MellowViper
13th November 2010, 23:41
I see cold war history different from most. In my view the Soviet Union and US neutralized each other and kept more nuclear weapons from being used in the cold war. In my view, if The USSR didn't get nukes as quick as they did, they would have been used on North Korea, China, and even Russia, If Russia wasn't completely demobilized from this, being that early on the US nuclear arsenal was so limited and didn't have ICBM delivery systems, the moment they would have gotten nukes, they would have flown a plane over to Alaska or Oregon and dropped it on a city, and nobody would probably be here now, because with every advance, each side would have kept using more efficient and more destructive weapons on the other side to avenge the previous strike until nothing was left.
I also notice that the US doesn't mess with nuclear powers. The moment a country gets nukes, the US relationship immediately changes from one of dominance to one of careful diplomacy. I don't think Iran building nuclear weapons will be such a bad thing, (which there's no substantial evidence that they are, despite the fact that the US government is funding NED to give the public the impression there's solid evidence. They say they have enough separate components to prove they're stockpiling materials, but that was the same "evidence" they used to invade Iraq with over aluminium tubes), I think all world leaders basically want their own people alive and that them having weapons will prevent future wars. The Israelis will balance out the Iranians and the Iranians the Israelis. In fact, I think living conditions would get a lot better for Palestinians in Israel if that did happen.
The same goes for North Korea. I'm not that scared about them having nukes. Kim Jong Il is too much of a nepotist to want to bring on nuclear destruction of his entire country. I also hope, more than anything, that South America gets some nukes too to prevent more US backed coups from happening in it. I think it'll keep the US from starting more pointless wars and wasting more human lives. I don't even agree with all the enemy states, but if people want reform, they'll do it on their own. An outside force will only result in more death and destabilization.
To keep it into perspective, Saudi Arabia isn't getting near the attention that Iran gets, and its possible they might be developing nukes as well. They also have a similar, hostile relationship to Israel. They're much more oppressive to women than Iran, don't recognize any natural rights outside the authority of the absolute monarchies that run the country, but America seems to look the other way because they have open markets to oil and resources, which is what the US leaders have really always cared about. All that shit about human rights abuses and lack of personal liberty under communism was just bs. If it really was the case, they would have cut off economic ties after the Tiananmen Square massacre. However, the Deng reforms were already passed, and they had all the access to sweat shop labour they wanted.
I don't really know how to feel about it actually. I wish nuclear weapons were never invented. but, then again, we wouldn't have electricity from nuclear power. which is what Iran said its original interest was. They did try bombing a nuclear power plant in Israel, so I'm not really sure about them.That was like 30 years ago, though, when their government was in a very extreme mode of hardcore, Islamic revolutionary, ideological thinking. To be honest, though, I don't know the full details of the story. All I know is that the US doesn't invade countries who have nuclear arms, and I don't want another war. I don't think they should be in the hands of a few people, because that just means one faction has leverage over the other.
Einstein, who helped discover laws in physics that were later used to conceptualize the atom bomb pointed out that humanity wouldn't have a future without adopting socialism, which he described as overcoming the predatory phase of human history. He also warned of the limits of using strict scientific rationalism to solve human affairs in socialism. So, according to him, were probably doomed now as everything stands. He felt we needed a supranational organization where all countries were in cooperation with one another, and I just don't think that really exists. I mean, when countries comply with international, UN regulations over things like nuclear weapons, that's probably a start. However, the other aspect of the current model of globalization is just exploitation of the third world. That could cause any universal, multilateral collaboration among countries to come apart when the third world becomes fed up with being vassals of the neo-liberal economies in the West.
Here's the full article he wrote in a socialist publication from 1949 that's still in print today.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php) Check out the full article that he wrote in a socialist publication from 1949
note: I posted this in chit chat, but erased the text because I realized after the fact that it was intended for non-political discussion. I would have posted it here originally, but I didn't feel that it related exactly with political method or news around the world. Its really just my opinion on US policy.
I also notice that the US doesn't mess with nuclear powers. The moment a country gets nukes, the US relationship immediately changes from one of dominance to one of careful diplomacy. I don't think Iran building nuclear weapons will be such a bad thing, (which there's no substantial evidence that they are, despite the fact that the US government is funding NED to give the public the impression there's solid evidence. They say they have enough separate components to prove they're stockpiling materials, but that was the same "evidence" they used to invade Iraq with over aluminium tubes), I think all world leaders basically want their own people alive and that them having weapons will prevent future wars. The Israelis will balance out the Iranians and the Iranians the Israelis. In fact, I think living conditions would get a lot better for Palestinians in Israel if that did happen.
The same goes for North Korea. I'm not that scared about them having nukes. Kim Jong Il is too much of a nepotist to want to bring on nuclear destruction of his entire country. I also hope, more than anything, that South America gets some nukes too to prevent more US backed coups from happening in it. I think it'll keep the US from starting more pointless wars and wasting more human lives. I don't even agree with all the enemy states, but if people want reform, they'll do it on their own. An outside force will only result in more death and destabilization.
To keep it into perspective, Saudi Arabia isn't getting near the attention that Iran gets, and its possible they might be developing nukes as well. They also have a similar, hostile relationship to Israel. They're much more oppressive to women than Iran, don't recognize any natural rights outside the authority of the absolute monarchies that run the country, but America seems to look the other way because they have open markets to oil and resources, which is what the US leaders have really always cared about. All that shit about human rights abuses and lack of personal liberty under communism was just bs. If it really was the case, they would have cut off economic ties after the Tiananmen Square massacre. However, the Deng reforms were already passed, and they had all the access to sweat shop labour they wanted.
I don't really know how to feel about it actually. I wish nuclear weapons were never invented. but, then again, we wouldn't have electricity from nuclear power. which is what Iran said its original interest was. They did try bombing a nuclear power plant in Israel, so I'm not really sure about them.That was like 30 years ago, though, when their government was in a very extreme mode of hardcore, Islamic revolutionary, ideological thinking. To be honest, though, I don't know the full details of the story. All I know is that the US doesn't invade countries who have nuclear arms, and I don't want another war. I don't think they should be in the hands of a few people, because that just means one faction has leverage over the other.
Einstein, who helped discover laws in physics that were later used to conceptualize the atom bomb pointed out that humanity wouldn't have a future without adopting socialism, which he described as overcoming the predatory phase of human history. He also warned of the limits of using strict scientific rationalism to solve human affairs in socialism. So, according to him, were probably doomed now as everything stands. He felt we needed a supranational organization where all countries were in cooperation with one another, and I just don't think that really exists. I mean, when countries comply with international, UN regulations over things like nuclear weapons, that's probably a start. However, the other aspect of the current model of globalization is just exploitation of the third world. That could cause any universal, multilateral collaboration among countries to come apart when the third world becomes fed up with being vassals of the neo-liberal economies in the West.
Here's the full article he wrote in a socialist publication from 1949 that's still in print today.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php) Check out the full article that he wrote in a socialist publication from 1949
note: I posted this in chit chat, but erased the text because I realized after the fact that it was intended for non-political discussion. I would have posted it here originally, but I didn't feel that it related exactly with political method or news around the world. Its really just my opinion on US policy.