Sunday, August 27, 2006

THE DAILY FALLOUT: Part IV or V in a series

The good news about nuclear destruction, seriously.

Tragically, though, most Americans today won't give much credence to this good news, much less seek out such vital life-saving instruction, as they have been jaded by our culture's pervasive myths of nuclear un-survivability.

Most people think that if nukes go off, then everybody is going to die, or will wish they had. That's why you hear such absurd comments as: "If it happens, I hope I'm at ground zero and go quickly."

This defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any alternatives to their agenda. The sound Civil Defense strategies of the '60s have been derided as being largely ineffective, or at worst a cruel joke . . . In fact, though, the biggest surprise for most Americans, if nukes are really unleashed, is that they will still be here!

Most will survive the initial blasts because they won't be close enough to any "ground zero," and that is very good news . . .

-- from WorldNetDaily, in an editorial by the CEO of a company developing "Civil Defense solutions to government, military, private organizations and individual families."

Your insurer won't cover you or your property in case of nuclear attack.

Another major provider . . . states: "We will cover customers if they are injured as a result of 'conventional' terrorist activity, ie caused by explosives, guns, knives, etc."

So, while it is always advisable to check with one's insurer, most customers need not worry unduly about nullifying cover in a war zone. It is vital, however, that they do not participate in violence . . . Acting in a foolhardy manner likely to result in injury could also leave you unprotected. In addition, policies exclude cover for treatment arising from chemical or nuclear attack.

-- from The Daily Telegraph

Don't be a pessimist.

The pessimists assume that the dangers of a nuclear confrontation will increase exponentially as the number of nuclear powers grows and that a future catastrophe is all but certain. Since little can be done to avert such a terrible outcome or mitigate its consequences, the argument goes, efforts to stop proliferation in the first place must be redoubled. The optimists, by contrast, assume that the stability that nuclear weapons seem to have brought to the superpowers' Cold War confrontation will be replicated. Far from being a sure disaster, they argue, the spread of nuclear weapons could be a relatively cheap and easy (albeit nerve-racking) solution to the age-old problem of war.

-- from Foreign Affairs

Youtube video, the font from which all wisdom flows.

"Iraq - The Truth?"
features very little graphic violence. The narrator speaks English as somber orchestral music plays in the background. He argues that the war in Iraq is unjust. There is also a veiled threat that the U.S. will face nuclear attack. He finishes by complimenting Americans on their ability to produce great leaders with a subtle suggestion that they violently overthrow the current administration.

Another antagonizing news story on the miracle of Youtube

Feeling anxious?

If you are the anxious type, you're in trouble if you've read even this far, and no doubt there is more . . . Now, we can either shrug it off, reasoning that we can't possibly protect everybody against everything, or we can get more serious about security at the ports.

Let's get more serious. Port security is much improved, compared to a few years ago. But that's comparing it to relatively little at all.

A Seattle Times reporter as an experiment recently infiltrated the Port of Long Beach and discovered that sneaking himself in doesn't take the imagination of a RAND researcher. You just hop a truck and roll right on in, showing no more credentials than a driver's license, which nobody really looks at anyway . . . If you were scared by our second paragraph, how does the handling of truck security strike you? A nuke doesn't have to arrive only by ship, does it?

An editorial in a soCal newspaper.

God favors nuclear war waged by the righteous.

Since God is partial on righteous wars, this “… self-sacrificing love that is willing, if necessary, to lay its life down for another…” – the very essence of God’s war versus evil that the likes of Cindy Sheehan mock with disdain -- “… includes the legitimate and deadly use of force…”

Which means that if the evildoer of Iran launches the first nuclear attack to wipe Israel off the map and at the same time strikes and harms us because of our strategic alliance with Israel, we apply the law of Moses… lex talionis [“the law of like for like”].

In other words, simply drop the nukes on the aggressor with divine justification that we are no longer engaged in carnal warfare but we are launching a Godly War to end all evil wars, which proves my premise that under Christ’s Gospel, this ultimate war is not necessarily evil. Judgment day is perhaps a prelude to another biblical genesis – mankind’s new beginning.

-- from The American Chronicle

With enough shovels, we're all going to make it, but not the Democrats. The draft is coming back, too. All out war with the Middle East.

. . . the fallout shelter is coming back, too . . . when dealing with a possible strike from a single weapon, or at most a mere handful of weapons, the logic of the fallout shelter is compelling. We’re going to need to be able to evacuate our cities in the event of a direct attack, or to avoid radiation plumes from cities that have already been struck. Tens or hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved by such measures.

For starters, the dovish Democrats are doomed. In “Hawkish Gloom,” I pointed in broad terms to the imminent hawkification of the United States . . . the revitalized George McGovern-Howard Dean wing of the Democratic party cannot survive much past the moment when Iran gets the bomb. . . .

Funny how the very thing the doves don’t want — a preemptive strike on Iran, is the only thing that can save them.

. . . the only middle way between helpless acceptance of nuclear terror and massive nuclear retaliation against countries that may not even have attacked us, is going to be through conventional invasions.

From Walter Groteschele, at The National Review.

Histortical backgrounder: T.K. Jones, patron saint of the coming great bomb sling!

From Robert Scheer's "With Enough Shovels:"

"Thomas K. Jones, the man Ronald Reagan had appointed Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Strategic and Theater Nuclear Forces, told me that the United States could fully recover from an all-out nuclear war . . . in just two to four years . . .

"T.K., as he prefers to be known, added that nuclear war was not nearly as devastating as we had been led to believe. He said, 'If there are enough shovels to go around, everybody's going to make it.' The shovels were for digging holes in the ground, which would be covered somehow or other with a couple of doors and with three feet of dirt thrown on top, thereby providing adequate fallout shelters for the millions who had been evacuated from America's cities to the countryside. 'It's the dirt that does it,' he said."

Excerpt here.


Post a Comment

<< Home