War and the prelude to war is a common theme in writing. The reason for this is likely because people have pretty much always been fighting wars (several going on right now, not that most people would know it, at least in this country, since major media does not find war and the causalities of war as interesting as a celebrity's social life). I have seen several war movies and read books that include wars. In general it is not a genre I read often.
One thing I have encountered repeatedly in fiction is the use of DefCon levels. I find it very annoying when they are used inaccurately since it is very easy to find info on them. The three most common ways I've seen them used inaccurately are:
1. The mention of them prior to their creation in November 1959.
2. The use of them by another country that doesn't call their states of combat readiness DefCon levels using a different term entirely.
3. The most common one getting the order wrong. The correct order is:
DEFCON 5 - Normal peacetime readiness
DEFCON 4 - Increased intelligence & strengthened security
DEFCON 3 - Increase in force readiness above normal
DEFCON 2 - Further Increase in force readiness
DEFCON 1 - Maximum force readiness.
Most recently I was reading a fan written story that used them incorrectly making a big deal about DefCon 4 (nuking a US city caused it). It's not really, DefCon 4 has occurred fairly often (most of the Cold War) with most people completely unaware. Defcon 3 has happened a few times but not often (September 11 attack caused level 3). The current DefCon level is 5.
Showing posts with label War and Peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War and Peace. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Iran Missile Test
If you have been watching the news you probably noticed that Iran tested several missiles recently. On the news programs I have watched Iran is getting a lot of flack for this. In my opinion, the launching of the missiles was a smart thing for Iran to do. Israel had recently done a large-scale air force exercises which is what spurred Iran to do it's test. Iran's test was mostly a warning saying don't attack us we can attack you. For some reason, Israel is not getting as much flack as Iran is for it's tests.
A war with Iran would be extremely bad. All war is bad but comparing the war with Iraq to a possible war with Iran and it is much worse. Iran is far larger than Iraq, Iran has a much larger better armed and fanatical army than Iraq did, Iran has more resources, Iran has the capability to mess with the world economy in ways Iraq did not, and has missile capabilities Iraq did not. The war with Iraq has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of US soldiers. A war with Iran would have a far greater death tole.
I don't even think that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Doing so might not be as bad an idea as a lot of people think though. Missiles and an army are not as much a deterrent for invasion as a nuclear weapon is. Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel according to IAEA (international atomic energy agency) report released on June 5th. US National Intelligence Estimate also has concluded that it probably gave up a nuclear weapons program in 2003. If Iran is doing what it is saying it is then it is obeying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that it signed which states a country has the right to enrich its own fuel to a level suitable for civil nuclear power.
Having said all that, I am of the opinion that Iran is not going about building their civil nuclear power plants in the best way. I think they should have agreed to the latest offer made by US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany that said Iran would get help with developing nuclear power stations and be guaranteed fuel for them. It would also be offered trade concessions, including the possible lifting of US sanctions preventing it from buying new civilian aircraft and parts. Though I do not know all the details so can not say with 100% certainty that would be the best choice, Israel after all seems to really want a preventive strike on Iran and has the nuclear weapon (also unlike Iran, Israel did not sign the NPT).
Personally I do not see Iran as being a major threat, no where near as much of a threat as say North Korea which already has the ability to make nuclear weapons and has missiles capable of hitting Japan. The Japanese defense budget for anti-missile technology has increased 10 times since North Korea has developed the nuke and they have been buying up a lot of anti-missile technology from the USA. They have also begun spending on militarizing outer space for defense purposes. There was even talk within Japan in 2004 about using preemptive strikes on North Korea (the nuclear option was even brought up), though this was shot down because it would anger China. If North Korea were to bomb Japan the fallout would be far worse than a war with Iran, particularly if they used a nuclear warhead. Japan would stop it's no nuclear weapon policy and start building them like crazy as well as other countries in Asia. Japan has the technology, raw materials (massive amounts of plutonium from its 50 nuclear reactors), and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within a year. This would lead to all kinds of tension (Japan and China historically do not get along what with the types of things Japan did to China during WW2 this makes sense) Japan would attack North Korea, but unlikely that it would be an occupation, Japan doesn't have the manpower for that, it does have the ability to wipe out most of the life in North Korea and other countries would be drawn in.
A war with Iran would be extremely bad. All war is bad but comparing the war with Iraq to a possible war with Iran and it is much worse. Iran is far larger than Iraq, Iran has a much larger better armed and fanatical army than Iraq did, Iran has more resources, Iran has the capability to mess with the world economy in ways Iraq did not, and has missile capabilities Iraq did not. The war with Iraq has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of US soldiers. A war with Iran would have a far greater death tole.
I don't even think that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Doing so might not be as bad an idea as a lot of people think though. Missiles and an army are not as much a deterrent for invasion as a nuclear weapon is. Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel according to IAEA (international atomic energy agency) report released on June 5th. US National Intelligence Estimate also has concluded that it probably gave up a nuclear weapons program in 2003. If Iran is doing what it is saying it is then it is obeying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that it signed which states a country has the right to enrich its own fuel to a level suitable for civil nuclear power.
Having said all that, I am of the opinion that Iran is not going about building their civil nuclear power plants in the best way. I think they should have agreed to the latest offer made by US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany that said Iran would get help with developing nuclear power stations and be guaranteed fuel for them. It would also be offered trade concessions, including the possible lifting of US sanctions preventing it from buying new civilian aircraft and parts. Though I do not know all the details so can not say with 100% certainty that would be the best choice, Israel after all seems to really want a preventive strike on Iran and has the nuclear weapon (also unlike Iran, Israel did not sign the NPT).
Personally I do not see Iran as being a major threat, no where near as much of a threat as say North Korea which already has the ability to make nuclear weapons and has missiles capable of hitting Japan. The Japanese defense budget for anti-missile technology has increased 10 times since North Korea has developed the nuke and they have been buying up a lot of anti-missile technology from the USA. They have also begun spending on militarizing outer space for defense purposes. There was even talk within Japan in 2004 about using preemptive strikes on North Korea (the nuclear option was even brought up), though this was shot down because it would anger China. If North Korea were to bomb Japan the fallout would be far worse than a war with Iran, particularly if they used a nuclear warhead. Japan would stop it's no nuclear weapon policy and start building them like crazy as well as other countries in Asia. Japan has the technology, raw materials (massive amounts of plutonium from its 50 nuclear reactors), and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within a year. This would lead to all kinds of tension (Japan and China historically do not get along what with the types of things Japan did to China during WW2 this makes sense) Japan would attack North Korea, but unlikely that it would be an occupation, Japan doesn't have the manpower for that, it does have the ability to wipe out most of the life in North Korea and other countries would be drawn in.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
4,000th US Military Death of the Iraq War
Yesterday the 4000th US soldier died of the Iraq war. That's the official number. In reality the number is probably higher since I'm pretty sure they aren't counting the soldiers who committed suicide after returning and not telling us about every death. Many times that number have taken serious crippling wounds and will be handicapped for life. I do not know how many soldiers from other countries have died. As for how many Iraq's died, only god knows but the number is probably over a million. The vast majority of them undocumented by anyone. Using documented figures alone for Iraq deaths the body count is over 80,000 according to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/. Several studies say over 1/2 million dead. The Lancet survey in June 2006 figured 654,965 excess deaths. The Opinion Research Business survey of August 2007 figured 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict.
I am against this war and all wars. This is an unjust and illegal war. War is supposed to be your absolute last choice. Preemptive wars are especially wrong for many, many reasons. Imagine if every country decided preemptive war was ok or if a country with nuclear weapons decided to preemptively attack a country that also had nuclear weapons (like India and Pakistan).
Today I went to a commemoration of the 4000th dead US soldier. The planned event was to hold a string 1 mile in length of the names of the US soldiers killed in Iraq and for there to be 4000 white lights. There was no where near enough people to hold up the string (and it was to windy) so they were taped to the side of the bridge. There were 4000 lights in the form of Christmas lights but there was insufficient power to light them all. Considering the small amount of time in which people learned about this event (many just that morning), the bad weather (windy, cold, and started to rain), and the time of the event (5:00 when many people would be leaving work and not able to make it); I was sort of surprised by the number of people who did show up. Many people including myself held up anti-war signs.
Local television channels came to record the event. As far as I know I was not shown on the news but that does not bother me. I am just happy that it made the news. The news is not showing the consequences of the war as well as they should. Well watching the news they spend more time on nonsense entertainment news then on the war. They very rarely even tell of the number of people who have died for/because of this war or show anything about the war. If I want to know about the war I turn to foreign news agencies like the BBC because they are covering the war much better then the US agencies are.
Amongst the people who showed up were people who lost loved ones in the war. I am sad people lost people but I like that they showed people who suffer because of the war. Not because I'm callous or cruel but because it humanizes the tragedy. I am of the opinion that too many people view the war impersonally. They do not know the people dying, they do not even see footage of the war, and it is easy to forget that people are suffering and dying. People need to remember that these are not just statistics these are real people who are dying/suffering and it effects even more people.
I am against this war and all wars. This is an unjust and illegal war. War is supposed to be your absolute last choice. Preemptive wars are especially wrong for many, many reasons. Imagine if every country decided preemptive war was ok or if a country with nuclear weapons decided to preemptively attack a country that also had nuclear weapons (like India and Pakistan).
Today I went to a commemoration of the 4000th dead US soldier. The planned event was to hold a string 1 mile in length of the names of the US soldiers killed in Iraq and for there to be 4000 white lights. There was no where near enough people to hold up the string (and it was to windy) so they were taped to the side of the bridge. There were 4000 lights in the form of Christmas lights but there was insufficient power to light them all. Considering the small amount of time in which people learned about this event (many just that morning), the bad weather (windy, cold, and started to rain), and the time of the event (5:00 when many people would be leaving work and not able to make it); I was sort of surprised by the number of people who did show up. Many people including myself held up anti-war signs.
Local television channels came to record the event. As far as I know I was not shown on the news but that does not bother me. I am just happy that it made the news. The news is not showing the consequences of the war as well as they should. Well watching the news they spend more time on nonsense entertainment news then on the war. They very rarely even tell of the number of people who have died for/because of this war or show anything about the war. If I want to know about the war I turn to foreign news agencies like the BBC because they are covering the war much better then the US agencies are.
Amongst the people who showed up were people who lost loved ones in the war. I am sad people lost people but I like that they showed people who suffer because of the war. Not because I'm callous or cruel but because it humanizes the tragedy. I am of the opinion that too many people view the war impersonally. They do not know the people dying, they do not even see footage of the war, and it is easy to forget that people are suffering and dying. People need to remember that these are not just statistics these are real people who are dying/suffering and it effects even more people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)