Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

I am totally with you on that one, Sunanda.

I find it terrifying that Western governements happily lash out money on nuclear devlopment and weapons, while forbidding "lesser civilized" nations to have any...why anyone has the right to have nuclear weapons is beyond me, especially when the nations who have the most are those the most belligerant (war-addicted).

I think Germaine Greer (did not see the talk last night but have read some of her books) talked perfect sense because she talks like a human, not avoiding THE issue in order to stay in the ranks, plus she talks as a woman, and you do too: education, health and well-being being the priority not invasion and money.

Seems the new century is as testoterone-driven as the last one.

Shoot me now for my opinions, but I stand by it, we will all see where this power-crazed civilization will take us to....[&o]

We need action, not distraction (football, and feel-good theories).

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

Personally I'm in tottal agreement, it is a shame that goverments, those that make the big choices for us all, opt to spend money on big bombs, funding wars/invasions, I don't think it has anything to do with having 'the right' to own these weapons..more to do with having the ability to have them...& the bigger the better[&o]

It's scary stuff, & a damn shame, but I'm beleiver that our race will bring about it's own end, we're too greedy, someone always wants to be top dog..no matter what the circumstance or on what scale, someone will always want to be number 1. So the big boys have big guns, what for??? The distruction that will be caused should oneof these get used, IMO it's only a matter of time, & I'm sorry to say, I feel very apathetic (is that the right word:eek:) about the whole thing. War = Money (so I'm told), NuclearBombs = Power[&o]so from that point of view I'm sad to say I don;t beleive the world or our race will change

I'm not clued up on the Gorden Brown thing but I'm sure I'm about to get enlightened;)

Love & Peace
Amy

xx

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

I'm sorry to say, I feel very apathetic (is that the right word

Would 'resigned' perhapsnbe the word you're looking for, Amy? Personally, I'm working on detachment.

Love
Sunanda xxx

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

resign

• verb 1 voluntarily leave a job or position of office. 2 (be resigned) accept that something undesirable cannot be avoided.

Supose so:eek:

xx

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

[blockquote]quote:

I'm sorry to say, I feel very apathetic (is that the right word[/blockquote]

Would 'resigned' perhapsnbe the word you're looking for, Amy? Personally, I'm working on detachment.

Love
Sunanda xxx

------------------------

without wanting to cause offense, I was agreeing with every word until those ones: apathic, detachment and resigned????

Isn't this deciding the effort is too much to stand up on our feet and do something to change it? How can one decidedthings are"unavoidable"?

I do agree I feel too humanity has got something wrong in its genes (maybe too much testoterones. Ape societies dominated by males like chimps, gorillas and orang utans go to war and kill for territory, shred babies to pieces to get a female, the only one ape specie "led" by females has no aggressivity in its structure and no tribal war. they're called bonobos).

I too feel we are programmed to disappear, and the vile governement big bosses (cant mention names as this will be deemd political!), in my opinion, are just pieces of a big chess game, they mecanically carry out the actions that take us closer to our sad fate.
Why is it that dinosors all disappeared suddenly? some say a super volcano, some say a meteorite. both would have changed global climate for the worse.

Is this too new-age cult to read in this disaster an earth- or cosmic- response to what was supposed to happen...?

I do feel meteorites fall and volcanos erupt because the whole universe is like a clock: everything has a reason, everything is going to a certain direction. And of course, I feel (opinion that can be interpretated as dangerous, if not fatalistic) that human wars and big viruses are also Nature's way of making things happen faster.

Now writing that makes me feel I have a scared child's mind: seeing doom everywhere and trying toget to terms withit.

But I am trying not to fall into resignation and especially not: detachment. I feel strongly about the misuse of Bouddhist detachment to numb one's own pain and responsibility to our world. Detachment must not mean indifference or cowardice.

I am not insulting anyone, please stay calm... first of all: if you have posted or answered the thread it is because you CARE more than others who would prefer not to even think about nuclear weapons. Second, you and I are in the same boat: wondering what can be done and feeling oppressed by the idea that maybe it is too late, it is not in our hands anymore...

So all I am saying is that if there is one tiny thing that you can do, as to opposing the wars or nuclear developement, then this is grand. I don't take part in protests and demos, but somewhow always wished I did (noone close to me wants to do so) and I often feel admiration for folks who stand in front of armed police men and tanks (talking about foreign countries here...). Such courage. As for me, tiny coward Fadette, I try not to be detached and give a few pennies to Greenpeace. it's a start.
(will be shot for naming a political (?) organisation).

But the question is: if resignation is the word, then I hope people will stop making children. because I suffer enough for children on this earth who are the victims of a corrupt society.

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

Hi Sunanda,

I lived like you through the well-worded period of "MAD" - mutual assured destruction - in the Cold War when IMHO the Soviet Union did want to take over the world and got close to making a try at it (ask me for dates and I can give them)... but the idea was that no-one would attack the other side, East or West, as they wouldn't survive the backlash anyway. So in a bizarre way it kept the peace.

I'll give you one date: the Soviet Union secretly contacted Nixon and Kissenger of the USA in the early 70s with the suggestion that BOTH nations nuke China to get rid of a third world power. That quite simply is historical fact which Kissenger has written about. So that might have been what? - at a guess the deaths of maybe 200 million people. I don't much like Kissinger, but he warned the Chinese which led to a simply huge programme in China of building nuke shelters the size of cities - in fact they are under the main cities. So this is a serious issue.

But now, "MAD",is all over, it seems, as there's only one global super-power (though China is on the way up again).

But not to have any nuclear deterrant? Politely I disagree. We need a minimum one IMHO. Pretty minor nations such as N. Korea and Iran are now building the bomb, and our only deterrant is to let them know we can retalliate. If we totally got rid of our nukes, minow nations such as North Korea would be able to threaten us, and we'd be helpless.

It's great to be idealistic, but IMO we sometimes have to be realistic. What if Iran had the bomb today ... the idea is they'll have it in about 2 years. How would we respond?

P.S. I'm not keeping up with news right now, Sunanda and all, but nukes are so expensive that "billions", though it is sad to have spend it, may not amount to a lot of hardware.

I'd like to make the point that though any weapons are awful, IMO if the West didn't have nukes we would have been destroyed by now. Bizarrely, they actually keep the peace for us.

Let's be very practical here. It may sound a bit unfair, but nations with the nuke are not going to give it up, now are they? The best thing we can do IMHO is to prevent nuclear nations from rising in number to 50, 100, or more. For example, the India/Pakistan situation?

Venetian xxx

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

Everyone,

It scares me greatly that there is no money in this country for our own, our tax levels have shot up in recent years the council tax is double what it was 8 years ago and no appreciable change in services. The NHS in a pitiful state, pensions rows, care of the elderly etc etc. Fuel prices necessary for food transport also so that goes up, domestic energy expected to increase by 20% I understand, water shortages due to inadequate maintenance despite massive profits. Schools? well its all a nightmare.

The armed forces run on a shoestring, now this is where money should be spent to defend ourselves, and also decent equipment to protect our defenders, I rather think the aircraft that is being bought so that our big boy will be the same as the the US' big boy ( the Royal use is just hogwash) would pay for that aforementioned equipment.

Nuclear warheads, so why can't everyone get rid of them?I know one landing on London would just resolve most of our problems, hopefully the politicians will still be in the Commons bar?

Resignation, apathy and detachment?

NO Ladies, please don'tbe despondent, annoy the living daylights out of your MP protest protest and protest.

Keep this country of ours Albion

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

completely with you, June.

there is no time for inaction and detachment or resignation. for it will end as a mass exodus, people trying to flee britain...mind you, twice as many people (british actually) are leaving this country every year as there are immigrants coming in....Have people really lost faith, hope to improve the future? In what way are the Ukrainians different than us, for having demonstrated for weeks all day long in the freezing cold and snow, challenging Russia?

If we want a future for other humans and the Earth, maybe we have to shake off our apathy and illusions.

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

We need a minimum one IMHO. Pretty minor nations such as N. Korea and Iran are now building the bomb, and our only deterrant is to let them know we can retalliate. If we totally got rid of our nukes, minow nations such as North Korea would be able to threaten us, and we'd be helpless.

Actually, sorry but I think thats quite a good point!!! And also where V has said

IMO if the West didn't have nukes we would have been destroyed by now. Bizarrely, they actually keep the peace for us

I'm not (by any stretch of the imagiation) saying that bombs are good BUT, there will always be some mad man somewhere & if we didn't have one we would be leaving ourselves wide open to be invaided/attacked. It's all about power & money in my eyes. For our whole race to disarm would take a hell of a lot more then protesting alone, you're asking for opinions to change, greed to stop,...you're asking for the human race to 'evolve' (sp)...you know..perhaps a huge war is needed, maybe as one the race will finally awaken after such a major disastor & unitedly realise (after so much death & distruction) whats it all for..whats the point...why is war nessicary..WHY..maybe world war 3 will be the start of the awaking of man that I keep hearing about, undestand that power and fear is an illuision...you never know;)

I've been to protests before, going back a fair few years but back then they ended up like a huge fight, & actually being there & not seeing it from tv I remember too well that it was the police that went in trunchons first!!

Love
Amy
xx

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

Well, at least my post seems to have got people thinking...even if I don't agree with most of what's been written.

Fadette: the teaching I've received leads me to practising detachment. this doesn't mean that I don't care or that I don't want to do anything to help, (believe me, I have spent a lot of time marching and demonstrating) it just saves me from descending into total despair at the way the world's going. You see, in the final analysis, I have great faith that God (Source, the Intelligent Creator, the Goddess - whatever name you care to give to the Supreme Being) is taking care of everything and that all shall be well.

Venetian: my distaste for and fear of nuclear weapons goes back a long, long way to my teens when I was an active member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Peace Pledge Union. However 'logical' it may be, I just cannot agree that we 'need' nuclear protection. I think it's a specious argument, that if we don't have them we'll be attacked. I also think it the height of arrogance for us and the Americans to be able to dictate to the rest of the world who should and shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This is the old slave owning mindset at its worst. IMO - and I know this is pie in the sky - no one should possess these evil weapons. In fact, living in la la land as I do, I'd like to see all weapons of mass destruction destroyed forever. If countries have to fight each other, I'd send the armies out to do man to man combat like in mediaeval times. That would certainly limit the damage for a start....

Sherringham: I couldn't agree with you less. From your post it would seem that you are a nationalist. 'Protect our Albion' etc. Well, I can't bear all this nationalistic stuff: I think it's jingoistic and anachronistic and it certainly doesn't chime with my philosophy which is that we are all one. In fact, while getting rid of all weapons, I'd also tear down borders, frontiers and burn the passports. But then I'm just an old hippy. I happen to believe I'm a citizen of the world not just one silly little country. I am not a patriot and I cannot understand all this 'pride in being British' because it implies that being British is somehow 'better' than being any other nationality. How can this be? We are all human beings. Or are some more human than others?

Love
Sunanda xxx

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

Hi All,

How refreshing the new "politics" area is, It's subjects that I've wanted to see on HP for a while.

Firstly my political stance is the same as my personal one, I do not have weapons in my home, and I do not take excessive steps to defend my home, I want to live in a peaceful society and I believe in "being the change that I want to see", so I live peacefully myself.

Fadette, I agree very much with what you have said, the current earth changes I think are a warning, if you think as I do that everything is energy and that we are all seperate but at the same time are part of a whole then the earth is simply reacting as we would when a virus attacks, flush it out.

I do however detect some anti-male opinions in your writing, my husband is very peaceful and also many male friends, they are very upset by the actions of many men/women but the trouble is when (as many people do) assume that it's men that are the violent ones it casts a shadow over their actions, there are many many women in this world who are doing wrong, maybe we are not as violent but there are many more ways of causing harm to others, please think about your feelings because we can't be peaceful if we don't accept each others differences.

How can the government even consider that we need this kind of protection when as a society we are destroying ourselves from the inside??.

Venetian - I get what you are saying, and a few years ago I would have agreed, but I think that it's time to live by example, even if this makes you more vunerable.

Great Post

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

Oh Sunanda,

I am not BNP , believe me I am not, but yes I do have national pride. Its just I think the guts have been ripped out of our country andembarrassment has taken its place.

Amy & Venetian

WW3? its a dreadful thought, what would be left of and on our planet when all those nuclear warheads have been activated and done their work.
Its supposed to be a civilised world, surely we can do better than that?
I understand what you are saying about a such a warhead being a deterrant, but isn't it also a target?

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

WW3? its a dreadful thought, what would be left of and on our planet when all those nuclear warheads have been activated and done their work.
Its supposed to be a civilised world, surely we can do better than that?
I understand what you are saying about a such a warhead being a deterrant, but isn't it also a target?

Hi June, Personally I agree partly..not too sure about it being a target though, but my opinion (nor yours for that matter) won't change the opinions & power lust of those 'heads of countries' who have the big bombs. I would love to beleive that it was possible to just do away with them, make so it was not allowed to own one of these evil things but all that will happen is they will go 'underground' & kept secret & then some clever sausage will pop up shouting "My bombs bigger then yours[:-]" & then what. Your opinion, Sunanda's opinion, fadettes opinion are all very agreeable but I just don't think it will work...to be honest, our race just isn't intelligent enough for peace, from world wars to pub fights..[:'(]

Oh dear...here I go all apathectic (or resigned) again

Love
Amy
xxx

RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)

Well I still remember the newsreel shot of that young girl who was burned (think Vietnam).

It seems so contradictory that we have the ability/ intelligence whatever to make the equipment to record that horrifying scene, but the barbarity to inflict such an awful injury on someone as well.

Whether our politicians wear suits or pseudo uniforms its so wrong that the people who bear the scars and wounds of war have no say in the matter.
Perhaps it should be compulsory that the children of politicians serve in their parents armed forces. It might make a difference.?