| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1178
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 12:03 am: | 
|
U.S. Physicists-Letter to Bush-Take Nuclear Option Off The Table!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The physicists include five Nobel laureates, a recipient of the National Medal of Science and three past presidents of the American Physical Society, the nation’s preeminent professional society for physicists.
Their letter was prompted by recent articles in the Washington Post, New Yorker and other publications that one of the options being considered by Pentagon planners and the White House in a military confrontation with Iran includes the use of nuclear bunker busters against underground facilities. These reports were neither confirmed nor denied by White House and Pentagon officials.
Thirteen of the nation’s most prominent physicists have written a letter to President Bush, calling U.S. plans to reportedly use nuclear weapons against Iran “gravely irresponsible” and warning that such action would have “disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world.”
“We are members of the profession that brought nuclear weapons into existence, and we feel strongly that it is our professional duty to contribute our efforts to prevent their misuse,” says Hirsch. "Physicists know best about the devastating effects of the weapons they created, and these eminent physicists speak for thousands of our colleagues.”
“The fact that the existence of this plan has not been denied by the Administration should be a cause of great alarm, even if it is only one of several plans being considered,” he adds. “The public should join these eminent scientists in demanding that the Administration publicly renounces such a misbegotten option against a non-nuclear country like Iran .”
letter at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/physicistsletter.html
more at:
http://www.physorg.com/news64505715.html
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4764
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 12:21 am: |
|
There are disturbing plans afoot for the detonation of a 700-ton conventional explosive in the Nevada desert this June. The stated purpose is to see how well a 700-ton bomb does in "bunker busting." However, we don't have any means to deliver a 700-ton bomb. The biggest transport planes only carry a fraction of that. Even the space shuttle, which I'd guess is the heaviest thing we strap on a rocket, weighs just 120 tons.
If we're interested finding out how .7 kilotons stacks up against a hardened bunker, but can't deliver that in conventional explosives, that seems to indicate that what we really want to know is how a small nuke performs.
Wake up people, the crew in Washington is certifiably nuts. If we pre-emptively nuke another country America will be a pariah nation in the world for as long as any of us live. |
Bailey
Citizen
Username: Baileymac
Post Number: 243
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 9:46 am: |
|
I'm assuming the biggest threat from Iran, should they develop nuclear weapons would be to Israel.
Wouldn't fallout from such an attack also threaten/kill Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, Egypt and Iraq, to name a few? I just read that the accident at Chernobyl will claim another 100,000 lives. I assume an actual nuclear attack would have much more damaging fallout.
Is it conceivable that Iran would do that? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3174
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
No question, tom.
As soon as I saw the words "700-ton conventional explosive" I wondered what the heck we have that could chuck a bomb that big. Nothing, of course. The only answer is that this is a test of the effects of a small nuke with an alternative device.
I hope that this is all just a stronger form of saber-rattling.
Bailey: good point. |
ina
Citizen
Username: Ina
Post Number: 341
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 10:06 am: |
|
US citizens have no control over what Iran or any other country will do. Up until the Bush administration, most of the world didn't think the US willing to launch a nuclear attack, but has looked on in horror as, time and again, this bunch is determined to win the "mine is bigger than yours" game at any cost, literally. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5001
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 8:24 am: |
|
"...Wake up people, the crew in Washington is certifiably nuts."
Thanks Tom, now maybe you would like to tell us what you know about Iran? Does anyone think they are sane? They have told the world what their plans are for Israel, and it's pretty clear how they feel about us.
IMHO, I believe living under the constant fear and threat of a nuclear Iran is far worst than if God forbid we had to pre-emptively nuke another country. True, some might look at America as a pariah, and then some may thank us for making sure no really certifiably nutty nation such as Iran was allow to possess this power.
We all can appreciate the concerns of ever having to use nuclear weapons, but where's the expressed concerns for having to use it "after" it has been used on our allies or even us?
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1995
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 8:34 am: |
|
AJC,
Come on.
Tell me about the 8,000 nuclear scientists and 80,000 retired ones that Iran has.
I'll believe anything you say, you know.
How many of you have ever read Neville Shute's On The Beach? And how many thus would find much of this talk eerily reminiscent of that novel? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13760
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
Art, no one is saying Iran is sane. No one has defended any of its actions.
And do you believe that there's something wrong with expressing concern over excessive eagerness to use a nuclear bomb unnecessarily and unprovoked? Do you think that expressing such a concern must be accompanied by an explanation of how we would feel if we used a bomb as a response to an attack?
My fear is that the administration might have some pretty cavalier attitudes about sending a nuke attack, and that stands by itself. Certainly, I feel we should be ready for the worst, but it does not require me to list all of my fears and concerns.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4777
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Anyway, what's the worst that could happen? We lose a major city? Republicans swallowed the loss of New Orleans just fine -- they just blamed it on the Democratic mayor and governor. Problem solved!
Look at the bright side. If New York City goes, the state is then reliably Republican. All those electoral votes that used to go Democrat are on your side. And if suburban New Jersey moves away, same for the Garden State. Hillary may even lose her seat!
boy am I ever feeling cynical today... |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5002
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:56 pm: |
|
...OK, so forget about the nukes, but you have to agree to start bombing the hell out of them now! Deal?  |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13782
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 7:09 pm: |
|
I think they're more valuable to us as friends than as enemies, if that's possible. I realize it isn't necessarily possible.
So yeah, let's bomb them. People always come to love us when we do that.
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1180
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Presidents from Truman thru to Reagan faced the Soviet threat.
Why is the Bush Regime playing the Hegemon. Who authorized this. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2015
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Well, FOJ, obviously all those presidents didn't have the balls of our current commander in chump.
Why, my goodness, the current White House renter would have told Douglas MacArthur to go ahead and nuke those Chinese and North Korean troops. That's what "deciders" do, by golly.
And strange thing: all those presidents, from Truman to Reagan, did military service. Even Reagan, who was lucky enough to get "sweet duty" in Hollywood in the WWII years, served on active duty.
Clinton avoided service. So did Bush 43, but his avoiding was done under more cosseted circumstances than Clinton's.
All our presidents from 1945 to 1992 were among the uniformed.
Bush 43 is among the UNINFORMED. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4781
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 12:17 am: |
|
Where's Curtis LeMay when we need him. Doggone Presidents held him back, and just look what happened!
uh, nothing |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page