OT: Surplus milk powder.

Here's my take on this.

Dairy farmers sometimes produce a lot of milk and when they do supply goes
up and they can't sell it all. They lower their prices and still can't sell
it all. Taxpayer to the rescue, we buy this surplus to help out the farmers.

Dairy farmers sometimes can't produce enough milk to meet demand so they
raisse their prices and take advantage of the taxpayer, the same taxpaer
that bails them out when demand is low.
I'm glad I don't drink milk.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

In article <>,
Ed <> wrote:
>
>
>Here's my take on this.
>
>Dairy farmers sometimes produce a lot of milk and when they do supply goes
>up and they can't sell it all. They lower their prices and still can't sell
>it all. Taxpayer to the rescue, we buy this surplus to help out the farmers.
>
>Dairy farmers sometimes can't produce enough milk to meet demand so they
>raisse their prices and take advantage of the taxpayer, the same taxpaer
>that bails them out when demand is low.
>I'm glad I don't drink milk.
>
>


Here's my take.

In some countries, like North Korea, when there's a truly bad growing
season, people go hungry, they starve, it causes actual risk to health
and life. In the US, subsidies keep the quantity of food artificially
high. In the US, when there's a truly bad growing season you won't find
iceberg lettuce in the salad bar. Whoopy-do. Taxpayer subsidies during
times of plenty ensures that there'll be plenty to eat during times of
scarcity. Famine happens in Africa, not here.

--
"Awareness means not just a vague, comfortable, fuzzy feeling. It means
explicit knowledge of current conditions." -- NBSR Radiation Safety
Training

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

"Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote

> In some countries, like North Korea, when there's a truly bad growing
> season, people go hungry, they starve, it causes actual risk to health
> and life.

N. Korea can go to hell. I wouldn't send them a single grain of wheat until
they change their evil ways.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

Ed wrote:
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
>
> > In some countries, like North Korea, when there's a truly bad growing
> > season, people go hungry, they starve, it causes actual risk to health
> > and life.
>
> N. Korea can go to hell. I wouldn't send them a single grain of wheat until
> they change their evil ways.

Actually that has been tried. The people of North Korea are not the
regime. And in fact the main victims of the North Korean 'evil ways'
are in fact North Koreans.

500k people starved to death and the regime wound up *stronger* than
before it started.

Famine actually contributes to the power base of the people in power.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

PS Stalin of course did this with the liquidation of 7 million Kulaks
in the Ukraine.

It strengthened him, it did not weaken him.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

Ed wrote:
>
>
> Here's my take on this.
>
> Dairy farmers sometimes produce a lot of milk and when they do supply goes
> up and they can't sell it all. They lower their prices and still can't sell
> it all. Taxpayer to the rescue, we buy this surplus to help out the farmers.
>
> Dairy farmers sometimes can't produce enough milk to meet demand so they
> raisse their prices and take advantage of the taxpayer, the same taxpaer
> that bails them out when demand is low.
> I'm glad I don't drink milk.

Ain't this a great country or what?

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

> In article <>,
> Ed <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Here's my take on this.
>>
>>Dairy farmers sometimes produce a lot of milk and when they do supply goes
>>up and they can't sell it all. They lower their prices and still can't sell
>>it all. Taxpayer to the rescue, we buy this surplus to help out the farmers.
>>
>>Dairy farmers sometimes can't produce enough milk to meet demand so they
>>raisse their prices and take advantage of the taxpayer, the same taxpaer
>>that bails them out when demand is low.
>>I'm glad I don't drink milk.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Here's my take.
>
> In some countries, like North Korea, when there's a truly bad growing
> season,

They don't have a bad growing season. You sound just like Soviet
apologists who kept blaming their food shortages on 70 years worth of
bad weather and bad growing seasons.

They have a government and Marxist economic system that has brought the
country to the brink of ruin. South Korea and North Korea, side by side
on the same peninsula, are a controlled experiment in how to run a
country versus how not to run a country.

You want to fix the starvation problem in North Korea? Let's
exterminate the Communist clique that's ruining the place for their
crimes against humanity, and bring free enterprise to the whole peninsula.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

darkness39 wrote:

>
> Ed wrote:
>
>>"Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>In some countries, like North Korea, when there's a truly bad growing
>>>season, people go hungry, they starve, it causes actual risk to health
>>>and life.
>>
>>N. Korea can go to hell. I wouldn't send them a single grain of wheat until
>>they change their evil ways.
>
>
> Actually that has been tried. The people of North Korea are not the
> regime. And in fact the main victims of the North Korean 'evil ways'
> are in fact North Koreans.
>
> 500k people starved to death and the regime wound up *stronger* than
> before it started.
>
> Famine actually contributes to the power base of the people in power.

That's why the U.S. should make it clear that we are committed as a
country to regime change in North Korea.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

In article <6xYre.4793$>,
Steven L. <> wrote:
> That's why the U.S. should make it clear that we are committed as a
> country to regime change in North Korea.

How do you bell that cat?

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:wwYre.4792$
> South Korea and North Korea, side by side
>
Or China and North Korea? It's the ideological BS like "almighty's gift" or
"self reliance" that ruins people and society.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

In article <d8pmrl$nq8$>,
Greg Hennessy <> wrote:
>In article <6xYre.4793$>,
>Steven L. <> wrote:
>> That's why the U.S. should make it clear that we are committed as a
>> country to regime change in North Korea.
>
>How do you bell that cat?
>

We'll need more troops.


--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

Steven L. wrote:
> darkness39 wrote:
>
>>
>> Ed wrote:
>>
>>> "Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>> In some countries, like North Korea, when there's a truly bad growing
>>>> season, people go hungry, they starve, it causes actual risk to health
>>>> and life.
>>>
>>>
>>> N. Korea can go to hell. I wouldn't send them a single grain of wheat
>>> until
>>> they change their evil ways.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually that has been tried. The people of North Korea are not the
>> regime. And in fact the main victims of the North Korean 'evil ways'
>> are in fact North Koreans.
>>
>> 500k people starved to death and the regime wound up *stronger* than
>> before it started.
>>
>> Famine actually contributes to the power base of the people in power.
>
>
> That's why the U.S. should make it clear that we are committed as a
> country to regime change in North Korea.
>
>
Why is it any business of the USA what regime rules in N Korea?

Would the USA like the N Koreans to tell them they should convert to
communism and try to bring it about?

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

In article <d8pr5b$p53$>,
Gregory L. Hansen <> wrote:
> >> That's why the U.S. should make it clear that we are committed as a
> >> country to regime change in North Korea.
> >
> >How do you bell that cat?
> >
> We'll need more troops.

How many troops are you willing to have die to change regime's in
North Korea?

Given we don't have enough troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, how do you
think you will get more troops?

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

In article <d8pvr5$olf$>,
Greg Hennessy <> wrote:
>In article <d8pr5b$p53$>,
>Gregory L. Hansen <> wrote:
>> >> That's why the U.S. should make it clear that we are committed as a
>> >> country to regime change in North Korea.
>> >
>> >How do you bell that cat?
>> >
>> We'll need more troops.
>
>How many troops are you willing to have die to change regime's in
>North Korea?
>
>Given we don't have enough troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, how do you
>think you will get more troops?

Why don't you tell me what I think, you seem to enjoy that.


--
"And don't skimp on the mayonnaise!"

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

In article <d8q2g7$rdj$>,
Gregory L. Hansen <> wrote:
> >Given we don't have enough troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, how do you
> >think you will get more troops?
>
> Why don't you tell me what I think, you seem to enjoy that.

Considering you can't even find one time where I told what you think,
I don't know how you can claim I enjoy something I've never done.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

David Wilkinson wrote:
> Steven L. wrote:
> > darkness39 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Ed wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> In some countries, like North Korea, when there's a truly bad growing
> >>>> season, people go hungry, they starve, it causes actual risk to health
> >>>> and life.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> N. Korea can go to hell. I wouldn't send them a single grain of wheat
> >>> until
> >>> they change their evil ways.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually that has been tried. The people of North Korea are not the
> >> regime. And in fact the main victims of the North Korean 'evil ways'
> >> are in fact North Koreans.
> >>
> >> 500k people starved to death and the regime wound up *stronger* than
> >> before it started.
> >>
> >> Famine actually contributes to the power base of the people in power.
> >
> >
> > That's why the U.S. should make it clear that we are committed as a
> > country to regime change in North Korea.
> >
> >
> Why is it any business of the USA what regime rules in N Korea?
>

It's the "he who has the biggest gun" theory.

> Would the USA like the N Koreans to tell them they should convert to
> communism and try to bring it about?

No. But we got bigger guns than they.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> Why is it any business of the USA what regime rules in N Korea?
>
> Would the USA like the N Koreans to tell them they should convert to
> communism and try to bring it about?

I have mixed feelings about what the US should or shouldn't do, but I
believe there are currently 2 nuclear power plants under construction in S.
Korea, Japan has 3 going up, but Iran and S. Korea are being told they can't
have it. Iran because they have no good reason because of their oil
reserves, but wouldn't their oil be more valuable to them if it's sold on
the world markets? The US, and others, view Iran and N. Korea as threats to
stability in their regions as well as in the world. China, Russia, India.
and many others have these plants and are building more. They also have
nuclear weapons. A friend today may not be a friend forever, same for an
enemy. I think the US sticks its nose in more plasces than it should.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

Steven L. wrote:
> You want to fix the starvation problem in North Korea? Let's
> exterminate the Communist clique that's ruining the place for their
> crimes against humanity, and bring free enterprise to the whole peninsula.

Steve

The article below from which I have excerpted some bits gives you an
idea of why US policymakers, right and left, don't rush into this one.

I urge you to buy the current issue on the newstand and read it for
yourself.

Darkness

>




The Atlantic Monthly | July/August 2005


North Korea: The War Game

Dealing with North Korea could make Iraq look like child's play-and
the longer we wait, the harder it will get. That's the message of a
Pentagon-style war game involving some of this country's most prominent
foreign-policy strategists
by Scott Stossel
.....

The North Korean situation is also ripe for war-game treatment, because
of the extraordinarily difficult military and diplomatic challenges it
presents. Iran, considered an urgent national-security priority, is
thought to be three to five years away from possessing even a single
nuclear device. North Korea is widely believed to have as many as ten
already, and to be producing more every year. (It is also the first
developing nation thought to be capable of striking the continental
United States with a long-range ballistic missile.) And whereas Iraq
did not, after all, have weapons of mass destruction, North Korea is
believed to have large stockpiles of chemical weapons (mustard gas,
sarin, VX nerve agent) and biological weapons (anthrax, botulism,
cholera, hemorrhagic fever, plague, smallpox, typhoid, yellow fever).
An actual war on the Korean peninsula would almost certainly be the
bloodiest America has fought since Vietnam-possibly since World War
II. In recent years Pentagon experts have estimated that the first
ninety days of such a conflict might produce 300,000 to 500,000 South
Korean and American military casualties, along with hundreds of
thousands of civilian deaths. The damage to South Korea alone would
rock the global economy.
.....

Gardiner reviewed some of the basic facts about North Korea's
conventional military capabilities. The North Korean People's Army, he
observed, is the fifth biggest military in the world, with more than
1.2 million active-duty troops and 7 million reservists. One of the
most notable components of the People's Army is its highly trained
Special Operations Forces-the North Korean equivalent of Saddam
Hussein's elite Republican Guard. Consisting of some 125,000 troops,
the SOF may be the largest such force in the world. In the event of a
conflict on the peninsula, Gardiner said, we would find ourselves not
only engaging these troops along the border but also combating their
sneak attacks from the rear. Displaying a PowerPoint slide that
depicted North Korean tunneling operations along the demilitarized zone
since the 1970s, Gardiner observed that the SOF would get behind the
front lines not only through hidden tunnels that U.S. and South Korean
intelligence agencies have yet to find (one of them, according to the
journalist Jasper Becker's new book, Rogue Regime: Kim Jong Il and the
Looming Threat of North Korea, is large enough for 30,000 infantrymen
to pass through in an hour) but also in small aircraft, boats, and
midget submarines. We're improving our ability to contend with the SOF,
Gardiner said. But it remains a "big deal."

Next he summarized the North Korean missile program: the medium-range
No-Dong missiles that can hit Japan; the 1,200-mile Taepo Dong 1
missiles; and the Taepo Dong 2, which could theoretically strike the
continental United States. The Taepo Dong 2, Gardiner said, "changes
the strategic equation significantly."

Gardiner paused to get initial assessments from the Principals
Committee. CIA Director David Kay responded first, noting that what
confounds policymaking on North Korea is how little anyone actually
knows about the country. "We believe a lot," he observed. "We actually
know very little." Kay thought that the principal objective of U.S.
intelligence at this point should be to determine the extent of any
connection between North Korea's nuclear program and groups outside the
country.

.....

Gardiner also pointed out that U.S. military planners have called for a
drawdown in the number of American troops stationed in South Korea over
the next few years-from 37,500 in 2004 to 25,000 by 2008. Because of
our overwhelming air and naval superiority, we still have the
"overmatching" capability to defeat a conventional attack. But, he
said, "I can't assure that we can swiftly defeat or win decisively." He
also said that as the size of his force diminished, he was losing his
capacity to deter a North Korean attack

....

Gardiner presented some numbers. Given the North Korean population of
23 million, and the number of U.S. troops it has taken to (not very
successfully) maintain order and prevent looting in Iraq (population:
26 million), he estimated that it would take 500,000 ground troops to
carry out stability operations. "These don't all have to be Americans,
but if the historical record is correct we've got to have five hundred
thousand somebodies in the North," he said.

.....
Hammes disagreed with Ken Adelman's plan to have China pressure the
North Koreans by cutting off their food supply. He argued that first,
Kim Jong Il has already proved he doesn't care how many people he
starves, and second, if we really do crank up the pressure on him we
increase the likelihood of a "spasm attack" on Seoul.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

In article <d8q3p3$p6b$>,
Greg Hennessy <> wrote:
>In article <d8q2g7$rdj$>,
>Gregory L. Hansen <> wrote:
>> >Given we don't have enough troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, how do you
>> >think you will get more troops?
>>
>> Why don't you tell me what I think, you seem to enjoy that.
>
>Considering you can't even find one time where I told what you think,
>I don't know how you can claim I enjoy something I've never done.
>


You seemed to think I'm ready to go into North Korea, and have a plan for
getting enough troops.


--
"I'm giving you the chance to look fate in those pretty eyes of hers
and say, 'Step off, bitch. This is my party and you're not invited.'"
-- Chris Shugart, _Testosterone Magazine_

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

We are going to do the same thing we do with all the other countries (re N.
Korea)... they'll make us a stupid promise they probably won't keep and
we'll throw a lot of tax dollars at them... same ole, same ole..

Reminds me of the old movie 'the mouse that roared'.......

Arne

"Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote in message
news:d8qj3q$ia$
> In article <d8q3p3$p6b$>,
> Greg Hennessy <> wrote:
>>In article <d8q2g7$rdj$>,
>>Gregory L. Hansen <> wrote:
>>> >Given we don't have enough troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, how do you
>>> >think you will get more troops?
>>>
>>> Why don't you tell me what I think, you seem to enjoy that.
>>
>>Considering you can't even find one time where I told what you think,
>>I don't know how you can claim I enjoy something I've never done.
>>
>
>
> You seemed to think I'm ready to go into North Korea, and have a plan for
> getting enough troops.
>
>
> --
> "I'm giving you the chance to look fate in those pretty eyes of hers
> and say, 'Step off, bitch. This is my party and you're not invited.'"
> -- Chris Shugart, _Testosterone Magazine_

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

"Arne" <> wrote in message
news:OS4se.10592$
> We are going to do the same thing we do with all the other countries (re
> N. Korea)... they'll make us a stupid promise they probably won't keep and
> we'll throw a lot of tax dollars at them... same ole, same ole..
>
> Reminds me of the old movie 'the mouse that roared'.......
>
> Arne
>
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote in message
> news:d8qj3q$ia$
>> In article <d8q3p3$p6b$>,
>> Greg Hennessy <> wrote:
>>>In article <d8q2g7$rdj$>,
>>>Gregory L. Hansen <> wrote:
>>>> >Given we don't have enough troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, how do you
>>>> >think you will get more troops?
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you tell me what I think, you seem to enjoy that.
>>>
>>>Considering you can't even find one time where I told what you think,
>>>I don't know how you can claim I enjoy something I've never done.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You seemed to think I'm ready to go into North Korea, and have a plan for
>> getting enough troops.
>>
>>
>> --
>> "I'm giving you the chance to look fate in those pretty eyes of hers
>> and say, 'Step off, bitch. This is my party and you're not invited.'"
>> -- Chris Shugart, _Testosterone Magazine_
>
>

Guys, I hate to infuriate you but We The People (USA) give more food aid to
that evil North Korea than ANY other country. And to make matters worst the
North Korean government does not allow humanitarian networks to distribute
this food to the needy masses instead uses this food as a political weapon
and feeds those it pleases such as it's military.

This evil government even has public executions of those poor soles caught
stealing food or caught fleeing to China to escape famine.

Now why don't we hear more real news like this instead of a stupid media
frenzied Michael Jackson trial?
--
Carlos Trevino
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of
refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle."
- George Washington's Farewell Address of 1796

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

In article <d8qj3q$ia$>,
Gregory L. Hansen <> wrote:
> You seemed to think I'm ready to go into North Korea, and have a plan for
> getting enough troops.

You said we would need more troops, I just asked where they would come
from.

I still would like to know.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

Ed wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>
>
>>Why is it any business of the USA what regime rules in N Korea?
>>
>>Would the USA like the N Koreans to tell them they should convert to
>>communism and try to bring it about?
>
>
> I have mixed feelings about what the US should or shouldn't do, but I
> believe there are currently 2 nuclear power plants under construction in S.
> Korea, Japan has 3 going up, but Iran and S. Korea are being told they can't
> have it. Iran because they have no good reason because of their oil
> reserves, but wouldn't their oil be more valuable to them if it's sold on
> the world markets? The US, and others, view Iran and N. Korea as threats to
> stability in their regions as well as in the world. China, Russia, India.
> and many others have these plants and are building more. They also have
> nuclear weapons. A friend today may not be a friend forever, same for an
> enemy. I think the US sticks its nose in more plasces than it should.
>
>
A short list of countries with nuclear weapons, from memory:

USA
UK
France
China
India
Pakistan
Israel
North Korea
Russia

There may be others for all I know.

Who cares?

We spent 40 or 50 years in the "Cold war" in a stand-off between the
East and West over who might fire their nuclear missiles first and
whether the other side could and would retaliate. It never bothered me
because it was obviously a lose-lose situation and no country would be
daft enough to start a nuclear war and destroy itself, and so it proved.

It is no different now. Nothing is going to happen whoever has nuclear
weapons. It just suits the USA to have imaginary enemies, a bogeyman or
two, to unite the people against, bolster the Presidency and justify
having massive military forces which can be deployed in their real role,
to push other countries about and get control of strategic supplies like
oil.

The message from Afghanistan and Iraq, that I am sure North Korea and
Iran have noted, is that if you are weak and don't have adequate defence
forces, nuclear or conventional, then the USA may invade you and
subjugate you on some pretext or other. And US troops, once there, will
never leave.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

Carlos Trevino wrote:
>

> Guys, I hate to infuriate you but We The People (USA) give more food
> aid to that evil North Korea than ANY other country.

Used to be true, but not lately.


(that's Table 4; here's the whole document:
)

China gives 50% more, and S. Korea about twice as much as the U.S.

--
Mark Freeland

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

Actually Iran has a good case for civilian nuclear power. 60 million
people and a very fast growing economy, and the oil and gas is needed
for export.

No one has questioned the South Korean nuclear power programme AFAIK.
It would be very difficult for them to build a bomb without the US
knowing. If Taiwan builds a bomb, China has always said it will attack.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

Greg Hennessy wrote:
> In article <d8qj3q$ia$>,
> Gregory L. Hansen <> wrote:
> > You seemed to think I'm ready to go into North Korea, and have a plan for
> > getting enough troops.
>
> You said we would need more troops, I just asked where they would come
> from.

There is no answer to that.

Without restoring the draft, the US military cannot expand
significantly beyond its current size (recruiting levels are falling
sharply).

The US needs its allies to provide manpower. On which basis, a
strategy in the Middle East which said 'we don't need allies' turns out
to have been counterproductive. Other than us Brits, no other country
is sharing the burden to any significant extent.

Even pulling out 100% of US troops in European locales doesn't give you
more than a division extra (the European basees are already being
rotated through Iraq).

Full mobilisation of the NG and Reserves probably doesn't give you a
lot more combat divisions (something like 6-8 brigades after 6-12
months of training) because their role is primarily combat support.
Half the troops in Iraq are already (planned to be) reservists and NG.

In the case of the Korean peninsula there is of course the ROK. But
they would have to believe a war that might kill or severely injure
half a million of their own people and twice that of their family
brethren in North Korea was a good idea. They would only join in such
an operation if they were attacked. And of course the ROK central bank
is a key supporter of the US economy and the US dollar.

>
> I still would like to know.

Because there is not a politically possible answer (ie the Draft) there
is no answer.

Welcome to the limits of Empire.

Re: OT: Surplus milk powder.

In article <d8qs1d$usc$>,
Greg Hennessy <> wrote:
>In article <d8qj3q$ia$>,
>Gregory L. Hansen <> wrote:
>> You seemed to think I'm ready to go into North Korea, and have a plan for
>> getting enough troops.
>
>You said we would need more troops, I just asked where they would come
>from.
>
>I still would like to know.

I have no idea where they would come from. But we would need them before
we could do anything in North Korea.


--
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to
the Internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Wilensky

What troops? LG-118A

"Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote

> I have no idea where they would come from. But we would need them before
> we could do anything in North Korea.



One of these puppies should do it. We have plenty.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

Ed wrote:
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
>
> > I have no idea where they would come from. But we would need them before
> > we could do anything in North Korea.
>
>
>
> One of these puppies should do it. We have plenty.

You're joking, right?

The ABM system doesn't work (nor can it practically but the US taxpayer
will spend another $100bn finding that out).

As to attacking North Korea with nukes, the fallout (we are talking
ground bursts here, which are much dirtier) alone would cost tens of
thousands of lives.

Plus the US would have killed 4 or 5 million people by nuclear attack
and created 20 million refugees. Completely disrupted the economies of
its major supplier of electronic parts and closest allies (Japan and
North Korea).

What you are saying is a Crime Against Humanity would be worthwhile?

Re: What troops? LG-118A

darkness39 wrote:
>
> Ed wrote:
>
>>"Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>I have no idea where they would come from. But we would need them before
>>>we could do anything in North Korea.
>>
>>
>>
>>One of these puppies should do it. We have plenty.
>
>
> You're joking, right?
>
> The ABM system doesn't work (nor can it practically but the US taxpayer
> will spend another $100bn finding that out).
>
> As to attacking North Korea with nukes, the fallout (we are talking
> ground bursts here, which are much dirtier) alone would cost tens of
> thousands of lives.
>
> Plus the US would have killed 4 or 5 million people by nuclear attack
> and created 20 million refugees. Completely disrupted the economies of
> its major supplier of electronic parts and closest allies (Japan and
> North Korea).
>
> What you are saying is a Crime Against Humanity would be worthwhile?
>
And it would be completely pointless. There is no way that North Korea
would attack the immensely stronger USA any more than I would attack a
500 lb gorilla. Why would NK want to die?

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"darkness39" <> wrote

> Plus the US would have killed 4 or 5 million people by nuclear attack
> and created 20 million refugees. Completely disrupted the economies of
> its major supplier of electronic parts and closest allies (Japan and
> North Korea).

Sorry, I didn't realize that N. Korea was at the top of our "Best Allies"
list.
I'm pretty sure you meant S. Korea, and don't forget Taiwan.

> What you are saying is a Crime Against Humanity would be worthwhile?

Of course I'm joking. My point is that why should we be concerned with their
nuclear program?
They wouldn't have a chance. N. Korea should be ignored completely. Let them
fend for themselves. It has been said that just the US and Russia together
have enough nuclear weaponry on submarines to destroy the planet several
times over. Does seem like a waste of money.

Just like ending aid to N. Korea can't/won't/didn't work, giving them aid
can't/won't/didn't work either. Leave them to sleep in the bed they made for
themselves.

If another nuclear device is ever exploded by the U.S. I hope it's only in
response to a device that some other government exploded here, what a mess
that would be. I hope it never happens.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

darkness39 wrote:
> Ed wrote:

>>

>>One of these puppies should do it. We have plenty.

>You're joking, right?

>The ABM system doesn't work (nor can it practically but the
>US taxpayer will spend another $100bn finding that out).

It will probably work against small attacks, provided the interceptors
outnumber the incoming warheads and decoys by at least 2:1.

People who've worked on ABM think only nuclear interceptors are
effective, like this cool www.astronautix.com/lvs/sprint.htm (0-6,500
MPH in 4 seconds), meant to protect against nuclear missile attack by
detonating a small x-ray enhanced H-bomb 5-20 miles from the target.

Dubya, being democracy's version of Kim Il-Jong, wants to look tough
instead of treat North Korea as an end game.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d8u7uf$dit$
> darkness39 wrote:
> >
> > Ed wrote:
> >
> >>"Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have no idea where they would come from. But we would need them
before
> >>>we could do anything in North Korea.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>One of these puppies should do it. We have plenty.
> >
> >
> > You're joking, right?
> >
> > The ABM system doesn't work (nor can it practically but the US taxpayer
> > will spend another $100bn finding that out).
> >
> > As to attacking North Korea with nukes, the fallout (we are talking
> > ground bursts here, which are much dirtier) alone would cost tens of
> > thousands of lives.
> >
> > Plus the US would have killed 4 or 5 million people by nuclear attack
> > and created 20 million refugees. Completely disrupted the economies of
> > its major supplier of electronic parts and closest allies (Japan and
> > North Korea).
> >
> > What you are saying is a Crime Against Humanity would be worthwhile?
> >
> And it would be completely pointless. There is no way that North Korea
> would attack the immensely stronger USA any more than I would attack a
> 500 lb gorilla. Why would NK want to die?

I agree. An attack is not likely. The danger is that, unable to feed their
population, the temptation to sell nuclear technology and materials will be
irresistible.

Don't imagine London would be immune to this threat.

-herb

Re: What troops? LG-118A

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d8u7uf$dit$
>
>>darkness39 wrote:
>>
>>>Ed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have no idea where they would come from. But we would need them
>
> before
>
>>>>>we could do anything in North Korea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>One of these puppies should do it. We have plenty.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're joking, right?
>>>
>>>The ABM system doesn't work (nor can it practically but the US taxpayer
>>>will spend another $100bn finding that out).
>>>
>>>As to attacking North Korea with nukes, the fallout (we are talking
>>>ground bursts here, which are much dirtier) alone would cost tens of
>>>thousands of lives.
>>>
>>>Plus the US would have killed 4 or 5 million people by nuclear attack
>>>and created 20 million refugees. Completely disrupted the economies of
>>>its major supplier of electronic parts and closest allies (Japan and
>>>North Korea).
>>>
>>>What you are saying is a Crime Against Humanity would be worthwhile?
>>>
>>
>>And it would be completely pointless. There is no way that North Korea
>>would attack the immensely stronger USA any more than I would attack a
>>500 lb gorilla. Why would NK want to die?
>
>
> I agree. An attack is not likely. The danger is that, unable to feed their
> population, the temptation to sell nuclear technology and materials will be
> irresistible.
>
> Don't imagine London would be immune to this threat.
>
> -herb
>
>
We have lots of nuclear missiles too. I am not saying they would
actually work if fired but the North Koreans could not be sure of that.

Besides we have our gallant ex-colonial allies who have enough bombs to
destroy the whole planet (purely for peaceful reasons of course)and some
of theirs would almost certainly work so there is no point in NK
attacking either of us.

Nor is there much point in anyone else buying nuclear technology from NK
because no one can use it.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d8ve0u$aoj$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:d8u7uf$dit$
> >
> >>darkness39 wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ed wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I have no idea where they would come from. But we would need them
> >
> > before
> >
> >>>>>we could do anything in North Korea.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>One of these puppies should do it. We have plenty.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You're joking, right?
> >>>
> >>>The ABM system doesn't work (nor can it practically but the US taxpayer
> >>>will spend another $100bn finding that out).
> >>>
> >>>As to attacking North Korea with nukes, the fallout (we are talking
> >>>ground bursts here, which are much dirtier) alone would cost tens of
> >>>thousands of lives.
> >>>
> >>>Plus the US would have killed 4 or 5 million people by nuclear attack
> >>>and created 20 million refugees. Completely disrupted the economies of
> >>>its major supplier of electronic parts and closest allies (Japan and
> >>>North Korea).
> >>>
> >>>What you are saying is a Crime Against Humanity would be worthwhile?
> >>>
> >>
> >>And it would be completely pointless. There is no way that North Korea
> >>would attack the immensely stronger USA any more than I would attack a
> >>500 lb gorilla. Why would NK want to die?
> >
> >
> > I agree. An attack is not likely. The danger is that, unable to feed
their
> > population, the temptation to sell nuclear technology and materials will
be
> > irresistible.
> >
> > Don't imagine London would be immune to this threat.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> >
> We have lots of nuclear missiles too. I am not saying they would
> actually work if fired but the North Koreans could not be sure of that.
>
> Besides we have our gallant ex-colonial allies who have enough bombs to
> destroy the whole planet (purely for peaceful reasons of course)and some
> of theirs would almost certainly work so there is no point in NK
> attacking either of us.
>
> Nor is there much point in anyone else buying nuclear technology from NK
> because no one can use it.

You don't understand me. Lots of people would like to detonate a dirty bomb
or worse in any number of Western capitals. Nuclear deterrence only works
against states.

-herb

Re: What troops? LG-118A

David Wilkinson wrote:

> Herb wrote:
>
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:d8u7uf$dit$
>>
>>> darkness39 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea where they would come from. But we would need them
>>
>>
>> before
>>
>>>>>> we could do anything in North Korea.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One of these puppies should do it. We have plenty.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're joking, right?
>>>>
>>>> The ABM system doesn't work (nor can it practically but the US taxpayer
>>>> will spend another $100bn finding that out).
>>>>
>>>> As to attacking North Korea with nukes, the fallout (we are talking
>>>> ground bursts here, which are much dirtier) alone would cost tens of
>>>> thousands of lives.
>>>>
>>>> Plus the US would have killed 4 or 5 million people by nuclear attack
>>>> and created 20 million refugees. Completely disrupted the economies of
>>>> its major supplier of electronic parts and closest allies (Japan and
>>>> North Korea).
>>>>
>>>> What you are saying is a Crime Against Humanity would be worthwhile?
>>>>
>>>
>>> And it would be completely pointless. There is no way that North Korea
>>> would attack the immensely stronger USA any more than I would attack a
>>> 500 lb gorilla. Why would NK want to die?
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree. An attack is not likely. The danger is that, unable to feed
>> their
>> population, the temptation to sell nuclear technology and materials
>> will be
>> irresistible.
>>
>> Don't imagine London would be immune to this threat.
>>
>> -herb
>>
>>
> We have lots of nuclear missiles too. I am not saying they would
> actually work if fired but the North Koreans could not be sure of that.

One of the things I've noticed about people like yourself is that they
continue to rely on nuclear deterrence to avoid having to support more
pro-active actions--while reserving the right to denounce nuclear
deterrence if it is ever used. When Condoleeza Rice made the same
statement you just made--that North Korea would be obliterated if they
nuked America--the hysteria coming from certain quarters was really
something. ("Genocide!") Even though she was simply stating what
deterrence is all about.

On the one hand, you claim that North Korea is unlikely to nuke the U.S.
because the U.S. has a nuclear deterrent.

On the other hand, I wonder if you would support nuclear retaliation
against North Korea in the event that North Korea did nuke the U.S.

In fact, I wonder if you would support nuclear retaliation against North
Korea even if North Korea nuked Britain.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

Ed wrote:

> "darkness39" <> wrote
>
>
>>Plus the US would have killed 4 or 5 million people by nuclear attack
>>and created 20 million refugees. Completely disrupted the economies of
>>its major supplier of electronic parts and closest allies (Japan and
>>North Korea).
>
>
> Sorry, I didn't realize that N. Korea was at the top of our "Best Allies"
> list.
> I'm pretty sure you meant S. Korea, and don't forget Taiwan.
>
>
>>What you are saying is a Crime Against Humanity would be worthwhile?
>
>
> Of course I'm joking. My point is that why should we be concerned with their
> nuclear program?

Because North Korea has already sold missile technology to Iran. And
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.

These rogue states have a new angle. They can screw us over by
sponsoring terrorism, or even just by enabling terrorism by putting the
weapons technology on the black market for rich terrorists like Osama to
bid on.

If a terrorist attack does occur, North Korea could maintain plausible
deniability. Nuking North Korea (and killing a lot of innocent people
there in the process), just because they *sold* a nuke to Osama, is
going to be a tough sell even to the American people, let alone to the
world community.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

Ed wrote:

> "Gregory L. Hansen" <> wrote
>
>
>>I have no idea where they would come from. But we would need them before
>>we could do anything in North Korea.
>
>
>
>
> One of these puppies should do it. We have plenty.

Actually, we only have 50.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

Steven L. wrote:
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
[ Snip ]
>>>
>>>
>> We have lots of nuclear missiles too. I am not saying they would
>> actually work if fired but the North Koreans could not be sure of that.
>
>
> One of the things I've noticed about people like yourself is that they
> continue to rely on nuclear deterrence to avoid having to support more
> pro-active actions--while reserving the right to denounce nuclear
> deterrence if it is ever used. When Condoleeza Rice made the same
> statement you just made--that North Korea would be obliterated if they
> nuked America--the hysteria coming from certain quarters was really
> something. ("Genocide!") Even though she was simply stating what
> deterrence is all about.
>
Not sure what your point is. Rice and I apparently agree.

> On the one hand, you claim that North Korea is unlikely to nuke the U.S.
> because the U.S. has a nuclear deterrent.
>
> On the other hand, I wonder if you would support nuclear retaliation
> against North Korea in the event that North Korea did nuke the U.S.
>
Yes, I would support retaliation. That is what deterrence is all about.
You have to mean it. The retaliation has to be proportionate though. If
they bomb our city we bomb theirs. This does not mean blanketing the
whole country and wiping out 26 million people because of the evil
actions of a few politicians. Most of the North Koreans are probably
subsistence farmers with as much control over their government as I have
over ours, or even less.

> In fact, I wonder if you would support nuclear retaliation against North
> Korea even if North Korea nuked Britain.
>
Yes again.
>

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"Steven L." <> wrote

> Because North Korea has already sold missile technology to Iran. And Iran
> is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Didn't Russia do so as well?

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d90dp3$q92$

[snip]

> Yes, I would support retaliation. That is what deterrence is all about.
> You have to mean it. The retaliation has to be proportionate though. If
> they bomb our city we bomb theirs. This does not mean blanketing the
> whole country and wiping out 26 million people because of the evil
> actions of a few politicians. Most of the North Koreans are probably
> subsistence farmers with as much control over their government as I have
> over ours, or even less.

So you would leave them in a position to possibly nuke another of your
cities? I think it is dangerous to pretend that there is any concept of
proportionality in nuclear deterrance. It is important for them to know
that firing once will lead to complete destruction.

As I have said, I think you are missing the point. The danger isn't nuclear
destruction from North Korea, it is that materials might be sold to
terrorists.

-herb

Re: What troops? LG-118A

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d90dp3$q92$
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Yes, I would support retaliation. That is what deterrence is all about.
>>You have to mean it. The retaliation has to be proportionate though. If
>>they bomb our city we bomb theirs. This does not mean blanketing the
>>whole country and wiping out 26 million people because of the evil
>>actions of a few politicians. Most of the North Koreans are probably
>>subsistence farmers with as much control over their government as I have
>>over ours, or even less.
>
>
> So you would leave them in a position to possibly nuke another of your
> cities? I think it is dangerous to pretend that there is any concept of
> proportionality in nuclear deterrance. It is important for them to know
> that firing once will lead to complete destruction.
>
> As I have said, I think you are missing the point. The danger isn't nuclear
> destruction from North Korea, it is that materials might be sold to
> terrorists.
>
> -herb
>
>
>
They already have. US troops have been firing shells with depleted
Uranium in them all over Iraq in two gulf wars.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d91r7l$n4f$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:d90dp3$q92$
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>Yes, I would support retaliation. That is what deterrence is all about.
> >>You have to mean it. The retaliation has to be proportionate though. If
> >>they bomb our city we bomb theirs. This does not mean blanketing the
> >>whole country and wiping out 26 million people because of the evil
> >>actions of a few politicians. Most of the North Koreans are probably
> >>subsistence farmers with as much control over their government as I have
> >>over ours, or even less.
> >
> >
> > So you would leave them in a position to possibly nuke another of your
> > cities? I think it is dangerous to pretend that there is any concept of
> > proportionality in nuclear deterrance. It is important for them to know
> > that firing once will lead to complete destruction.
> >
> > As I have said, I think you are missing the point. The danger isn't
nuclear
> > destruction from North Korea, it is that materials might be sold to
> > terrorists.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> >
> >
> They already have. US troops have been firing shells with depleted
> Uranium in them all over Iraq in two gulf wars.

And what does "depleted" mean?

Re: What troops? LG-118A

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d91r7l$n4f$
>
>>Herb wrote:
>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>news:d90dp3$q92$
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, I would support retaliation. That is what deterrence is all about.
>>>>You have to mean it. The retaliation has to be proportionate though. If
>>>>they bomb our city we bomb theirs. This does not mean blanketing the
>>>>whole country and wiping out 26 million people because of the evil
>>>>actions of a few politicians. Most of the North Koreans are probably
>>>>subsistence farmers with as much control over their government as I have
>>>>over ours, or even less.
>>>
>>>
>>>So you would leave them in a position to possibly nuke another of your
>>>cities? I think it is dangerous to pretend that there is any concept of
>>>proportionality in nuclear deterrance. It is important for them to know
>>>that firing once will lead to complete destruction.
>>>
>>>As I have said, I think you are missing the point. The danger isn't
>
> nuclear
>
>>>destruction from North Korea, it is that materials might be sold to
>>>terrorists.
>>>
>>>-herb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>They already have. US troops have been firing shells with depleted
>>Uranium in them all over Iraq in two gulf wars.
>
>
> And what does "depleted" mean?
>
>
Try Google.

From one of its hits

What is Depleted Uranium?

The misnamed 'Depleted' Uranium is left after enriched uranium is
separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear
reactors. During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is
separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium
238 is misleadingly called 'depleted uranium'. While the term
'depleted' implies it isn't particularly dangerous, in fact, this waste
product of the nuclear industry is 'conveniently' disposed of by
producing deadly weapons.

Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard
metal, and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as
can lead or any other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also
radiologically hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating
tiny aerosolised glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled.
These uranium oxide particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta
and gamma, and can be carried in the air over long distances. Depleted
uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and the presence of
depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can pose a long term threat to human
health and the environment.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d937sv$9ec$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:d91r7l$n4f$
> >
> >>Herb wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
message
> >>>news:d90dp3$q92$
> >>>
> >>>[snip]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Yes, I would support retaliation. That is what deterrence is all
about.
> >>>>You have to mean it. The retaliation has to be proportionate though.
If
> >>>>they bomb our city we bomb theirs. This does not mean blanketing the
> >>>>whole country and wiping out 26 million people because of the evil
> >>>>actions of a few politicians. Most of the North Koreans are probably
> >>>>subsistence farmers with as much control over their government as I
have
> >>>>over ours, or even less.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>So you would leave them in a position to possibly nuke another of your
> >>>cities? I think it is dangerous to pretend that there is any concept
of
> >>>proportionality in nuclear deterrance. It is important for them to
know
> >>>that firing once will lead to complete destruction.
> >>>
> >>>As I have said, I think you are missing the point. The danger isn't
> >
> > nuclear
> >
> >>>destruction from North Korea, it is that materials might be sold to
> >>>terrorists.
> >>>
> >>>-herb
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>They already have. US troops have been firing shells with depleted
> >>Uranium in them all over Iraq in two gulf wars.
> >
> >
> > And what does "depleted" mean?
> >
> >
> Try Google.
>
> From one of its hits
>
> What is Depleted Uranium?
>
> The misnamed 'Depleted' Uranium is left after enriched uranium is
> separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear
> reactors. During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is
> separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium
> 238 is misleadingly called 'depleted uranium'. While the term
> 'depleted' implies it isn't particularly dangerous, in fact, this waste
> product of the nuclear industry is 'conveniently' disposed of by
> producing deadly weapons.
>
> Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard
> metal, and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as
> can lead or any other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also
> radiologically hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating
> tiny aerosolised glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled.
> These uranium oxide particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta
> and gamma, and can be carried in the air over long distances. Depleted
> uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and the presence of
> depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can pose a long term threat to human
> health and the environment.

Well, it sounds like nasty stuff (much like the lead they usually shoot at
you) but are you really saying it is no different from the "enriched"
uranium currently being processed in North Korea (not to mention Iran)?

What does England do with its depleted uranium?

-herb
ì

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"Herb" <> wrote
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
> > The misnamed 'Depleted' Uranium is left after enriched uranium is
> > separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear
> > reactors.

What appalling technical writing.

Natural uranium contains about 99% U-238 and about 1% U-235 (plus some
lesser isotopes). U-235 is the preferred isotope for nuclear weapons and
nuclear reactors, because it's more fissile than U-238. As a result,
chemical processes are used to enrich natural uranium to have a higher
concentration of U-235. A waste produce of these processes is a uranium
mixture that has a higher concentration of U-238 than is found in natural
uranium.

> > During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is
> > separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium
> > 238 is misleadingly called 'depleted uranium'. While the term
> > 'depleted' implies it isn't particularly dangerous,

Only to a reactionary eager to leap to assumptions.

The term "uranium" by itself implies "depleted uranium" is dangerous.

> > in fact, this waste
> > product of the nuclear industry is 'conveniently' disposed of by
> > producing deadly weapons.

And fuel for commercial nuclear reactors.

You should have just had Herb google. It's stupid to repeat stuff easily
found on the net, and it does him a disservice.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"Elle" <> wrote

> What appalling technical writing.

I think you are in the midst of menopause. The anxiety stage.
Don't worry, it will be ok. Personal question, you don't have to answer.
Are you intersexual?

Re: What troops? LG-118A

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
[ Snip]

>>Try Google.
>>
>> From one of its hits
>>
>>What is Depleted Uranium?
>>
>>The misnamed 'Depleted' Uranium is left after enriched uranium is
>>separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear
>>reactors. During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is
>>separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium
>>238 is misleadingly called 'depleted uranium'. While the term
>>'depleted' implies it isn't particularly dangerous, in fact, this waste
>>product of the nuclear industry is 'conveniently' disposed of by
>>producing deadly weapons.
>>
>>Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard
>>metal, and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as
>>can lead or any other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also
>>radiologically hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating
>>tiny aerosolised glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled.
>>These uranium oxide particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta
>>and gamma, and can be carried in the air over long distances. Depleted
>>uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and the presence of
>>depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can pose a long term threat to human
>>health and the environment.
>
>
> Well, it sounds like nasty stuff (much like the lead they usually shoot at
> you) but are you really saying it is no different from the "enriched"
> uranium currently being processed in North Korea (not to mention Iran)?
>
Obviously depleted uranium is different from enriched uranium as used in
nuclear reactors. Enriched means the proportion of U235 to U238 is
increased. Depleted means the U235/U238 ratio is reduced. The depleted U
is less radioactive than natural U or enriched U but it is still
radioactive and a health hazard and can cause cancer if the fine dust
produced in military operations is inhaled. Presumably once produced the
radioactive dust will hang about able to cause injury and death for the
next 4.5 billion years, about the age of the Solar System and a third of
the age of the universe.

> What does England do with its depleted uranium?

I think most of it is stashed away at Sellafield as low level
radioactive waste that no one knows what to do with and will be a
nuisance for, yes, the next 4.5 billion years.

However some of it, to our discredit, is used in UK shells, see below.
If Bush and Blair are ever brought to trial for their war crimes this
would be a relatively minor item on the charge sheet.

The next extract from the web page I quoted before is as follows:



In the 1950's the United States Department of Defense became interested
in using depleted uranium metal in weapons because of its extremely
dense, pyrophoric qualities and because it was cheap and available in
huge quantities. It is now given practically free of charge to the
military and arms manufacturers and is used both as tank armour, and in
armour-piercing shells known as depleted uranium penetrators. Over 15
countries are known to have depleted uranium weapons in their military
arsenals - UK, US, France, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia,
Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, Iraq and Taiwan - with
depleted uranium rapidly spreading to other countries.

Depleted uranium was first used on a large scale in military combat
during the 1991 Gulf War, and has since been used in Bosnia in 1995, and
again in the Balkans war of 1999.

A sub-commission of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
appointed a 'rapporteur' to investigate the use of depleted uranium
weapons among other types of weapons, after passing a resolution which
categorised depleted uranium weapons alongside such as nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons, napalm, and cluster bombs as a 'weapon of
indiscriminate effect'.
>
> -herb
> ì

Re: What troops? LG-118A

Elle wrote:
> "Herb" <> wrote
>
>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>>
>>>The misnamed 'Depleted' Uranium is left after enriched uranium is
>>>separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear
>>>reactors.
>
>
> What appalling technical writing.
>
Take it up with the web site. I would think they are more likely to be
correct than you.

> Natural uranium contains about 99% U-238 and about 1% U-235 (plus some
> lesser isotopes). U-235 is the preferred isotope for nuclear weapons and
> nuclear reactors, because it's more fissile than U-238. As a result,
> chemical processes are used to enrich natural uranium to have a higher
> concentration of U-235. A waste produce of these processes is a uranium
> mixture that has a higher concentration of U-238 than is found in natural
> uranium.
>
>
>>>During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is
>>>separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium
>>>238 is misleadingly called 'depleted uranium'. While the term
>>>'depleted' implies it isn't particularly dangerous,
>
>
> Only to a reactionary eager to leap to assumptions.
>
> The term "uranium" by itself implies "depleted uranium" is dangerous.
>
>
>>>in fact, this waste
>>>product of the nuclear industry is 'conveniently' disposed of by
>>>producing deadly weapons.
>
>
> And fuel for commercial nuclear reactors.
>
> You should have just had Herb google. It's stupid to repeat stuff easily
> found on the net, and it does him a disservice.
>
>

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:

> Are you intersexual?
>

That's a big word!

My group of friends would just say:
She had a third leg, or is a bitch with a dick.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d937sv$9ec$
>
>>Herb wrote:
>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>news:d91r7l$n4f$
>>>
>>>
>>>>Herb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>
> message
>
>>>>>news:d90dp3$q92$
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, I would support retaliation. That is what deterrence is all
>
> about.
>
>>>>>>You have to mean it. The retaliation has to be proportionate though.
>
> If
>
>>>>>>they bomb our city we bomb theirs. This does not mean blanketing the
>>>>>>whole country and wiping out 26 million people because of the evil
>>>>>>actions of a few politicians. Most of the North Koreans are probably
>>>>>>subsistence farmers with as much control over their government as I
>
> have
>
>>>>>>over ours, or even less.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So you would leave them in a position to possibly nuke another of your
>>>>>cities? I think it is dangerous to pretend that there is any concept
>
> of
>
>>>>>proportionality in nuclear deterrance. It is important for them to
>
> know
>
>>>>>that firing once will lead to complete destruction.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I have said, I think you are missing the point. The danger isn't
>>>
>>>nuclear
>>>
>>>
>>>>>destruction from North Korea, it is that materials might be sold to
>>>>>terrorists.
>>>>>
>>>>>-herb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They already have. US troops have been firing shells with depleted
>>>>Uranium in them all over Iraq in two gulf wars.
>>>
>>>
>>>And what does "depleted" mean?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Try Google.
>>
>> From one of its hits
>>
>>What is Depleted Uranium?
>>
>>The misnamed 'Depleted' Uranium is left after enriched uranium is
>>separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear
>>reactors. During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is
>>separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium
>>238 is misleadingly called 'depleted uranium'. While the term
>>'depleted' implies it isn't particularly dangerous, in fact, this waste
>>product of the nuclear industry is 'conveniently' disposed of by
>>producing deadly weapons.
>>
>>Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard
>>metal, and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as
>>can lead or any other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also
>>radiologically hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating
>>tiny aerosolised glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled.
>>These uranium oxide particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta
>>and gamma, and can be carried in the air over long distances. Depleted
>>uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and the presence of
>>depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can pose a long term threat to human
>>health and the environment.
>
>
> Well, it sounds like nasty stuff (much like the lead they usually shoot at
> you) but are you really saying it is no different from the "enriched"
> uranium currently being processed in North Korea (not to mention Iran)?

The hysteria over Depleted Uranium seems to crop up from time to time by
people who don't know a damn thing about radioactivity.

I really don't want to have to reply to it yet one more time; you can
search Google for the many times I've discussed it before in various NGs.

I will only mention one common-sense observation: War involves toxicity
of *many* types. War involves blowing up things. When you bomb a
commercial chemical plant or an oil refinery (both strategic targets),
you release zillions of tons of highly toxic chemicals into the air, the
soil and the groundwater. And anyone downwind and downstream is going
to notice. What do these folks think happened with the strategic
bombing campaigns of World War II? Do they even know what happened? Do
they ever care? War is not clean. It's a very dirty business and
civilians end up paying a high price. The idea that civilians can be
kept sacrosanct while the armies go at it like a jousting match is a
fantasy.

The hysterics who are constantly screaming "War crimes!" over DU, had
very little to say when Saddam *deliberately* torched the oil refineries
during the Gulf War of 1991, turning the clean air over the Saudi
peninsula into a toxic soup. I would prefer to be exposed to DU than to
be exposed to that mess.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: What troops? LG-118A

In article <d937sv$9ec$>,
David Wilkinson <> wrote:

>Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard
>metal, and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as
>can lead or any other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also
>radiologically hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating
>tiny aerosolised glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled.
>These uranium oxide particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta
>and gamma, and can be carried in the air over long distances. Depleted
>uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and the presence of
>depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can pose a long term threat to human
>health and the environment.

At least the article mentions the chemical toxicity. Usually I only see
"It's DANgerously RADioACTive!" It's chemically toxic like other heavy
metals, and its chemically toxicity is more of a hazard than its
radioactivity. Not to say there's no hazard associated with its
radioactivity, but less hazard than its chemical properties.

Did the article attempt to compare the amount of uranium deposited over
long distances due to a tank shell with the amount of uranium (and
thorium) that is naturally present in the soil? Aerosolizing a 4 kg
penetrator surely creates a brief, locallized risk. But it doesn't seem
like such a long term threat over a large area when compared with seven
tons of undepleted uranium per square kilometer of topsoil.

Some countries have adopted an alloy of cobalt, tungsten, and nickel as an
environmentally friendlier alternative to depleted uranium munitions.
Interestingly, the alloy has proven to be fiercely carcinogenic.

--
"Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy
the pig."

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d94gh9$vh6$
> Elle wrote:
> > "Herb" <> wrote
> >
> >>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote
> >>
> >>>The misnamed 'Depleted' Uranium is left after enriched uranium is
> >>>separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear
> >>>reactors.
> >
> >
> > What appalling technical writing.
> >
> Take it up with the web site. I would think they are more likely to be
> correct than you.
>
> > Natural uranium contains about 99% U-238 and about 1% U-235 (plus some
> > lesser isotopes). U-235 is the preferred isotope for nuclear weapons and
> > nuclear reactors, because it's more fissile than U-238. As a result,
> > chemical processes are used to enrich natural uranium to have a higher
> > concentration of U-235. A waste produce of these processes is a uranium
> > mixture that has a higher concentration of U-238 than is found in
natural
> > uranium.
> >
> >
> >>>During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is
> >>>separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium
> >>>238 is misleadingly called 'depleted uranium'. While the term
> >>>'depleted' implies it isn't particularly dangerous,
> >
> >
> > Only to a reactionary eager to leap to assumptions.
> >
> > The term "uranium" by itself implies "depleted uranium" is dangerous.
> >
> >
> >>>in fact, this waste
> >>>product of the nuclear industry is 'conveniently' disposed of by
> >>>producing deadly weapons.
> >
> >
> > And fuel for commercial nuclear reactors.
> >
> > You should have just had Herb google. It's stupid to repeat stuff easily
> > found on the net, and it does him a disservice.

David:

This is all beside the point. Which would you rather have next door to you
at the IRA safehouse: a kilogram of depleted uranium or a kilogram of
enriched uranium? Which would fetch a higher price on the black market when
North Korea is trying to feed its starving people?

I am convinced that we would all prefer neither but I don't think we are
offered that choice.

-herb

Re: What troops? LG-118A

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:d94gh9$vh6$
>
[Snip]
>
> David:
>
> This is all beside the point. Which would you rather have next door to you
> at the IRA safehouse: a kilogram of depleted uranium or a kilogram of
> enriched uranium? Which would fetch a higher price on the black market when
> North Korea is trying to feed its starving people?
>
Herb

I am sure you know the answers to your hypothetical questions.

There is, of course, a great deal of radioactive material about already,
not all of it easily accounted for. There were more than 20,000 nuclear
warheads in existence in 2002, about half of these in the USA, most of
the other half in Russia and the rest in the UK, China, India, Pakistan
and Israel and, of course, North Korea.

Some of these countries have had severe government upheavals, like
Russia and Pakistan and many are or have been corrupt, so the chances of
some of this material getting into the wrong hands are quite high. Are
you seriously suggesting that it has not been possible already for
terrorists to have got hold of significant quantities of radioactive
materials either fissile ones for bomb-making or nasty radioactive ones
to spread contamination with a conventional explosive?

The amount of radioactive waste generated in nuclear reactors and fuel
processing plants is very large and a major disposal problem for those
who have to deal with it. I am sure it is not all accounted for to the
last kilogram, or 100 kg.

It is also equally possible that terrorists have or could have got hold
of the other WMDs, chemical and biological agents like nerve gas or
viruses so beloved of disaster film makers and government propagandists.
Mustard gas was available in world war one and Agent Orange was widely
used in Viet Nam, for instance.

I can't think that North Korea hypothetically selling some radioactive
material to some other country is going to significantly increase the
WMDs already potentially available to terrorists.

I would guess the reason they are not much used by terrorists compared
to conventional arms is not because they are not available but because
they are so difficult to handle safely. Radioactivity, nerve gases and
viruses could easily do more harm to the terrorists themselves than to
their victims if they get out of their containments. An environment
involving dodging from cave to cave one jump ahead of US troops does not
make for safe handling!

To try your hypothetical question system: Which would you rather have in
the house if you were running a terrorist cell, a stick of dynamite or a
glass vial of a deadly virus that could wipe out half the human race?

Anyway, what deadly weapons did terrorists actually use in their one
major attack, 9/11? Commercial airliners!

If you want to see the use of nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, cluster
bombs, "dirty" shells, etc. look no further than your own government.
And who was it that actually sold all the WMDs to the "terrorist" Saddam?

> I am convinced that we would all prefer neither but I don't think we are
> offered that choice.
>
> -herb
>
>

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d9775t$vgr$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:d94gh9$vh6$
> >
> [Snip]
> >
> > David:
> >
> > This is all beside the point. Which would you rather have next door to
you
> > at the IRA safehouse: a kilogram of depleted uranium or a kilogram of
> > enriched uranium? Which would fetch a higher price on the black market
when
> > North Korea is trying to feed its starving people?
> >
> Herb
>
> I am sure you know the answers to your hypothetical questions.
>
> There is, of course, a great deal of radioactive material about already,
> not all of it easily accounted for. There were more than 20,000 nuclear
> warheads in existence in 2002, about half of these in the USA, most of
> the other half in Russia and the rest in the UK, China, India, Pakistan
> and Israel and, of course, North Korea.
>
> Some of these countries have had severe government upheavals, like
> Russia and Pakistan and many are or have been corrupt, so the chances of
> some of this material getting into the wrong hands are quite high. Are
> you seriously suggesting that it has not been possible already for
> terrorists to have got hold of significant quantities of radioactive
> materials either fissile ones for bomb-making or nasty radioactive ones
> to spread contamination with a conventional explosive?
>
> The amount of radioactive waste generated in nuclear reactors and fuel
> processing plants is very large and a major disposal problem for those
> who have to deal with it. I am sure it is not all accounted for to the
> last kilogram, or 100 kg.
>
> It is also equally possible that terrorists have or could have got hold
> of the other WMDs, chemical and biological agents like nerve gas or
> viruses so beloved of disaster film makers and government propagandists.
> Mustard gas was available in world war one and Agent Orange was widely
> used in Viet Nam, for instance.
>
> I can't think that North Korea hypothetically selling some radioactive
> material to some other country is going to significantly increase the
> WMDs already potentially available to terrorists.
>
> I would guess the reason they are not much used by terrorists compared
> to conventional arms is not because they are not available but because
> they are so difficult to handle safely. Radioactivity, nerve gases and
> viruses could easily do more harm to the terrorists themselves than to
> their victims if they get out of their containments. An environment
> involving dodging from cave to cave one jump ahead of US troops does not
> make for safe handling!
>
> To try your hypothetical question system: Which would you rather have in
> the house if you were running a terrorist cell, a stick of dynamite or a
> glass vial of a deadly virus that could wipe out half the human race?
>
> Anyway, what deadly weapons did terrorists actually use in their one
> major attack, 9/11? Commercial airliners!
>
> If you want to see the use of nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, cluster
> bombs, "dirty" shells, etc. look no further than your own government.
> And who was it that actually sold all the WMDs to the "terrorist" Saddam?
>
> > I am convinced that we would all prefer neither but I don't think we are
> > offered that choice.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> >


David:

So your point is that it is unstoppable so we should just give up and not
pick on North Korea for potentially hastening the inevitable?

I have to think that if terrorists get their hands on such materials, they
will not hesitate to use them. I do agree that it is probably inevitable
but that doesn't mean we should not do what we can to forestall it.

You keep accusing us of selling WMD to Saddam. I am not aware of any
credible source for this. I know we sold him arms and probably helped him
with targeting information but your accusation seems preposterous to me.
Can you point me to a mainstream source of your accusation or is there some
conspiracy to cover it up. Surely the French press would have covered it.

-herb

Re: What troops? LG-118A

"Herb" <> wrote

> You keep accusing us of selling WMD to Saddam. I am not aware of any
> credible source for this. I know we sold him arms and probably helped him
> with targeting information but your accusation seems preposterous to me.
> Can you point me to a mainstream source of your accusation or is there
> some
> conspiracy to cover it up. Surely the French press would have covered it.
>
> -herb






need more?