Dull thoughts on a shiny, shiny world.
Who gives a shit?
Published on February 19, 2005 By cactoblasta In Politics
There seems to be an inordinate amount of worry amongst many Americans in particular about the axis of evil getting nuclear weapons. Why? The US president has recently restarted research into the use of nuclear arms on what would previously be considered conventional targets, in particular as bunker-busters. So to the US government an increase in the use of nuclear arms is merely good policy, and certainly not something that has to be stopped.

Of course one could reply that Iran and North Korea are evil nations, full of monkey-men and maniacs hell-bent on reaping havoc throughout the civilised world. One would be an incredibly arrogant racist, but one could do so. After all, they do have turbans or slanty eyes; sure signs of the disreputable if encountered in any bastion of western influence, such as a mall or Jerry Springer. They must be practically champing at the bit to attack us.

One could also argue that Iran and North Korea has been at war with the west for decades. The recent occupation of Paris by Palestianian crack troops (hey, they're both Muslim countries/groups, right?) and the subjugation of Geneva by NK diplomats are cases in point of the two nation's recent history of constant assault on our interests and our peoples. Iran and NK also, like the treacherous French and those notoriously villianous New Zealanders also opposed our occupation of the third point in the axis: Iraq. If that's not an act of war, I don't know what is.

One could argue that Iran's anti-Israel rhetoric is merely a mask for their true hatred of non-Semite/Iranian peoples. Once they conquer the world's second most powerful military power they'll come for us next! It only stands to reason - Israel is practically the Constantinople of the modern world, providing the only entry-point to the western world. If it falls, there'll be nothing to protect New York or Washington from terrorist attack.

And of course we need only to look at NK and Iran to see two countries on their way to global domination. It's only through military invasion that we could possibly prevent their scientists from selling their expertise to the highest bidder in the same way the Iraqi scientists recently have. Waiting for them to fall would be futile, especially considering their domination in global economics and their robust social systems. Especially when we consider the instability that occurs around the end of a regime... you just don't get that instability when you invade. The current peacefulness and tranquility of Afghanistan proved that to the world.

Now that I think of it, there is a lot to worry about when two of the world's most insignificant middle powers gain nuclear arms. Perhaps the scare-mongers have a point...

Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Feb 20, 2005

The three most likely terrorist targets for a nuclear attack would be New York, Washington D.C. and LA.   Which is ironic because those three cities have very high per capital terrorist appeasement populations.

I believe a nuclear terrorist attack is inevitable. It might be in the form of an EMP or a dirty bomb or fission.  But it will almost certainly happen in our lifetime.  I wonder what those people, who currently see North Korea and Iran having a "right" to acquire nuclear weapons, will feel if it turns out (and odds are this is the most likely scenario) that the terrorists acquired their nuclear weapon directly or indirectly from Iran or North Korea.

Would those who opposd a relativley bloodless surgical strike be more content with the inevitable result of how a democracy would react to hundreds of thousands their fellow citizens dead?

on Feb 20, 2005
Draginol - ' those three cities have very high per capital terrorist appeasement populations.'

Oh come on, really. 'High per capita terrorist appeasement populations'? Give me a fucking break. Go back to your Wizards and Lizards video games, Fanboy, because until you start talking like an adult you have no business discussing adult issues.

'High per capita terrorist appeasement populations' - Geez, the magnitude of mendacity in this phrase is mind boggling.....

Better delete this post real quick, Fanboy; can't have anyone pointing out how far from reality your comic book mentality is, now can we?

David St. Hubbins
on Feb 20, 2005
Yes, Draginol, what is 'terrorist appeasement population'? I read your reply, and agreed with it for the most part, but I think you'd better clarify what you meant in 'terrorist appeasement population.'
on Feb 20, 2005
I agree with that appraisal. If you could think of three focused areas full of people who oppose war or military response to a irrational degree, those would be the top three. Those are soundly areas in which people are more likely to sway, while holding hands and suggesting "dialog" or "diplomacy" with people who should be humanely shot in the back of the head.

Deny it if you like, but if al qaeda blew up LA or New York, at least, they'd waste a double-digit percentage of the US population that is knee-jerk opposed to blowing THEM up...
on Feb 20, 2005
Ah, I see what he meant.

It is a bit counter-productive to blow up cities full of the very people you can use to your own benefit, don't you think? If the terrorists had any sense, they'd go after some Southern cities in an attempt to quiet the aggressors, the only ones willing to actively pursue them.
on Feb 20, 2005
"And North Korea is a joke. Few borders are better protected than those ringing North Korea. How exactly do you smuggle nukes past the world's most heavily defended borders?"

This is why human slavery smuggling across these borders is so tremendous a problem, right?
on Feb 21, 2005
When a dictator decides they want nuclear weapons, how is that any different than one arguing that everyone should be able to have nuclear weapons?

The issue with North Korea and Iran aren't that its citizens are "evil" but rather that as dictators, they are not accountable for their actions and so it is really not much different than the crazy neighbor down the street wanting nukes.

It's a pity that, in your arrogance, you weren't able to see his point. This "social contract" nonsense you mention applies no more to some freak dictator of a third world nation than it does to "Bubba".


An interesting perspective. So you don't believe that a revolution is possible if the populace is against a ruler? Very interesting, considering that was how the US was formed. When a sovereign loses the support of his/her populace, the leviathan crumbles and a new one is formed in its place. Whether it's democratic or not is irrelevent. And of course the US has the right to do whatever it wants. According to current IR thinking (neorealist, neoliberal, and to some extent the third way theories as well), the world is an anarchic place, and every nation has a responsibility to seize what it needs through whatever means necessary. The US is no less free from this responsibility as anyone else.

It's really just basic IR theory, originating from the thinking of people like Hobbes and refined by later thinkers into the behemoth we can recognise today. I don't see what everyone is so upset about. What did you think was being taught in IR schools?

They claim the reactors are for peaceful purposes like fuel. Yeah, they only live in the most oil-rich region of the world! They definitely need more fuel.

Just to play devil's advocate, why shouldn't Iran want to be green? Conservative Americans have argued that nuclear power is healthy, so why shouldn't Iran seek it? And with nuclear weapons as an option on the side the equation is even better!

This is why human slavery smuggling across these borders is so tremendous a problem, right?

it's harder to smuggle a nuke than it is to smuggle people. Surely that's obvious, isn't it? The US already has satellite equipment capable of tracking minerals by their radioactivity; chances are there's already one positioned over the peninsula, so it's not going to be easy to smuggle it out through the same channels used for smuggling people.

By the way, thanks everyone for commenting. It's always good to hear the opinions of others, especially when everyone I speak to here has much the same opinions as I do. Good to hear some opponents. Thank God for Indonesia's freedom of internet, eh?
on Feb 21, 2005
Indeed: praise God for your freedoms and ours... That's who they really come from anyway.

I'm not so sure about the satellite mineral-tracking sci-fi stuff... I mean, were that possible, wouldn't the whole problem of "does Iraq/Iran have WMD?" be a non-issue? We'd already know and where they are. We'd not need weapons inspectors, either. Besides, the limited geology I have (only a mere 6 hours, I admit) doesn't really lead me to believe a mineral can be accurately tracked from space -- radioactive or not. There would have to electronics involved (transmitters, precisely).

And my point about human smuggling was that I don't really think those borders are the most difficult to get past in the world. In an age when WMD can be put into a suitcase or at least a Honda, the security of a nation is an enormous issue. As for the same channels used for smuggling people: why not? Especially if I knew the govt didn't particularly crack down on that practice...
on Feb 21, 2005
Hey Cacto, speaking of terrorist appeasers, what's your take on this:

"Cafe outing normal for Bali bomber: police"

Indonesian police have defended their decision to take one of the key Bali bombers out for an evening at a Starbucks Cafe in a Jakarta mall as "a normal way to develop a case".

Reporters spotted him laughing and joking with Brigadier-General Gorries Mere, one of the officers investigating the Bali attacks.

Indonesian Police spokesman General Paiman said yesterday there was nothing unusual about the trip to Starbucks, and later in the evening to the nearby Hard Rock Cafe, when police were trying to get information from a witness. "There's no problem, as long as there's no violation of procedure and there's adequate security," he said.

On his way out of Starbucks, Ali Imron said to reporters: "I'm going out with (top Indonesian terrorism investigator ) Pak [Mr] Gores, it's pretty normal."

www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/02/1093939075761.html?oneclick=true
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3621454.stm
on Feb 21, 2005
You know, I thought I could be rude at times...but David St. Hubba-Bubba could give a seminar. Where does all that sarcasm and ire come from, Hubby?
on Feb 21, 2005
Cacto: I didn't even bother to read your entire article. Just going by the title, I'm going to say this: it's easy for you not to care; you're in Australia. Who gives a shit about Australia? If it wasn't for "Crocodile Dundee", "Mad Max", AC/DC and Men at Work nobody would even know it still existed 9yes, I'm well aware that those things are 20 years out-of-date; that's exactly my point).
Try feeling that way when you're sitting on one of the bullseyes.
Do you really want unstable, pissant little countries with tinpot, crazy tyrants in complete charge to have the Big One? Or is this just another example of your patented dry, somewhat aloof, sarcastic "Down Under" wit?
on Feb 21, 2005
And of course the US has the right to do whatever it wants.


So, you won't be criticizing anything it does? If you will, then doesn't that mean that we could bitch about how the Axis of Evil has nuclear weapons?

It's really just basic IR theory, originating from the thinking of people like Hobbes and refined by later thinkers into the behemoth we can recognise today. I don't see what everyone is so upset about. What did you think was being taught in IR schools?


Perhaps the same reason you're so upset about individuals having the right to nuclear weapons as well. Perhaps in Australia, people are not allowed to protect themselves from both criminals and oppressive governments, but in the United States, we are given that right. Therefore, you of all people should support my right to nuclear weaponry.
on Feb 22, 2005

I'm not so sure about the satellite mineral-tracking sci-fi stuff... I mean, were that possible, wouldn't the whole problem of "does Iraq/Iran have WMD?" be a non-issue? We'd already know and where they are. We'd not need weapons inspectors, either. Besides, the limited geology I have (only a mere 6 hours, I admit) doesn't really lead me to believe a mineral can be accurately tracked from space -- radioactive or not. There would have to electronics involved (transmitters, precisely).


I'm a little hazy on it myself. Been a while since I heard about it. I think you can supposedly hide nuclear materials under lead or stuff like that, and can spot them because they're a different colour under some sort of light or something? Science isn't really my speciality (if you haven't guessed).

Do you really want unstable, pissant little countries with tinpot, crazy tyrants in complete charge to have the Big One? Or is this just another example of your patented dry, somewhat aloof, sarcastic "Down Under" wit?


I've always been a fan of tinpot crazy tyrants. They make the world a more interesting place, because at least you know they're evil. Far worse are the nameless, faceless legions of the democratic bureaucracy, who do evil simply because it's more efficient. Perhaps I'm just a hopeless romantic, but there've been too many piss-ant tyrants knocked off by more sober colleagues/competitors for me to believe that Kim Jung-il or the Ayatollah would be followed blindly unto the grave. Maybe twenty years ago for the Ayatollah, but not today. And especially not in the Byzantine politics of North Korea.

As for your last question... a little from column a, a little from column b.

And sure Australia is irrelevent, but you're choosing to comment on a known Australian's blog. That's a choice you made - I didn't seek you out. Perhaps my title was provocative, but boring titles are, well, boring. So to sum up my argument.... meh.

Perhaps the same reason you're so upset about individuals having the right to nuclear weapons as well. Perhaps in Australia, people are not allowed to protect themselves from both criminals and oppressive governments, but in the United States, we are given that right. Therefore, you of all people should support my right to nuclear weaponry.


If you're a sovereign lording it over your own country, go for it. You have my full support. But I don't think the USA, which apparently surrounds your happy little dictatorship/democracy/republic/whatever, will permit your ownership of nukes. They may even invade. So it's probably not really wise to do it unless you, like the Axis, have hundreds of thousands of soldiers under arms.

Individuals surrender their right to force in return for the leviathan's protection. So your subjects, having surrrendered their right to force to you, would be unable to pursue nuclear programs on their own bat. But you have every right to do so. Whether your immediate neighbouring countries will tolerate it is another matter - they might unite to destroy the threat, or they may simply annex it and be done with the whole deal.

So, you won't be criticizing anything it does? If you will, then doesn't that mean that we could bitch about how the Axis of Evil has nuclear weapons?


I don't think I said I agreed with the theory. It just amuses me that for a group of supposedly conservative people, there are a lot of pinkie lefties here when it comes to IR. You're practically a Marxist, messybuu, from your comments here!

Oh and Dave - they're letting him go around the city because the Indonesian people don't believe the police will treat him properly. So by letting him swan around under supervision, the police are showing they're not abusing him. Indonesian politics is kind of complicated at the moment, and the police are notoriously open to 'suggestion'. At least they're not beating him up or something.
on Feb 22, 2005
Eastern Diamondback

You ask an interesting question about Iran. I would not employ nuclear weapons, with the possible exception of a bunker busting type. I would consider conventional strike or a bunker busting nuclear weapon to destroy nuclear stockpiles or nuclear facilities.

At the same time, we need to try and perfect the laser air born weapons system to eliminate any attemped strike aginst the United States. We need to prevent the importation of a nuclear weapon into the US. There is nothing more dangerous then a terrorist group setting off a nuclear weapon in the United States. It would make 9/11 attack look like a play toy!
on Feb 22, 2005
"Of course one could reply that Iran and North Korea are evil nations, full of monkey-men and maniacs hell-bent on reaping havoc throughout the civilised world"
Sorry and excuse me but what on earth makes you say something so untrue? Hell bent? To use that term one would think there would be some evidence. Are you basing your thought on the fact that neither country has been 'reaping havoc throughout the civilised world'? Are you that caught up in the drama that your think North Korea and Iran have a secret war room where they have the maps of 'civilized' nations all ready to be redrawn to their expansionist mentalities?
4 Pages1 2 3 4