[ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation

[Gary Isenhower]

Hi Barbara,

Points taken.  I went overboard when Ken made me out to be brainwashed by
propaganda, bigoted against Muslims, and blindly patriotic.  Ken, sorry for
overreacting.

Barbara, I agree with nearly everything you said, especially the Kamikaze
stuff.  That war ended with nuclear weapons (or atomic, whatever), largely
because of the Bushido Code, which has some striking parallels with radical
Islam.  Basically, I'm only saying that the current conflict with terrorism
ain't the cold war, not by a long shot.

And I strongly agree with your comments about RDDs and political
expediency.  That's on the national level, but I am commenting more on the
international situation.  But I don't see anybody here cowering in fear,
except maybe fear of rising oil prices.  And, I could be wrong, but I think
that Franklin at least was urging the nation to gird for war with England in
the quotes you cite.  Yes?

Just to be extra clear: I thought Mike Brennan's post was good, but I wanted
to point out that the current conflict with terrorism is categorically
different from what the US and USSR endured.   Much more like Kamikaze
pilots, except that they are loyal to an ideology instead of an emperor or a
nation.

-Gary Isenhower

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 8:34 PM, <BLHamrick at aol.com> wrote:

>  Gary,
>
> I don't think the choices you outline below are the only choices.  I think
> that this generation perceives the suicide attacks of the last 10 or so
> years to be something unique in the history of mankind.  I think this is a
> misperception. I think the Kamikaze pilots of World War II were regarded
> with similar fear and disbelief.  I expect one would find a repetition of
> these type of attacks throughout history, if one were inclined to look.
>
> I think we need to be more realistic in our threat assessment.  Whoever has
> an advantage in this world will always be a target.  Whether it's the threat
> of suicide bombers, or rogue nuclear weapons, and whether from a
> predominantly Muslim community, or Japanese community, or the Communists, or
> the Timothy McVeigh's of our own country, we will always be at risk, so long
> as we have something of value.  The question for us, in my opinion, is not
> how we ensure we are all safe for all time (which is not possible), but how,
> in the face of so many people's fears, do we maintain those things which
> made this country great to begin with (our freedom, our rule of law, our
> checks and balances, and our tolerance of difference).
>
> To bring this back around to radiation safety, I think that this country
> has spent a ridiculous amount of money looking for an ineffective weapon
> (i.e., an RDD), while failing to adequately address planning for the
> aftermath of a potentially significant event (i.e., an IND).  I believe we
> have done this, because finding radioactive material in any form is easy,
> while finding an actual IND or planning for it's potential detonation is
> difficult.  One of the reasons we keep chasing our tails in this manner is
> because it is politically expedient to act as though one is protecting the
> public by "picking the low-hanging fruit" (i.e., the RDDs).  By doing this,
> in the end, we aren't really adding anything to the public health and
> safety; in fact, we are diverting resources from issues that do have a
> health and safety impact.  We are hurting ourselves in the name of
> protecting ourselves, and apparently hoping the public never knows the
> difference.  That's insulting to the profession of health physics and
> insulting to the public, in my opinion.
>
> I think this country is destroying its greatest value by succumbing to
> fear, and I'm terribly sorry to see that happening.
>
> Barbara L. Hamrick
>
> *"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety, deserve neither liberty." - Benjamin Franklin*
> **
> *"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin Roosevelt*
> **
>
>
>
>  In a message dated 7/11/2008 12:33:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> garyi at trinityphysics.com writes:
>
> If you wish to rebut my post, allow me to suggest some ways to prove me
> wrong.  You could
> show that with any of the following:
>    = non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers.
>    = there are no muslim suicide bombers, its just an urban myth or a Dan
> Rather fabrication.
>    = suicide bombers are a genetic flaw that is quickly being removed from
> the gene pool.
>    = strapping a bomb to your child is really an expression of
> international good will.
>    = if we give money to terrorists, they will decide that they really like
> infidels (maybe as pets).
>    = its ok for jihadists to kill us because OUR heaven is better than
> theirs.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in
> your area - Check out TourTracker.com<http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112>
> !
>