Protest against nukes in India/Pakistan

[edX]

for those of you who would like to let India and Pakistan know that you do not want them to escalate their differences to the point of nuclear warfare, please sign the petiton at http://www.moveon.org/nonukesoverkashmir/

this note came attached with the email that notified me of this effort:

I'm really concerned about the situation in Kashmir. Please join
me in calling on the leaders of India and Pakistan to cool down.

The conflict is edging ever closer to a nuclear war. A nuclear
exchange between these rival nations could kill 12 million people
and spread radioactive fallout around the globe. Through
MoveOn.org, I'm calling on President Musharraf of Pakistan and
Prime Minister Vajpayee of India to step back from the brink of
holocaust.

You can join us and sign a message from concerned citizens of the
world at:

http://www.moveon.org/nonukesoverkashmir/

Both leaders are currently banging the drums of war. Recently,
Pakistan tested its third missile in as many days, emphasizing
its ability to deliver nukes to the large Indian city Delhi in
under three minutes. Prime Minister Vajpayee told the 700,000
troops stationed along the border of Pakistan that he was
preparing for "a decisive victory."

While India has stated that it will only use its nuclear bombs in
the case of an attack, Pakistan has made clear that it will
strike first if threatened. And there's reason to believe that
it will follow through on this policy: in 1999, such an attack
was narrowly averted, over the protest of then-General Musharraf.

If India and Pakistan were to go to war, the effects would be
felt around the world. The trade winds above the two countries
are ideally situated to spread nuclear fallout. Essentially
highly radioactive dust, fallout can cause leukemia and many
other kinds of cancer, as well as radiation poisoning.

Assuming either nation survived the attacks, it's unlikely that
the conflict would even be resolved. Instead of pushing their
countries toward Armageddon, Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Musharraf must
re-establish diplomatic ties, disavow the use of nuclear weapons
under any circumstances, and work toward a comprehensive
agreement on the future of Kashmir.

Please let them know that you're concerned about the escalating
conflict today:

http://www.moveon.org/nonukesoverkashmir/

The lives of millions of Indians and Pakistanis could be at
stake.

Thanks.

 

[chemistry_geek]

That region of the world and its instability is precisely why third world nations should not possess nuclear weaponry or any other weapon of mass destruction. It was bad enough that the US and former USSR rattle their sabers a few times. Perhaps disputing cultures must go through a saber-rattling process to learn and deal with their issues. It's amazing how everything (problems b/w countries) comes down to cultural, religious, and territorial issues. That primate sense of family and togetherness/likeness not only helps the species survive, but can lead to rejection of others and war. What does Kashmir possess that will give either country any benefit? Make it its own country! There, settled.

The question of how many nukes each side has will determine the potential harm to the global environment. How badly was the world environment affected when Japan was nuked? That does sound bad, doesn't it? To think that we, the good ol' USA, nuked another nation. I think that if a nuclear conflict broke out b/w Pakistan and India, it would be a very short lived war. One or the other, or both would lose with massive loss of life. It's a lose-lose situation, not only for the nation that was nuked the most, but for the victor, and what the world will do to the victor with regard to economic sanctions. Yes, our environment would be contaminated with a little radiation, but we get more radiation from cosmic rays and medical imaging devices than from the diluted fall out from a nuclear war on the other side of the world. How many nukes do Pakistan and India have total? 40? 50? What grade of nuke are they?

 

[themacko]

chem_geek: when you say 'our environment would be contaminated by a little radiation' do you mean our as in the United States or our as in the world?

 

[edX]

the question of how harmful fallout would be is not one i want to see answered. there is enough evidence from the first 2 atomic bombs that destruction goes beyond the site of detonation and lingers for a long time. and today's nuclear weapons are a whole lot nastier.

And perhaps we in the US wouldn't feel it, but what about all the innocent people in all the other counntries surrounding these 2? are the lives and well being of the chinese, the malaysians, the koreans, etc., any less valuable than those in the US? and we aren't even mentioning that most of the people in those 2 countries are pretty innocent themselves. We aren't even talking 2 countries going to war here, we are talking 2 govts and their leaders with missles in their pockets making choices that effect millions, if not billions of other people.

I sincerely hope CG that your reply was not trying to say that supporting an effort to stop the nukes is wrong or that people shouldn't sign this petition because it 'just ain't that big of a deal'. I hope you were simply trying to make it not sound so scary to everybody sitting at home watching TV and wondering if the world is gonna end next week.

 

[chemistry_geek]

Originally posted by themacko
chem_geek: when you say 'our environment would be contaminated by a little radiation' do you mean our as in the United States or our as in the world?

I mean our environment, as in the US and Europe. The trade winds blow East. I think a lot of it would just end up falling into the Pacific ocean. Also, the level of contamination depends on the source of radiation. The radiation can be high intensity and short lived, or high intensity and long lived (VERY bad for the environment). I know two people that were in the Gulf war who told me that we supposedly nuked Iraq (we threatened with nukes if they used biological weapons - "Gulf War Syndrome") with neutron weapons (high intensity-short lived), most likely the small Tomahawk cruise missle. If I remember correctly, the Pentagon recently reported interest in developing mini-nukes for isolated and controlled depopulation. BS, they probably have these already, they're just "showing" interest to justify "working it" into the public consciouness that these weapons will be (already are) part of our arsenal of defense. I think these weapons already exist solely on the fact that I read a story on Slashdot last year (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/13/0044219&mode=thread&tid=93) where some goverment documents were recently declassified. Guess what? The USA and England were using digital communication WITH ENCRYPTION during WWII - 60 odd years ago. Believe you me, our government is much farther ahead of the state of the art than they lead us on to believe. The NSA (National Security Agency) is the largest employer of mathematicians in the world. What do they do all day? Well, that's classified.

 

[chemistry_geek]

Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
I sincerely hope CG that your reply was not trying to say that supporting an effort to stop the nukes is wrong or that people shouldn't sign this petition because it 'just ain't that big of a deal'. I hope you were simply trying to make it not sound so scary to everybody sitting at home watching TV and wondering if the world is gonna end next week.

I was not trying to make light of the petition. I was basically saying that it seems that the USA and Russia have worked out their differences. Both nations went through a process of building up weaponry, having the intellect to know that there would be no winners in a nuclear war. I'm not so sure about third world nations. The people are not educated like the "Western" world. Regilious fanaticism is taken too far. Every day we hear on CNN and the National News at 6:30PM about suicide bombers, terrorist attacks in the Middle East. War is ingrained in their culture and religion. "Jihad" anyone? Holy War my arse. There is no such thing as a Holy War. I think that trying to use Western mentality and perspective to try and persuade the leaders of those nations might be a futile effort. They have their opinions about the "other side", and despite what they may say, I think there is a strong chance one or the other may act. And start of a nuclear is less likely to come from the top and go down, it may start from some much lower ranking offical on a suicide mission, meaning he'll be killed by his own for disobeying orders when they find him. I just don't think the chain of command is as sacred over there. Over there it seems a lot of "tit for tat" goes on, and it's a game of oneupmanship. It's only a matter of time before someone turns a key or pushes a button who doesn't have the orders to launch. Know what I mean?

 

[edX]

I can't argue with any of that - seems like all the more reason to sign the petition. the point being that while none of us can really take direct action to stop it, we can at least direct some of our personal energy towards it. It may not be much, but it is better than nothing - better than ignoring it and hoping it will go away - better than saying "so what, let 'em".

thanks for clarrifying. I think your first post was pretty clear you didn't like the idea of them having nukes and using them but it got a bit cloudy with the "won't really be that bad" part.

so c'mon folks, keep signing that petition - and feel free to pass the link on to others - this is a strictly grassroots effort.

 

[BlingBling 3k12]

Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
so c'mon folks, keep signing that petition - and feel free to pass the link on to others - this is a strictly grassroots effort.

sorry to bust your bubble ed, but i've signed so many online petitions that have gone nowhere, it's not worth signing any of them anymore...

i do agree that it shouldn't occur... but usually (to my findings) that online petitions go nowhere...

example: i signed one a while back... it now has over 1 million signatures... yet nothing has happened yet...

i'd like to support it, but i know that little will come from an online petition...

 

[alexachucarro]

A nuclear war as a global impact. To say us as US and Europe is so eliteist. The entire planet is at risk, in a big way. You DO realise that other nations COULD join in?

Pakistan has vague allies with Arabian Nations. It got most of it's nuclear arsenal from China (long time enemy of India). Russia and France are friends of China. North Korea, the list goes on.

Then India has allies with the UK, then USA. This is a global situation.

You cannot sit there in your armchairs and dictate how the world must be run. It is precisely THAT reason that the USA is the most hated nation on the planet. (Don't let it go to your heads though, the UK is no 2!). DId anyone actually sit down and think HARD: Why did 9/11 happen? What's wrong with the US for someone to do that? It all boils down to the Isreal/Arab thing.

The US has strong friendship with Israel and some Arab nations want all Jews killed, they want the Palestinians to have their own REAL state, but wouldn't invite them in themselves. (which is an excuse to hate, I know)

BUT, and it's a big BUT. Super Nations have to take initiative BEFORE these things happens. or they will always happen. Donald Rumsfelt (whatever) admitted that only time is stopping the next US attack. Rather than Bush condemning terrorism he should analyse why some nations think the US is a terrorist state itself.

DO NOT LOOK WITHIN, LOOK OUT OF THE CIRCLE. all that philosophical crap ACTUALLY means something. I think Ed Sprug has a really good attitude, better patience than I. But if I were from the only nation that has dropped a nuke on another nation, i'd be very careful condemning other coutries affairs when it's slow to correct its own.

So take a look at the globe and say YOU'RE HUMAN. NOT American, French, Dutch or Australian. we're all together. One nuclear war has the potential to wipe out the human race.

Just a thought: grow up

 

[chemistry_geek]

Originally posted by alexachucarro
A nuclear war as a global impact. To say us as US and Europe is so eliteist. The entire planet is at risk, in a big way. You DO realise that other nations COULD join in?..........Just a thought: grow up

Grow up? HA! Do you actually believe other nations would join a nuclear war if one nation they have ties with, but are not necessarily close allies with, gets nuked? It is foolish to think it COULD spread. It will not. It would be the end of life as we know it, and the powers that be in the US, Russia, Europe, China KNOW the outcome of a nuclear war. In fact, the other nations would sit back in their armchairs, lazyboys, hammocks and watch. As to the remark about the US and Europe being eliteist: look at the quality of life in the the US, Europe, and Russia, and compare it to Middle East and Africa. I'm not looking for an argument, I'm merely stating truths, as ugly as they may be.

 

[alexachucarro]

Originally posted by chemistry_geek


look at the quality of life in the the US, Europe, and Russia, and compare it to Middle East and Africa.

Right and the country that has the highest quality of life?

Canada

then New Zealand. Australia, Scandinavia, Holland even? these countries aren't actively doing anything military and telling other nations what to do, but the superpowers do.

Do you think that India and Pakistan are oblivious to what nuclear wars are? They're not exactly dumb.

And your comments about 'tactical nukes' and neutron bombs. Can you see what happens? The US says: "this place is a threat, so we'll make sure our guns are bigger; then Russia has the same guns, possibly more; So the US makes bigger, better bombs. There's a pattern here. The US justifies it's arsenal for a war that will never happen and if did, no-one would be alive anyway.

George Bush (cough-idiot-cough) has his "War Against Terrorism" propaganda campaign going really well now. The people of the US think that he's doing a great job, bombing the shit out of people. Namely Kazakhstanies, Americans and Canadians. But what did it TAKE for this campaign to start? He had to be attacked first. How did the US get into WWII (2 years late)? They had to be attacked.

As HUMANS, we shouldn't be running around like spoilt little children in the school yard, holding all the sweets and footballs telling everyone else how to live their lives. It just doesn't work.

Even this forum, macosx.com, is very particular about its members (not entirely a bad thing though). You're not allowed to post pointless threads anymore (just when i was realising that Yanks DO have a sense of humour - Germans next)?! Why not? I agree, misleading titles are annoying, but come on. Leave people alone.

We are NOT allowed to judge, we should not justify the things we do bad by comparing them with people who do worse. We still squabble about land, religion and politics. Even though i do believe we have a DUTY to intervene with EVIL nations, us superpowers do bring things upon ourselves.

I've never heard of terrorism in Sweden...

 

[edX]

said by alex
DO NOT LOOK WITHIN, LOOK OUT OF THE CIRCLE. all that philosophical crap ACTUALLY means something. I think Ed Sprug has a really good attitude, better patience than I. But if I were from the only nation that has dropped a nuke on another nation, i'd be very careful condemning other coutries affairs when it's slow to correct its own.

So take a look at the globe and say YOU'RE HUMAN. NOT American, French, Dutch or Australian. we're all together. One nuclear war has the potential to wipe out the human race.

Just a thought: grow up

first, who is suppossed to grow up? me? CG? Bling? (Bling is growing up. slowly but surely. i expect he will continue to do so unless something tragic happens)

2nd, are you referring to me as Ed Sprug? or is there another Ed somehow involved in this that i don't know about? Is Sprug suppossed to mean something? completely lost on this one.

3rd, i agree almost entirely with the rest of what you said. i have been a proponent of the 'one world, one people' concept for many years. I'll include my sig here so you can recall where you saw "we are human being first and everything else second. let us treat each other as such." and i tend to agree that the US is not a completely innocent victim in this stupidity of war and terror. However, that doesn't mean we should just get on our knees and pray for mercy for all our wrong doings. Because there are also many good americans who oppose the actions of our govt that are not as humane as they should be. But even we don't want to be attacked and terrorizied.

and i would hope that everyone knows that nothing good could possibly come out of nuclear war unless you have some fantasy about living in some post apocalypse movie like Mad Max - in which case, one of yur dreams could be on the verge of being true.

Casey - we only fail when we give up trying. yes, lots of petitions accomplish nothing. and this very well may be one of them. but plenty of petitions do serve a purpose. It isn't like signing this one takes a whole lot of effort. and it certainly can't hurt things.

everybody - just wondering why nobody has just checked in saying they signed. Are people ashamed to publicly confess they support world peace? the discussion going on is good, but some affirmations would be nice as well.

 

[chemistry_geek]

Originally posted by alexachucarro
Why did 9/11 happen? What's wrong with the US for someone to do that? It all boils down to the Isreal/Arab thing.

The US doesn't go around looking for a fight. And US foreign policy is no justification for killing innocent people. I can't believe you would even think something like that: "What's wrong with the US for someone to do that?" You sound like that Saudi Prince who toured the World Trade Center site after the terrorist act and offered Mayor Rudy Giuliani $10 million for aid, which he refused. So, by saying THAT, you advocate UNJUSTIFIED violence for political agendas and foreign policy. There comes a responsibility with being a superpower - not to use weapons of mass destruction, not to be the big bully on the block. There are many reasons the US is the leading superpower. And for that we deserve to be attacked? For our quest for a better life? And to help other people around the world to have the same? In case you haven't realized it yet, a free society with democracy and capitalism WORK. How else did we become the leading superpower? I'm not trying to act like some proud jerk, it's the truth. I'm not implying the US and its ways are the answers to the world's problems, it has plenty of problems, but we do have a pretty stable life over here that is fraught with opportunity.

Regarding US foreign policy, the US doesn't particularly like to get involved in international squables unless it has a direct influence on US security. And, yes, the US didn't get involved in WWII until it was attacked. If it weren't for the US, you'd be speaking German in England right now and wearing an arm band indicating your ethnicity and heritage.

It's funny how many nations, who don't like the US and its policies, come running for help when they get invaded by an agressive nation...France(WWII), Kuwait(Gulf War). We fight the battles and win the war, and let the invaded nation go about its business. They aren't acquired as territories or states, and they aren't pawns of the US government. Need I say more? Frankly, I think the US shouldn't be as involved with the other nations as much as it is right now. There are plenty of issues to address in the homeland.

 

[alexachucarro]

Originally posted by chemistry_geek


The US doesn't go around looking for a fight...

...Regarding US foreign policy, the US doesn't particularly like to get involved in international squables unless it has a direct influence on US security. And, yes, the US didn't get involved in WWII until it was attacked. If it weren't for the US, you'd be speaking German in England right now and wearing an arm band indicating your ethnicity and heritage...

...Frankly, I think the US shouldn't be as involved with the other nations as much as it is right now. There are plenty of issues to address in the homeland.

You've nailed it on the head for me there mate!

Yes the US DOES go around looking for a fight. Maybe you 'can't see the wood for the trees' but the rest of the world can see it. And about your wiews on foreign policy, hmm. Thats who i was refering to Ed about growing up. That's just the US attitude all over. The wouldn't help their greatest allies in WWII until they were attacked themselves. As for your comments "if it wasn't for us" that's something you've been telling yourselves for decades. Does it make you feel big? Of course we needed the US and the other 13 countries. If there was no ANZAC we'd have been f???ed by the Japs. But then, if it wasn't for us, YOU'D be speaking German too. Your fathers pass down that statement from generation to generation like you won the war on your own. You didn't.

About my comments about the 9/11 thing. You've misinterpreted me. In my opinion NO-ONE deserves to die. (Thats also a fundamental thing with the UK and the US. We'd want Osama alive, you guys want him dead.) No one deserves to be killed, for ANYTHING. My grandfather and I were crying as the towers collapsed, but all I'm saying if it was the $64'000 question:

"what country do you think is MOST likely to be attacked by terrorists"

I'd say the US everytime. But don't get me wrong, the UK is next.




On another matter, Ed I was typing fast, on a roll, and i didnt want to misspell your name out of respect (i hate my name mispelt/mispronunced/etc (Achucarro) with ACUTE accent over "u") and its Basque, NOT Spanish) so I just typed the first part with the intention of scrolling down then correcting, just forgot. No offence intended.


Here's a quote from Patrick Stewart (Jean-Luc Picard, Star trek Next Gen)

Asked: WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE CURRENT US PRESIDENT?

Stewart: "What is happening in the White House is dismaying and I find myself more apprehensive than ever about the role of the US in the world. i thought i would not live to hear and see some of things that are happening. Donald Rumsfeld (Neo-Nazi - that's me not him!) and co have made statements like: 'If you're not 100 per cent with us, then you are the enemy.' That's Orwellian."

And for the psychos around, the quote was from the "60 minute Interview" page 10 of the London Metro newspaper, Monday, June 10, 2002. No issue no.

I work at the 6th busiest Airport in the world. I meet some nice Yanks here and there, but about 80% aren't too proud of their status or President. But anyway.

Oh, and Ed I signed the petition.