If we had nuclear weapons how would we stop the naval, infantry and armoured forces of a similarly armed nuclear power?

Dear Is Mise,

<<If we had nuclear weapons how would we stop the naval, infantry and armoured forces of a similarly armed nuclear power?>>

Tactical neutron bombs can be useful against an invading fleet.

Also, by knowing that if they bring us to where we have nothing to lose then their cities will be erased, or better, their families at home will become ill and die of the plague: those who DO have something to lose will have to think again.

A useful device is the statistical bomb, setting it up so if we are attacked than there will be an automatic, non-human response at a certain probability, creating events which neither us nor them can predict in advance.

For example, when we are attacked, Australians could be fitted with electronic devices, most of them would do nothing, but a few would trigger a nuclear/biological response if the person carrying them dies (heart-beat stops), where neither the carriers nor the enemy can tell who carries the trigger devices.

Actually Pete, I was critical of the fact that the article was singularly lacking in its knowledge of geo-political realities. It is a condition common to the msm. One hopes for better from the so-called alternative media. The appalling coverage of MH17 and Ukraine (conspicuously missing from OLO) is another glaring example.

That of course didn't stop you from indulging in gratuitous personal insults ("brain mass wouldn't topple off a pinhead") misrepresentation ("al-Bagdadi is an Islamist business man at heart") when nothing I said could be remotely construed in that way. This is followed (12/8 at 3.07pm) by further wilful ignorance about Iraq's war with Iran and the invasion of Kuwait.
You then claim (12/8 at 10.52pm) that I am "unable to write articles" myself. You are presumably referring to my not writing for OLO, as I have published two academic books, numerous articles in peer reviewed journals, many academic conference papers, and countless other articles in various places.

I do not write for OLO because it is (a) not interested in my views of the world; and (b) with a few honourable exceptions the people who comment on the articles do not, to put it politely, add to the sum of human knowledge or even make a useful contribution to the discussion.

If you are interested in actually understanding the world we live in, rather than indulging in nuclear weapon fantasies, read Mike Whitney's latest contribution (12/08/14) in Counterpunch entitled "My Money's on Putin". More wisdom, common sense and knowledge than you are ever going to read in our pathetic media. But be warned: contains ideas that challenge your obvious comfort zone.

‘morning Peter,

This thread was always going to end in tears. So many have invested so much in the ideological narrative that the last nations into the ME are to blame, namely the coalition of the willing. It is so easy to dismiss thousands of years of invasion and occupation in order to blame the US and its allies. Yet we are now hearing increased demands for intervention by the west to protect the victims once again.

OLO has previously canvassed the potential for disengagement by the west in ME affairs. I personally feel this has some merit, particularly in sending a clear message to the rest of the many very wealthy, well resourced and well armed “Arabic Nations” that it’s now “their” turn to solve “their” problems. They can raise a collective army of 600,000 to attack Israel (1948 and 1967), but can’t be arsed to tidy up their own back yard.

For those who still believe that western military intervention in the ME was about oil, it is worth noting the current oil prices, hedge funds and gold prices throughout the recent ME turmoil.

“Total US recoverable natural gas resources (includes conventional, unconventional in lower 48, Alaska and offshore) totals 4.244 quadrillion cubic feet according to the Institute for Energy Research: Enough natural gas to meet US electricity demand for 575 years at current fuel demand for generation levels - Enough natural gas to fuel homes heated by natural gas in the United States for 857 years - More natural gas than Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan combined. Plus: The US has three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia in shale oil”. --Gary Hunt.

Truth is malleable, like this gem from James O’Neil. << Unfortunately, the author of this article, like so much in the msm, has a grasp of history and the facts that could be summarised on the back of a postage stamp >>.

So are we going to hear about whose history and facts we are going to rely on James? Yours I would guess?

Also Is Mise

I also support Yuyutsu's calls for Australian nuclear weapons for peace (force de roo). At present leftwing students all over the world (and especially in Melbourne) are pressing for the benefits of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

These spontaneously fissioning, and may I say cheap, weapons are fundamentally for DETERRENCE with actual use being (almost) unthinkable for Australia and its erstwhile enemies (New Zealand, Tasmania and of course East Timor).

Think about it. If we armed ourselves with an independent nuclear deterrent, like Israel and France (force de frappe) it would cost a mere 10% of our GDP for 15 years.

More than a bargain for all Australians and a nuclear weapons industry to solve South Australia's job problem. The test range may course some initial soul searching but there is a guaranteed 20km exclusion zone from Byron Bay.

After all - our uranium trade shouldn't underwrite China's nuclear weapons program exclusively.

Yours

Pete

Hi James O'Neill

I appreciate your being somewhat more civil. I respect the desire of many-most OLO commenters to remain anonymous however if you are unable to point to what you have written your comments just appear to be hard-left arrogance.

On Iraq the US and Australian humanitarian concern is very selective. Notably Christian Iraqis should be saved - as Obama can garner domestic support for that - but too many moderate Syrian Sunnis have not been saved.

But as I said in June article this year "It is Iraq’s huge amounts of oil, however, that differentiate Iraq from Syria." http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16422

2006 ASSESSMENT

On depth of views I point you to my 2006 article:

"The tangled web of Middle Eastern alliances" http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5234 written in 2006 which anticipated many of the issues pressing now:

"In September 2006 Iraq’s leader Prime Minister Maliki (a Shiite but toeing the US line) made a short scheduled visit to Iran and spoke of non-interference in each others affairs. However, Iraq now appears to be courting some Iranian involvement as reflected in discussions in late November 2006, in Iran, between Iraqi President Talabani (a Kurd) and Iranian President Ahmadinejad."

So the US is again unhappy with Maliki and many other Shiites identifying with Iran in a Shiite alliance.

Note that I also wrote in detail on the Kurds in 2006 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5234 :

"The Kurdish guerrillas or Peshmerga continue to serve US and Israeli interests while fighting for an independent Kurdistan. The US and Israel have been supporting the Peshmerga because they are considered the only reliable local allies in Iraq and actually fought alongside US troops against the Iraqi army during the 2003 invasion.

Israel would, of course, prefer US forces remain in Iraq but realises that it must find any friends it can. Israel sees some similarities between its situation and that of the Kurds who, like them, are an isolated ethnic group in the Middle East."

Note how correct that 2006 assessment still is.

Regards

Pete