Pen Pals
Dear Mahmoud,
Thanks for taking the time to write your thoughtful letter. I appreciate you educating me about history, geography, democracy, military strategy, geopolitics, science, technology and eology, since these weren’t my favorite subjects in school.
I’d appreciate it if you would read my letter on TV to your 68 million citizens to help us both forge a bond of peace, grounded in our shared monotheism.
In your 18-page letter, you asked me more than 63 questions.
The answer is ‘No’.
Now, let me ask you a few questions.
1) When you’re alone in a room by yourself, what do you all talk about?
2) How many moons can you see from your planet?
3) Roughly how long will it be before your mothership returns?
Take your time. Feel free to use the back of the paper to record your answers.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush, POTUS
(From my favorite satirical blog: ScrappleFace)
Moody Dude,
don’t be trying to guile me with this “one almighty God” nonsense. The battele between good & Evil has come down to a case of Allah & his water-boy Mohammed vs. Jehovah, Jesus and the Holy Spook.
And we all know who will come out ahead! You just try and launch a nuke at us and Jesus will descend from the skies in a gold-plated Humvee along with the reserve guard units of his heavenly host and suck up those mushroom clouds just like those little green guys in “Mars Attacks!”
in the name of Jesus,
Dubya
Comment by ralphieboy - May 11, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
When Reagan made his crack about nuking Russia, every Latte-Leftist I knew dropped their gerbil. Reagan was joking. This Iranian Troglodite is NOT joking and would nuke Israel, America, Eurabia etc… because he wants to. I think the common cause the Left and the Islamo-fascists make is a kinship of irrationalities. The Islamo-fascists are a hell-bent lot and oddly enough it’s the Christian world that is trying to prevent them from bringing about the Apocalypse…now. So the irony you’d think even a “Nuanced” European could understand is that “Dubya” is also trying to keep the Wiccan Moonhuters and the assorted nuts and desicated fruit around for another decade. “Peace Baby”. “If you don’t like the Police, next time your in trouble yell hippy”.
Comment by Del Hoeft - May 12, 2006 @ 11:02 am
There are some folks who do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Like The Iranian president when it comes to his nukes, or the US government when it comes to domestic surveillance.
But don’t get too haughty about the “Christian World” out to prevent the Apocalypse: there are plenty of fundamentalists on both sides of the coin who would like to see the Final Days come about.
And which nation is the only onein the World to have ever used nuclear weapons in war, and which nation has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, at least three times the size it needs for purposes of “deterrence”?
Comment by ralphieboy - May 13, 2006 @ 7:57 am
I just noticed that I published this post under Juergen’s name. Sorry about that. Sometimes I have to log on with his name to delete all the spam, and I guess I forgot to log out afterwards.
Comment by Michael Meyn - May 13, 2006 @ 8:13 am
@Ralphiboy
1. Question: USA
2. Question: Russia
3. Question: Interesting Ralphiboy! You now exactly how many nuclear weapons it needs to “deter”? Please enlighten me.
BTW, who said anything about the “Christian World” preventing apocalypse? Your argumentation is always amusing.
Comment by garydausz - May 14, 2006 @ 2:54 am
GaryD,
That was Del Hoeft in no. 2 talking about the Christian World saving us from Armageddon. You do read the thread before jumping in, don’t you?
Back in the good old days of the Cold War, they decided that they needed equal or even more nukes than the USSR had for purposes of deterrence and/or Mutually Assured Destruction.
It does just seem a cryin’ shame to spend good tax dollars on weapons you don’t plan on using, doesn’t it?
And who spends more money on military than the next forty nations in the world combined? We have a reputation to defend here!
Comment by ralphieboy - May 14, 2006 @ 7:11 am
@Ralphieboy
Perhaps I’m missing something here? What Christian Fundamentalists do you know of that have their fingers-on-the-button? Your comparison (”fundamentalists on both sides”) is a bit silly. I will however concede that Falwell’s and Robertson’s minions have acquired “technicals” i.e. trucks with gunracks. Flora and fauna beware.
If the faithfull amonst the moral-relativist Left COULD satiate the Islamo-fascists, I’d say lets feed ‘em to the theocracy of their choice and be done with it.
We do seem to agree that “Moody Dude’s” cheese-has-slipped-of-the-cracker. To use a little ‘Team America’ wisdom it’s gonna take some “dicks” to set this one straight. Me thinks.
Comment by Del Hoeft - May 14, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
DH,
I mean that there are lots of fundamentalists (on both sides) who would like to see the End of Days come about, the sooner the better. Just look at the success of the “Left Behind” novels, I believe they even outsold the pagan heresies of the “Da Vinci Code”.
Comment by ralphieboy - May 14, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
@Ralphieboy
Sorry, missed the sentence in DelHoefts commentary.
Your first comment implied that the US has the most nukes. Your second comment implies the US had during the cold war the same amount or even more than the russians. Both is untrue as the US never had more nukes than Russia and in fact never even had the same amount of nukes as russia. In fact american nukes have always been about 2/3 of the amount of Russian nukes.
And again I would like to ask you where you got to the “fact” that america had “at least 3 times” more nukes than required for deterrance?
Did it ever came to your mind that maybe those weapons were never required to be used just because they existed. That the cold war dind’t turn hot benefits my point. What benefits yours?
Comment by garydausz - May 15, 2006 @ 4:43 am
GaryD,
The Cold War is over and we still have nukes out the wazoo. What we lack in quantity compared to Russia we make up in quality. And we still have the largest military in the world by far.
Comment by ralphieboy - May 15, 2006 @ 10:37 am
Well, as you do not repeatedly answer my “at least 3 times”-more-than-required-nukes-question I assume that you admit that you purposedly invented this. Hm, nice way of argumentation.
Yes, the “cold war” with russia is over. But the threat of other nations attacking the US is still there isn’t it? How many nukes would be required to deter them? Sorry, I forgot you wouldn’t answer that question.
BTW, the US does not!!! have the largest military in the world. It might have the most costly military in the world but the largest military is still owned by china. You know that there are books out there containing neutral information, do you?
That you claim to be a teacher still gives me the shivers!!!
Comment by garydausz - May 16, 2006 @ 2:09 am
GaryD,
you are right about the China having the largest military in terms of bodies, I was talking about the largest in times of spending volume. That figure I did fetch from a reliable source.
As for the “three times” figure, I admit that I used in a general term, it is my opinion that we have a lot more nukes than we could possibly ever need to deter other nations at this point. There was a reason for having them when we were staring eyeball to eyeball with the USSR, but the cold war is over, except in the hearts and minds of the US military.
Comment by ralphieboy - May 16, 2006 @ 6:43 am
@Ralphieboy
Ok, you discarded that “3 times” figure but still you claim (in your opinion) that the US has more nukes than required to deter any nation in the world. So what makes you think that? What would be the appropriate number of nukes and the appropriate amount of money spent on the military required to deter any other nation from attacking the US in any kind of way? If you can say any figures, how did you come up with them?
Comment by garydausz - May 16, 2006 @ 7:10 am
GaryD,
The USA still has enough nukes to destroy most of the civilized world, and I do not believe in the “we had to destroy it in order to save it” school of thought regarding deterrence.
I think we have too many, probably three times too many, and I think that we missed a great opportunity to sit down with Russia and overcome the Cold War status quo to reduce the numbers of nukes we have pointed at each other.
And as long as we have so many, it is hard to make any credible argument against other nations acquiring them. And as long as we let nations like India acquire more nukes without joining the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, we also cannot make any credible arguments for getting other nations to join it.
btw: I usually don’t respond to personal digs, but you needn’t worry about me corrupting schoolchildren. I teach English one day a week at a “Fachschule”, which is more like a college of education specializing in pre-school education. Most of the kids there are aged 18-22.
And when I do tell them about America, it is positive things, like the recent Maryland court ruling that a fellow who mooned nis neighbor over a domestic argument was not necessarily engaging in lewd and obscene behavior, he was just excercising his right to free speech.
I told them how proud I was that in America (or at least Maryland) we still have the right to bear butt. And they can take my bare butt away from me as soon as they pry my cold, dead thumb out of it!!!
Comment by ralphieboy - May 16, 2006 @ 7:46 am
@Ralphieboy
Ah, there is that “3 times” figure again but at least this time you made it clear that you “think” that this is the case.
So you think it is the fault of the US that the russians did not, together with the US, cut down their number of nukes? What makes you think that and why don’t you complain about the russians as they have even more nukes than the US?
Your are argumenting that the US has no right to request other nations, like Iran, to have nukes as it has so many by its own. Actually you are right. Actually the US would have to get rid of all its nuclear weapons before it could request righteously other nations to not get any. So the US should get rid of all nukes than it would be morally in the right position to ask Iran (or others) not to have any. But where would be the deterrance for the other nations that already have nukes and do you think that this step would really convince the Iranians (or others) to abandon all pursuit of becoming nuclear?
Don’t forget that it is not only the US requesting Iran not to get nukes and among those interested that Iran does not become nuclear there are many that have no nukes themselfes. Don’t forget either that the US is keeping out of the diplomatic circus that is trying to stop Irans program and that the US is ,at the moment, not directly threatened by any Iranian nukes. But so was the US not directly threatened by Nazi-Germany in the late 30s and maybe if it would have acted differently at that time it could have changed history.
That you are talking positively about the US in your class is nice but still not the way a teacher (in my opinion) should behave. A teacher should be neutral and if there are discussions about the US you should (in my opinion) just present them the facts of both sides and then let them draw their own conclussions. I am saying this because I witnessed far too many biased teachers in my school time here in germany which actively tried to press their view on pupils.
Comment by garydausz - May 16, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
GD,
there were political and military leaders in both Russia and the USA who did not want to see their personal importance diminished by having their nukes taken away from them, and they prevented both countries from making the world a safer and more civilized place.
If we want “deterrence”, it seems that one big fat nuke pointed at each capital of the world would do , perhaps with a few backups. We are still sitting on an arsenal equipped to fight World War III as it was envisioned in the mid 20th century.
Iran learned an important lesson from the US: Saddam had no nukes, and he got stomped on. They are certainly going to undertake all efforts to obtain nukes. And they know that the world is too dependent on their oil supplies to be able to do much to stop them.
I agree with you that a lot of teachers in Germany are real boneheaded idologues when it comes to discussing the USA. As the father of four kids, I sat down and read through the results of the PISA study (of comparative academic achievement) and ran across a passage that discussed the correlation between academic success and that social background.
The study pointed out that social background has a greater influence on academic success in Germany than in America “where such a thing is to expected”. I threw up my hands in disgust and realized that these Adornofied idealists have no idea of what America is about and how it works.
Comment by ralphieboy - May 17, 2006 @ 1:49 am
@ralphieboy
I don’t think that it had anything to do with personal ambitions. There had been 3 different Presidents in power (among them Clinton) since the end of the cold war. So they all tried to keep their personal improtance by not getting rid of almost all nukes?
What would Iran (and others) have learned if the US would not have finally invaded Irak? Maybe: Don’t give a shit what the UN is requesting from you because no consequence would follow if you don’t? Or: Don’t worry about anything you do because some bribing can solve any problem?
Do you really think that North Korea or Iran would not have tried to obtain nukes if Irak never happened? I don’t think so.
Welcome to the german way of argumentation/thinking ralphie. Don’t expect any improves there and never forget: Es kann nicht sein, was nicht sein darf!
Comment by garydausz - May 18, 2006 @ 3:45 am
North Korea is after nukes with the tacit blessing of China, which is more than happy to see North Korea become a thorn in America’s side and a distraction from their own military ambitions.
Iran is after Nukes because it wants to be a world power and play in the same league as Pakistan, India and Israel.
You asked earlier about how many nukes America needs to serve as an effective deterrent. I gave it some thought, and figuring that one nuclear submarine carries 18 warheads, then two submarines would be enough to wipe out all the capitols of Europe (and a few more major cities as well), two more for the Middle East, One for China and two more for the rest of of Asia and one for Africa (which is currently not a nuclear threat, but you never know).
How much more does America really need?
Comment by ralphieboy - May 18, 2006 @ 7:35 am
Well, then we both do actually agree that Iran/North Korea would have gone for the big bomb even if Irak never happened.
About these two Submarines: Basically you are right, but what if there would be somebody out there who would think “two submarines, hah, it will be easy to wipe them out quickly and then bomb the shit out of the rest”? Or he would simply calculate: ” hm, one of these days one of them will be in repair and from the other one at least 5% will fail (cause this is an usual number) and about the rest I don’t care cause I will be anyway in my nice comfortable bunker”?
I do believe that the only thing that spared us an all out war with the Soviet Union was the knowledge of both sides that it would have been nothing left for the “winner”.
Comment by garydausz - May 22, 2006 @ 8:02 am
@GD,
well, of course one would have a backup sub or two in place…I think the operative term during the cold war was Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD.
Comment by ralphieboy - May 22, 2006 @ 8:33 am
@rb
See, thats where we go get into trouble, we need backups. But how many?
I do agree with you that the amount of nukes that existed and exist on both sides are ridiculous but thats the way it is with two sides in a standoff. Both sides are afraid of lacking behind the other one and thereby giving the other one the idea of a likely success in case of attack, so both sides overreact on any information of buildup on the other side.
But all this does not change the fact that it probably spared us all a very ugly WWIII. What I am trying to say is that we did not live in lets-shake-hands-and-be-friends-world and that we still don’t do that. There are still too many guys out there who would not throw away their arms if you do and it will be like that probably for a long long time. So the best way to keep others from attacking me is still deterance.
Comment by garydausz - May 24, 2006 @ 12:07 am
It is a shame that both the USA and Russia missed a great opportunity at the end of the Cold War to reduce the number of nukes. Neither side was willing to give up anything.
Right now, we can only hope that the number of weapons we have has been determined by some really smart, well educated fellows with no personal or political agenda…
Comment by ralphieboy - May 24, 2006 @ 5:39 am