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

Re: Br!n: Re: appealing to old style conservatives\a monopoly on nukes

Expand Messages
  • Doug Pensinger
    I sent this last night but it didn t make it to the list for some reason. Leonard wrote: My dear Mr. Pensinger, Welcome to the list, Leonard. It would seem to
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I sent this last night but it didn't make it to the list for some reason.

      Leonard wrote:

      My dear Mr. Pensinger,

      Welcome to the list, Leonard.

      It would seem to me that those capable of most effectively deploying nukes
      have a "monopoly on nukes". A nuke
      sitting in my basement is hardly a threat to anyone but me.

      Why wouldn't you count the three other countries that have multiple
      warhead ICBMs (including SLBMs)? In
      addition, China will soon have some similar capability and several other
      nations have medium to long range
      capability; India, Pakistan, Israel and now North Korea whose missiles
      could conceivably reach the U.S.
      (albeit Alaska).

      Furthermore, a nuke sitting in the basement of someone that has a strong
      desire to detonate it in a populated
      area _is_ a potential danger. Someone with a good enough imagination can
      probably come up with a dozen ways
      to get that bomb where it can kill tens of thousands of people.

      <snip>

      ...............is that the current action
      against Iraq has little to nothing to do with control of mideast oil
      supplies. (that was, unless I am
      mistaken, originally what Mr.Brin was discussing)
      It has mostly to everything to do with power and influence for the future.

      But Leonard, ask yourself why Iraq is important? Why is the Middle East
      important?

      I believe that what is happening today was part of some evolving
      contingency plan laid out many years ago.
      Someone had to get an ass-whupping in order to help keep the rest of the
      emerging nation-states in line. Iraq
      was volunteered for obvious reasons. (one of which was, "they did not have
      any WMD's." ie It was fairly safe,
      as these things go)

      That's pretty funny, you are joking, right? Or are you saying that Bush
      knew that there weren't any WMD's
      and lied through his teeth?

      Now, if that's a little clearer. You may feel free to comment, ignore me,
      or toss me from your list.
      Thanks for listening

      No one has the power to kick you off the list except the listowners;
      Julia, Nick and Dave (AFAIK) and even
      they require grievous misbehavior. You can get a good start by
      threatening bodily harm, but otherwise the
      only way you're leaving the list is of your own accord.

      And I'm almost always listening. 8^)



      --
      Doug
      _______________________________________________
      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
    • Leonard Matusik
      Doug Pensinger wrote:Wed, 01 Jun 2005 20:27:04 -0700 I sent this last night but it didn t make it to the list for some reason. *REALLY, I sent
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Doug Pensinger <brighto@...> wrote:Wed, 01 Jun 2005 20:27:04 -0700
        I sent this last night but it didn't make it to the list for some reason.
        *REALLY, I sent the original letter last week and it didn't make the list at all!*ljm


        Leonard wrote:

        My dear Mr. Pensinger,

        Welcome to the list, Leonard.

        It would seem to me that those capable of most effectively deploying nukes
        have a "monopoly on nukes". A nuke
        sitting in my basement is hardly a threat to anyone but me.

        Why wouldn't you count the three other countries that have multiple
        warhead ICBMs (including SLBMs)? In
        addition, China will soon have some similar capability and several other
        nations have medium to long range
        capability; India, Pakistan, Israel and now North Korea whose missiles
        could conceivably reach the U.S.
        (albeit Alaska).

        Furthermore, a nuke sitting in the basement of someone that has a strong
        desire to detonate it in a populated
        area _is_ a potential danger. Someone with a good enough imagination can
        probably come up with a dozen ways
        to get that bomb where it can kill tens of thousands of people.

        *Yeh, but ya know Doug, I think the only people who care about that are nice folks like you and me. From the viewpoint of strategic nukers, "the last one left alive to bury the dead WINS!" I'm not saying it's right, it just IS. All for the other guys with ICBM's and MIRV's, well we know the US airforce has been polishing their nukes regularly, I'm not so sure about the other guys-------- I maintain in a MADD scenario, WE WIN! (yahhhh, flags wave, ticker tape, nurses get kissed in the street). THE POINT is that strategic nukers are largely out of a job. Sure they show up for work and stuff, but who really thinks it's gonna happen in the long run- anybody??? OK, then what's left. "we will keep this stuff around so we can nuke rouge states", ie emerging potential-customer nationstates who don't play fair. BUT that's messy and everybody gets pissed if you nuke somebody. (which REALLY is NOT a big deal in the "big picture", I mean, we survived the permethian extinction event just
        fine).
        So what's next...? gods-rods... (trademark)

        Shoot, you should be able to buy antique nukes on E-bay in another couple of hundred years.......*******ljm

        ...............is that the current action
        against Iraq has little to nothing to do with control of mideast oil
        supplies. (that was, unless I am
        mistaken, originally what Mr.Brin was discussing)
        It has mostly to everything to do with power and influence for the future.

        But Leonard, ask yourself why Iraq is important? Why is the Middle East
        important?
        ****oh let's! by all means! newtopic???******ljm


        I believe that what is happening today was part of some evolving
        contingency plan laid out many years ago.
        Someone had to get an ass-whupping in order to help keep the rest of the
        emerging nation-states in line. Iraq
        was volunteered for obvious reasons. (one of which was, "they did not have
        any WMD's." ie It was fairly safe,
        as these things go)

        That's pretty funny, you are joking, right? Or are you saying that Bush
        knew that there weren't any WMD's
        and lied through his teeth?

        Now, if that's a little clearer. You may feel free to comment, ignore me,
        or toss me from your list.
        Thanks for listening

        No one has the power to kick you off the list except the listowners;
        Julia, Nick and Dave (AFAIK) and even
        they require grievous misbehavior. You can get a good start by
        threatening bodily harm, but otherwise the
        only way you're leaving the list is of your own accord.

        And I'm almost always listening. 8^)



        --
        Doug
        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l




        ---------------------------------
        Discover Yahoo!
        Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!
        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
      • William T Goodall
        ... I think using nuclear weapons over a dab of rouge is a bit extreme. -- William T Goodall Mail : wtg@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On 3 Jun 2005, at 3:08 pm, Leonard Matusik wrote:

          > "we will keep this stuff around so we can nuke rouge states"

          I think using nuclear weapons over a dab of rouge is a bit extreme.

          --
          William T Goodall
          Mail : wtg@...
          Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
          Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

          "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
          Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool
          me -- you can't get fooled again."
          -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn.,
          Sept. 17, 2002

          _______________________________________________
          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
        • Leonard Matusik
          William T Goodall wrote: ... -- I agree, even if they are Khmer Rouge. The mess , the fallout, the HUMANITY, (the
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            William T Goodall <wtg@...> wrote:

            On 3 Jun 2005, at 3:08 pm, Leonard Matusik wrote:

            > "we will keep this stuff around so we can nuke rouge states"


            >William T Goodall wrote on Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:59:30 +0100
            >I think using nuclear weapons over a dab of rouge is a bit extreme.

            -- <snipe>
            I agree, even if they are Khmer Rouge. The mess , the fallout, the HUMANITY, (the reconstruction bill). Even so you'd think we could come up with a better way to impliment peace than this pocket liner. (see below)

            I do have a suggestion involving "christian suicide/martyr convoys" to bring aid to beseiged muslim populations. Like a real high profile government funded event. Get about 50,000 unarmed men, women and children and sent them faithfully into harms way. This would have worked GREAT in Bosnia (especially if the CIA had pre-armed the "chrsitian" militias) What a sceptical that would be!

            Shoot, I'll go if everyone else will.

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1487124,00.html

            Leonar Matusik Nanotreasures@...


            "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
            Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool
            me -- you can't get fooled again."
            -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn.,
            Sept. 17, 2002

            "the........horror......" -Marlin Brando, _________________________________________
            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l




            ---------------------------------
            Discover Yahoo!
            Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!
            _______________________________________________
            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
          • Warren Ockrassa
            ... Not in this nation. We can t just pass a Constitutional amendment against *that*, after all. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On Jun 4, 2005, at 2:59 AM, William T Goodall wrote:

              > On 3 Jun 2005, at 3:08 pm, Leonard Matusik wrote:
              >
              >> "we will keep this stuff around so we can nuke rouge states"
              >
              > I think using nuclear weapons over a dab of rouge is a bit extreme.

              Not in this nation. We can't just pass a Constitutional amendment
              against *that*, after all.


              --
              Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
              http://books.nightwares.com/
              Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
              http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf

              _______________________________________________
              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
            • Alisa Ward
              ... I agree. But once excessive mascara is involved, it s a different story. ;) _______________________________________________
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On 6/4/05, William T Goodall <wtg@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > On 3 Jun 2005, at 3:08 pm, Leonard Matusik wrote:
                >
                > > "we will keep this stuff around so we can nuke rouge states"
                >
                > I think using nuclear weapons over a dab of rouge is a bit extreme.
                >
                >
                I agree. But once excessive mascara is involved, it's a different story.
                ;)
                _______________________________________________
                http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.