thought experiment, and since I mentioned '62, try this: In 1962 the Soviets began installing missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba.

a. Of course our only proof was through surveillance photos so we did not "really know". Although we did really know, and it was true.


b. Cuba is an independent country and if we just g by cold logic, it would seem that they have a right to let the Soviets place missiles in their country if they wish. What business is ot of ours?

c. Of course we acted. I well recall a Soviet ship heading towards Cuba and the American announcement that we would stop that ship and board it. One hell of a game of chicken but Kennedy, rightly or wrongly, saw it as worth taking us to the edge of nuclear war to prevent these missiles from being installed. I'm no expert on missile warfare but missiles 90 miles from the coast are presumably a bigger threat than missiles a few thousand miles from the coast.

Ir seems to me this is how things are done. We said "No way on hell are you putting those missiles in" and somehow we got through it. (We gave more than a little ground in return for the removal of the missiles I think.) It was not settled as a matter of fairness but rather of survival. Right or wrong, the result was no missiles in Cuba.


I am not so sure where this leads us, except to a way of looking at the world.

I happened to be in 6th grade during this event and have memories of how tense was Mr. Sullivan, our teacher. Even though our day-to-day existence was business as usual, you could tell this wasn't the everyday crisis but something much more worrisome.

Your point about the Cuban missile crises is a good one - did the U.S. have any right to stop this transfer of arms? What about now? What if Russia or China elected to sell Iran nuclear missiles - would Israel or the U.S. have the right, duty, or responsibility to halt that sale?

The best solution is for no one to play - to outlaw nuclear weapons from every country, including the U.S.

It's either that or wait for Gort and Klaatu to show up and stop all the world's electricity for an hour....

Bonus points: Translate: "Gort. Klaatu barada nikto."

Actually my intended point was more along the lines of: I seriously doubt that in all of the high level discussions in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was ever anyone who pushed for the view that we should accept the installation of nuclear armed missiles in Cuba as a matter of Cuban and Russian sovereign rights. There may have been many reservations about what we actually could do, but legalistic arguments about Cuba's right to point missiles at us if they chose to was, I am willing to bet, not on the table. The Russians/Cubans intended to do it if they could, we intended to stop them if we could, and pretty much that was that. I doubt that this way of doing business on substantive matters of national survival has changed.

As for your best solution, nukes going away, it would be great to get rid of nukes, AIDS, world hunger, and American Idol (my wife, an otherwise sane woman, actually watches this), but not likely.

[jtfanclub]

kenberg, on May 8 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

AS a thought experiment, and since I mentioned '62, try this: In 1962 the Soviets began installing missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba.

a. Of course our only proof was through surveillance photos so we did not "really know". Although we did really know, and it was true.


b. Cuba is an independent country and if we just g by cold logic, it would seem that they have a right to let the Soviets place missiles in their country if they wish. What business is ot of ours?

c. Of course we acted. I well recall a Soviet ship heading towards Cuba and the American announcement that we would stop that ship and board it. One hell of a game of chicken but Kennedy, rightly or wrongly, saw it as worth taking us to the edge of nuclear war to prevent these missiles from being installed. I'm no expert on missile warfare but missiles 90 miles from the coast are presumably a bigger threat than missiles a few thousand miles from the coast.

Ir seems to me this is how things are done. We said "No way on hell are you putting those missiles in" and somehow we got through it. (We gave more than a little ground in return for the removal of the missiles I think.) It was not settled as a matter of fairness but rather of survival. Right or wrong, the result was no missiles in Cuba.


I am not so sure where this leads us, except to a way of looking at the world.

The funny part is, while that was certainly the news at the time, that's not actually what was happening, exactly.

What REALLY happened is that we started putting nukes in Turkey. Russia retailiated by preparing to put nukes in Cuba. The ship with nukes in it approached Cuba, and at the last moment, we agreed to pull our nukes out of Turkey. After which, of course, the ship with the nukes turned around.

So while the news made it sound like the Russians blinked, we actually did. But that was a secret for decades.


And this is what usually happens. Except for groups with nothing to lose, somebody blinks long before the nukes start going up. Which is why nukes in the hands of those with nothing to lose is so very dangerous.

[kenberg]

jtfanclub, on May 9 2008, 09:55 AM, said:

kenberg, on May 8 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

AS a thought experiment, and since I mentioned '62, try this: In 1962 the Soviets began installing missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba.

a. Of course our only proof was through surveillance photos so we did not "really know". Although we did really know, and it was true.


b. Cuba is an independent country and if we just g by cold logic, it would seem that they have a right to let the Soviets place missiles in their country if they wish. What business is ot of ours?

c. Of course we acted. I well recall a Soviet ship heading towards Cuba and the American announcement that we would stop that ship and board it. One hell of a game of chicken but Kennedy, rightly or wrongly, saw it as worth taking us to the edge of nuclear war to prevent these missiles from being installed. I'm no expert on missile warfare but missiles 90 miles from the coast are presumably a bigger threat than missiles a few thousand miles from the coast.

Ir seems to me this is how things are done. We said "No way on hell are you putting those missiles in" and somehow we got through it. (We gave more than a little ground in return for the removal of the missiles I think.) It was not settled as a matter of fairness but rather of survival. Right or wrong, the result was no missiles in Cuba.


I am not so sure where this leads us, except to a way of looking at the world.

The funny part is, while that was certainly the news at the time, that's not actually what was happening, exactly.

What REALLY happened is that we started putting nukes in Turkey. Russia retailiated by preparing to put nukes in Cuba. The ship with nukes in it approached Cuba, and at the last moment, we agreed to pull our nukes out of Turkey. After which, of course, the ship with the nukes turned around.

So while the news made it sound like the Russians blinked, we actually did. But that was a secret for decades.


And this is what usually happens. Except for groups with nothing to lose, somebody blinks long before the nukes start going up. Which is why nukes in the hands of those with nothing to lose is so very dangerous.

At the time the crisis was resolved, the withdrawal of American nukes from Turkey was a secret only in the sense that there was no public announcement. Even in Minneapolis, reading the Minneapolis Trib (a pretty reasonable newspaper but w/o great resources for independent investigations), I knew of this. I think the idea that the installation of nukes in Cuba was a negotiating ploy to get the nukes out of Turkey is probably an overstatement. I confess to not being a (or an) historian but I believe Khrushchev lost a lot of prestige in this encounter. Further, we had more than a few nukes elsewhere, and those remained. A more serious concession that I believe took place is that we agreed to no more covert attempts to overthrow Castro. Speculation I guess, but Castro lived out his life.

Certainly I prefer nukes to be in the hands of someone with something to lose by using them. Absolutely I agree there. I think, however, that we get a little overconfident. Hence my own story of playing automotive chicken. The US and USSR pulled back, true, but I was listening closely to the news and if Khrushchev told Kennedy to stuff it I was packing up the family and getting out of town. MAD worked (where worked means that no one blew anyone else away) but you can only go to the edge so many times before there is an oops.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on May 8 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

Bonus points: Translate: "Gort. Klaatu barada nikto."

From the film "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Gort was the robot, Klaatu his alien companion. I don't recall a translation in the movie, and Wikipedia suggests there isn't one. It goes on to say

Quote

Philosophy professor Aeon J. Skoble describes the famous phrase as a "safe-word" that is part of a fail-safe feature used during the diplomatic missions such as the one Klaatu and Gort make to Earth. With the use of the safe-word, Gort's deadly force can be deactivated in the event the robot is mistakenly triggered into a defensive posture.

[Winstonm]

Blackshoe earns 1200 bonus points.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on May 9 2008, 11:58 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 8 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

Bonus points: Translate: "Gort.  Klaatu barada nikto."

From the film "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Gort was the robot, Klaatu his alien companion. I don't recall a translation in the movie, and Wikipedia suggests there isn't one. It goes on to say

Quote

Philosophy professor Aeon J. Skoble describes the famous phrase as a "safe-word" that is part of a fail-safe feature used during the diplomatic missions such as the one Klaatu and Gort make to Earth. With the use of the safe-word, Gort's deadly force can be deactivated in the event the robot is mistakenly triggered into a defensive posture.

Although the film never provides a translation, I think many fans think it translates to something like "Gort, Klaatu says 'stop'."

Of course, if Helen said this in English, Gort would have little reason to believe her. But the only way she could know how to say it in their alien language is if Klaatu had told her, and it can assume he would only do this if absolutely necessary.

[blackshoe]

Cool. What can I do with them?

Interesting tidbit: in the short story on which the film is based, the last line is Gnut (Gort) replying to something a Terran said about Klaatu being the robot's master: "You are mistaken. I am the master."

[Al_U_Card]

Of course, because allegorically, we are slaves to our machines.

[mycroft]

Ah, but it's so much better in Army of Darkness.

When failing to log in to Calum T. Dalek at the UWaterloo CSC, the friendly machine tells you (at least used to tell you; one of the things about student-administered boxes is that things always change, especially as that's sort of the point) "Klaatu! Barada Necktie!"

[Al_U_Card]

UGH! Did you have to remind me of that ugly Mathie pink tie?

You have to be a UofW alumnus to understand....lol

[mycroft]

It was at least better than our mascot (Dept. E&CE...)

And the pink tie was *cute*. Especially the 6-story one.