Jul 7th, 2003, 04:58 PM
I think you've spent too much time meditating on philosophical matters and lost a tenative touch on reality friend.
"Okay let's take this from the top. You are making a distinction between weapons of mass destruction (nuclear warheads and anything with a 'significant' (ugh) blast radius ) over 'smart' munitions that can maximise efficiency and minimise error, right?"
I suggest you learn the definitions of the words you use. The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons."
The U.S. president has used this definition in communications with Congress, and if you care to look them up, start here:
"Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction," November 9, 2000, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, pp. 2842-2851.
"Statement on Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction," May 8, 2001, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, pp. 718-719.
"As far I can understand this, any OFFENSIVE military system that has been designed towards aquiring targets outside the radius of the owner's country in question differs from WMD's only in the amount of damage it's designed to inflict."
What we have here is a failure. . .To communicate.
"I'm not saying it's a negligible difference, but it doesn't negate the argument."
I'm afraid it does.
"If you have a bomb that can fly from D.C. to Afghanistan, I don't care how many people it will take out, it's still just the same as N.Korea having same weapons."
It isn't about possession, its about use. Do you remember when the Soviet Union disintigrated, how there was a brief panic over what would happen to the fissionable materials and constructed warheads? Such lack of stabilities is also present in No Korea, where there are more metric tons of munition than there are food, and various other nations which have rushed to become militarily combatible with the world around them without first making their own nation a peer to its neighbours.
"Doesn't give you the right to 'step in' no more than it gives N.Korea the right to do the same."
Someone needs to do it. We lead the world technologically, economically and, contrary to what you've probably heard, in civility.
"So, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying (to negate my original 'qualm' argument) that 'smart' weapons, yeah, you have no qualms about using, whereas we've yet to emply WMDs in a post WW2 combat situation."
We stand beside the conventional arms agreement which was reached in the Geneva Accord, and the nuclear proliferation act, which we spearheaded. Indeed, western countries such as the US, Australia and Great Britain are unique in this.
"I'm not arguing the validity of that claim (although I could and I should, since there's room for further clarification."
Oh, by all means do.
"How does a nepleted uranium bomb exactly, which will leave the ground it hit contaminated for thousands of years and will be to blame for tens of teratogeneses to follow, not count as a 'weapon of mass destruction'?) however, I think your retort in itself is complete bulshit."
Yes well, thats what happens when the mind is forced to come to terms with something it would rather not accept: Disbelief.
I'm going to take the time to explain to you why it is that DU rounds have been used in every war since Yom Kippur that any country has engaged in. In fact, Israel has used more DU than any other nation, but that is neither here nor there: DU turns out to be a highly effective armor-piercing material as it is 2 times as dense as lead and possesses a singularly unusual property of self-sharpening: as a rod of this material slams into a sheet of steel or a wall of reinforced concrete, instead of mushrooming into a flat, broad projectile that then is slowed or stopped by the obstacle, uranium sheds its exterior layers and becomes sharper as it is propelled by momentum deeper and deeper into its target. Uranium is also highly flammable at the kinds of high temperature generated by a high-velocity collision, and so it incinerates whatever target it hits. . .As well as itself.
The DU smart bomb we utilized hits with such tremendous force that it buries itself deeply into the ground. It is more a threat to natural water aquifiers than it is to surface dwelling humans. Is it dangerous? Yes. Did we use it in and about urban environments? Yes. What choice was left to us? As a rule, the US places its bunkers and offensive military commands outside of cities, and generally as far from civilian populations as permissible. We don't hide our tanks and anti-aircraft armourments behind a wall of innocent lives, Sadaam did, and unfortunately his people will pay for his actions.
Now, lets take a gander at some relevent facts: Back in '99 in Kosovo such rounds were used in combat, with the sanction of the UN. On 7 February 2000 NATO published their use of some 31K 30mm PGU/14A API rounds. About 16,000 lbs of DU. Israel used it in the Yom Kippur retaliation, the Falklands war and their invasion of South Lebanon. We used less than 2k lbs in this Iraqi war, if you wish to cry over it, I suggest you find someone with more sympathy.
"Is there a responsible use for an offensive weapon system?"
Is there a such thing a just war? The answer for both questions is the same, but then maybe you're particularly fond of that period in your nations history when Hitler held occupation.
"Is it when the other fellow is 'evil'?"
Evil is generally accepted as a moral judgement, and relative to one's belief system. You will have to use clearer terms if you wish to keep the tone of this conversation serious.
"Especially in a "strike first scenario (of the likes we've witnessed in oh, three US wars in the last 8 years? )"
So shall we consider our embassy bombings in Afghanistan prior to war silly teenage 'pranks?' Or the support of Al Qaeda by the Taliban just whimiscal Middle Easten nuttiness? Liberia isn't a war yet, or are you thinking of something else and I'm just not getting it?
"Furthermore, is your apparent eagerness to use 'smart' weapons proof of your propensity to not act responsibly?"
Yes! We were so eager to use them we invaded Mexico immediately after we developed them! You should have been there Helm, you especially would've enjoyed it.
"Does the "number of lives lost per bomb" ratio in an arbitary, unjust and frankly imperialistic war even make an actual difference as far as ethics go?"
Christ, I can understand not knowing how a WMD was classified, but imperialism? We are not annexing Iraq, where is the imperialism here?
"There's no argument there."
Quite right, I haven't found one yet, just some whiny mewling with half assed facts tossed in for colour.
"The only country that insofar has not threatened, but actualy used nuclear weapons in a war is the US."
As Blanco duly noted, you must know more than either of us. I only know of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. . .Did we deploy nukes in the Mexican War where we eagerly tested our smart bombs?
"And I believe that speaks volumes about who is most unfit to wield nuclear weaponry."
Sure, but such volumes would only be found in a childrens library. But, if you're lucky, you can influence the next generation and then they can grow up kow towing to Holier-Than-Thou Intellectual European moralists like yourself.
"And let's not talk about the cold war and how many times the US has threatened nuclear retaliation. Not a valid argument in itself either, that one."
All I can do is hang my head really. Apparantly you missed where we constantly tried to get Russia to disarm, often taking the first step by destroying our nuclear wareheads as an act of good faith. Apparantly you have also missed the nuclear proliferation pact. Furthermore, it has escaped your notive WE NEVER THREATENED TO US THEM. We had no need to, we built them, built the silos, and said that only in the case of a PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE AGAINST OUR NATION would they be utilized. Thats not a threat Helm, and if you can't see the difference between Pakistan saying they use nuclear devices in a war against India if India does not abandon Kasmir, or No Korea feeling econimically or militarily 'threatened' by the US. . .There is no hope for you.
"So, bottom line: I do not see any ethical distinction between a dep. uranium smart bomb and a nuclear warhead, and even if there was such, any country's eagerness to resort to using the latter does not in any case make it 'okay' for them to have them."
Noone is eager for war, not even Bush. He's eager for another election, and tried to surf the post September 11th popularity with a strike from Afghanistan into Iraq, and now he is trying to clean it up with a peace action in Liberia to dissipate the negative blacklash left after Iraq. You are judging an entire nation based upon a series of bad leadership, since about the late eighties, and I think thats pretty simple.
"This is an issue of global interest conflicts, and we both know no country should have to 'trust' the US with being the one to arrange who and why should have nuclear bombs."
Of course, noone should trust the nation responsible for the Marshall Plan, or protecting countries like China (which we until Eisenhower in his infinate wisdom move the Seventh Fleet, like an asshole), Korea and Vietnam from insurgant and subversive forces. I'm done with this topic.
|
Rock out, ranxer. Rock the fuck out 
Linear Mode
