WMD found in Colorado

Ed Rasimus wrote in message

Not to wave paper, but as someone with a degree in International
Relations (education coupled with operational experience lends a
modicum of credibility), I've never heard of "regularizing" nukes.

Hey, we have something else in common: a degree in International
Relations! Actually, mine is in International Affairs, which I got at
the Zoo in 74. I chose it because it sounded like it was a degree in
chasing women all over the world - dead solid perfect for a future
fighter-gator!

As far as nukes, isn't it funny how everybody thinks the military is
just itching to use nukes? I know I sure as hell wasn't! Took all
the fun out of dropping bombs. Not manly at all. LGBs and GBU-15s are
the only way to go.

Not that some countries wouldn't be improved by a B-61 or three...

Kirk
F-4 WSO (ret)

Ed Rasimus wrote:
The acts of non-violent protest are, indeed, well thought through. The
philosophy of non-violence that leads to these acts is not. One would
have to ignore all of history to live comfortably in the belief that
pacifism, unilateral disarmament, etc is going to lead to peace. It
only leads to Auschwitz. Get on the train and work will make you
free...

No. It is simply untrue to state that the philosophy of non-violence
only leads to Auschwitz. I KNOW you (meaning you, Ed, not necessarily
everyone who reads this) know of very famous examples of non-violent
protest leading to very positive societal change, and I won't insult
either of us by listing various instances. Of course the military
policies of our government has made us safer in many ways, and of course
these nuns are kooky, but if you don't see that you're ignoring some
logical steps in your arguments, I have to think that there's more
motivating your position than you've admitted.

Not to wave paper, [Ed then waves his papers], I've never heard of
"regularizing" nukes.
. . . .
Your basic statement as a premise for
further discussion is flawed.

This is my fault, as I didn't explain that I meant regularizing within
the U.S. military/political structures only. That is, more hawkish (not
a term I like, really) leaders have repeatedly advocated building and
using nukes in a wider range of applications. These plans, when they
become public, lead to silly protests by nuns and such, and also a
fairly strong backlash from the general populace. I guess I was trying
to point out that without the silly protests, the public's discomfort
might be easier to spin or simply ignore.

Apathy is a two-edged sword. It can signify ignorance, but it can also
indicate substantial satisfaction with existing policy.

Obviously you disagree, but I think this makes my point rather well.
Most people are apathetic about virtually all military decisions. When
some groups--obviously the most passionate and thus quite outside the
mainstream--start protesting actions of the U.S. military, it brings out
feelings in common people that hadn't existed before, simply because
they hadn't considered the issue. That these nuns are controversial is
a sign to me that people WERE substantially satisfied, but when they
thought about the issue further, they realized that they have mixed
feelings about the issue. I would guess that causing people to discuss
this issue in the way we are now would be considered a success by these
nuns.

I'm appalled that society still overlooks the damage caused by such
acute ignorance as that of the nuns.

Overlooks how? They were caught and arrested. Most people heard the
story at some point. There was no big backlash against punishing them.
What is appalling you here?

To apologize for their behavior
in cutting fences, hammering on weapons, defacing government property,
obstructing military members in the conduct of their duties, etc, on
the grounds that they are legitimate protesters and not law-breakers
is ludicrous.

Who's apologizing? They did what they did because they knew it was
wrong. They made a judgement which you obviously disagree with, but
again I think you're missing some of your own motivation. Who claimed
they weren't law-breakers? I don't understand why you would say that.
They ARE legitimate protesters (as we all are), even if this protest was
not legitimate legally.

We've got a First Amendment right in this country to protest policy,
but it involves discussion, presentation of alternatives, concensus
building, compromise and political process.

No, it doesn't. Those things are usually included in debates by
default, but First Amendment protections exist even with activities that
are solo and completely one-sided. I don't have to have this discussion
with you for my opinions to be protected; I decided to start typing my
feelings this time, but many times I don't. What I say, and what I
believe, are protected either way.

It doesn't support
law-breaking, regardless of the morality of your cause.

I agree that the Constitution doesn't protect illegal actions, but that
doesn't mean that all illegal actions are consequently morally wrong.
I'm not arguing that they should have Constitutional protection for
their actions. I'm arguing that their illegal actions are (at least in
their eyes) the better moral choice than doing nothing.

They should have been maxed.

I agree.


Glenn

Ed Rasimus wrote:
But there is no "law on the books" that would authorize citizens to
act illegally--that would be anarchy. And, it certainly wouldn't allow
for each citizen independently to make the judgement of what is
"immoral".

Every citizen does make morality judgements, and they don't need a law
to "allow" it. I do agree with you point about legalizing illegality.

With regard to the issue in question, the pacifist nuns were certainly
not acting against an abusive or oppressive government

They clearly were, though they weren't the ones being abused or
oppressed. I find them acting for those without voices to be the main
point in their favor.

, nor were they
acting as representatives of a majority of the population which had
elected their representatives and given them authority for the
execution of the national defense against a serious threat.

Not all action has to be representing others. Certainly not all action
needs to represent a majority of a population. C'mon now Ed, you think
ALL minority positions lack legitimacy? What about historical change in
opinions? They happen constantly; many things now commonly accepted
started out as odd ideas in one person or small group.


Glenn

"Glenn P." wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
But there is no "law on the books" that would authorize citizens to
act illegally--that would be anarchy. And, it certainly wouldn't allow
for each citizen independently to make the judgement of what is
"immoral".

Every citizen does make morality judgements, and they don't need a law
to "allow" it. I do agree with you point about legalizing illegality.

I'm glad you see the conflict. Authorizing illegal behavior whenever
someone sees a moral conflict (in their individual view) would wreak
havoc. It's very much the situation in which we have the pro-lifer
assassinating the abortion doctor.

With regard to the issue in question, the pacifist nuns were certainly
not acting against an abusive or oppressive government

They clearly were, though they weren't the ones being abused or
oppressed. I find them acting for those without voices to be the main
point in their favor.

Who are "those without voices"? Who authorized the sisters to act on
behalf of someone else? I don't think you've got a very compelling
argument with that.

, nor were they
acting as representatives of a majority of the population which had
elected their representatives and given them authority for the
execution of the national defense against a serious threat.

Not all action has to be representing others. Certainly not all action
needs to represent a majority of a population. C'mon now Ed, you think
ALL minority positions lack legitimacy? What about historical change in
opinions? They happen constantly; many things now commonly accepted
started out as odd ideas in one person or small group.

Whoa, you've made a giant leap here. We aren't talking about the
legitimacy of a minority position, we are talking about violation of
the law, possibly even reckless endangerment (see BUFDRVR's earlier
post about the fool pounding on the drain valve of a B-52 external
fuel tank.)

As I initially stated, the right to express minority opinion,
influence public policy and to attempt to convince other's of your
correctness is implicit in the First Amendment. Speak your piece, but
don't cut fences to security installations and pound on nuclear
weapons with your moral indignation.

Policy gets made in this country through a process. Sometimes civil
disobedience has been an effective tool--one need only look at the
Freedom Marches and sit-ins of the civil rights movement to see the
evidence. But, when Blacks sat in at lunch counters, they didn't break
the windows to get in, spill blood on the counter and attempt to break
the dishes. There's a difference in the methodology.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Larry Dighera" wrote

Isn't there a law on the books that permits a citizen to act in
opposition to his government if said government is engaging in immoral
activity as the Nazi's did?

Yes. The law is called a rifle. Oswald used that law to change
the government in 1963.

"Stephen Harding" wrote


Although it's a risky premise, I wonder if possession of nuclear weapons
(by a state as opposed to private whackos) forces a degree of care in
decision making that might not otherwise be there? Would the world be a
more peaceful place if *everyone* had nukes???

Don't think so. There's been at least a few nutters, given the chance, who
might have. Quadaffi, maybe...Idi Amin, among others.
Plus there is the question of control, and government stabiliy. With
insufficient controls....a private whacko *may* get control of a nuke. Or a
hostile takeover of an unpopular leader. Then who is in control? For a
time...no one.

Would the Red Army Faction have used a nuke? Probably. Those fools with the
gas in the subway in Japan? Probably. Arafat in the early days? Maybe.

Given enough of them in various hands, and a few *will* leak out to those
who would use them. On purpose or by accident.

Pete

I want to point out that the USAF, as well as the other services, does
not take anything about nuclear weapons lightly. Having sat alert with
the blasted things and later been responsible for a base full of them
I can assure you that everybody with any responsibility for them is
deadly serious (in every sense of the word) in matters concerning
their security. When an intrusion alert is sounded the responding
force has no idea as to whether the cause is a fox, some Taliban types
after a nuke or in this case three irresponsible women with not the
foggiest idea what they were actually getting into.
You-all can discuss as to whether we need nukes, they were right or
wrong, or whatever, but please don't screw around with nuke security -
it's a losing game. The security forces ARE authorized to shoot, as
was I, while on alert.

Walt BJ

"Glenn P."
SNIP:
No. It is simply untrue to state that the philosophy of non-violence
only leads to Auschwitz.
SNIP:
What the philosophy of non-violence leads to is someone else defending
the non-violent against the aggressor. I call this an abdication of
personal responsibility.
Walt BJ

"Walt BJ" wrote
I want to point out that the USAF, as well as the other services, does
not take anything about nuclear weapons lightly. Having sat alert with
the blasted things and later been responsible for a base full of them
I can assure you that everybody with any responsibility for them is
deadly serious (in every sense of the word) in matters concerning
their security. When an intrusion alert is sounded the responding
force has no idea as to whether the cause is a fox, some Taliban types
after a nuke or in this case three irresponsible women with not the
foggiest idea what they were actually getting into.
You-all can discuss as to whether we need nukes, they were right or
wrong, or whatever, but please don't screw around with nuke security -
it's a losing game. The security forces ARE authorized to shoot, as
was I, while on alert.

I happened to drive a bread-box van down the taxi-way one day at
Ramstein, when I came up to a taxi-way and decided to take a
short cut. After driving through the line of really cool looking F-4's
I got to the gate-house, and the AP asked me if I had driven in from
the flight-line. Yea, I decided to take a short cut! He asked me to
step out of the van and put my hands on the hood and spread my
legs as far as I could. He then went back in the gate-house and
waited about 2 minutes, when a whole ****ing squadron of base
security types with guns bigger than I'd ever seen before surrounded
me, and had me take off my flight suit as they began to inventory my
possessions into plastic bags, and when complete took me to a steel
holding cell where my commander came and got me out! I asked him
what the *hell* that was about, and it wasn't until then that I realized
they were the nuclear alert F-4's! ****, what a bird brain...

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:


I'm glad you see the conflict. Authorizing illegal behavior whenever
someone sees a moral conflict (in their individual view) would wreak
havoc. It's very much the situation in which we have the pro-lifer
assassinating the abortion doctor.

The State of Alaska several years back had a new law go on the books that it was
okay for a person to resist an unlawful arrest.

I was a cop at the time..did 20 years. Almost without fail each person I
arrested felt I was making an "unlawful arrest". My uniform cleaning bills went
up quite a bit. G The law didn't last long.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html