Whats with all the blind anti-Americanism?

Originally posted by klaz
at the end of the day, I consider conventional weapons to be more dangerous. There is no stigma against them, as there is with WMD's. Hence the reason why nobody really rises any concern over the arsenals of the US, China, or most western nations.

How do you mean "no stigma" ?
My issue with wmd's would be ,how easily, they could be unleashed,anomnymously by some crazy individual or group.
In the case of Carpet bombing by planes, theres usually an identifiable foe obviously,normally a country, thats not the case with a "dirty"bomb containing radio active material or any biological substance.
There will alway be guns and some hope of evidence pointing to back to them in a murder enquiry arising out of a terrorist incident.

The most disturbing piece of television i saw recently on this was a BBC2 horizon documentary showing the effect of a small explosion in central London containing conventional explosives but with a small cannister of radio active material or biological agent.
The bomb is dealt with and mopped up, but the droplets or cloud from it, has showered toxic material with few immediate results but serious long term effects on thousands of people.

Add in an announcement that , that has been done and, you have Economic mayhem as well as the tragic medical effects.
Increasingly there is the wory that madmen are getting out the textbooks to discover how best to do this.

Incidently, the same programme outlined how easy it was to get ones hands on the type of material for this, in the old Soviet countries and in medical dumps in the U.S.A
mm

How do you mean "no stigma" ?

In the case of WMD's theres a general horror of its use. There have been no real use of any WMD's in the case of terrorism, or by minor nations. Most nations have a horror of using them in any case. Not so with conventional weapons. Consider the effect of a Moab dropped on a highly populated residential area.

My issue with wmd's would be ,how easily, they could be unleashed,anomnymously by some crazy individual or group.

Well consider that the access to WMD's has been an issue for the last 40 years. There have been no use of them to date, that i know of. Nuclear material has been open to be bought for the last 20 years on the B. Market. Chemical weapons can be produced in the home. Hell, you can find out how to produce uranium on the internet. The fact that this hasn't been used so far, shows that most terrorist will not use them.

There will always be exceptions.

There will alway be guns and some hope of evidence pointing to back to them in a murder enquiry arising out of a terrorist incident

And the same can be done in the case of the use of dirty material, or chemical/biological weapons. The process is just a bit different.

The bomb is dealt with and mopped up, but the droplets or cloud from it, has showered toxic material with few immediate results but serious long term effects on thousands of people.

Is the use of using radioactive material as part of a conventional weapon, really a WMD? I don't consider them to be. Regardless, the effects of conventional weapons, also depending on the type, can have long lasting effects on an area, or population. for example, the use of incendiary bombs.


To sum up, the threat of a terrorist using chemical/biological/nuclear materials has not changed from 40 years ago. The ability to get them may have gotten easier, but any determined person could with a bit of money get them.

Conventional weapons on the other hand, are completely accepted by people. There is no shock at their use. They can be gotten very easily, and their damage is just as effective as WMD's in a terrorist situation.

In regards to the nations of the world, conventional weapons are becoming more effective, with bombs becoming more destructive in both blast radius, and the long-term effects.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
The Firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg killed (vague memory here) 80,000 people in total.

First fiogure I could find online put the firebombing of Tokyo at about 85,000 which may be what you're thinking of.
Dresden alone was put at an estimated minimum of 135,000. Most links I can find put the Dresden/Hamburg combined figure upwards of 250,000. At the very least, its the same ballpark

Originally posted by Man
My issue with wmd's would be ,how easily, they could be unleashed,anomnymously by some crazy individual or group.

Agreed....but this never seems to stop the "responsible" nations from deciding that it is in their interest to build a bomb thats bigger and better than anything the other nations have. Its only several decades down the line when the technology has advanced so far (as a result of the same nations) that it becomes feasible for an NGO or "lesser" nation to get their hands on such incomprehensible single-shot destructive power.

What we are seeing today is a desperate attempt by the creators to control who can have the toys that they introduced the world to, because they have realised what a monumental cockup in terms of the effective balance of power these weapons have made.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

So have we (those of us who dislike America) finally put this topic to bed yet? Have we not proved that we are not blindly anti-american (if indeed that is the correct term)? I think a good thread now would be to do a reverse as regards to 'blind pro-Americanism' (and I have a feeling that Biffa Bacon might come in number one on that )

vorbis

he he double negative saying you're anti American.
Serioulsy though, emoer you want Europe to fight the US in a gigantic inter-continental war as you can not tolerate a world with the US as the dominant power. I think you can be called blindly anti-American.

bonkey

I think this appears to have reached the end of its constructive purpose.

If you guys want to one-on-one about one of your allegations about the other, then go ahead, but no-one is turning this forum into a name-calling playground.

Thread locked.

jc