The Bomb

[Skybird]

German TV, second channel "ZDF", shows a three-part documentary about the nuclear threat after the end of the cold war. First part was yesterday, and can be seen here:

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/content/807354?inPopup=true&setTime=1&bw=dsl1000

Second part is this evening on life TV, ZDF, 22:45H German time, and will be available on internet afterwards, under www.ZDF.de (http://www.ZDF.de). Third part is on 2nd August, 23:30 local time.

The first part looks at the security concerns of New York, the alarming future of super-corrupt Pakistan which is heavily undermind by the Taliban and more and more falling to "radical islam" (and corrupt military and intelligence leaders cooperating with them), it interviews Kissinger, and witnesses nuclear missile life excercises in an American and a Russian key post who have not given permissions for TV visitors since years.

Length is 43 minutes. German language.

Not especially a pleasant bedtime story.


If you ask what to do about the mess - I have no idea of how to get out of this spiral.

[Janus]

Thanks for the info, I'm going to watch this.

[Skybird]

Second part:

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/content/807444?inPopup=true&setTime=55&bw=dsl1000

Japan discussing nuclear rearming, Iran claiming a right to have access to all modern technology fo reasons of being an old cultural power, Israel's concerns about a highly irrational, religious Iranian mad nation that cannot be deterred like the US and the USSR deterred each other: since Iran fosters a culture of glorifying self-killing and thus is not deterred from committing nuclear suicide, the Russian nuclear industry that does not differ much between civilian and military usage of nuclear technology, a brief visit toi the USS George Washington, and Brazil, having already had a nuclear arms program by it's navy, which was said to be closed down, but in the hidden seems to have ran on.

I knew that Brazil is considered to be close to having nukes, if it wants, being the huge nuclear technology player that it is. What was new to me is that most likely they already have nuclear weapons.

[FIREWALL]

Thx for info Skybird. Wish this was on tv over here.

[Aramike]

Anyone remember the 80s TV miniseries, The Day After on CBS? It was really the first production I can remember that popularized the understanding of what REAL nuclear war would seem like, unlike the safety PSAs on the 50's and 60's that suggested hiding under a desk, as it were. When one actually understand the tangible concepts of nuclear war, winter, fallout, etc., people finally can get a grasp at the urgency of preventing these weapons from being used at all costs.

Like Skybird, I have no concrete ideas on how to get out of this danger, but I do have some suggestions. For one, Russia needs to get their heads out of the sand regarding Iran and missile defense. It is well-known that a nuclear-armed Iran presents a danger to the world. Furthermore, it is known that any conceivable missile defense system will be limited in scope, and would find extreme difficulty with such threats as SLBMs.

As such, they should accept a partnership with the US on develop a missile defense system capable of giving the Iranians (or any other aspiring nuclear rogue nations) pause.

Indeed, there are other ways to detonate a nuclear weapon, such as a suitcase bomb. However, a ground detonation is far less "effective" than an airburst. But, more importantly, limiting the options of such nations makes it easier to allocate resources to defending against more unconventional options.

What really is terrifying about this situation is that the world CAN take action against such regimes militarily, but won't do it until AFTER a disaster strikes. So, once Iran wipes Israel off the map, only then will be bomb their nuclear capability into the ground. Either way, regarding Iran we end in the same place, except at the extraordinary cost of life on the road there.

Finally, the world's powers need to ask themselves - what the hell do nations such as Iran, North Korea, even Brazil need nuclear weapons for? The build-up of NATO versus Warsaw Pact, while unfortunate, was undeniably necessary from the perspective of each side. However, what threats do nuclear weapons in the hands of, say, Iran mitigate?

[Skybird]

Finally, the world's powers need to ask themselves - what the hell do nations such as Iran, North Korea, even Brazil need nuclear weapons for?

Not to mention France, Britain? ;)

Regarding Iran, N-Korea, Brazil, the answer is easy: to be able to stop the US. There is a strong movement in south America to push back the enormous Us influence there, especially that of corporations that act with support of the US government. Iran and NK must not be explained, I think.

the bomb gives you power, prestige, immunity from military attacks, it gives you a seat in the first row of nations. As the second film said in one scene: the journalist was stunned by what he saw onboard the USS Washington, a carrier, and wondered how much effort and logistic support it takes to maintain a status of a superpower - just to be challenged and brought to a full stop by a small starving primitive country of farmers - like N-Korea.

[CastleBravo]

SKYKING, SKYKING; DO NOT ANSWER.
For Alert Force, For Alert Force, KLAXON; KLAXON; KLAXON....
MESSAGE FOLLOWS ……………..
VZAZHSWMZVFAVEIN5LFIDOF56FEI
WEATHER WORD, ORIOLE
END OF MESSAGE……….
END TRANSMISSION

[Aramike]

Not to mention France, Britain? ;)Heh, I put them in the same situation as NATO-at-Large (victims of an earlier era), but I acknowledge your point.Regarding Iran, N-Korea, Brazil, the answer is easy: to be able to stop the US. There is a strong movement in south America to push back the enormous Us influence there, especially that of corporations that act with support of the US government. Iran and NK must not be explained, I think. I agree with you that, from THEIR perspective, that's the idea, but I find the idea fundamentally flawed - all they are doing is inviting total destruction.

This is specifically why I believe in a somewhat militaristic society. If nations knew that the so-called free world wouldn't tolerate the production of such arms, they simply wouldn't attempt to build them. Instead, we are confronted with a world of suggestions and diplomacy without teeth.

Here's a philosophical musing - hindsight being 20/20, if 2 million people were killed in a nuclear bombing, would not a war costing 200 thousand lives be worth stopping it?

The problem arises when one considers that prevention often shows no direct gain. Thusly, engaging in such a war that is successful will often not yield its results directly, leading many to believe the war to be unsuccessful.

This is not to say that I'm pro-war ... I am not at all. However, I do believe that these weapons must not be used, at nearly any cost.

Also consider that it would be far better to "allow" nations such as Brazil to obtain such weapons while denying natiions such as Iran, as any nation ideologically welcoming to its own destruction is to be fear above all else. Hell, even Israel and its own eschatology sees itself as a survivor. Can a fundamentalist Islamic country say the same?

[Skybird]

I agree with you that, from THEIR perspective, that's the idea, but I find the idea fundamentally flawed - all they are doing is inviting total destruction.[/quoting]

So you tell about them from perspective of your nation. they say the same abiout your nation from perspective of theirs.

That'S the very idea why nations try to gain nuclear weapons. and let's face it: thze Us will not risk to attack a nation with nukes that has nukes itself. They must not be capable to destroy all surface of the US. Destroying just one or two great metropoles is good enough as a deterrant. Imagine New York and Los Angeles getting wiped out.

the fallout from one big single nuke going off in the middle of Israel could produce a fallout contaminating all of Israel, brining it's survivability effectively to zero.

Nations try to get nukes, usually, becasue looking at the furture, they see they could be threatened and economically, ideologically, militarily blackmailed, if they do not have them. that's what makes iran so0 extremely dangerous. If Iran is allowed to have nukes, the dam of preventing proliferation will burst. arabia and Syria will go next.turkey will not accept to becpme a regional power of second class only. And... and... And once iran has nukes, nobody will dare to attack them anymore - not even the US. the risk that the strike back with a nuke, is too big. This is the bad mistake that was majde with Pakistan. It should never have been allowed to develope nukes. That program should have been killed by all means necessary before - even if that would have meant to destroy pakistan. Now they are destabilizing the whole region, and indirectly threaten the people of most of the world due to their slow fall to irrational religious extremism and inner corruption.

This is not to say that I'm pro-war ... I am not at all. However, I do believe that these weapons must not be used, at nearly any cost.

[quote]
Also consider that it would be far better to "allow" nations such as Brazil to obtain such weapons while denying natiions such as Iran, as any nation ideologically welcoming to its own destruction is to be fear above all else. Hell, even Israel and its own eschatology sees itself as a survivor. Can a fundamentalist Islamic country say the same?

In the film, Kissinger as well as the Israeli position points out that the relgious irrationality of iran, it's public culture of gloryfying self-sacrifice and martyrdom, is the reason why the classic mechanism of detrrance, like it functioned between the Us and the USSR, do not function here, and I completely agree with that. A new MAD-strategy in the gulf region will not work, because it is not exclusively rational, reasonably deciding factions taking place in a nuclear arms race, but one highly irrantional, dogmatically boosted country where many people are seeing it as an honourable example to follow the way of the martyrs. the film shows a scene that reminded me of the total surprise I fgelt when I discovered such a shop myself when being the first time in Teheran: it is like a booksho, just that they do not sell books, but thoisuands of different huge photographs of war atrocities, dead bodies, and portraits of martyrs (who are considered not to have died, but to have become martyrs, which in that thinking is something different). for the audience in that shop that I was in, it was the greatest place to be, and they very friendly becasue they thoiught I was interested since I was there. In fact I was totally dusgusted, and also in a way: shocked. It was the first time I had a real awakening Aha!-experience that showed me I was not only in a foreign country, but showed me how really very-very different that culture is from our own.

That MAD does not work as a deterrant in the modern world anymore is Kissinger's argument why he has U-turned on nukes and now supports "global zero". (It's just that he did not say so far how to realistically acchieve that, nor do I have an idea. One-sided disarmament cannot be the way, and other nations simply have interests that will reject them to abandon their nukes: Iran, just one example, or Pakistan and India).

having read plenty of academic books on Islam and Islamic society, was one thing. filling that with life by being there - that was something very different. After my last voyage to the ME in the 90s, I needed another couple of years to finally sort out the contradictions between the diverse literature input I had exposed myelf to (that described both the typical appeasing view of islam as well as the critical view of it), and the different experiences from being on locations. 15 years ago I thought the same way about Islam like our medias do, and thought that the critical literature was wrong, and I would have heavily criticised Pat Condell for his unforgiving videos. Today - I know it better. It was quite a long journey for me to come to my modern, hostile opinion on Islam.

Westerners make a most catastrophic mistake when assessing that place by standards of their own culture, and design their diplomatic approach to it on the basis of assuming it is accessible to wetsern ways likem you could unlock a door with two keys as long as both keys are identical copies. You deal with a different door here, and with a different lock, your original key as well as it's identical copy do not match. Every politicians thinking so, should get fired from any job dealing with Iran or the Arab world immediately.

Don't gte me wrong, the Iranian spociety is very diverse, and has many different faces, some of which I felt honostly welcomed by, and liked very much. there are the nutheads, and the hysteric militants, but also the educated burgeousie, the reasonable minds - it's just that they do not have much power. there is the very dynamic, enthusiastic (at that time) youth and good universities, and there are the simple guys in the rural places who just try to come along. What they have in common is an extreme ammount of nationalism and patriotism, it is extreme, really. Any attacker should take that into account, these people are in fanatic love with their country and even more: their cultural heritage, never underestimate them. If you think they would welcome you when bringing them "democracy" by means of an invasion, then you think wrong: they will form one united wall against you, different to the early weeks in Iraq. However, in no other islamic country where I was, I felt so well like in Iran, and nowhere else I also met so many educated, interesting people and had so many interesting talks. Even if I take an extremely determined stand on Iran, and mean it real when saying there nuclear weapons must be prevented at any costs, I deeply regret to do so, since I have more pleasant memories from my times there, than unpleasant ones. It is a crying shame. It would be a very great place to be, one of the best places in the world, maybe - if only it would not have been ruined by Islam.

Persians are very different people than Arabs and Turkmen, really. And I think they are far more clever (in good and bad), too. Iran is a very diverse place, I got the impression. Much there to be hated - and much to be liked.

[Oberon]

SKYKING, SKYKING; DO NOT ANSWER.
For Alert Force, For Alert Force, KLAXON; KLAXON; KLAXON....
MESSAGE FOLLOWS ……………..
VZAZHSWMZVFAVEIN5LFIDOF56FEI
WEATHER WORD, ORIOLE
END OF MESSAGE……….
END TRANSMISSION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7vKF0V-A9Y&feature=related

[FIREWALL]

An old ax I know but, When it comes to Nuclear War.

It's not a matter of who was Right. It's how many will be Left.

[Skybird]

In a hurry while on the fly:

third part available here:

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/content/808658?inPopup=true&setTime=5&bw=dsl1000

Amongst other places they visit Lybia.

I admit I was impressed by the son of Gadhafi, and the reasonable thoughts he expressed. Maybe he is a philantropist, nevertheless if there would be more minds like his in power in the ME, the world maybe would be better off - especially the Islamic world. I know not more about him than that it was him who was responsible for convincing his father to ask the americans to send in transports and get all components of Lybya's nuclear weapon program out of the country.

I agree that global zero is a must if our civilisation means to survive this century. The old mechanisms of deterrance no longer functions. The Veto-powers of the security council share major responsibility for the fact that today more and more nations only feel safe when possessing nuclear weapons, becasue these five memebers of the council did not honour their legal obligation to nuclear disarm in time, like they agreed to in treaties. they claimed the right to do like they want, and now other wannabe nuclear powers claim the very same right, whiler iran'S program of missiles with 3000 km range clearly does not stop at intimidating Israel, but tries to blackmail all of europe as well.

What nobody in the three-part documentary was able to point out is how "global zero" could be acchieved realistically. the only one who could show some success - is the son of Gaddhafi.

And this absence of a realistic solutions and visions of how it actually could work worries me to the most. Honestly said, I think the probability that we will have a major nuclear war is much, much greater than the chance that we could avoid it. and the only way to avoid t is global zero - this is what several voices in the documentary got 100%ly correct, and I agree with that.

[Oberon]

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/08/hiroshima_64_years_ago.html

[Fish]

In a hurry while on the fly:

third part available here:



http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/content/808658?inPopup=true&setTime=5&bw=dsl1000

All three parts, only visible in Germany Skybird.

[CastleBravo]

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/content/808658?inPopup=true&setTime=5&bw=dsl1000

All three parts, only visible in Germany Skybird.

Because Dr. Joseph Goebbels' principals are alive and well in Germany. And they continue to fall for it.

[Schroeder]

Shows how much you know about Germany.:har:

[VipertheSniper]

You know what's funny... if I hadn't missed it on TV I could've seen the series, but on the net I'm not allowed to watch... I mean anyone with a satellite dish can watch ZDF if he wants to, so why can't I watch that again? For legal reasons? What kind of silly law is that? If I had taped it would that also be considered illegal?

[Dan D]

EU:distortion of competition, public broadcasting companies financed by fees vs. commercial broadcasting services

"....In early 2005, the European Commission opened proceedings against Germany because of filed complaints regarding various aspects of financial regularisations of public broadcasting services...

Services affected, like ARD and ZDF, to a large extent are financed by fees. Recently, they started boosting online activities. This included media archives offering video and audio streaming for free. This was the day the bill was born. Concedings to the European Commission finally served to the closing of the proceedings....

..The European Commission's interest is the fulfillment of the public purpose of public broadcasting services, in particular including advocating and support of diversity of opinion. PBS are to cover democratic, social and cultural requirements of the audience. The requirement, to "[bring] to the public the benefits of the new audiovisual and information services and the new technologies" (3) must not include financial abuse of fees. Eventually, the Commission expects each country to control its market structure and impact as well as it is to settle complaints. Similar annoyances took place in other countries too..."
First, and obviously expected, dissenting vote taking issue with any digital activity of ARD/ZDF is cast by commercial broadcasting services. Their motivation is rather familiar and easy to understand: Digital offerings by PBS may result in an impact on the existing market because they are substantially financed by fees. It is correct that distortion of competition is to be eliminated. Yet it is a fact too that commercial services not only in Germany are facing economical difficulties.

Does this economical situation evolve from distortion of competition? No. Well, yes. Both. Revenues from advertising on conventional broadcast services substantially are on the decline. But this is due to a shift of investments to online advertising which is to be observed in other countries too.

However, ARD/ZDF benefit from this economical change since they are constrained to just a small amount of advertisements within their programmes. Therefore, one of the main claims of commercial services is to prohibit advertisement in any form within online offerings by PBS...."

etc. etc.

http://www.contentsphere.de/serendipity/index.php?archives/16-Default.html&serendipity[lang_selected]=default

[Skybird]

Sorry guys,

I was not aware that outside Germany the videos could not be seen, if I understand your replies correctly. If I had known, I would not have started this thread.

But you could have told me earlier. ;)

[goldorak]

Sorry guys,

I was not aware that outside Germany the videos could not be seen, if I understand your replies correctly. If I had known, I would not have started this thread.

But you could have told me earlier. ;)


Its the same in all countries that have a tv license fee.
You can't watch italian tv on the web from outside italy, you can't watch the bbc on the net from outside england etc... Even Hulu in the us is not accessibile from other countries. Of course the web being international, after some time you'll find the episodes on youtube, on some strange website etc... ;)

[OneToughHerring]

Here's some free documentaries, the majority ought to work everywhere.

http://www.thedocumentarycenter.blogspot.com/

And some (mostly) about WW2.

http://www.youtube.com/user/20thCenturyWar

http://www.youtube.com/user/zxwar

1983, Able Archer and the brink of apocalypse. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHaPPGJeC88)

[Graf Paper]

Four quotes from Albert Einstein, the man who made the atomic bomb possible:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."


I think the only real question is not if we'll ever have nuclear war on this earth but when and where it will begin.