WMD's Found?
June 15, 2004 9:31 PM Subscribe
These folks claim to have found those elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction that Mr. Bush swore he'd find.
This post was deleted for the following reason: meh.
Soi what?
posted by interrobang at 9:43 PM on June 15, 2004
posted by interrobang at 9:43 PM on June 15, 2004
woopdeedoo. there's a blogger missing.
posted by angry modem at 9:46 PM on June 15, 2004
posted by angry modem at 9:46 PM on June 15, 2004
Yeah, I'm with pieoverdone in that I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that there's some clever hidden meaning to this seemingly awful link.
posted by mragreeable at 9:47 PM on June 15, 2004
posted by mragreeable at 9:47 PM on June 15, 2004
So, are we just going to shit all over the thread or open a MeTa thread about it? But why? The question's been beaten to death over there, so what's the point?
*sigh*
Worthwhile initiative, but doesn't merit a FPP. We could all post a bunch of links to advocacy organizations.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:11 PM on June 15, 2004
*sigh*
Worthwhile initiative, but doesn't merit a FPP. We could all post a bunch of links to advocacy organizations.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:11 PM on June 15, 2004
I think you need to read the actual ad itself. I think the main point is that the United States is actively pursuing a new program of producing small, "tactical" (as opposed to "world-annihilating", I presume) nuclear weapons. To do this while starting a war for the purpose of eliminating WMDs is more than a little bizarre.
Sure, it's an axe grinding post, but I'm glad for the info, myself. It's news to me.
posted by 4easypayments at 10:12 PM on June 15, 2004
Sure, it's an axe grinding post, but I'm glad for the info, myself. It's news to me.
posted by 4easypayments at 10:12 PM on June 15, 2004
But is a tactical weapon a "weapon of mass destruction"? Some of these tactical weapons have less yield than some of the biggest conventional bombs. It's not opposed to "world-annhilating". It's something that could be used on a battlefield. There've always been these.
I personally think they're a bad idea just because using one would be tempting (although we never have) but would implicitly letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle. Somehow, Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't, but I doubt another deployment of a nuclear weapon of any type would avoid this. It'd be bad.
The actual use of a small tactical weapon, not so bad, relatively speaking.
Designing and deploying such weapons? Well, we and other nations continue to design and deploy nuclear weapons. What's the rationale? Until we can get everyone (China? No way) capable to agree to dismantle their weapons and infrastructure (and to somehow keep aspiring powers from building one up to obtain strategic advantage), nuke programs will continue. I'm personally a lot more comfortable with the existance of tactical weapons than city-destroying, infrastructure crippling strategic weapons. I'd be thrilled if all nuke weapons research and deployment were tactical. But since it's not, and since strategic weapons are the main component of a nuclear arsenal, and because tactical weapons are tempting to use, and because doing so would make the use of a strategic weapon more tempting, all things considered, tactical weapons are problematic. But not inherently bad (any more than any combat-oriented weapon is inherently bad).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:21 PM on June 15, 2004
I personally think they're a bad idea just because using one would be tempting (although we never have) but would implicitly letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle. Somehow, Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't, but I doubt another deployment of a nuclear weapon of any type would avoid this. It'd be bad.
The actual use of a small tactical weapon, not so bad, relatively speaking.
Designing and deploying such weapons? Well, we and other nations continue to design and deploy nuclear weapons. What's the rationale? Until we can get everyone (China? No way) capable to agree to dismantle their weapons and infrastructure (and to somehow keep aspiring powers from building one up to obtain strategic advantage), nuke programs will continue. I'm personally a lot more comfortable with the existance of tactical weapons than city-destroying, infrastructure crippling strategic weapons. I'd be thrilled if all nuke weapons research and deployment were tactical. But since it's not, and since strategic weapons are the main component of a nuclear arsenal, and because tactical weapons are tempting to use, and because doing so would make the use of a strategic weapon more tempting, all things considered, tactical weapons are problematic. But not inherently bad (any more than any combat-oriented weapon is inherently bad).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:21 PM on June 15, 2004
Also: (Israel? No way.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:22 PM on June 15, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:22 PM on June 15, 2004
« Older Unreal or Really Real? | On Waking Up and Living The Mindful Life Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by pieoverdone at 9:37 PM on June 15, 2004