« It's been a long December and there's reason to believe... | Main | i showed her my dictionary to show the words that I know and how loquacious i can be »
Oh Lord, stuck in ol' Lodi again
by anna at 09:46 AM on December 21, 2004
You'll be happy to note that the long-idle French military juggernaut is back in action. In order to avoid the negative connotations associated with the word "troops," the troops are calling themselves "peacekeepers." But they are troops and by all accounts they have acquitted themselves nicely on the battlefield.
Alas, as we've seen in Iraq, even a force with an overwhelming advantage can face difficutly in quelling a persistent insurgency that resorts to underhanded tactics. This could happen in the Ivory Coast, where anti-French sentiment has been brewing for years. Then what? Well, among the French options is dropping a nuclear bomb on the Ivory Coast to preserve its peace.
Yes! The French are in possession of powerful atomic weapons. As are the Americans, Russians, English, Israelis, Pakististanis, Indians, North Koreans and for all we know, Al Qaeda. Until recently South Africa had nukes too. There are loose nukes floating around in the black market.
Could somebody please tell me who, precisely, these countries plan to use these weapons on? And isn't it a tad hypocritical for a nation like the US to decry nuclear programs in places like Iran when they are not only the leaders in nuclear stockpiles but also the only nation to ever use them on a foe?
Let's not even get into the fact that when the second A-bomb decimated Nagasaki, the Japanese were desperately trying to surrender.
comments (16)
Nukyular, I meant nukyular. Thanks Linz for spelling out the Bushian pronunciation.
by anna at December 21, 2004 9:51 AM
My pleasure. Lodi is my favorite CCR song.
"And isn't it a tad hypocritical for a nation like the US to decry nuclear programs in places like Iran when they are not only the leaders in nuclear stockpiles but also the only nation to ever use them on a foe?"
But Anna, we are the only people who would use a city-decimating death machine responsibly! Ugh. Thank you for pointing out what I find to be the most arrogant hypocrisy we currently indulge in as a nation.
by Linz at December 21, 2004 10:48 AM
That's not the half of it. Our huge arsennal of nukes is mostly pointed at our quasi-friend Russia. In turn, theirs is pointed at us. For some reason their live nukes have to be trucked around the vast nation constantly. Why is that? And isn't there some danger of misappropriation or an accidental firing? Oops. So sorry.
by anna at December 21, 2004 11:08 AM
Their arsenal is much smaller than yours and the capability generated by having such a huge arsenal as the U.S. has is that you remove any counter-strike capability by the volume of nukes thrown at the foe. They truck their arsenal around as it makes it much harder for the arsenal to be wiped out. Hence they can hit back if the U.S. launches its massive first strike.
The really foolhardy part of all that is that any such massive first strike would poison the earth to such an extent that I would think everyone that survived in the rest of the world would be dead of cancer or other nuclear related illness within a couple years, even if no nukes landed in their country.
Nice to see some American's who see their own government's hipocrasy in preventing their potential enemies from having Nukes despite the fact that they have the most, and most effective ones on the planet... the policy does go along with the current administration's stated military goals though.
by chuckwoolery at December 21, 2004 1:19 PM
But realistically is that ever going to happen? Why would we (or the Russkies) ever do that? And it doesn't begin to answer the question of why all those other countries are brandishing nukes.
Check out the second link. Look at the amazing disparity between the US and everybody else. And what is Japan spending all that military money on? I thought they weren't even allowed to have a real military presence.
by anna at December 21, 2004 1:48 PM
I think this sort of argument confuses two issues that are not really related. The first being whether or not there should be such a thing as nuclear weapons in the world. I think most rational individuals would agree that if we had the choice between living in a world with nuclear weapons or a world without nuclear weapons the latter is the better option. Hell, I’d like to live in a world where the nursery rhyme about “sticks and stones…” was unnecessary, because not only wouldn’t people want to hit each other with sticks and stones, but that they wouldn’t even want to call each other names.
Unfortunately that isn’t reality. We live in a world with nuclear weapons. Which brings me to the second part of this conversation - how many is enough? How many is too much? I don’t know the answer to either of those questions. But I have to think that having 100 is better than having 1. And that having 1,000 is better than having 100. And that having so god-damn many that the country with the next most feels the need to drive theirs around on trucks is best of all.
Anna: That looks like a huge disparity in military spending, but it is much smaller (though still pretty big) if you take into account GNP.
by mg at December 21, 2004 2:26 PM
You neocons scare me...
by Linz at December 21, 2004 2:46 PM
You liberal folk singers scare me.
by mg at December 21, 2004 3:56 PM
But we're so cute and clever!
by Linz at December 21, 2004 4:08 PM
Linz, what's with the bionic eye?
by MrBlank at December 21, 2004 5:25 PM
MG, the problem with your reasoning is that living in the country next to the country with the most is uncomfortable at times, (even though we're allies mostly).
Living in a country that the country with the most hates (ie North Korea) or that it exploits (ie Saudi Arabia) seems to generate paranoid behaviour and/or terrorist activity.
Having the military that no one can face on the battlefield means having opponents that adopt other tactics..
Linz the new website is great. Has the tiny girl website gone the way of the Dodo?
by chuckwoolery at December 21, 2004 5:27 PM
Ha! Bionic eye... It's on the side of cheesiness that I like. Watch out though, it's dangerous. That thing'll burn a hole in ya.
Chuck, thanks! I'm totally excited about it. The guy named the band is not a member any more, and out of respect he asked us to rename. The guys suggested this, and I'm not too sad about it. Same other members, just one fewer, and me playing a lot more guitar.
by Linz at December 21, 2004 5:42 PM
Chuck hits the nail on the head: Having the military that no one can face on the battlefield means having opponents that adopt other tactics.. What else would you expect them to do? Submit to some honor-driven duel like Hamilton and Burr?
by anna at December 21, 2004 8:23 PM
I love dueling. But I hate violence.
My nose is runny. I missed my doctors appointment.
No meds, going to Rhode Island for the weekend.
...Conservatives, Liberals, these labels mess me up...
...What Party do you think Lockheed is a member of? Seriously? You'd be surprised.
by LOCKHEED at December 22, 2004 2:03 PM
Party of Five. Now that was a show.
by anna at December 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Having the military that no one can face on the battlefield means having opponents that adopt other tactics..
Do any of you remeber your US history? In the Revolutionary war, the British had "the military that no one can face on the battlefield." So what did we do? Adopted other tactics. Guerilla tactics. Strike and retreat (terrorist) tactics...
Yet now we condemn them as cowards for doing so!?!?!
...The ones defending their own soil. May the ones that attacked us burn in H-E-double hockey sticks
by Remember Your US History at June 8, 2005 1:56 AM