Second Worst President in US History.

[ravingdave]

Heh! Apparently the *Iranians* also blame Jimmy Carter for screwing up their country. This picture comes from the protests in Iran.





David

[MSimon]

Heh! Apparently the *Iranians* also blame Jimmy Carter for screwing up their country. This picture comes from the protests in Iran.





David

Do you have a link for the origin or should I just check with the notorious Pam Geller?

[MSimon]

The notorious Ms. Geller has it:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... -iran.html

I just knew it. Did you see her vlog where she was swimming in the ocean? The flotation devices were most excellent!

[jmc]

1)Obviously this didn't happen, but with the MAD policy it very nearly did.

2)With the Curtis LeMay policy of 1949, it would NEVER happen.

3)Like I said, MAD wouldn't work on Hitler OR I'madinnerjacket.

1)Agreed.

2)Wasn't that basically a policy of Mass Murder and genocide? i.e. "We have the bomb the Soviets don't yet but will soon therefore we should slaughter everyone in the entire country by using nuclear weapons in an unprovoked strike so that they never develop the capacity to use it."

3)It did work will Stalin and he was a psychopath too. But I agree there's nothing to guarantee that MAD will work. I think the real reason MAD worked was to do with the anthropic principle, i.e. if it hadn't worked we wouldn't be posting messages on the internet discussing it.

[ravingdave]

Heh! Apparently the *Iranians* also blame Jimmy Carter for screwing up their country. This picture comes from the protests in Iran.





David

Do you have a link for the origin or should I just check with the notorious Pam Geller?

What ? You don't like Pam ?

javascript:emoticon(':oops:')
Yup, that's where I got it from.

David

[jmc]

TDPerk

The article in your link "What Obama is doing now" was interesting but your choice of title for that link makes no sense.

a) Obama is only continuing what Bush started.

b) The whole article is about how the rest of the world has been hit worse then the U.S. how does this reflect badly on Obama's policies?

[MSimon]

Heh! Apparently the *Iranians* also blame Jimmy Carter for screwing up their country. This picture comes from the protests in Iran.





David

Do you have a link for the origin or should I just check with the notorious Pam Geller?

What ? You don't like Pam ?

javascript:emoticon(':oops:')
Yup, that's where I got it from.

David

See:

viewtopic.php?p=22950#22950

[MSimon]

TDPerk

The article in your link "What Obama is doing now" was interesting but your choice of title for that link makes no sense.

a) Obama is only continuing what Bush started.

b) The whole article is about how the rest of the world has been hit worse then the U.S. how does this reflect badly on Obama's policies?

Uh. Bad policies are bad policies no matter how much worse they work elsewhere.

[ravingdave]

1)Obviously this didn't happen, but with the MAD policy it very nearly did.

2)With the Curtis LeMay policy of 1949, it would NEVER happen.

3)Like I said, MAD wouldn't work on Hitler OR I'madinnerjacket.

1)Agreed.

2)Wasn't that basically a policy of Mass Murder and genocide? i.e. "We have the bomb the Soviets don't yet but will soon therefore we should slaughter everyone in the entire country by using nuclear weapons in an unprovoked strike so that they never develop the capacity to use it."

Genocide ? No. The various peoples who make up the population of the Soviet Union would not be eradicated. Apart from that, we wouldn't have been specifically TRYING to eradicate one particular group of people, just whomever happened to be trying to build and deploy the nukes.

Mass Murder? Yes. No.

Depends on what you mean. I just recently read about this in a book called "The Law of Nations." and it defined the killing of citizens of an enemy state as lawful, and actually the duty of citizens of a state at war with them.

Yeah, that's sophistry, but I try to be clear and accurate in my answers.That's would be the "No." Answer to the mass Murder thing.

The "Yes' answer is "Yes, it would be a mass murder." Bear in mind that Curtis LeMay SOLVED problems with mass murder. That was his number one tool in his tool kit.

Now you can argue that it is a horrible tool and a horrible solution, and that would be true, but to argue that it doesn't work, and that it might not save far more lives in the long run ? That would be a tough argument to make.

In any case, this whole discussion started with the assertion that the Heart always wins over the Brain, and somebody pointed out that the exception was in the case of MAD, at which point *I* (being an incorrigible smart ass) had to point out that "No, the heart won in THAT particular dispute as well. "

I am still right about this, just like i'm always right about everything else as well. ( as I duck for all of the loose objects which are now heading my way. )

3)It did work will Stalin and he was a psychopath too. But I agree there's nothing to guarantee that MAD will work. I think the real reason MAD worked was to do with the anthropic principle, i.e. if it hadn't worked we wouldn't be posting messages on the internet discussing it.

I'll give you a point, but i'll qualify it. During Stalin's entire life, there was never a point at which we were EVER at his mercy. During the entire period of history that HE could have launched a nuclear attack, we were far more able to do far more damage far more faster than any attack he had ever hoped to launch.

As a matter of fact, i've read reports that Stalin was assassinated specifically because his apparatus was frightened he might Launch a nuclear attack on the U.S.

A Lot of people don't really know just how superior we were to the Russians (in nuclear terms) all the way until the Mid Sixties.

I recall reading an account of how some committee initiated a surprise drill of America's Nuke Bomber force back in the fifties, and then wrote a scathing report about it's slow response.
Curtis LeMay later remarked that he wasn't the least bit concerned about it, because he had constant surveillance of every air field in Russia, and if he EVER saw the Russians rolling out their bomber force en mass, he would IMMEDIATELY hit them with his "Sunday Punch" (the punch that would knock them into next Sunday, i.e. The summed total of America's entire nuclear arsenal) and they would never even get the bombers into the air.

Remember during the Eisenhower years how the Russians complained about Constant surveillance by American aircraft, and how Eisenhower hadn't the faintest idea what they were talking about ? Well that was true. Curtis LeMay WAS constantly overflying and radar mapping russia to prepare for a total nuclear strike. American Bomber squadrons TRAINED on Russian cities. Of course he swore everyone to secrecy with the direst of consequences if any of the Air Crews should talk of this.

Remember, this is the guy who probably killed more people in the war than anyone but Hitler and Stalin!


David

[ravingdave]

2)Wasn't that basically a policy of Mass Murder and genocide? i.e. "We have the bomb the Soviets don't yet but will soon therefore we should slaughter everyone in the entire country by using nuclear weapons in an unprovoked strike so that they never develop the capacity to use it."

I got one more I just HAD to share.

During World War II, this Royal Air force General who was in charge of planning the bombing campaign against the Germans was speeding through a small English town in the middle of the night only to be stopped by a Police Officer, who upon recognizing the man was a General merely told him to slow down before he "Killed someone." To which the General replied, "Young man, I kill thousands of people every night ! "


Gallows humor, don't you just love it ?


David

[chrismb]

Like I said, MAD wouldn't work on Hitler OR I'madinnerjacket.

And there I was thinking he was called "Armoured Dinner-jacket"

[jmc]

1)Genocide ? No. The various peoples who make up the population of the Soviet Union would not be eradicated. Apart from that, we wouldn't have been specifically TRYING to eradicate one particular group of people, just whomever happened to be trying to build and deploy the nukes.

Mass Murder? Yes. No.

2) Depends on what you mean. I just recently read about this in a book called "The Law of Nations." and it defined the killing of citizens of an enemy state as lawful, and actually the duty of citizens of a state at war with them.

Yeah, that's sophistry, but I try to be clear and accurate in my answers.That's would be the "No." Answer to the mass Murder thing.

3) The "Yes' answer is "Yes, it would be a mass murder." Bear in mind that Curtis LeMay SOLVED problems with mass murder. That was his number one tool in his tool kit.

Now you can argue that it is a horrible tool and a horrible solution, and that would be true, but to argue that it doesn't work, and that it might not save far more lives in the long run ? That would be a tough argument to make.

In any case, this whole discussion started with the assertion that the Heart always wins over the Brain, and somebody pointed out that the exception was in the case of MAD, at which point *I* (being an incorrigible smart ass) had to point out that "No, the heart won in THAT particular dispute as well. "

I am still right about this, just like i'm always right about everything else as well. ( as I duck for all of the loose objects which are now heading my way. )





4) I'll give you a point, but i'll qualify it. During Stalin's entire life, there was never a point at which we were EVER at his mercy. During the entire period of history that HE could have launched a nuclear attack, we were far more able to do far more damage far more faster than any attack he had ever hoped to launch.

As a matter of fact, i've read reports that Stalin was assassinated specifically because his apparatus was frightened he might Launch a nuclear attack on the U.S.

A Lot of people don't really know just how superior we were to the Russians (in nuclear terms) all the way until the Mid Sixties.

5)I recall reading an account of how some committee initiated a surprise drill of America's Nuke Bomber force back in the fifties, and then wrote a scathing report about it's slow response.
Curtis LeMay later remarked that he wasn't the least bit concerned about it, because he had constant surveillance of every air field in Russia, and if he EVER saw the Russians rolling out their bomber force en mass, he would IMMEDIATELY hit them with his "Sunday Punch" (the punch that would knock them into next Sunday, i.e. The summed total of America's entire nuclear arsenal) and they would never even get the bombers into the air.

Remember during the Eisenhower years how the Russians complained about Constant surveillance by American aircraft, and how Eisenhower hadn't the faintest idea what they were talking about ? Well that was true. Curtis LeMay WAS constantly overflying and radar mapping russia to prepare for a total nuclear strike. American Bomber squadrons TRAINED on Russian cities. Of course he swore everyone to secrecy with the direst of consequences if any of the Air Crews should talk of this.

Remember, this is the guy who probably killed more people in the war than anyone but Hitler and Stalin!


David

This post is so disturbing on so many levels:

1) With the exception of the jewish Holocaust which resulted from the murderous ideology of a madman. That's generally how genocide starts. You begin with a well-defined enemy which you see as a threat, you take a disproportionate sweeping response to slaughter them. You piss off and enrage all their families and friends, so you kill them too, but that enrages there friends, so you kill them, but some of them have relatives who have immigrated into your country, who are so outraged they engage in subversive activities, so you kill or imprison them but even citizens born in your country who are ethnically descended from the nation you have slaughtered are shocked and outraged, so you kill or imprison them aswell. Before you know it your erradicating an entire race.

2) Then you have to define war. Is war something you can just declare at the drop of a hat? If I'm feeling a bit low on cash, maybe I can just declare war on some rich old lady who lives alone, in which case killing her, a stealing all her stuff is actually my duty and I should be praised for it.

Russia wasn't actually attacking the U.S. at the time, they were even allies against Hitler under a decade ago (albeit cynical allies). You can't just slaghter an entire nation because they might attack you in the future, that's the surest recipe for continuous unending war.

3)Yes I believe LeMay types were the inspiration for that "Purity of Essense" general character in Dr. Strangelove.

If America had gone down the road of securing their position as the ONLY nuclear power in the world, showing uncompromising ruthlessness in erradicating all those who attempted to develop rival nuclear programmes they would have become the most evil nation in history... all powerful and all corrupt.

The heart is what you need to maintain a democracy. The stomachs of the christian majority would never have been at ease with routinely committing genocide on any country that developed a rival nuclear programme. The only way to ensure such policies prevailed would be to overthrow democracy and replace it with a dictatorship. And remember, having America as the world's only nuclear power nuking everyone else who tried to develop them would require a policy of supreme hypocracy, you couldn't nuke someone on the basis that "devolping nuclear weapons is wrong" because you'd just developed them, so how would you justify it? Maybe by saying "it is wrong for inferior nations to develop nuclear capabilities but O.K. for us because we're superior" you would certainly get no shortage of support from the Nazi rocket scientists develop delivery mechanisms for Americas nuclear wartheads.

Remember in the 1950's there was still aparteid, I wonder how Martin Luther King would have fared against such a backdrop?

I see NO reason WHATSOEVER to believe that unprovokedly initiating World War III against Russia would have saved any lives in the long run. American ground troops aren't so hot as Vietnam showed, and if Americas ground troops couldn't occupy Vietnam or Korea they sure as hell wouldn't have succeeded in occupying Russia, America would only have been able to have attained victory through a war of unrestrained nuclear attrition. Stalin was inherently paranoid and obsessed with security so he would have probably got away from the first strike unscathed. You probably would only have managed to take out Stalin after half of Russia was reduced to a radioactive wasteland.

And how would Europe have responded? I think the cosy alliance with the European countries and the US was largely for protection against the greater threat of Russia during the cold war. Remember that Britain had waged two wars against the US in the 18th and 19th century, (although Churchill's mother was America which undoubtedly would have aided Anglo-American relations) nonetheless with Russia as a non-threatening radio active wasteland and a psychotic American Nuclear superpower across the Altantic I see every reason why after recovering from the war, Europe would make every effort to churn out nuclear weapons like automobiles to deter an American strike. How would america have responded to that?

I was speaking to a guy working at AWE in a conference. He mentioned an American plan to place nuclear landmines encased in Thorium(or was it Strontium?) all around the borders of China, then blow them up and fatally irradiate the entire country wiping everyone out.

Pure evil. Thank God the generals never got their way.

I also heard from the AWE guy that an aweful lot of nuclear technology for the Russian programme actual came from spies in America. He also said that many of the spies that gave the Russians nuclear technology weren't even communists but were just so afraid that if the U.S. remained the sole global nuclear power much longer it would only be a matter of time before they'd launch an all-out unprovoked assault on Russia.


4) I was already aware of that (although I didn't know about the reports on Stalin's assasination). As I said MAD isn't foolproof. I hope that someday it can be replaced by an international organisation with no affiliations to any one country in possession of most of the world's nuclear arsenal to deter a few crackpot dictators that would still possess them.

5) I haven't read up all the details about Curtis LeMay or Americas nuclear strike plans ... but it wouldn't surprise me. Curtis LeMay was one of history's less well known psychopaths. I dread to think what he would have done if he had ever become the military dictator of a country.

[MSimon]

Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) was the POE (Purity of Essence) guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove

Of course my favorite was Slim Pickens riding the bomb to Armageddon.

[MSimon]

American ground troops aren't so hot as Vietnam showed,

Vietnam showed no such thing. The North was defeated and forced to sign a peace treaty.

Then when they decided to attack the South in violation of that treaty the Democrat Congress abandoned its ally.

What the war showed was that America can't be trusted when the Congress is in the hands of the Democrats. Say. Don't the Democrats control Congress now? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[ravingdave]

This post is so disturbing on so many levels:

1) With the exception of the jewish Holocaust which resulted from the murderous ideology of a madman. That's generally how genocide starts. You begin with a well-defined enemy which you see as a threat, you take a disproportionate sweeping response to slaughter them. You piss off and enrage all their families and friends, so you kill them too, but that enrages there friends, so you kill them, but some of them have relatives who have immigrated into your country, who are so outraged they engage in subversive activities, so you kill or imprison them but even citizens born in your country who are ethnically descended from the nation you have slaughtered are shocked and outraged, so you kill or imprison them aswell. Before you know it your erradicating an entire race.

Well that's ONE theory. Another possibility is that everyone who survived is so cowed of your ruthlessness that they never bother you again. There has been plenty of historical precedent for this scenario as well.

2) Then you have to define war. Is war something you can just declare at the drop of a hat? If I'm feeling a bit low on cash, maybe I can just declare war on some rich old lady who lives alone, in which case killing her, a stealing all her stuff is actually my duty and I should be praised for it.

Russia wasn't actually attacking the U.S. at the time, they were even allies against Hitler under a decade ago (albeit cynical allies). You can't just slaghter an entire nation because they might attack you in the future, that's the surest recipe for continuous unending war.

"continuous unending war." Has War stopped ? Since when ?

Seriously, if we are two cavemen, and I see you suddenly making a sword, ( a weapon which isn't useful against animals that we hunt and eat.) do I regard this as an attack ?

You might have not hurt me yet, but only a fool would wait for you to demonstrate clearer intentions.

3)Yes I believe LeMay types were the inspiration for that "Purity of Essense" general character in Dr. Strangelove.

As admitted by Stanley Kubrick.

If America had gone down the road of securing their position as the ONLY nuclear power in the world, showing uncompromising ruthlessness in erradicating all those who attempted to develop rival nuclear programmes they would have become the most evil nation in history... all powerful and all corrupt.

Depends on how you define evil. Most body count ? Naw, that would be Joseph Stalin, who, by the way, could likewise be blamed for starting the program that got his country incinerated. I guess those bodies could also go in the "Joseph Stalin" category.

The heart is what you need to maintain a democracy. The stomachs of the christian majority would never have been at ease with routinely committing genocide on any country that developed a rival nuclear programme. The only way to ensure such policies prevailed would be to overthrow democracy and replace it with a dictatorship. And remember, having America as the world's only nuclear power nuking everyone else who tried to develop them would require a policy of supreme hypocracy, you couldn't nuke someone on the basis that "devolping nuclear weapons is wrong" because you'd just developed them, so how would you justify it? Maybe by saying "it is wrong for inferior nations to develop nuclear capabilities but O.K. for us because we're superior" you would certainly get no shortage of support from the Nazi rocket scientists develop delivery mechanisms for Americas nuclear wartheads.

Remember in the 1950's there was still aparteid, I wonder how Martin Luther King would have fared against such a backdrop?

I see NO reason WHATSOEVER to believe that unprovokedly initiating World War III against Russia would have saved any lives in the long run. American ground troops aren't so hot as Vietnam showed, and if Americas ground troops couldn't occupy Vietnam or Korea they sure as hell wouldn't have succeeded in occupying Russia, America would only have been able to have attained victory through a war of unrestrained nuclear attrition. Stalin was inherently paranoid and obsessed with security so he would have probably got away from the first strike unscathed. You probably would only have managed to take out Stalin after half of Russia was reduced to a radioactive wasteland.

And how would Europe have responded? I think the cosy alliance with the European countries and the US was largely for protection against the greater threat of Russia during the cold war. Remember that Britain had waged two wars against the US in the 18th and 19th century, (although Churchill's mother was America which undoubtedly would have aided Anglo-American relations) nonetheless with Russia as a non-threatening radio active wasteland and a psychotic American Nuclear superpower across the Altantic I see every reason why after recovering from the war, Europe would make every effort to churn out nuclear weapons like automobiles to deter an American strike. How would america have responded to that?

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us what you REALLY think ?

Seriously, nobody likes the idea of killing millions, but it is a reasonable thing to do if it appears they are going to kill you if you let them.

I was speaking to a guy working at AWE in a conference. He mentioned an American plan to place nuclear landmines encased in Thorium(or was it Strontium?) all around the borders of China, then blow them up and fatally irradiate the entire country wiping everyone out.

Pure evil. Thank God the generals never got their way.

I'm thinking that you are young and idealistic. Hopefully you will grow out of it with sufficient contact with the Human race and it's history.

I also heard from the AWE guy that an aweful lot of nuclear technology for the Russian programme actual came from spies in America. He also said that many of the spies that gave the Russians nuclear technology weren't even communists but were just so afraid that if the U.S. remained the sole global nuclear power much longer it would only be a matter of time before they'd launch an all-out unprovoked assault on Russia.

I've read the definitive work on this issue, and yes, they were communists. (The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Randi Rhodes)
Klaus Fuchs should have been boiled in oil an inch at a time.

4) I was already aware of that (although I didn't know about the reports on Stalin's assasination). As I said MAD isn't foolproof. I hope that someday it can be replaced by an international organisation with no affiliations to any one country in possession of most of the world's nuclear arsenal to deter a few crackpot dictators that would still possess them.

Seriously ? Have you ever seen the U.N. do ANYTHING competently ?
You put too much faith in the common sense of idiots. The Americans of the World War II generation were good people with common sense. Nowadays I myself am afraid of the far more ignorant and far less inherently good Americans which now control our nuclear arsenal. (starting with the idiot in chief.)

5) I haven't read up all the details about Curtis LeMay or Americas nuclear strike plans ... but it wouldn't surprise me. Curtis LeMay was one of history's less well known psychopaths. I dread to think what he would have done if he had ever become the military dictator of a country.

The fact of the matter is that from 1950 on to about 1964, Curtis LeMay by himself had the power to launch a total nuclear war against the soviets any time he chose to do so. The Fact that he did not, in spite of his serious desire (and advice to several Presidents) to do so, did not in fact start a nuclear war. It is a testament to his obedience to duty that he did what he was ordered instead of what he ABSOLUTELY believed to be the right thing to do.

David