from..http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/27537

raq, Ramzaj and a Neutron Bomb
By: TerraHertz on: 20.10.2004 [14:49 ] (14489 reads)
Article image
Picture: burned out Abrahms at Baghdad airport

The battle of Baghdad Airport marked the end of the Ramzaj reports, while the US media's war and US casualty reporting disconnected completely from reality.
(17273 bytes) [nc] Print
Temporary offline
74 comments

Only comments

Article and comments
Comments per page


Unlikely story, thanks for the links
by Watcher Guest on 20.10.2004 [15:27 ]
I seriously doubt that the USAns could have used a neutron bomb at the airport and still be using said airport continuously since that time without radiation protection. Neutron bombs kill by irradiation, not explosive force. The idea is you go back a few YEARS or DECADES later and take the building/city/whatever.


Why the US has to be deafeated by the world
by Pavel Guest on 20.10.2004 [15:36 ]
America's use of Neutron bombs and DU nuclear weapons on the Iraqi people and civilization are massive crimes against humanity. Every person on this planet must be engaged in defeating America and the monsters perpetrating these pre-emptive wars for oil, resources and the shitty little country of Israel. Start by rejecting US dollars and boycotting all things American - movies, food chains, etc. etc.


re:Pavel
by mocking_bird Guest on 20.10.2004 [16:01 ]
All things entails boycotting computers and internet bragging I presume.


Watcher
by Syrian Guest on 20.10.2004 [16:21 ]
"I seriously doubt that the USAns could have used a neutron bomb at the airport and still be using said airport continuously since that time without radiation protection."
The airport was a no-go area for several months. So that torpedo's that point you raised. They immediatly said "oh we're using the airport now", but that was before they even really took it.

"Neutron bombs kill by irradiation, not explosive force. The idea is you go back a few YEARS or DECADES later and take the building/city/whatever."
As a scientist, I find that laughable. Neutron bombs, as the name implies, are optimised for maximum neutron flux. It doesn't spray waste everywhere, it's quite a sofisticated and inhuman weapon.

It will leave cement and other construction material and battle field material alone, while incenerating living flesh.

TerraHertz, thank you for standing up for the truth. This will come out in the end, mark my word. I will dedicate years to get this bit of truth which I witnessed unfold out.


mocking_bird
by Syrian Guest on 20.10.2004 [16:26 ]
Computers - made first by a german.
Internet - developed internationally, notably by France, and the dutch computer scientist dijkstra.

Nice try. The fact is the USA likes to take credit for everything even though it didn't invent it.


Substance verus present reality
by Anon Guest on 20.10.2004 [17:07 ]
Something did happen - That is not disputed. The nature of the weapon used etc is not the primary issue as the total silence

Consider German Media or French or Indian Media or for that matter consider the governments, They are not fools.

The absolute silence is deafing - (The disconnect post April 8th 2003.
Why does the German or the french or the spanish or russian media deal with it withsome coherence instead of bs that passes for Iraqi reporting








This reminds me of something...
by Serbian Guest on 20.10.2004 [17:49 ]
I remember reading a report that said the US removed the top soil from the entire area of the airport and carried it off in trucks. Several of the soldiers who were involved in this process later died. One of the families became suspicious and complained, claiming that their son had been exposed to WMD of some kind during the operation and that was why he died. Also, all that topsoil was dumped near an Iraqi village and soon afterwards many of the Iraqis there started to develop lesions on their skin and their hair fell out.

Does anyone else remember reading a similar report? I don't know if that would be an indication a neutron bomb was used or not, but it certainly seems to indicate that some sort of unconventional weapon was involved.

I also remember reading a report that neutron bombs were used in the first Gulf War to take out deeply buried Iraqi command bunkers right at the start of hostilities. Can't remember where I read that though.


Neutron Bomb in Saddam Airport
by zhen Cheng Guest on 20.10.2004 [18:13 ]
“There is mounting evidence a small nuclear device was used during the battle for the airport. There have been reports of a mass grave at the airport (both US and Iraqi, meaning the US bombed their own soldiers) and for weeks after the invasion, the airport was entirely closed and there were trucks removing topsoil. The place where they dumped the topsoil (near the main prison in the country that is now being used to house 'suspected terrorists' is still heavily guarded (why would they guard a landfill?) and Iraqis who worked at the airport are reporting illnesses, and soldiers there were told not to have physical contact with them and not to share things like water.”

ht tp://bunker.defcode.com/index.php?cat=1&page=1&paged=2



Another piece
by zhen Cheng Guest on 20.10.2004 [18:16 ]
ht tp://66.241.226.47/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=33

this only goes to backup the claims of nuclear weapons being used in the battle for baghdad airport (see url link for details)

"BAGHDAD, July 17 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Several mysterious diseases were reported among a number of American troops within the vicinity of Baghdad airport, a military source closely close to NATO unveiled.

U.S. soldiers deployed around Baghdad airport started showing symptoms of mysterious fever, itching, scars and dark brown spots on the skin, the source, who refused to be named, said in statements published Thursday, July 17, by the Saudi Al-Watan newspaper.
He asserted that three soldiers who suffered these symptoms did not respond to medical treatment in Iraqi hospitals and were flown to Washington for medication.

The military source reported a media blackout by U.S. officials to hide such information from the public.

The Americans claim the symptoms and the mysterious diseases were resulting from exposure to the scourging sun, which the U.S. troops are not used to, he added.

U.S. officials did not come up with an explanation for the symptoms, which NATO experts tend to believe result from direct exposure to powerful nuclear radiations of the sophisticated B-2 bombs used in the war on Iraq, particularly in striking Iraqi Republican Guards forces who deployed to defend the vicinity of Baghdad airport."


If something did happen...
by stopwar Guest on 20.10.2004 [19:11 ]
why has noone spoken out about it? Those who witnessed it and survived would have been so sickened by such a thing that they would have gone to the nearest radio or TV station and told the world... Wouldn't they?

Pity this can't get mainstream exposure in time for the US election...


Iraqwar.ru itself is history
by Dom on 20.10.2004 [19:26 ]
As time goes by I am more convinced that Iraqwar.ru was one of the unique things I ever experienced in life. I have yet to see anything like it. This site comes closest.

A lot of us were on Iraqwar every day from long before the war until the day it conked out. Too bad we can't look it up now and again. But then again, maybe life's too short for looking back. Once again. the living humans outlast their own works.

I don't reckon there's much in this neutron bomb story. As for the Ramsaj reports ceasing, that was not a surprise. They were too good. They were bound to be stopped sooner or later.


Hirosima, Nagasaki, ... Baghdad?
by Guest on 20.10.2004 [20:42 ]
And all in the name of freedom, democracy, bla bla... New York, Washington, LA, Detroit, etc. ? One day it will happen for sure. Pity that too many innocents will die for the sins of a few.


@Syrian
by Watcher Guest on 21.10.2004 [02:35 ]
I may have been wrong about the time frame of the irradiation caused by neutron bombs, but the blast from these things is still considerable causing extensive local building damage and you would not be able to escape irradiating a large area around the airport, where many people live. So I am still somewhat skeptical (even though I wouldn't put it past the bastards to do this).

You say "I will dedicate years to get this bit of truth which I witnessed unfold out."
What did you witness?


Greetings, Dom
by Red Herring Guest on 21.10.2004 [02:40 ]
You are absolutely spot on. There was nothing like iraqar.ru.

That was what free speech looks like. Unmediated by money or power. Lies called for what they were, without any diplomatic euphemisms.

It truly was a unique experience.


Thanks for the link zhen Cheng
by Serbian Guest on 21.10.2004 [04:33 ]
I knew I read about that somewhere.


Not Buying It
by Richard Steven Hack Guest on 21.10.2004 [04:38 ]
- not the neutron bomb bit anyway. Although I did meet a former US Seal in the joint who told me the US had indeed used tactical nukes during the first Gulf War. If it was done in the desert against some Republican Guard bunker, nobody would likely be able to tell it from just a large bunker-buster bomb if there wasn't much aboveground damage. And if they were used on underground bunkers, much of the radiation would have been absorbed by the surrounding earth. As for the Baghdad airport, who knows? Maybe they used chemical or biological weapons - or just a ton of DU weapons - which required removing the topsoil. Or maybe they just removed the topsoil because they thought the whole frigging place was mined and they just bulldozed the whole business. Who knows? We have no credible sources one way or the other.


Watcher
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [04:58 ]
Radiation, yes, Lingering radiation, no. Besides, who cares if a few white trash and ghetto boys get leukemia?

Quote (ht tp://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm):

"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.
I don't know what happened, but yes, a neutron bomb doesn't conflict with the few facts we have. I have no doubt Usans would have resorted to this, USA being the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons, and these were even used against civilians.

"Hasta la victoria, siempre!"


If I was Saddam...
by Serbian Guest on 21.10.2004 [05:25 ]
And I knew that the Americans absolutely had to occupy Saddam Airport, then I would take all the DU that was collected from the first Gulf War, truck it to the airport ahead of the Americans and then blow it all to dust just as the Americans were about to take it over.




remember...
by OutSide Guest on 21.10.2004 [07:56 ]
Condoleezza Rice has been in Moscow for a "Blitz"-Visit on April 7th 2003. She certainly didn't go there for a free lunch... . I wonder what was up beside the incident about Bagdads Ambassador (Wladimir Titorenko) beeing shot by the USA.
However, the neutrons of a tactical neutrom bomb would certainly activate a number of the elements in the surrounding area, but most of the isotopes produced have a reasonable short decay time.


hello
by john Guest on 21.10.2004 [08:53 ]
hi


Activation
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [09:29 ]
{the neutrons of a tactical neutrom bomb would certainly activate a number of the elements in the surrounding area, but most of the isotopes produced have a reasonable short decay time.}

Exaclty! And much of it would have been removed if they did remove the topsoil. And again, what Zionist worthy of the title would care about irradiating a few Goyim cattle slaves, or even nuking them outright?

Again, I don't know what happened, but there is no evidence to contradict the claims of a neutron bomb detonated on the airport.


Activation2
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [09:53 ]
Oh, I forgot, most of the activation that contaminates the nuked area (fallout) comes from soil pushed by the nuclear fireball, and is max when detonation is (1) large and (2) 0-altitude or underground. The lighter elements that make up air and water do not activate as easily as the heavier ones that make up soil, buildings, etc, and form isotopes with short half-lives. A neutron bomb is an airburst that carries little physical punch, hence, while there is a lot of neutrons to cause activation, there is little fallout created and most activated atoms are gaseous (activated air) and thus disperse very fast.


The Airport
by predax Guest on 21.10.2004 [10:52 ]
ht tp://www.geocities.com/onlythecaptain/appendix/appendixD.pdf

quote : "Appendix D: Iraqi Resistance Report IV
Compiled from Different Arab Sources
The Free Arab Voice, April 6, 2003
If anyone still has any doubt that the Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt has been lying about the magnitude of its losses in this war, he or she should take a very hard look at the footage of the wreckage of destroyed Coalition invader tanks and armored vehicles that were left split open like discarded cans of sardines around the area of Saddam’s International Airport.

Such charred up and blown up tanks and armored vehicles in the vicinity of the airport were shown today on all major Arab satellite TV stations.

Given the ferocity of the battle that raged around the airport, and the number of Coalition machinery (sic) left behind, it would take a very stubborn person to insist that the figure of two or three American casualties that Coalition sources reported were incurred in the battle of the airport is the correct one.

In fact, after journalists and reporters from non-Iraqi media were allowed to visit the vicinity of the airport, including a reporter of Al Manar TV of the pro-Iranian Hizbullah, it would take a very stubborn person indeed to insist that American troops are maintaining control of Saddam’s airport as the Western media continues to claim."


re: Syrian
by mocking_bird Guest on 21.10.2004 [11:06 ]
sure I quite agree with your last statement being albeit no expert in priority questions at all. odd thing here is, it calls for real brains to lay hand on proper things. and to implement right people. I spoke about boycotting and certainly no "try" .


Think Of Implications?
by Layth Guest on 21.10.2004 [13:31 ]
That hundrends of US invaders were killed by the Iraqi Republican Guard and Fidayeen at the beginning of the battle for Saddam Airport is not in doubt (corroborated by eyewitness reports, and US media leaks).

That a massacure later occured (using nutron bomb or other WMD's) at the airport killing upto 23,000 Iraqi Republican Guard also is not in doubt.

The question that is not being asked is: "Why would 23,000 Iraqi troops be out in the open at the airport whereby they could be killed in such bombing?"

I believe the logical answer (and the reason Condi was in Russia, and the reason why the Russians closed down all intellegence reporting therefater) is that the US murdered its own troops along with the Iraqi Republican forces.

For 23,000 Iraqi fighters to be out in the open means they were engaged in fighting with US troops and the possibility of an airstrike would have been impossible (to their minds)...Someone in the satanic White House took a decision to possibly sacrifice 2,000-3,000 US troops in order to get Iraqi troops out in the open and eliminate once and for all the fighting threat posed by the Republican Guard.

The US does not shy away from flaunting that it killed Iraqi forces en masses...But this is the only logical explanation why they burried this battle and why the media were targeted and killed on the approach to Baghdad.


mocking_bird
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [13:38 ]
{albeit no expert in priority questions at all.}

A common trait of Usans. Otherwise, how could they claim to have invented so many thind they, by priority, did not invent at all?

{All things entails boycotting computers and internet bragging I presume.}

Oh no, we are taking them over. Last time I opened a computer, the only things that had no "MADE IN CHINA" on them had "MADE IN KOREA". That goes for hardware. As for software, just three words for you: Frente Pingüinista de Liberación.


Layth
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [13:49 ]
I'm not sure I agree with you, the Usandals killing their own pirates. No, not that I think they are not capable of that, they very well are, and have done that before. No, I just think there is a simpler explanation: if they did indeed use a nuke or other WMD against Iraqi troops, admitting the fact would not only an admission of the USA being a monster rogue nation (we all know that already) but and admission of weakness. Can you imagine, now, the implications, of the Most Powerful Army on Earth(TM) having to resort to nukes when confronted by such an enemy as Iraq, small, weakened by a war and years of criminal blockade? That the Mighty Uncle Sam had to nuke Iraq???

That's reason enough. That's probably the correct explanation, too. The implications are even larger than murdering their own mercenaries, don't you think? Ask the Cubans and Mexicans, for example. Or Iranians.

"Hasta la victoria, siempre!"


To Don Gaucho
by Layth Guest on 21.10.2004 [14:05 ]
The US uses napalm, cluster bombs, DU and all other varients on a regular basis in Iraq...That there would be a 'moral problem' with them using a nutron bomb is not on the table of US thought.

Also, the quesiton is not what weapon they used, but "WHY" 23,000 Iraqi Republican Guard would be out in the open and exposed to an aerial attack wherupon they were all murdered.


Layth
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 21.10.2004 [14:14 ]
{The US uses napalm, cluster bombs, DU and all other varients on a regular basis in Iraq...That there would be a 'moral problem' with them using a nutron bomb is not on the table of US thought. }

Do you miss my point? No moral issue, the issue is about USA ability of bullying other countries. Yes, the question is very much the weapon they used. If USA cross the nuclear 'Line' against such a foe as Iraq, the world would laugh at their threats from them on.



Even now...
by stopwar Guest on 21.10.2004 [17:13 ]
the US military are joking about annihilating the insurgents around Fallujah (which they call the foreign fighters that killed Ken Bigley). The latter mantra is repeated by Blair, Hoon, and some of the British military.


Don Gaucho americanus are you sure you are not my brother?
by Syrian Guest on 21.10.2004 [19:58 ]
That's exactly it. If you remember, the military doctorine of the USA is to use WMD when battle field reports are "suprising". What could suprise them more than losing land that they said they had before even attempting to capture it? How embarrasing would that be? The USA has only one thing: it's image. It's army is actually pretty much pathetic, they are only able to take on countries which have either been weakened by war, or are only armed with rifles.

RSH and others would poo-ho this valid argument, but their lack of knowledge on these kind of weapons force them to make the incorrect conculsion. The neutron bombs have very little heat compared to a fission bomb of a similiar yield.

But the evidence is mounting and it'll eventually be exposed.


cont.
by Syrian Guest on 21.10.2004 [19:58 ]

* Mike uk has a video of the airport battle, which should indicate how bad it went for the USAns. I have seen live feeds of this, with Iraqis laughing as the put their arms around captured USAn paratroopers.
* There have been press statements by the resistance, which stated the number of deaths at the airport battle at around 10s of thousands.
* There was an unexplained shortage of power and phonelines in baghdad. This is obvious, when you figure it all out. Three words: Electro Magnetic Pulse.
* Very early reports indicated that the USA had used a "MOAB". In truth no such weapon exists. The concept of it, in conjunction with the ridicolus "e-Bomb", was a smoke and mirror tactic to have an excuss if a WMD was used. They probably felt that it was far too obvious are the airport battle to use this tactic, and all mention of the "MOAB" was ceased.
* The USA would NEVER shy from using such weapons, they are the only country which has used it before against another country.
* The USA does not give a damn about the "morals" that the world sees it with. As Don Gaucho said, it's all about military image.
* The airport area was out of bounds for several months, probably while the evidence of the battle and the final usage of the neutron bomb was clear.


I rarely make statements which I cannot back up. This is definetly not one of those things which I cannot back up.


There was an unexplained shortage of power and phonelines in baghdad.
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [00:20 ]
Chyort vozmi!!! Puta madre!!! I never made the connection!


There was an unexplained shortage of power and phonelines in baghdad. (2)
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [00:29 ]
(I sent previous message prematurely)

Chyort vozmi and puta madre!!! I never made the connection! Yes, that does fit the facts!!! Oh golly. An EMP from a nuke blast would have had exactly that effect. Oh shit.

Again, I'm not convinced of the detonation of a NB over Bagdhad airport. We have no evidence of it, nada, only mounting circumstantial evidence. But we have no falsifying evidence either, none whatsoever. Oh, my the significance of this wild card, if true!!! Can you see it? Can you, people, truly? THINK about this, very very very carefully, follow those twisting and elusive chains of connection to the deepest and farthest reaches they lead to...

In 5 letters: PUSAW.







PUSAW?
by Layth Guest on 22.10.2004 [01:18 ]
Don, I did not understand your conclusion. Assume the US did use a nutron or small nuke...What implications would there be as they are expected by all major powers to use anything in their arsenal to win.

As Syrian pointed out, better for their image to use a nuke than to lose the airport to a bunch of ill equiped and malnutritioned Iraqis.


Layth
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [01:38 ]
BTW: "Don" is not short for Donald, it's a title, aking to old English mister/master.

You are not doing your homework, Layth! :) Think more carefully. Do follow those threads. It's better for all of us if you can do this yourself; you probably can add or correct, or even refute the whole argument.

As for the points of the threads: where does USA prosperity and power come from? Why is the US dollar so important? What changes would bring forth, in the "hearts & minds" of the people of different countries, if the USA had to resort to using nukes against a non-nuclear, weak adversary and it became known? What would follow these changes, how would the USA and others be affected? Would the changes be self-suppressing (negative feedback) or self-amplifying (positive feedback)? If self-amplifying, is the system convergent or divergent? In either case: can you characterize the one or more likely outcome types (scenarios)? I suggest you make a graph--computer science can help with something called "flow diagrams". Chart the possible ways the world could go, and assign likelihoods to each branch at each fork, and add them at at each terminal node (possible typical outcome).

Can you identify historical parallels? How accurate are those parallels? If they are any good, what does the past tell you about the future?


Think my friend, do as Usans don't. Take your time, because a real analysis of such a magnitude will take time. Let me know what your conclusions are.


USA unzipped its fly in Iraq
by Xuma Cien Guest on 22.10.2004 [02:39 ]
A military superpower maintains its superpower status, in part, by bluffing. America appears like a superpower to many people in the world. But America "unzipped its fly" in Iraq and exposed to the world that it is not the super power that the world thought it was. It's a huge national security blunder for America. Enemies of America will take advantage of this.


Maybe its nothing, but...
by TerraHertz Guest on 22.10.2004 [03:09 ]
Another significant thing here, is that on this site's front page my article about why the Ramzaj reports ceased appears immediately after three articles posted by the Ramzaj group, comprising a complete repost of all the original Ramzaj Iraq War reports.

When I submitted my article, I mentioned to the site editor that I was hoping my article would appear in that position, and for some response from Ramzaj. After a delay of nearly two days the article was posted untouched. (Complete with typos, sigh.)

I consider it possible that Ramzaj was consulted, and that my article being then posted may be considered an indirect (yet denyable) verification of its central theme - that the Ramzaj reports ceased due to the use of a nuclear weapon by US forces in Iraq. And the difficult diplomatic position in which Ramzaj then found themselves.

It would probably be rude of me to directly ask the editor if this was so. The same situation continues today - no source with even faint traces of Russian official sanction can be seen to formally verify the neutron bomb story.
So, despite Ramzaj being very much still active, I don't expect any comment from them. Sure wish they would though. Absolute confirmation just before the coming election, that the Bush administration commanded the use of a nuke (possibly sacrificing large numbers of their own troops) ... yes!


Note that there are 3 pages in the story; pages 2 and 3 are just lists of Iraq war news links.
Thanks to whoever at iraq-war.ru troubled to activate all the plain text URLs.

I should have realised a lot of people would not actually know what a neutron bomb is, and its immediate and long term effects. Hence the assorted misconceptions in some reader comments. An explanation is called for I guess.
Before I go to the trouble of researching and writing that, does anyone have a link to something definative that would save me the trouble?



To Don Gaucho
by TerraHertz Guest on 22.10.2004 [03:46 ]
Dammed tease!

OK, I've worn out my thinker for today. Yes, I can see a number of critical consequences of this (NBing opponents at the drop of a hat.)
However, I'm not very confident of my geopolitical forecasting abilities, when I have access to maybe 0.000001% of relevent data.

Besides, in general I expect the post-peak-oil (futile) struggles to grasp the last energy reserves will involve use of all available weapons, since TPTB are ignorant vandals beneath their rich robes. So I don't see that one neutron bomb makes any difference in the _long_ term.

How about you post your thoughts?

Oh, and what mean PUSAW? Google is no help, except to find you used the term elsewhere recently.


TerraHertz
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [04:23 ]
PUSAW? I think it's Ted's, from my Post-USA World.

Peak oil? I'm not sure of that. Geochemical origin of petroleum makes a convincing case. If this is true, reserves are staggering. But they might be hard to get at, and perhaps the USA lacks the necesary tech?




PUSAW1
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [04:26 ]
OK, just a few things as they pop off my troubled mind :)

Conduct an informal poll of people you consider representative. BTW: Are you in the USA of in the Free World? Ask people how they think they'd react to the revelation that the USA resorted to nuclear weapons when fighting such a foe as Iraq?



PUSAW2
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [04:30 ]
I think this scenario is very likely. Check my assumptions and logic.

The USA is now an unrepenting, unforgiven, rabid Rogue State who will use nukes at a whim against anyone, while at the same it is revealed as a weak fighting force, a far cry from the purported Mightiest War Machine on Earth(TM) propaganda. Roll this on your mind, bounce it around a little.


PUSAW3
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [04:41 ]
What do you think other countries will do with such an unrestrained nuclear bully, such a clear and present danger against everyone on this planet? Rember the paradox of this rogue, this bully, revealed as a wimp when someone, no matter how weak, actually stands the ground and fight. How likely do you think a worldwide embargo is, to try and weaken this monster by starvation? How likely one or more alliances against this common, unappeasable, all-threatening criminal? Do you think a true preemtive strike is unlikely? Is it unconceivable that sucha a defensive preemtive strike will not resort to WMD, given that the Pandora box is now open?

Maybe other posters can state what they would do; Gaucho, under those conditions, will store his good will in a freezer, and grab nuclear boleadoras and a poisoned gutting facón. Enough is enough, it ends here, if they mean to nuke everyone, let it begin now.


PUSAW4
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [04:48 ]
What of the US dolor??? Enough said on that.


Other. Can you say global citizens boycott against anything Usan? Not just goods, but culture, attitudes, even English language. How much do you think the Usan influence on the "hearts & minds" of the world will be decreased? Will this affect USA's geopolitical and economic standing, how and how much?

Other. Inteligentsia in the USA, both Usan and foreign resident (and remember how utterly dependent USA is on foreign brains!), will not just pack and GO!? Usans themselves not merely out of outrage and shame, but of well-based fear of reprisals? How will this, only this one thing, the braindrain, affect the USA?


PUSAW5
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [04:54 ]
Most countries that are servile to the USA, are so only because of a ruling elitte only remains in power because of the USA backing them. Think of the dictatorships all over America, and the opposition to Chávez. How long, after US suppport is no longer there, until these traitors are hanged with their own instestines? What kind of people and ideologies are likely to replace them? Will they be pro-Usan? Neutral? Fiercely anti-Usan? How likely that Usan bases, business, and other concerns, are razed to the ground. Example: how long will Guantánamo Base in Occupied Cuba last? I'd probably fight myself in that one!

How long will IsraHell last? Years? Months? Days? Hours? Minutes?




PUSAW6
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [05:05 ]
How likely do you think it is that some states of the Usan union will try to shake the leprosy by secesion? Alaska, Hawaii, California, Puerto Rico, just for starters. How likely, given this and other new prevailing conditions in the USA (economic collapse, lost of inteligentsia, citizen outrage at Washington, foreing threats and even attacks), that this will lead to the Second Usan Civil War? Will other countries act as mediators and peacekeepers, or will they encourage such a war? Even seize the chance to attack the USA (a clear and present rabid unapeasable nuclear danger, please remember)? How much do you think that what emerges out of this war will resemble present-day superpower USA?

What will happen to everything advanced in the USA, the country under boycott and even blockade, with little or no oil, no electronics imports, no money from exports, and with the inteligentia lost? How much do you think will this decrease geopolitical weight of the USA? It's military might? Will this not increase both the likelihood and severity of a potential civil war?


PUSAW final
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [05:17 ]
Well, there is more, much much more. You can think of it yourself, and others here could also post their predictions.

But one think I believe is clear and key: we do not need to know all of it, or even be right on everything, because I think the system change under these assumptions would clearly be self-amplyfying and convergent. If you do not get the idea, think of Joshua playin Global Thermonuclear War in that movie War Games: No matter how you start and what moves are made, it ends the same way.

In this case, I think there would be a convergent result of the self-amplifying change, and this I name "PUSAW".




PUSAW appendix
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.10.2004 [05:28 ]
Then again, maybe I got it all wrong!!!

So take it all cum grano salis. I have no divine revelation to share, not access to secret intelligence, am not even Ramzaj! I do have (I think) a mind (INTP/INTJ) well suited to this kind of excersise, and I *have* been right in the past when many 'proffessional' 'opinadores' had been utterly wrong.

And again, I point out I am not yet convinced a nuke was used at Badhad airport!


The consequences (part 1)
by TerraHertz Guest on 22.10.2004 [06:29 ]
Thanks, Don Gaucho. I do agree that the USA is certain to go down in flames, and shattering of the 'superpower' illusion will accellerate the process. Also, that the process has a high degree of positive feedback.

Where I differ, I think, is on whether this collapse will be confined to the USA, or global. You see only the USA in ruins, I expect the entire world to fall back to primitive conditions (and worse.)

Here's a reference: 'The Collapse of Complex Societies', Joseph A. Tainter. Try abebooks.com, www.biblioquest.com.au etc for copies.
Its a historical analysis of why social collapses are extremely self-amplifying, and hence tend to occur very suddenly. And hence unexpectedly by the majority of a society, of course.

There are many works also on the inability of any known alternative energy source to substitute for oil, on the basis of EPR (energy profit ratio) arguments. I can post a list if you like.
Even nuclear (fission) has EPR problems, over the total reactor life cycle. Fusion... a wildcard, best described as 'not yet/too late'.

As for geochemical oil, there are several questions, even apart from 'does it exist' (I've been slack, not yet researched much.) Such as what is the EPR (energy profit ratio) for oil obtained from very, very deep wells? If its poor, such as below 20, then even if quantities are huge, running an energy-hungry industrial society on it is problematical.
As well, even if most current shallow fields _are_ being replenished from below, what is the global replenishment _rate_, compared to our present rate of oil consumption?




The consequences (part 2)
by TerraHertz Guest on 22.10.2004 [06:30 ]
The replenishment rate is obviously much lower than current usage. But what size industrial society could survive long-term on only the oil replenishment supply? A rather small society, I suspect.

That would be OK (rather pleasant world to live in too, I think.) But how do we get _there_ from _here_? Reducing the current size of global industry, without triggering armed conflicts, mass starvation and/or a snowballing destructive descent into barbarism, seems impossible, unless...

I suspect that the elites have thought this through long ago, and have a variety of depopulation strategies up their sleeves. Some of these are clearly in play (thimerosol, aspartame, canola, flouridation, ubiquitous carcinogens, etc), other more drastic measures are 'primed to deploy' (chemtrails, bioweapons, PVR & seedbank destruction, etc.)

Personally, I think attempts to avoid a chaotic collapse are optimistic at best. Many expect the fall to occur very soon (dieoff.org, the_dieoff_QA@yahoogroups.com, etc)

One question that intrigues me - assuming a coming age of barbarism and near-total loss of technological knowledge, what happens to all the long half-life radioactives we have created? Over several thousand years of weathering and scavenging by low-tech people, ultimately most of it will become distributed throughout the biosphere.
How much of it is there, really? What background radiation level would be expected after say, 100,000 years? Enough to completely sterilise the planet?

I fear it may be so.



Page: 1/2 [next]


Posting comments:

You should be registered AND logged in user to post comments here.

liveinternet.ru WebMoney Yandex Money