When many people talk of or think about the existing nuclear weapons, they are often focus on the potential direct damage only - on the direct threat.
Yes, direct damage from the existing nuclear arsenal (proudly possessed by a number of 'civilized' countries like US, Russia, Britain, Israel, China, France etc), would be enough to make the most common mental conceptions
of Apocalypse become a real-life experience. I think that anyone
can go no further than Hiroshima experience to get a taste of it (for the Americans this could be a doubly understandable and clear illustration), but
bearing in mind at that, that now the use of nuclear bombs most probably would
not be confined only to one bomb and only to one nation.
But talking about nuclear weapons one tends to rather frequently forget about the
HUGE indirect damage it makes even without any practical application
thereof. Example: 200 (approx) nukes in possession of Israel 1) make all
the 'high moral talks' about preventing Iran from having the same thing
just a piece of comedian farce 2) establish huge barriers in the way of
any Middle East piece efforts 3) push other nations strive to acquire
this. Huge geopolitical and ethical (those two in this context
The USA has nukes hundreds times more than it really needs to provide a
reasonable defensive potential: it too 1) undermines any efforts and
reputation of the US in terms of peace-making 2) also justifies and
provokes other governments to strive for nukes 3) consumes MONEY of the
Any nuclear weapons abiding in the possession of all nations put
together has consumed a HUGE amount of money and other resources
(incalculable directly in monetary terms) and taken it away from the
economic and technological development - money spent on a) development
of those weapons and b) keeping, storing, replacement, cherishing and
nourishing those weapons.
All of these are just part of the HUGE non-military damage that is done by nuclear weapons right now as I write these lines.
Added to that is a hardly calculable MORAL damage to everyone. I mean,
our children from the very cradle get accustomed to the idea that
nuclear weapons have just as normal a place in this world and in this
life, as their school, their work, their mum and dad. This is a
'self-reproducing' sociopsychological culture of 'normality' of nuclear
The list is far from complete, but I hope it can give a general notion
of 'how far nuclear weapons cause damage', including when 'peacefully
stored' in their containers...
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
As it transpires unsurprisingly:
1. French Intelligence had been tracking the terrorist for years & let him kill many people before capturing him, just like the US Intelligence had been tracking 911 terrorists for years and let them kill thousands before capturing some of them.
2. Instead of putting him to sleep or paralyzing with some kind of powerful tranquilizer (in the form of gas or a remotely gun-shot capsule) and taking him alive for the sake of eliciting more precious information from him later, they decided to kill him with a sniper shot and silence forever (there were all the possibilities to take him alive: there were no hostage and before they shot him dead they had been throwing GRENADES into his barricaded den - who would have prevented them from throwing some tranquilizing gas shells with, say, fentanyl-based base, or many other alternatives - technically 120% possible and tested).
From these the only rational conclusion I am coming to again, is that, as is often the case, Western intelligence services (which is a governmental agency) are as often as not UNINTERESTED in eliminating and preventing the terrorism and killings, and KNOWINGLY and deliberately keeps the probability (hence the actual rate too) of the carnage and killings of the people at artificially high levels, because thus they could 'extort' more money and attention from the people which there are meant to serve. In this sense they are involved in the terrorism - actual terrorism, and the political terrorism, which terrorizes the people into falsely thinking too much of the government as a guardian and defender. Just another example of this.
That's the usual way with Intelligence services who are often in no mood to stop terrible terrorists from killing before actual the killing takes place, because intelligence services consider it BENEFICIAL for their image, PR, reputation to capture big killers only after killing. Because through 'allowing' terrorists kill they, as it is, show the public their indispensability, their irreplaceability and importance, they get bigger budgets - by letting people to be killed. Nothing surprising. Never had a doubt that German intelligence services knew very much about the perpetrators of the recent wave of racist murders in Germany, neither would it amaze me in the least bit to learn that Norwegian intelligence knew a thing or two about the Nazi lunatic who killed about 80 people last summer in a terrible carnage.
I don't have a shadow of a doubt that intelligence services (without or without a nod from governments) 'allow' innocent people to be killed - quite deliberately, in cold blood, to CREATE the work for themselves, terrorize their own nations into giving them more money, more credit, making themselves irreplaceable in the eyes of the general public.
Why is it possible? For the same old reason I've mentioned so many times: the presence of SEMI-democracy in the West in stead of REAL democracy. To put it simple, nations have NO CONTROL over what their governments are up to in a huge number of different areas, especially those affecting directly the lives or millions of lives of people - both within and without the national borders.
What's the remedy? DEMOCRACY of course - not a sham one but a true one, which is based not just of the cover of election (in which, for example, 300 mn of Americans elect for the president a mentally dubious grand kid of a former president) but on the practical, tangible, steel-firm public CONTROL of state, PARTICIPATION in state & 120% TRANSPARENCY of state. History shows that the state secrecy is just a form of autocracy, irresponsibility and usurpation of power, which quite logically turns state itself in a terrorist.
See also on similar topics:
Comments on the controlled explosion theory of the 911 attack
911 anniversary: terrorists celebrate victory
Yes, Bradley Manning and Assange deserve the Nobel prize possibly more than Obama does!
A few comments on Norway apocalypse