[ RadSafe ] Re: Contined Need for Nuclear Deterrent -"what are we saving them for?"
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 7 11:05:29 CST 2005
Except for the Cuban Missile Crisis, I do not recall
any instance where nuclear weapons played a part in
the determination of outcome of the confrontation.
They have played no part in preventing any war that I
can think of.
I doubt that Kaddafi, Saddam, Zarkawi, Komenehei, etc.
were ever restrained by our nuclear deterent. They
certainly did not stop Saddam from killing his fellow
--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> Is N. Korea less likely to invade S Korea or launch
> nuclear missile on USA
> while the USS Washington (which I toured) and other
> nuclear deterrents are ready?
> Is Russia less likely to use its nuclear capacity
> (like ours, still capable of wiping out
> most of the large cities on earth), while we also
> have nuclear deterrent?
> Is Al Queda less likely to atomize Washington DC
> with a bomb from the Mullahs, knowing Mecca could
> feel the nuclear deterrent?
> I am grateful for the alert but restrained
> scientists, leaders and military (USA and Russian)
> who have brought the longest peace to Europe in my
> history books.
> I am grateful for a Bush Policy that has so far
> restrained the bullies - Kaddafi, Saddam, Zarkawi,
> Komenehei, etc, some of whom have declared intention
> of atom bombing the USA.
> I am disgusted with media that will not report the
> Bush Policy saving the 100 Iraqi Saddam murdered
> daily and protecting us from Saddam's recessed
> nuclear bomb team (Duelfer Commission).
> Howard Long
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think that we have to look at the associated
> politics. While there had been talk of using nuclear
> weapons in the Korean War and in Viet Nam, they were
> not. So, what are saving them for?
> --- maurysis at ev1.net wrote:
> > Hi John,
> > The Hirsch comment is an interesting rationale
> does not seem very
> > rational .... It has been noted that the only way
> make sure that
> > government doesn't abuse its power is to not grant
> it in the first
> > place. The nuclear genie has long since departed.
> nation without
> > nuclear weapons can render citizens or a society
> equally dead by a wide
> > variety of methods.
> > Cheers,
> > Maury&Dog
> > =================
> > John Jacobus wrote:
> > >Nature 438, 13 (3 November 2005)
> > >Physicists denounce aggressive nuclear policy
> > >
> > >More than 700 physicists from around the world
> signed a petition opposing a US policy that would
> > >permit the use of nuclear weapons against
> non-nuclear nations.
> > >
> > >Spawned during a lunchtime talk at the University
> > >California, San Diego (UCSD), the petition is
> > >submitted to US government leaders. Eight Nobel
> > >laureates have signed the petition, which was
> > >by UCSD physicists Kim Griest and Jorge Hirsch.
> > >
> > >The administration of President George W. Bush
> > >said that, if provoked, it would consider using
> > >nuclear bombs on a country without such weapons.
> > >
> > >"Physicists were responsible for these weapons,"
> > >Hirsch, a native of Argentina. "We need to speak
> > >more." The petitioners hope to win the support of
> > >American Physical Society and the International
> > >Energy Agency at board meetings later this month.
> > >
> > > http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition
> > >
> > >+++++++++++++++++++
> > >
On Oct. 5, 1947, in the first televised White House address, President Truman asked Americans to refrain from eating meat on Tuesdays and poultry on Thursdays to help stockpile grain for starving people in Europe.
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
More information about the RadSafe