Nuke Japan? hmmm they seem to think murdering Whales is perfectly fine

[Bob]

(Sigh) Japan doesn't get it. It is socially unacceptable to be murdering whales for any reason..

I suppose nuking Japan, with a moderate thermonuclear weapon would equal the assault on consciousness that they are creating on the rest of the world...they just don't get it and the earlier weapons detonation on Hiroshima and Nagasaki just didn't sink in.. DON'T GO KILLING ANY SENTIENT BEING, JAPAN, what's not understandable with that??

Strong approach? Destroying life for what, their amusement, their abhorrent FOOD SOURCE?

Should we take a survey? love them or nuke them?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japan-kills-whale-in-australian-sanctuary-as-hunters-give-sea-shepherd-the-slip-20170116-gtsd4l.html


The whale was apparently killed inside a marine sanctuary dating back to 1999, when it was first declared by the Howard government. The same waters are also subject to an international ban on commercial whaling.

But Japan has refused to recognise the sanctuary and claims the whaling is for scientific research - yet also allows the sale of the whale flesh in markets and restaurants. Tokyo has said it will kill 333 minke whales this year.

naw we are not advocating violence nor is Sea Shepard. It's just that Japan has forgotten what it was like to be NUKED for harming many lives.. That they can get away again, doing it again to a defenseless species is abhorrent.. Common Japan, you have more sense than wanting yourselves to be energetically targeted for here on in for crimes against life...

[lucidity]

I thought Japan only kills whales for purely scientific purposes.

[IChingUChing]

To me it's pretty insane that someone thinks it's a good idea to "nuke" someone else to teach them not to kill other life.

The survey show read, "Am I sane or insane for suggesting this?" in my humble opinion!

[Antihero]

Damn hippies differentiating between tuna and whale.
If anyone should be nuked it's the beef consumers, oh, that's like all of us.
I'm not easily offended but this ****post takes the top of the month award and deserves to be nuked.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

To me it's pretty insane that someone thinks it's a good idea to "nuke" someone else to teach them not to kill other life.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this.

This is actually kind of synchronistic, because I was just wondering earlier today what causes some people to have so much more compassion for animals than they do for their fellow human beings, to the point where if a person suffers, they wall it off emotionally and don't seem to care, but if an animal gets hurt they are deeply affected. It's not like humans suffer any less than animals do. If anything I would argue the opposite, even though I personally avoid killing even insects.

[Innocent Warrior]

That's a terrible idea, Bob, nukes are very bad.

It would be great if there was some way we could arm the whales so they can defend themselves though, same with other life around the world, like forests and tigers. I'm sure we're all guilty in this respect.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Why not simply pass a law (or enforce it if it already exists) against this kind of thing?

From what I understand a lot of whaling in international waters is already totally illegal and it's just not being enforced strictly enough. No doubt because there's lots of money involved.

I don't know much about whales but dolphins have to be one of the most intelligent species on the planet, and the Japanese slaughter them in large numbers too.


That is... SOME Japanese. Not all of them of course.

[Bob]

To me it's pretty insane that someone thinks it's a good idea to "nuke" someone else to teach them not to kill other life.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this.

This is actually kind of synchronistic, because I was just wondering earlier today what causes some people to have so much more compassion for animals than they do for their fellow human beings, to the point where if a person suffers, they wall it off emotionally and don't seem to care, but if an animal gets hurt they are deeply affected. It's not like humans suffer any less than animals do. If anything I would argue the opposite, even though I personally avoid killing even insects.

"Acton called Trump's tweet unprecedented, not only for its content, but for the notion that a president-­elect would make a pronouncement about something so sensitive as nuclear weapons policy over a medium as casual as Twitter."



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-tweets-apparent-call-more-us-nuclear-weapons-n699221

Donald Trump's zest for making offhand quips about his intentions on serious policy matters has launched the United States on a grand experiment: What happens when the world doesn't understand what the American president is trying to say?

In the hours after President-elect Trump tweeted about his desire to expand American nuclear weapons capability — seeming to upend decades of consensus that fewer nukes is better — experts puzzled about what he meant, his own aides seemed to walk his comment back, and Trump himself weighed in to suggest that the most extreme reading of his tweet was the right one.

Trump stunned nuclear experts Thursday by proclaiming in a tweet that "the United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes."

And on Friday, Trump himself weighed in again, saying in a statement to "Morning Joe" host Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC: "Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all."

North Korea -

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korea-warns-it-would-use-nuclear-weapons-first-if-n665791


North Korea Warns It Would Use Nuclear Weapons First If Threatened

Pakistan -

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/world/neighbours/280916/will-use-nuclear-weapons-destroy-india-if-it-declares-war-says-pakistan.html


Will use nuclear weapons, destroy India if it declares war, says Pakistan

Sep 28, 2016

Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif ​has threatened to use nuclear weapons in case of war with India, saying his country has not made atomic device to display in a showcase

Israel -

The Dimona nuclear facility was completed in 1960. Those same foreign reports say Israel had several dozen nuclear weapons in October 1973, as well as the means to deliver them
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/did-israel-ever-consider-using-nuclear-weapons-1.317592

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Is there supposed to be a link between those things and nuking Japan for killing whales, Bob, or did you mix this thread up with another one? I don't get the point.

[Sunny-side-up]

Thx for the post Bob

It has caused a bit of confusion I see.
Your not condoning Bombing or killing anyone are you.

I wish the humans on this planet could get away from killing any life forms, SENTIENT or not.
I wish I myself could get out of that food chain and not eat any animal :(
We have the means to do so now!

[Bob]

Is there supposed to be a link between those things and nuking Japan for killing whales, Bob, or did you mix this thread up with another one? I don't get the point.

The point is there are many advocating using nuclear weapons against humans - the expression "reductio ad absurdum" probably would fit, or the bringing forth of a point (killing in any form) especially sentient species for any 'reason' is abhorrent. From Trump to N. Korea, to Pakistan, to India, to Israel.. using killing to justify one's "point".. emphasising the "nuclear option" points out how world leader's mindsets are running currently - hairpin trigger probably.. N. Korea could use a nuke on Japan, or south Korea and is sabre rattling that it will put it on an ICBM.

The killing vibe is the issue, that is 'out there' and being restimulated over and over by world leaders who have nukes. It seems to me if we continue to ignore the "killing", the world leaders will use greater and greater kill ratio devices against each other. Maybe the killing of whales point in the OP emphasises that Japan knows it's breaking INTERNATIONAL law, and they get away with it.. Use of NUKES would (or should) be against INTERNATIONAL law.. A very small nuke may only kill a batallion, of 300-800 soldiers. Tactical nuke use has not been ruled out (called fighting a limited nuclear war)..

[Bob]

Thx for the post Bob

It has caused a bit of confusion I see.
Your not condoning Bombing or killing anyone are you.

I wish the humans on this planet could get away from killing any life forms, SENTIENT or not.
I wish I myself could get out of that food chain and not eat any animal :(
We have the means to do so now!

Thank you for seeing the "deepness" in the OP point, in my post above I clarified the emphasis, that the world currently has some things coming down (possibly), and a lot of tension, where something small could trigger something major.. Pakistan as recently as September talked about nuking India, and India said it would retaliate, not in a limited capacity.. That "killing" vibe is the issue.. We could look back at the great (ugh) "wars", the 'killing issue", the killing for the emperor, or the sultan.. the killing of the native People.. for what? following the dictates of the leader?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The point is there are many advocating using nuclear weapons against humans

A build-up of nukes, or of the military in general, does not equate to "advocating using nuclear weapons against humans." Since you lived through the Cold War I assume you are familiar with the concept of nuclear deterrence (http://americanhistory.si.edu/subs/history/timeline/different/nuclear_deterrence.html), which has worked so far.


During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union each built a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Soviet policy rested on the conviction that a nuclear war could be fought and won. The United States adopted nuclear deterrence, the credible threat of retaliation to forestall enemy attack.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/subs/history/timeline/different/nuclear_deterrence.html

Before the age of nukes, Teddy Roosevelt's saying was "talk softly and carry a big stick." He was a war veteran who modernized and expanded our navy and paraded it all over the world, and no one bothered to attack us during his administration.

Even animals like dogs have sense enough to know not to attack things that are bigger and stronger than they are. Instead they more apt to attack things that are submissive and show signs of weakness. Foreign policy is often determined the same way unfortunately.

[Bob]

Time will tell it appears - in 1957 Henry Kissinger then a Harvard faculty member, was featured in a front-page Times story that examined the idea that, with a new generation of smaller, more transportable atomic weapons, a “limited” or “little” nuclear war was not as outlandish as it sounded.

Kissinger had just published a book called “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy,” which he then adapted, in the form of an article, for the quarterly Foreign Affairs; a year later, the young Kissinger—he was thirty-four years old then—appeared on “The Mike Wallace Interview,” and his long march to fame and influence had begun.

The notion of a small nuclear war was offered as an alternative to the policy of “massive retaliation” identified with John Foster Dulles, President Dwight Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, which held that an aggressor state risked an atomic barrage, language that in the thermonuclear age carried with it a suggestion of total annihilation.

“The tactics for limited nuclear war should be based on small, highly mobile, self-contained units, relying largely on air transport even within the combat zone,” he wrote. The right model for a limited nuclear war was, he said, naval strategy, “in which self-contained units with great firepower gradually gain the upper hand,” with the effect of keeping “the enemy constantly off balance.”

=---=

That in mind, that mindset is within the tactical military mindset.. That potentially as has been suggested by other members, a conflagration in the South China Sea may be where the devices are used..

[A Voice from the Mountains]

As far as tactical nukes go, I think they've already been used for years. There is evidence of some form of 4th or 5th generation nuclear device being used in the Jakarta bombing, in Bali, in Iraq and in Palestine, among other places. After looking at the NIST report and all the physical evidence tests coming out of the WTC complex for a number of years, I finally came to the conclusion that the most plausible explanation was that the same type of nuclear device was deployed there too, in the basements of the buildings directed upward. But this is all neither here nor there. I'm all for peace but you can't realistically expect to accomplish it in the modern world by going the Jesus route and turning the other cheek to everybody and just asking for it.

[lucidity]

Time will tell it appears - in 1957 Henry Kissinger then a Harvard faculty member, was featured in a front-page Times story that examined the idea that, with a new generation of smaller, more transportable atomic weapons, a “limited” or “little” nuclear war was not as outlandish as it sounded.

Kissinger had just published a book called “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy,” which he then adapted, in the form of an article, for the quarterly Foreign Affairs; a year later, the young Kissinger—he was thirty-four years old then—appeared on “The Mike Wallace Interview,” and his long march to fame and influence had begun.

The notion of a small nuclear war was offered as an alternative to the policy of “massive retaliation” identified with John Foster Dulles, President Dwight Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, which held that an aggressor state risked an atomic barrage, language that in the thermonuclear age carried with it a suggestion of total annihilation.

“The tactics for limited nuclear war should be based on small, highly mobile, self-contained units, relying largely on air transport even within the combat zone,” he wrote. The right model for a limited nuclear war was, he said, naval strategy, “in which self-contained units with great firepower gradually gain the upper hand,” with the effect of keeping “the enemy constantly off balance.”

=---=

That in mind, that mindset is within the tactical military mindset.. That potentially as has been suggested by other members, a conflagration in the South China Sea may be where the devices are used..

Yeah, that should be fine.... nuke them with neutron bombs.
Like they did in :
=> Tianjin, China (2015)
=> Yemen in (2015)
=> Fallujah in Iraq, (2003)
=> And apparently, there are nukes waiting for the USA/Nato tanks
should they decide to roll themselves into Russia (veteranstoday.com)

detonating neutron bombs is practically de rigueur ...
No one takes you seriously unless you have awesome killing power.

[Bob]

I wonder why would Trump say this -

April 3, 2016


Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace asked Trump, "You want to have a nuclear arms race on the Korean peninsula?"

Trump said, "In many ways, and I say this, in many ways, the world is changing. Right now, you have Pakistan and you have North Korea and you have China and you have Russia and you have India and you have the United States and many other countries have nukes."

Trump later added of Japan and South Korea, "Maybe they would be better off — including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."

That's a statement about "deterrence", right? Pakistan says they HAVE nukes and WILL use them, that doesn't sound like deterrence.


March 27, 2016

The New York Times asked Trump if he’d object to Japan or South Korea having nuclear weapons, given their proximity to North Korea.

Trump responded, "At some point, we cannot be the policeman of the world. And unfortunately, we have a nuclear world now. And you have, Pakistan has them. You have, probably, North Korea has them. ... And, would I rather have North Korea have them with Japan sitting there having them also? You may very well be better off if that’s the case. In other words, where Japan is defending itself against North Korea, which is a real problem."

He added later in the same interview: "If Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/14/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-tweets-he-never-said-more-cou/

Pakistan's defence minister says this - after being "triggered" by FAKE NEWS


Pakistan's defence minister makes a nuclear threat against Israel via Twitter in response to a fake news article claiming his country would be 'destroyed' if it sent ground troops into Syria

Pakistan's defence minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif made ominous threat
But he was responding to an article about Israel which was completely bogus

Pakistan has had nuclear weapons since 1998, Israel has had them since 1980s

It is the latest incident of fake news sparking a real response, coming after a man fired a gun in a Washington pizza restaurant after reports of a paedophile ring

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4064950/Pakistan-s-defence-minister-makes-nuclear-threat-against-Israel-Twitter-response-fake-news-article-claiming-country-destroyed-sent-ground-troops-Syria.html

The vibe, the mindset is "quick to use the kill" hammer.. with the conflagrations, it is not just a deterrent threat, Syria, Iraq, Turkey - terrorist bombings, running over people.. the vibe is rampant.

Jan 1 2017 - Pakistan's defence minister has made it clear any weapon including nuclear will be used against India if attacked.


Asif’s predilection for nuclear threats is well known and this is not the first time that he has flaunted Islamabad’s nuclear capability. During a TV interview after the Uri terror attack, he boasted of how Islamabad was being “pressurised” by the international community for having “more tactical (nuclear) weapons than we need.”

He went on to announce that Pakistan had not developed tactical nuclear weapons merely as “showpieces” and threatened New Delhi that should it threaten Pakistan’s security then India will be annihilated by Pakistani nuclear weapons.

However, Khawaja had to eat the humble pie when his threat of nuclear response didn’t dissuade New Delhi from launching a ‘surgical strike’ against terrorist launch pads in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). But Khawaja isn’t the only one fond of invoking the nuclear threat as many in Pakistan seem to be itching to nuke India.

One such person is General Pervez Musharaff who hasn’t quite accepted the fact that he is no longer Pakistan’s President or for that matter its army chief and so keeps coming out with unsolicited advice and ill considered statements that often embarrasses the establishment.

After the Indian army carried out ‘surgical strikes’ against militants in Myanmar last year, Gen Musharraf (in an obvious reference to India doing a similar action inside Pakistan territory) issued a veiled threat by saying “do we have nukes saved to be used on Shab-e-Baraat?” Like Defence Minister Asif Khawaja, Gen Musharaf too must have been deeply embarrassed when the Indian army did carry out surgical strikes against militants launch pads in PaK.

If politicians and ex Generals can issue nuclear threats how the ‘non state’ actors in Pakistan can be expected to stay out of this ‘macho act’ of hurling nuclear threats against India! Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin who has accepted that his militant outfit is “fighting Pakistan’s war in Kashmir has come out with a battle plan to “liberate” Kashmir that will see a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. ANI has reported Salahuddin saying, “Our base camp in Azad Kashmir (PaK) and the Kashmiris from this side will announce the trampling of the bloody Line of Control.

After that there will be no bloody line, no ceasefire line, no international rules and no consideration for the UN observers.

Bleeding Kashmiris will come from that side, these Kashmiris will go from this side and God willing, a decision will take place on the bloody line. If Pakistan provides support, there is a great chance of a nuclear war between the two powers (India and Pakistan).”



The "killing mindset" is the problem, the one-ups-man-ship is the problem, allowing "tools" for harm to be there to be used (see Chicago's increased amount of deaths (http://www.npr.org/2016/12/28/506505382/gun-deaths-in-chicago-reach-startling-number-as-year-closes) from weapons use violence) - if the mindset is violent, the weapon eventually will be used..

"Chicago tops 700 homicides — with a month to go in violent 2016"

Chicago has hit another grim milestone, exceeding 700 homicides for the first time in nearly two decades..

http://tu9srvbirvvtmir3d3cudhjiaw1nlmnvbq00.g00.chicagotribune.com/g00/2_d3d3LmNoaWNhZ290cmlidW5lLmNvbQ%3D%3D_/TU9SRVBIRVVTMiRodHRwOi8vd3d3LnRyYmltZy5jb20vaW1nLTU4NDA5M2IzL3R1cmJpbmUvY3QtbWV0LTEyMDEtY2hpY2Fnby1o b21pY2lkZXMtY2hhcnQvNzAwLzcwMHgzOTQ%2FaTEwYy5tYXJrLmltYWdlLnR5cGU%3D_$/$/$/$/$/$

[TigaHawk]

Start killing the whalers and claim it's for scientific research.

[Innocent Warrior]

OK so I missed the deeper point but knew you were joking about nuking Japan, just saying.

[DeDukshyn]

Note to self for future marketing purposes ... "nuke" is far more powerful a conceptual term than any other words that appear in the OP and all the words combined. Intention is the reality of the painting, words are merely brush strokes on the canvas - not the picture itself. I digress.

I thought Japan just agreed to new regulations? Whatever they've agreed to - they need to be held accountable for, and what they have agreed to had better be sustainable. I hate the killing of obviously highly intellectual animals as well -- that said, steps might be needed to be taken to reach the goal. I'd like to see more governments take the approach India has -- declaring dolphins as "non-human persons" with a set of basic rights - that should be respected by all governments and extended to most species of whale as well.

[enigma3]

The Japanese whale problem in the Pacific will take care of itself soon due to Fukushima radiation. Tuna prices in Japan have fallen off the proverbial cliff. Whales will do the same soon. I expect Japan to focus on Atlantic whales in the near future. The international community has slowed down Japanese whale hunting quite a bit. Asking Japan to end the practice is like asking a Rothschild to give his money away to the people from whom it was taken. And, not all species of whales are endangered.

Want to get really riled up? Google pictures of shark fins drying on shore. 90% of sharks in the Pacific are gone thanks to a surreal preoccupation with shark fin soup.

I also try to remember that the physical realm is the realm of suffering. Lots of that goin on.

[ghostrider]

The problem , the thought patterns of humans ... each person must evolve on their own terms ... all of the evils in the world ,japan has killed ocean life with the use of nuclear energy , then after fukushima caught fire they used sea water and radioactive waste ran right into the ocean , and since 2011 mass sea life washes up all over the world everyday ... they are hunting contaminatef whales , which if they touch , cancer is only a mater of time ...

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I wonder why would Trump say this -

April 3, 2016


Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace asked Trump, "You want to have a nuclear arms race on the Korean peninsula?"

Trump said, "In many ways, and I say this, in many ways, the world is changing. Right now, you have Pakistan and you have North Korea and you have China and you have Russia and you have India and you have the United States and many other countries have nukes."

Trump later added of Japan and South Korea, "Maybe they would be better off — including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."

That's a statement about "deterrence", right? Pakistan says they HAVE nukes and WILL use them, that doesn't sound like deterrence.

Instead you expect them to say, "Yes, we have nukes, but we will not use them." ... ?

Pakistan and India are mortal enemies and both of them have nukes. They've tested underground nukes on each others' borders. But they still haven't used them on each other. They've only been used as a deterrent from open warfare between the two countries.


The vibe, the mindset is "quick to use the kill" hammer.. with the conflagrations, it is not just a deterrent threat, Syria, Iraq, Turkey - terrorist bombings, running over people.. the vibe is rampant.

Some people feed into that but I'm actually very optimistic about the future and I think things will calm down, especially once the militant left is made to come to grips with what exactly it is that they have been supporting. We'll see Congress and the DOJ looking back into all of the foundation stuff and beyond here shortly. Then we'll see who is still willing to go to the streets to defend those monsters.


Jan 1 2017 - Pakistan's defence minister has made it clear any weapon including nuclear will be used against India if attacked.

Exactly as I said. India and Pakistan have been mortal enemies since they split from each other. The threat of mutual destruction keeps either from throwing the switch. It's the whole concept of deterrence. The way you keep posting these things makes me think that you really don't get the concept intuitively, or how/why it works.

India and Pakistan have both had nukes for decades and what you see is an absence of open warfare between them. That doesn't fit with your "everyone is about to kill each other" theme. It would take a psychopathic leader to launch a war that they know will result in their own country being destroyed.



And yes -- Chicago is a hell hole. Who do you think is responsible for that? :)

[Bob]

Violent crime jumps 27 per cent in new figures released by the Office for National Statistics - "Violence recorded by the police rose by 185,000 offences in the year to September"


The murder rate in England and Wales has risen sharply for the first time in a decade [..]

Officials at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the surge was concentrated in London and the South East and described it as “peculiar”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12112024/Violent-crime-jumps-27-in-new-figures.html

From http://peacealliance.org/tools-education/statistics-on-violence/ Peace Alliance dot org


The 20th century was one of the most violent periods in human history. An estimated 191 million people lost their lives directly or indirectly as a result of conflict, and well over half of them were civilians. [World Health Organization: visit: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention (2002)].

• Terrorism is on the rise, with an almost fivefold increase in fatalities since 9/11, in spite of US-led efforts to combat it in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. [2014 Global Terrorism Index]

• 2013 saw a 61% increase in the number of people killed in terrorist attacks. [2014 Global Terrorism Index]

• Since the 1960s, 83% of terrorist organizations that ended, ceased to operate due to policing or politicization. Only 7% ended due to military intervention. [2014 Global Terrorism Index]

• In the United States since Sept. 11, terrorist attacks by antigovernment, racist and other nonjihadist extremists have killed nearly twice as many people as those by Islamic jihadists. [New America Index]

• More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides every six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. [Nicholas Kristoff, New York Times & icasualties.org]

• In 2005, 5,686 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered–an average of 16 each day. [Youth Violence Facts at a Glance, Summer 2008, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)]

• More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history. [Politifact.com]

From Breitbart - http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/02/19/south-korean-official-kim-jong-un-preparing-terror-attacks/


Kim Sung-woo, the chief presidential secretary for public affairs to South Korean President Park Geun-hye, warned on Thursday that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un is preparing a campaign of terror against the South, as tensions between the two countries over the North’s nuclear weapons program increase.

"The Korea Times reports lawmaker Lee Cheol-woo of the governing Saenuri Party echoed Kim’s warning, and said that South Korea’s National Intelligence Service has information supporting the claim that Pyongyang is preparing for a terror campaign, which could include “cyber attacks, kidnapping South Korean citizens, and launching poison gas attacks.”

From Federation of Atomic Scientists - cached https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NoXwMctbj6cJ:https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons Amy F. Woolf Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy March 23, 2016
(Suitcase Nukes - the disposition of such remain unverified)

Force Structure The Soviet Union produced and deployed a wide range of delivery vehicles for nonstrategic nuclear weapons. At different times during the period, it deployed devices that were small enough to fit into a suitcase-sized container, nuclear mines, shells for artillery, short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, short-range air-delivered missiles, and gravity bombs.

The Soviet Union deployed these weapons at nearly 600 bases, with some located in Warsaw Pact nations in Eastern Europe, some in the non-Russian republics on the western and southern perimeter of the nation and throughout Russia. Estimates vary, but many analysts believe that, in 1991, the Soviet Union had more than 20,000 of these weapons.

The numbers may have been higher, in the range of 25,000 weapons in earlier years, before the collapse of the Warsaw Pact


In mid-2009, when discussing the revision of Russia’s defense strategy that was expected late in 2009 or early 2010, Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Presidential Security Council, indicated that Russia would have the option to launch a “preemptive nuclear strike” against an aggressor “using conventional weapons in an all-out, regional, or even local war.”


In addition, many analysts believe that a debate about nonstrategic nuclear weapons can no longer focus exclusively on the U.S. and Russian arsenals.

Even though tensions have eased in recent years, with their nuclear tests in 1998 and continued animosity toward each other, India and Pakistan have joined the list of nations that may potentially resort to nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict.

If measured by the range of delivery vehicles and the yield of the warheads, these nations’ weapons could be considered to be nonstrategic. (i.e. TACTICAL)

But each nation could plan to use these weapons in either strategic or nonstrategic roles. Both nations continue to review and revise their nuclear strategies, leaving many questions about the potential role for nuclear weapons in future conflicts.

China also has nuclear weapons with ranges and missions that could be considered nonstrategic.

Many analysts have expressed concerns about the potential for the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan or other areas of China’s interests.

STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY - deterrence mindset or "MAD" supposed to stop nuclear use on the population

HOWEVER

"A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon[ is a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations, mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory.

"This is opposed to strategic nuclear weapons which are designed to be mostly targeted in the enemy interior away from the war front against military bases, cities, towns, arms industries, and other hardened or larger-area targets to damage the enemy's ability to wage war. Tactical nuclear weapons were a large part of the peak nuclear weapons stockpile levels during the Cold War."

W48 for instance is a nuclear artillery round (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w48.htm) - designed to be launched by 155 mm standard howitzers (a 6 1/2 inch field gun). 72-100 tons of TNT equivalent yield.

Lest we forget the EMP from airburst, from satellite deployment, so that a conventional ICBM launch sabre-rattling would catch the target nation totally OFF GUARD. Plenty of articles on that, and who all has the capability to do so.

National Review - http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431206/iran-north-korea-nuclear
Underestimating Nuclear Missile Threats from North Korea and Iran


The White House has not recognized that a nuclear-armed North Korea has demonstrated an ability to kill most Americans with an electromagnetic-pulse (EMP) attack.

And White House spokesmen and the media have misled the public with unjustified assurances that North Korea has not yet miniaturized nuclear warheads for missile or satellite delivery.

We, who have spent our professional lifetimes analyzing and defending against nuclear-missile threats, warned years ago that North Korea’s Unha-3 space launch vehicle could carry a small nuclear warhead and detonate it a hundred or so miles over the United States to create an EMP, leading to a protracted nationwide blackout.

The resulting societal chaos could kill millions.



and


And at a time of its choosing, Iran could launch a surprise EMP attack against the United States by satellite, as they have apparently practiced with help from North Korea.

We live in a very dangerous time, and we urge that the Senate immediately pass the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (already passed by the House) to safeguard U.S. life-sustaining critical infrastructures against EMP attack.

We also recommend that a Congressional Iran Advisory Group be formed to objectively assess the Iran deal.



From the Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ted-cruz-north-korea-emp-nuclear-missile-republican-debate-a6861676.html

Ted Cruz issues warning over the dangers of a North Korean EMP attack at Republican debate


Speaking about North Korea's recent rocket launch, Cruz said: "One of the real risks of this launch, North Korea wants to launch a satellite, and one of the greatest risks of the satellite is they would place a nuclear device in the satellite."

"As it got over the United States they would detonate that nuclear weapon and set off what's called an EMP, an electromagnetic pulse which would take down the entire electrical grid on the Eastern seaboard, potentially killing millions."

"Cruz has said the same of Iran could launch an EMP attack on the US following the Iranian nuclear deal."

The gamma enhanced nuclear devices (of which N Korea claimed to have) are designed for EMP use, because of the intensity of Gamma generated sufficiently ionizes the atmospheric mid-stratosphere - which ionizes and the resultant energetic free electrons interact with the Earth's magnetic field to produce a much stronger EMP than is normally produced in the denser air at lower altitudes.

With the satellite EMP deployment, there is no certainty who's device did it, especially if the satellites have been declared "dead" or spinning out of control.. The confusion resultant from non-hardened communications going down may provide a hostile actor who used the "stooge" (doing the deployment) to take advantage and strike hard against the attacked target. Could N Korea be acting as a "stooge" for some other hostile actor?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

So what is your angle with all of this Bob? Are you trying to prove that a global nuclear war is about to break out?

[sunpaw]

Unfortunately its (again) about humans, and the topic on whales vanished...

However, Japan isn't the only country murdering whales. Denmark, Iceland..
Its also not only the killing/killed - whales live in families and I suspect stranded whales isn't just disoriented, but maybe deeply disturbed willing to die (suicide).
Then there is also the topic of captured whales and kept in aquariums (sea world). Beside the tiny space they have to 'live' in, they also have no 'family', besides some practices (again labeled as science) are torture and its not to repopulate but to entertain based on cruelty.

And speaking of which - this isn't the only cruel thing happening.
Rodeo is torturing animals, including baby animals, cheered on, sponsored.

In Asia dog and cat meat trade is a big concern. Its not just about 'eating' dogs and cats - its the conditions they are held, often also stolen - to torture before or while preparing the 'dish' - as its believed the more cruel the torture the more delicious the 'dish'.
This isn't just small...

And there are also 'kill shelters' (which I personally find an insulting 'name' - besides its going on and on.) In the US for instance.

While I understand the 'nuking' part - it would also destroy the land/sea for the animals.

Around Fukushima also lived animals, pets. Which often were left behind.
However, there are people still being around - for those animals.

There are people fighting, working for all the above mentioned. I wanted to share - maybe someone wants to get involved too.
The last few months all the above (and more though) got momentum - broader awareness, addressing, spreading the topics, saving as many animals while working to change circumstances, laws. Petitions, as also going into and through hell (especially with the dog/cat meat trades. Look up Marc Ching, or soi dog foundation for instance regarding this topic)

Regarding whales: #OPwhales #OPseaworld
regarding rodeo: #OProdeo
Regarding kill shelters: #NYCACC (where daily dozens of cats, kittens, dogs are killed - while the mayor promised to change the shelters as to not kill them, but I guess its more important to hold tennis tournaments..)
(all on twitter).

Another place to help - Greatergood (website). Not only animal topics but also Autism, Veterans, Literacy,... Clicks (on special buttons though) equal donations. (I disable ad blocker there, just to be sure it really counts. I clean daily anyway). They also have a nice shop...

Just wanted to share :sun::heart:

[GrnEggsNHam]

http://tu9srvbirvvtmir3d3cudhjiaw1nlmnvbq00.g00.chicagotribune.com/g00/2_d3d3LmNoaWNhZ290cmlidW5lLmNvbQ%3D%3D_/TU9SRVBIRVVTMiRodHRwOi8vd3d3LnRyYmltZy5jb20vaW1nLTU4NDA5M2IzL3R1cmJpbmUvY3QtbWV0LTEyMDEtY2hpY2Fnby1o b21pY2lkZXMtY2hhcnQvNzAwLzcwMHgzOTQ%2FaTEwYy5tYXJrLmltYWdlLnR5cGU%3D_$/$/$/$/$/$

That's a scary set of data! I took a gander at the demographics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Chicago) for the various years and yikes. Those spikes in the 70's are easier to explain because the population was much larger(:confused:) and more fluid. However, the population has remained relatively stable since the 90's. As shown in the graph and starting in 2000's these homicides were significantly reduced. The fact that it's escalated so much in a single year is unprecedented and surely fostered by some force unbeknownst to me.

[Bob]

http://tu9srvbirvvtmir3d3cudhjiaw1nlmnvbq00.g00.chicagotribune.com/g00/2_d3d3LmNoaWNhZ290cmlidW5lLmNvbQ%3D%3D_/TU9SRVBIRVVTMiRodHRwOi8vd3d3LnRyYmltZy5jb20vaW1nLTU4NDA5M2IzL3R1cmJpbmUvY3QtbWV0LTEyMDEtY2hpY2Fnby1o b21pY2lkZXMtY2hhcnQvNzAwLzcwMHgzOTQ%2FaTEwYy5tYXJrLmltYWdlLnR5cGU%3D_$/$/$/$/$/$

That's a scary set of data! I took a gander at the demographics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Chicago) for the various years and yikes. Those spikes in the 70's are easier to explain because the population was much larger(:confused:) and more fluid. However, the population has remained relatively stable since the 90's. As shown in the graph and starting in 2000's these homicides were significantly reduced. The fact that it's escalated so much in a single year is unprecedented and surely fostered by some force unbeknownst to me.

I was looking for statistics also in UK, there are numerous statistics for many cities in the US, the most odd is violence in NY City has been steadily dropping since the early 1990's. Central America and different countries in South America appear to be up. Just guessing, but there could be early 'programming' activated, something lain in during childhood, then certain buttons pressed.

With SunPaw's post above, the OP post was about "killing" sentient creatures, and the word "nuke" would be one of the more awful mass destruction killing tools, so the thread took a direction of looking at who could "go crazy" so to speak, and actually use WMD's on humans which would affect all life in the obliteration (depending on the weapon sized used, either "strategic" or miniature war fighting "tactical" (much smaller kill ratio), or looking at the insidious "kill" coming from EMP taking out civilization's infrastructure.

The "kill vibe" is being stroked somehow, and apparently something in some human takes joy in being a predator to try to one-ups-manship overtake a perceived weaker.. A cat is built to take joy apparently in killing it's prey, and is setup well to do such (apex predator).. A human thug with a gun in a gang mentality appears to develop some sort of one-ups-manship to prove to himself or the peers they are the "macho" of the pack. Why is that?

Killing anything that isn't needed for protein for sport to me appears useless, same with one-ups-manship.. which would appear to only bolster ego, and de-focus one from let's say creating civilization and group coherence in peaceful manners.

Back in the late 1980's I had an opportunity to walk with the People in Egypt and noticed that when there were adequate resources present, people were very open and friendly, actually inviting me into their homes to share food.. A LOT of kindness. I asked about why are there wars there in the mideast.. and a consensus appeared, that there are numerous have-nots, who don't have the abundance of food, where land was 'taken' because it could provide an oasis, or something for potentially growing, and it was said that "memories" of the thefts go back a long ways... and the battles continue because of the land(s) taken, the food/water restricted... It was interesting to see kindness verses predatory behavior in action.

[Bob]

Back to Japan's current activities -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZm-k9r3kus
(file footage)


Japan’s so-called “scientific research” program to hunt 333 Minke whales has been rejected by the International Court of Justice, the International Whaling Commission and the Australian Federal Court.

Despite international attention and outrage, no direct action has been taken against these illegal activities.

The Japanese have doubled their whaling area in the Southern Ocean.

"Forced to address the issue just days after hosting Japan’s Prime Minister, the Australian Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg condemned the whalers in a statement on Monday: “The Australian government is deeply disappointed that Japan has decided to return to the Southern Ocean this summer to undertake so-called ‘scientific’ whaling. It is not necessary to kill whales in order to study them,” he added.

http://ssglobal.r.worldssl.net/images/news/2017/xnews-170117-1-7-170115-GL-SI-heli-spots-Nisshin-Maru-and-2-harpoon-ships-11-_GNL3609-550w.jpg.pagespeed.ic.hEJWaAKsL8.webp

"New Zealand will be expressing its significant disappointment about what is going on there,” echoed New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Bill English, promising to support Australia’s fight to stop Japanese whaling through the “appropriate channels.”

“Frankly, simply being ‘disappointed’ does not cut it when the majority of Australians want action to stop the Japanese whale-killing fleet,” said Sea Shepherd Australia Director Jeff Hansen in response to the politicians’ comments.

http://ssglobal.r.worldssl.net/images/news/2017/xnews-170117-1-6-170115-GL-SI-heli-spots-Nisshin-Maru-and-2-harpoon-ships-08-_GNL3578-550w.jpg.pagespeed.ic.MMQvXlx_Cy.webp

"While keeping the Japanese poachers on the run, MV Steve Irwin Captain Wyanda Lublink radioed the Yushin Maru #2 harpoon ship: “We have caught you whaling illegally in a protected whale sanctuary in Australian waters. You are in contempt of the Australian Federal Court and the International Court of Justice, and we demand you stop your operations.” Receiving no reply, she further informed the poaching vessel that Sea Shepherd had video footage of them with the whale. “We will take this evidence back to Australia so there can be an investigation.”


Captain Adam Meyerson of Sea Shepherd’s Ocean Warrior patrol vessel noted the word “RESEARCH” usually painted on the side of the Nisshin Maru is missing this year: “They seem to have abandoned the pretext of the ‘scientific research’ charade.”

The 8,145-ton vessel MV Nisshin Maru (日新丸) is the primary vessel of the Japanese whaling fleet and is the world's only whaler factory ship.

http://www.seashepherdglobal.org/images/news/2017/news-170117-1-4-170115CMNisshinFlightOne07_MG_2407-1000w.jpg

http://www.seashepherdglobal.org/news-and-commentary/news/operation-nemesis-update-images-of-japanese-poachers-caught-with-dead-whale-go-viral.html

[TargeT]

the 'nuking' part - it would also destroy the land/sea for the animals.


We have detonated nuclear devices inside major cities. August 6, 1945:
http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2016/01/16/the-man-who-survived-hiroshima-nagasaki/jcr:content/image.img.2000.jpg/1452912757862.cached.jpg


Here they are today:

http://visit-nagasaki.com/getImage.php?src=files/Spot_5595d548-198c-4b2f-b1e6-78aad2fc807c_image0.jpg

Everything you think you know about radiation is probably very wrong. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scare-scam-&p=1111672&highlight=galen+winsor#post1111672)


Should we Nuke Alaska also?
AfGHDo6_btc

[shaberon]

Prior to electric lighting, whale oil was the preferred fuel for lamps, and a major industry in New England. Most of the surviving whales can therefor thank Edison's defeat of Tesla and the burning of coal.

From the article in OP: Australia also won a landmark 2014 decision against Japan in the International Court of Justice but Tokyo has since withdrawn from the court's jurisdiction on whaling cases.

Tangentially, the head of the ICJ is a Japanese, whom Ben Fulford made some kind of a threat against a couple weeks ago.

[Bob]

Atomic Scientist's organization says, the DoomsDay Clock needs to be moved up - 2 1/2 minutes before


In the 2017 Doomsday Clock Statement, the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board notes that world leaders have failed to come to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats: nuclear weapons and climate change.

Disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons made by Donald Trump, as well as the expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change by both Trump and several of his cabinet appointees, affected the Board's decision, as did the emergence of strident nationalism worldwide.

Executive director and publisher Rachel Bronson and 3 members of the Bulletin’s leadership participated in a media event at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., earlier today to answer questions about the Board’s decision. Bronson said: “As we marked the 70th anniversary of the Doomsday Clock, this year’s Clock deliberations felt more urgent than usual…as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used by a President-elect of the United States in cavalier and often reckless ways to address the twin threats of nuclear weapons and climate change.”

The Board’s statement outlines a series of steps that can be taken by world leaders to curb nuclear weapons and climate threats. The statement concludes as follows: “For the last two years, the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock stayed set at three minutes before the hour, the closest it had been to midnight since the early 1980s.

In its two most recent annual announcements on the Clock, the Science and Security Board warned: ‘The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon.’ In 2017, we find the danger to be even greater, the need for action more urgent.

It is two and a half minutes to midnight, the Clock is ticking, global danger looms.

Wise public officials should act immediately, guiding humanity away from the brink. If they do not, wise citizens must step forward and lead the way.”


http://thebulletin.org/press-release/board-moves-clock-ahead10433

[TargeT]

as well as the expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change

Consensus and science don't mix.. that's now how science is done... haha when will these people get it?


The US alone conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests, the russians close to that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests).. so the planet has made it through over 2,000 nuclear explosions... I think this doomsday clock is bull**** fear porn, like most things from the media.

[Bob]

as well as the expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change

Consensus and science don't mix.. that's now how science is done... haha when will these people get it?


The US alone conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests, the russians close to that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests).. so the planet has made it through over 2,000 nuclear explosions... I think this doomsday clock is bull**** fear porn, like most things from the media.

It is politics from the "scientists" i don't think its about the underground tests any more but some hot-head wanting to use the weapons in the field. We've talked "doses" for many years, that the dose level internally is the danger (inhaling a particle which continues to exceed safe doses, or eating polonium, again with high dose levels)... I assume tactical devices in the <100 TON range are being considered as "safely" deployable.. for the troops, with a lower level of absorbed particle energy.

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have been around publishing studies, worries, for a long time.. fear porn maybe, maybe not.. I think one should read their articles and see for oneself what concern they have on which subjects. My post's snippet was from their article they have up currently.

[TargeT]

It is politics from the "scientists" i don't think its about the underground tests any more but some hot-head wanting to use the weapons in the field. We've talked "doses" for many years, that the dose level internally is the danger (inhaling a particle which continues to exceed safe doses, or eating polonium, again with high dose levels)... I assume tactical devices in the <100 TON range are being considered as "safely" deployable.. for the troops, with a lower level of absorbed particle energy.

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have been around publishing studies, worries, for a long time.. fear porn maybe, maybe not.. I think one should read their articles and see for oneself what concern they have on which subjects. My post's snippet was from their article they have up currently.

As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests)

There's some interesting conjecture that the whole "cigarettes cause lung cancer" thing was cover for the amount of nuclear pollution released by these above ground tests, but I'm not so sure.

We know in the short term there was an increase in lukemia and turmors at Nagasaki / Heroshima, but long term there seems to be little to no effect.. I'd rather use those two case examples to build my conjecture off of than any of the data used by modern scientists with their (ridiculous, imo) NTL exposure posture for radiation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model)

I proved this wrong for myself by wearing uranium ore around my neck for almost 3 years (too easy to see in my uniform, eventually I cut it off) Granted that was only 900ish cpm but that's still far higher than allowable limits, technically I should not have been allowed to fly. (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aircrew/cosmicionizingradiation.html)

But you're right, I'll have to read those articles a bit deeper to see if what I stated above is true (I'd bet money on it, though).

[Bob]

It is politics from the "scientists" i don't think its about the underground tests any more but some hot-head wanting to use the weapons in the field. We've talked "doses" for many years, that the dose level internally is the danger (inhaling a particle which continues to exceed safe doses, or eating polonium, again with high dose levels)... I assume tactical devices in the <100 TON range are being considered as "safely" deployable.. for the troops, with a lower level of absorbed particle energy.

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have been around publishing studies, worries, for a long time.. fear porn maybe, maybe not.. I think one should read their articles and see for oneself what concern they have on which subjects. My post's snippet was from their article they have up currently.

As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests)

There's some interesting conjecture that the whole "cigarettes cause lung cancer" thing was cover for the amount of nuclear pollution released by these above ground tests, but I'm not so sure.

We know in the short term there was an increase in lukemia and turmors at Nagasaki / Heroshima, but long term there seems to be little to no effect.. I'd rather use those two case examples to build my conjecture off of than any of the data used by modern scientists with their (ridiculous, imo) NTL exposure posture for radiation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model)

I proved this wrong for myself by wearing uranium ore around my neck for almost 3 years (too easy to see in my uniform, eventually I cut it off) Granted that was only 900ish cpm but that's still far higher than allowable limits, technically I should not have been allowed to fly. (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aircrew/cosmicionizingradiation.html)

But you're right, I'll have to read those articles a bit deeper to see if what I stated above is true (I'd bet money on it, though).

Yup, agreed - we've talked about the uranium ore pendant - probably the only particle coming off that that would/could be breathable would be radon. For instance in many States, the amount of Radon being breathed in in modern houses, offices, is immense. (one can research radon contamination to see).. radon would be considered an alpha particle emitter (positive charge).

The former spy Alexander Litvinenko was killed in November 2006 by overdosing (again that dose) with a strong electron (beta) particle emitter (negative charge). Some folks said that Arafat was also poisoned by a series of sub-lethal doses, over time.. where the body could not eliminate the emitter.. sorta like being electrocuted at the cellular level.. Polonium is an amazing element which can generate a LOT of direct electrical power (and heat) for nuclear batteries..

So dose level again comes in to play. Would they feel safe with <100 ton nuclear devices being used.. I haven't yet seen a good curve for tactical dose levels, and dispersal yet. Somewhere I have heard that there is a tactical use manual that the US army has about using such weapons in the field.. That may be an interesting read..

[Desire]

What about China which has a yearly festival of gathering hundreds of dogs where people are encouraged to beat them with sticks and then cook and eat them.