Is Nuclear War Inevitable?

not much, no.... why would i think things have changed when i hear how the troops are still being treated... badly armed etc... it would seem that our men and women are still considered expendable... they are also being charged outrageous amounts of money in exchange for basic necessities by private companies out there, right now... how could i possibly think that things have miraculously changed?

yes, and it says in the BBC article that the military knew as early as 1979 of the potential risks that DU ammo pose, so why does it take them such a long time to phase it out? I fail to see how anyone can say that the military have any regard for troop safety...

No, it was not special ops... because of his position, he (my father) saw, first hand, the schisms between how things are presented and how things actually are...

it seems clear that the privates didn't know of these risks that DU ammo posed.... i doubt they'd have used them had they known... either that, or we'd have heard about it earlier... like i said... they are perceived as expendable objects by those with the power to do what ever the hell they like...

maybe not fair, no, but even without my knowledge, IMHO, given the information that is out there, i'm sorry, but it does seem naive to believe that this is not possible...

no, it doesn't make every conspiracy true... besides a conspiracy is just a conspiracy... i would add that some "conspiracies" are no longer conspiracies at all, but actually proven fact now... however, conspiracy or not, it does indicate that this kind of behaviour wouldn't be out of place at all given the enviroment, the objectives and the private, corporate, capitalistic pressures...

i would be interested to know why you think things have changed...

 

But, not the defects shown in the pictures that you posted, which was the major reason for that link. The defects that you posted, if authentic, appear to be related to chemicals, not radiation.

The purpose of the statement in the conclusion is to "err on the side of safety."

.

 

I meant the amout of information filtered down from high up to the lower ranks and then out to the general public.
I wonder if the troops were given the same safety info in 1910 as was given in the 40s (for e.g)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddQpYZLjxno&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Response to a Chemical Agent Attack US Army 1942

Progress, I guess.
I think the amount of information the general public get to hear about is significantly more.

 

That would be the British, not necessarily the U.S.

Were there "half a million deaths as a result by 2000?" Time has passed and the potential for accurate figures now exists. We're talking about a hypothesis here that can be proved true or untrue with the proper studies. Were these assertions ever tested?

This is no big secret. The purpose of a soldier is to be a tool for his country. His mission, as he accepted upon enlistment, is to do whatever his superiors deem necessary, even if that requires his life. This is the precise nature of military life.

The "information that is out there" is not all correct and much of it can be interpreted in many different ways. The U.S. Surgeon General thought there were health concerns, NATO didn't. Neither had scientific studies to substantiate it's position. One's stance depends on who one believes. What you and I believe is dependent on previous information, true or not, that we have collected in our memories.

To suggest that I am naive because my previous experience is different from yours and leads me to a different conclusion about evidence that is unsubstantiated and conjectural is just plain wrong, IMO.

And this one is far from being proven. Although this type of munition was used at one time, there has been no evidence posted here to prove a link between it and any health concerns.

.

 

a word i would also use: filtered - according to circumstances and need i should imagine... same as ever, so nothing different there...

a word i wouldn't use: progress (as it implies something positive)

 

Ok, imho, more information is filtered through which is progress.
It's still a glass that is less than half full, so not very positive.

 

There's a phrase used in court rooms quite often that I think applies here: "assuming facts not in evidence." And all I can see floating around this thread, opinions and accusations, no facts.

From July 1966 until Aug 1968 I lived aboard a U.S. Navy ship. I was not only taught safety, it was mandatory to perform my duties in a safe manner. My superiors were constantly checking for unsafe conditions. I think if you check the statistics you will find that the accident rate and the death rate is much lower on a U.S. military base than in civilian settings (excluding a war zone). From what I've seen I suspect the British military is comparable.

If common sense was worth anything we all would arrive at the same conclusions. As far as other senses, if you mean psychic, the track record there is abysmal at best.


As for your opinion, you are certainly welcome to it, and I wish not to disparage it, just argue for my own.

.

 

Uranium is a chemical and its toxic- see heavy metal poisoning.

 

so it all looks good and above-board, instilling a false sense of security... image seems to be everything...

so, when president johnson went operational with "northwoods" in 1967 during the 6 day war between israel and the arab nations, involving the uss liberty, that was the military using their own troops as tools in that way? as a pretext for war? and that is acceptable? i don't think troops should be used like that... i don't think the public become aware that this is what the military actually do until it is too late, and no one can be held accountable... shameful behaviour indeed... and that's putting it mildly!

 

Your links and such did little to convince me of the validity of your claims, but I have to admit that I was concerned, particularly since so many Gulf War veterans have been treated for "Gulf War Syndrome." The last I had heard at the VA was that it was due to a combination of the vaccines they were given before deployment. So, I've been doing some research myself and found a web site published by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. I also tried to find some dirt on them, but so far, I can't.

Depleted Uranium Blamed for Cancer Clusters Among Iraq War Vets
by Christopher Bollyn August 15, 2004

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/08/15_bollyn_depleted-uranium-blamed-cancer.htm

It is also helpful to read their "About" page:

http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/about/index.php

This is probably the most credible evidence to support the claim of birth defects and cancers stemming from the use of DU. While I still don't find it to be "clear and convincing" evidence, it does appear to be likely and research is continuing.

While I'm not quite ready for a meal of crow, I do think that research needs to accelerate, and if this is proven, international action should be taken as a war crime and crime against humanity, even if it is against my own government.

.

 

Hope I don't disappoint you, but when I know that my country has done something wrong, I will not defend it. I do, however, hold to the belief that a soldier's duty is to obey orders from his superiors, one of whom is the President; unless he has the certainty that those orders are illegal, as outlined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is a necessary element for an effective military force.

Having said that, I am pretty much anti-war and my views on international affairs are that we should mind our own business unless we are attacked. The present wars were started by a president who I despised, based on information that he knew was not true, and against the wishes of the majority of Americans; but this should in no way reflect on the military forces who are obligated to follow his orders.

None of this has anything to do with my definition of a soldier, though. A soldier is a tool, but like all tools they should be used with care and treated appropriately, and they can be used improperly.

And, I don't know enough about the Arab Israeli war to comment, except to say, as above, my personal belief is that America should not be involved in the affairs of other nations. I'm not interested in overthrowing dictators or policing the world.

.

 

Voila one of Switzerlands oldest Gingkho trees in a parc of Locarno

 

not disappointed at all, infact i mostly agree with you... i don't think soldiers should be used improperly though... i also believe that the Presidency should be more transparent... they are, after all supposed to be representing and working for the majority of the people of that country... atleast that is what i am led to believe... maybe i am being naive now?...

 

From the horses mouth:
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=932
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=1799
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=873
GulfLINK was established in August 1995 to provide on-line access to medical, operational, and intelligence documents from the 1990-1991 Gulf War. Its purpose was and is to provide Service members, veterans, and any interested person with information on what happened during that war that might have affected the health of those who served. Our new-look GulfLINK contains all the reports, documents, and links of its predecessor and continues our commitment to our Service members.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/

 

Thanx, I read quite a bit but the conclusion is strange after all the efforts:

seems like they are covering up something they know better and what about the population living there who are always exposed to the toxic and radioactive dust?

 

I think that is the crux of the matter. They simply don't have a conclusive answer.
Just because you have come to your own conclusions, and they are not the same as the DoD...that does not mean they are hiding anything. Infact, there might be too much data to ever come to any firm conclusions. What I would suggest is, atleast use current information, not information from 15 years ago.

 

Just a personal question in between, odon- do you think the war on Iraq was a just and necessary thing or do you think it was a crime based on lies?

 

I don't think it was a "crime based on lies", I don't fall on that side of the fence, no.
But I'd not go as far as saying it was "just" and "necessary"...it sounds a tad evangelical, I don't particularly like that rhetoric...not to mention It is used in a pejorative manner now, tbh.
I err on that side, though.
I think my "enthusiasm" for the particular argument that we should be there and it was the right thing to do has dimmed over the years.
Now, it is an acceptance that decisions were made in good faith...and it really should all be over as soon as practically possible.

 

So no lies about weapons of mass destruction, Hussein being involved in 9/11, Kuweit babies been thrown on the floor etc?