AW: AW: Victims

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: Muckerheide [mailto:muckerheide@attbi.com]

Gesendet: Freitag, 23. August 2002 04:26

An: Gary Isenhower; Franz Schoenhofer

Cc: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net; Jacobus, John (OD/ORS);

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Betreff: Re: AW: Victims



To this exquisite reply,

-------------------------------------------

Obviously hardliners have to congratulate each other by words like

"exquisite reply". I do not think  that it is exquisite, but only annoying

and hopefully not a part of US politics. Following your reasoning any

country capable of nuclear bombs would have to use their bombs if their

"interests might be on stake", whether it be India, Pakistan or probably

Israel, which has always denied having developed atomic bombs. So Russia may

drop them on Checheniya, India on Pakistan, Pakistan on India, Great Britain

on the Republic of Ireland, and of course the USA may choose freely on any

country which any president would like in order to enhance his popularity

and ensure his reelection.



 I would only add the related truism:



"Those that beat there swords into plowshares, will soon be plowing for

those that have swords!"



-------------------------

You are since long plowing for the US government - you never realised it?

This does not add to your credibility. If the beating of swords into

plowshares is controlled very tightly onto all parties, so that no country

will withhold their swords it will be a success for mankind and nobody will

be plowing for somebody else, because the others will not have swords left.

I do not know, where this nonsensical proverb comes from, but it is simply -

well, nonsense. International organisations have been working on

disarmament. It is a very slow process, but it cannot be denied, that some

progress has been achieved. Breaking international agreements, like it has

recently occurred regarding the anti-ballistic treaty is sure not a way to

enhance confidence into US politics.

There is since long a treaty set up on the "Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty",

which is set out to ensure, that no further nuclear tests will be conducted.

It has been signed by a large number of states (if you like I can quantify

it), but shortly after the Bush administration came into force, it was

declared, that the USA will not sign it and not even contribute to financing

great parts of the Preparatory Comission. Why?? Is this a credible

contribution of the US to reduce the threats of nuclear weapons?



on 8/22/02 1:01 PM, Gary Isenhower at garyi@BCM.TMC.EDU wrote:



>

> Franz Schoenhofer wrote:

>>

>>

>> Howard,

>> I do not know, what a "reborn" Christian is, but that W ("double u", as

he

>> is called in Europe) is a politician is clear for me and to almost

everybody

>> else. Visiting synagogues is not related to Sept 11, it is a bow for the

>> large Jewish community. Visiting mosques  is a political calculation, to

>> show the "good Islam", that it is appreciated. Do you know, that in Saudi

>> Arabia (and I guess in many more Islamic countries) non-islamic persons

are

>> not permitted to enter mosques?

>> It is not at all acceptable, that "double u" might be restraint in using

>> mass destruction weapons (including A-bombs or most certainly H-bombs).

This

>> has to be totally excluded from any scenarios.

>>

>> Franz

>>

>

> It's too late for totally excluding them from any scenario.  They became

> a fixed part of our reality the day they came into common knowledge.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------

The use on civilians was not necessary. I am a critic of Japanese warfare on

the Asian mainland, but I do not buy that the same atrocities on Hiroshima

and Nagasaki were necessary. You seem to forget that nuclear bombs were not

even used in the Korean war - and to my knowledge one of the then war-heroes

was dismissed by the then ruling president within 10 minutes, when he

proposed to use nuclear bombs. You hopefully you are well acquainted with

the Cold War - did the USSR ever use atomic bombs? What is the follow up?

Would it have been necessary at any internation conflict - and how many

dozens of conflicts the USA - as the peaceful country described by some

RADSAFErs - had been involved with? Grenada? Cuba? Yugoslavia? Africa?

Panama? Philippines? Georgia? Afghanistan?

* Osama, Sadam, et. al. are restrained from using nukes and worse weapon

> only **ONLY** by the certainty of losing a round of "trading punches" at

> that magnitude.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This comment bothers me most of all. Stating that Osama (I suppose you mean

Osama bin Laden - Osama is a very common name in the arabic world) you are

actually adressing hundreds of thousands or even more "Osamas" by your

comment. Secondly the same is true for "Sadam", which is at least in Europe

written as "Saddam" and the person you mean is obviously Saddam Hussein of

Iraq. Could you give a list of et.al????  I do not believe it.

I wonder, how you could attribute to - if I understand correctly - Osama bin

Laden and Saddam Hussein the use of nuclear bombs (you use the slang word

"nukes") and worse weapon (I suppose you meant worse weapon-"s",. without

disclosing which they should be). Basic understanding, taking into

consideration the mailings on RADSAFE - do you read them? - would have shown

you, that "Osama bin Laden" or his Al-Quaida never had the slightest chance

to develop a nulear bomb (you call it "nuke") as well, as even the most

sophisticated members of a Western terror group could do it. They even have

no chance to construct a "dirty bomb" - because the radiological impact of

something imaginable would not negligible, only being put forward by mass

media.

The detremential impact of a "dirty bomb" and the threat of a not

constructible nuclear bomb by terrorists is something which helps certain

groups to keep up the fear from anything nuclear. I wonder, why they do it.



>

> If we were to completely eliminate our nuclear arsenal, we would simply

> be signing up for conquest at the hands of some less moral, more power

> hungry group or nation.



Come on, you - as we say in German - "you live behind the moon". Being a

frequent visitor tó the South-West I can tell you, that the Indians there

would have a different opinion about the moral of the US and their being

hungry for power. You may search yourself, how many millions of Indians have

died after "the Americans"- they were a mixture of almost any nation of

Europe, but no homogeneous nation, had invaded their homelands, destroyed

their irrigation channels by diverting the water to their farms (Arizona),

taking their pastures and of course killing them whenever they found them.

Well, I should mention that the Spaniards proceeded them in these attempts

at least in the South-West. So talking about "moral" and which nation if

more or less moral is even with nowadays standards surely not accompanied

with a decision for the "USA". There was some years ago a very interesting

article and map on National Geographic, which showed the "Making of the

USA". It seems that no "moral" was involved.

>

> Its a question of Who Should Hold the Gun?  And the answer is the one

> least likely to use it.  In my book that's us, good old America.  I

> can't think of even one nation less likely to use it than us.



And this you dare to say, after the bomb-drops at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

How dare you? You must be totally missing any common sense. Your "Good old

America" is fortunately different and not chauvinistic as you are - at least

how I perceived it. I wonder, how other RADSAFErs can be silent about such

incredible statements.

 And finally, what is a "reborn" christian?  The only sort of christian

> there is.



---------------------------------------------

I am sorry, I did not read this comment extensively, because I think that

putting forward bible citations is one of the most disgusting arguments, if

they are used in the wrong context. You forget that the majority of the

worlds population does not adhere to the "Christian" faith. To deduce

justification of nuclear warfare from the bible is actually the most

distainable and unaccpetable argument I ever heard. To use the bible to

defend the drop of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to defend

future uses by the USA is simply incredible! How can you dare????? Nobody

refusing that?



Franz





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/