Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Stop a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran!

Expand Messages
  • Wayne Radinsky
    UCSD physicist Jorge Hirsch presents evidence that the Bush Administration is planning an attack on Iran employing low yield earth penetrating nuclear weapons.
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 15, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      UCSD physicist Jorge Hirsch presents evidence that the Bush
      Administration is planning an attack on Iran employing low yield
      earth penetrating nuclear weapons. The Bush administration has
      changed official US Department of Defense nuclear doctrine to allow
      for pre-emptive nuclear strikes. He is concerned that if the Bush
      Administration proceeds with its planned nuclear attack, it will mean
      the end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and will lead
      to a global nuclear weapons arms race. 1800 physicists have joined in
      a petition expressing strong repudiation of the new US nuclear
      weapons policies.

      There is a powerpoint presentation, a 10-minute video, and extensive
      links to documents on nuclear doctrine.

      He is urging all of us to contact our congressional representatives
      and demand they enact emergency legislation requiring congressional
      approval for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear
      countries. This would prevent Bush from being able to make a decision
      to use nuclear weapons by himself.

      http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/publicservice.html

      I leave to you the question of whether you "should" contact your
      congressional representative and demand emergency legislation to stop
      Bush. I recently ran across Eric S. Raymond's blog (yes, the famous
      open source advocate), and he argues that because of the hostilities
      between Islam and the West, the US *must* destroy Iran's nuclear
      capability if it is to survive. (By "survive" ESR means survive
      as American culture, rather than converting to Islamic law).

      Even if that is true, Bush seems to me like the wrong man for the
      job. But I suppose it's not my place to say. Personally, ok, I used
      to say that I thought the conflict between Islam and the West would
      take the form of small-scale terrorism/urban/guerrilla warfare,
      rather than major war. Today, I can see how an major war could
      happen. It would be a war between Islam and the West. I'm sure people
      would call it World War III, but when you think about it, it can't be
      an all-out war like the past World Wars because with today's nuclear
      arsenals, that would mean nuking the planet to kingdom come. So what
      will happen, and would a Bush attack on Iran's nuclear capability now
      help or hinder avoiding a major world war? It obviously isn't
      imminent, even with the Bush/Iran saber rattling, but a major event,
      such as a collapse of the European Union economy, with its large
      Islamic population, could trigger it. Even then, major war wouldn't
      start for years. So this war would be decades out in the future. But
      you can certainly see the storm clouds building now. The conflict
      between Islam and the West is escalating, and it seems destined to
      continue escalating for the foreseeable future. And since the war
      probably wouldn't be an all-out nuclear war, what form would it take?
      Predicting the course of such a war would involve trying to predict
      the complex interactions between technology -- robotics/AI,
      nanotechnology, the internet, and all the political memes/propaganda
      that would be employed, in addition to nuclear and conventional
      weapons systems. The outcome could be highly sensitive to the
      starting date and the extent to which AI and nanotechnology are
      developed at that point. There is also always the possibility of the
      development of new and unforseeable (from today's point of view)
      weapons, such as for example, a major breakthrough with the "Star
      Wars" laser weapons that have so far failed every attempt to develop.
    • Joschka Fisher
      from joschka fischer: Could mean the end of Nuclear Non-proliferation? The deal with India, is the end of NPT. Ribbentrop ( Rice ) is already sodomizing the
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 16, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        from joschka fischer:

        "Could mean the end of Nuclear Non-proliferation?"

        The deal with India, is the end of NPT.

        Ribbentrop ( Rice ) is already sodomizing the treaty.


        This page was sent to you by:
        saigonflashback@...

        INTERNATIONAL / ASIA PACIFIC | April 5, 2006
        Rice Urges Congress on Deal With India
        By JOHN O'NEIL
        The secretary of state's remarks were greeted with
        caution by the panel's Republican chairman.



        --- Wayne Radinsky <waynerad@...> a écrit :


        ---------------------------------
        UCSD physicist Jorge Hirsch presents evidence that the
        Bush Administration is planning an attack on Iran
        employing low yield earth penetrating nuclear weapons.


        The Bush administration has changed official US
        Department of Defense nuclear doctrine to allow
        for pre-emptive nuclear strikes. He is concerned that
        if the Bush Administration proceeds with its planned
        nuclear attack, it will mean
        the end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
        and will lead
        to a global nuclear weapons arms race. 1800 physicists
        have joined in
        a petition expressing strong repudiation of the new US
        nuclear
        weapons policies.

        There is a powerpoint presentation, a 10-minute video,
        and extensive
        links to documents on nuclear doctrine.

        He is urging all of us to contact our congressional
        representatives
        and demand they enact emergency legislation requiring
        congressional
        approval for the use of nuclear weapons against
        non-nuclear
        countries. This would prevent Bush from being able to
        make a decision
        to use nuclear weapons by himself.

        http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/publicservice.html

        I leave to you the question of whether you "should"
        contact your
        congressional representative and demand emergency
        legislation to stop
        Bush. I recently ran across Eric S. Raymond's blog
        (yes, the famous
        open source advocate), and he argues that because of
        the hostilities
        between Islam and the West, the US *must* destroy
        Iran's nuclear
        capability if it is to survive. (By "survive" ESR
        means survive
        as American culture, rather than converting to Islamic
        law).

        Even if that is true, Bush seems to me like the wrong
        man for the
        job. But I suppose it's not my place to say.
        Personally, ok, I used
        to say that I thought the conflict between Islam and
        the West would
        take the form of small-scale terrorism/urban/guerrilla
        warfare,
        rather than major war. Today, I can see how an major
        war could
        happen. It would be a war between Islam and the West.
        I'm sure people
        would call it World War III, but when you think about
        it, it can't be
        an all-out war like the past World Wars because with
        today's nuclear
        arsenals, that would mean nuking the planet to kingdom
        come. So what
        will happen, and would a Bush attack on Iran's nuclear
        capability now
        help or hinder avoiding a major world war? It
        obviously isn't
        imminent, even with the Bush/Iran saber rattling, but
        a major event,
        such as a collapse of the European Union economy, with
        its large
        Islamic population, could trigger it. Even then, major
        war wouldn't
        start for years. So this war would be decades out in
        the future. But
        you can certainly see the storm clouds building now.
        The conflict
        between Islam and the West is escalating, and it seems
        destined to
        continue escalating for the foreseeable future. And
        since the war
        probably wouldn't be an all-out nuclear war, what form
        would it take?
        Predicting the course of such a war would involve
        trying to predict
        the complex interactions between technology --
        robotics/AI,
        nanotechnology, the internet, and all the political
        memes/propaganda
        that would be employed, in addition to nuclear and
        conventional
        weapons systems. The outcome could be highly sensitive
        to the
        starting date and the extent to which AI and
        nanotechnology are
        developed at that point. There is also always the
        possibility of the
        development of new and unforseeable (from today's
        point of view)
        weapons, such as for example, a major breakthrough
        with the "Star
        Wars" laser weapons that have so far failed every
        attempt to develop.


        bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        ---------------------------------
        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


        Visit your group "bafuture" on the web.

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
        Terms of Service.


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








        ___________________________________________________________________________
        Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger. Appelez le monde entier à partir de 0,012 €/minute !
        Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.