Serious for a moment

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 04 Aug 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Aerin	04 Aug 2002
We went to visit Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker this week, and one of the things they had on show was this documentary http://www.the-snu.co.uk/wargame.html (only available to buy in the US and Canada interestingly enough). I had missed it when it was broadcast here is the UK in 1985, it really is quite horrifying and as good an argument against nuclear (or indeed armslength) war as I have ever seen. The bunker (see here http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A593778 and http://www.hackgreen.co.uk/ is well worth a visit, I would describe it as very interesting and very chilling. One of those things which I feel I needed to be more aware of. Aerin

divinerguy	04 Aug 2002
Sounds intersting. Every few years in the USA, they'll show a post-apocalyptic nuclear war movie. On one hand, I find them interesting from an academic standpoint. But after a while, I become depressed, and I turn it off. As horrible as these weapons, I believe they have kept the peace for 50 years. The USA and the USSR, arguably the two largest and most politically diverse countries in the world have not engaged in war. My opinion, and it is just an opinion, is that the threat of mutually assured destruction has prevented war between the two nations. My present concern is the breakup of the former Soviet Union. The governments which are now in possession of these weapons are both unstable and economically weak. It would be far too easy to sell a nuclear weapon for cash to a despot and a religious zealot. Conventional psychological prohibitions against self-destruction may not exist with these persons, making their possession of such weapons problematic. Using this scenario as justification for the eradication of nuclear weapons is unrealistic, as nuclear weapons are not technologically difficult to build. Neither is fissionable material in scarce supply. The threat of a "dirty bomb" is a far more frighteneing proposition, however. A dirty bomb is like a conventional bomb, but has low-level radioactive waste around it, which would be dispersed in an explosion. I do not know the answer to these questions. I know only of my concern.

amyel	04 Aug 2002
While the US & the former USSR have agreed not use an weapons of mass destruction, I, too, am worried about these break away groups and countries. I am really concenrend about the exchanges heating up between India & Pakistan, and how those with a fundamentalist Islamic faith would - so it is portrayed here in N. America - have no qualms about destoying the earth to meet their needs. I wish we had an effective world council (I'm sorry, but I do not believe the UN is effective anymore, not on these issues) that could mediate and/or difinitely direct countries who are he bringk of this kind of war. I don't think we do, but then maybe I'm just not up-to-date on these things.

Diana	04 Aug 2002
Quote: Originally posted by amyel I wish we had an effective world council (I'm sorry, but I do not believe the UN is effective anymore, not on these issues) that could mediate and/or difinitely direct countries who are he bringk of this kind of war. I don't think we do, but then maybe I'm just up-to-date on these things. An effective world council would be PERFECT!! I agree, amyel. Yes, it would be real easy to destroy a part of the planet with one or two little bombs. Scary. It's also scary to think that some other countries (one in particular) prefer to kill off the planet slow-motion by not signing the Kyoto agreement. There are so many diverse ways of destroying our beautiful world.

jade	04 Aug 2002
i was just thinking this morning......as i heard that it snowed in the middle of summer in calgary, alberta, canada yesterday! that we need to make a difference here............what we are all doing as individuals is NOT enough. we need to do more. jade

Jenny-Li	05 Aug 2002
I spent 4 months in Japan, and took the opportunity to visit Hiroshima while I was there. The city is now as lively and crowded as any Japanese city, but a major part of the city center is dedicated to what happened there, the memorial park with the thousands and thousands of paper cranes - symbol of the many who died long after the bomb (I guess the book about Sadako has reached world wide? She got cancer from the bomb years later, I don't even think she was born when it was dropped, and convinced if she could make 1000 paper cranes, she would be OK - but she never made it. The cranes are now symbol for everyone who fought that same battle against the afterwards consequences of the bombs), the museums, the burnt-out skelettons of buildings that were kept just the way they were, as a reminder. It was horrible, but very very "educating". I think they should just be destroyed, the lot of them... But I know, it's not that simple... Jenny :) *who stays out of the political discussion, simply because I have no good solution, and know to little about realistic scenarios to figure one out... I think people should just be nice to each other.*

Minderwiz	05 Aug 2002
I don't particularly think that nuclear weapons kept the peace as such. The Soviet Union had no territorial or other aims in the West (Russia never has) only protection of its borders. It did however fear attack from the West (remember in the dying days of the Second World War the German regime tried to persuade the US and UK to join it in a war against the USSR. Given that the West had nuclear weapons then it is not surprising that the USSR felt the need to have them for their own security. Hence balance hence peace. In terms of small countries with Nuclear Weapons, etc. Firstly the concept of rogue states is a bit of an oversimplification. There are states which no doubt are dangerous to their neighbours - because they have historic or current disputes over territory. Iraq (which is not an Islamic state) is no doubt a regional danger but it is no more a regional danger than Israel (indeed possibly much less so at the moment). I do not like fundamentalism of anysort (fundamentalist christians and fundamentalist muslims scare me to death). But I don't see the threat as coming because they are fundamentalist. The US and the UK have got to realise that unless they engineer a just and lasting peace in the Middle East (for both Israel and the Palestinians) they will have these dangers. Indeed the more they seem to support an expansionist Israel and ignore legitimate Palestinian needs the more they stir up hatred against the West. Already there is some evidence that the Saudi regime is in trouble because of its support for the West. Offering justice self determination and democracy is the way forward and it is what we are supposed to stand for isn't it! Minderwiz

Aerin	06 Aug 2002
The quote from 'The War Game' which really made me sit up was the same as that of the reviewer in the site I mentioned above Quote: .....the words of a fictionalised priest -whose speech is faded into pictures of victims of the attack. He says," if I decide to hit and perhaps kill a man then I must be prepared to accept the moral responsibility. Likewise if I give the government the right, or the means, on my behalf to kill people of another country then the situation is no different. I myself must accept the moral responsibility. I think that it is much easier to call for war when you aren't going to see the results of it up close and personal, and to realise that it is fellow human beings who you are going to harm. That's what bothers me most about the posturings of any government or group who wish to declare war - I often don't believe they really understand or empathise with the consequences they propose to unleash. Or for that matter understand that just maybe the other 'side' might use their actions as an excuse to wreak even more terrible consequences in the opposite direction. Aerin

Minderwiz	06 Aug 2002
Today is Hiroshima day. As well as remembering what happened (however justified) its perhaps a time for reflection on the futility of war and the need to prevent this ever happening again. Today's Guardian presents some of the views about using Nuclear Weapons, for and against. You can view it at http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/0,6957,178327,00.html Minderwiz

Diana	06 Aug 2002
Minderwiz: may your wise words go out to the universe and touch the hearts of those who need them. I will not say here what is in my heart, for this will turn out into a political discussion - not appropriate for a Tarot forum - there are other forums available for this kind of thing. Many people on Aeclectic do spell-making. A spell for world peace and to influence the decision makers to make wise decisions would be highly appropriate right now, because there are a few tightrope situations going on right now - depending which way we fall, we could all be in deep, deep trouble.

wavebreaker	06 Aug 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Minderwiz Today is Hiroshima day. As well as remembering what happened (however justified) its perhaps a time for reflection on the futility of war and the need to prevent this ever happening again. Thank you for reminding us Minderwiz, and thanks for the interesting link.

Aerin	06 Aug 2002
Diana, it is because I didn't want to start a political, and more particularly parochial, discussion but more of a stand back and think about this from a 'whole world' viewpoint that I started this topic here. I know that Aeclectic members are thoughtful and able to consider the wider picture as evidenced by people's posts, and that isn't true of most discussions on this topic I've seen elsewhere. I think your idea of a spell is spot on. Minderwiz, thanks for that link. Aerin

Diana	06 Aug 2002
Aerin: you have done this beautifully. It is good to talk about these things amongst friends. However, I do not trust my own tongue when it comes to certain subjects. :( I will pray today for the Iraqian people.

The Serious for a moment thread was originally posted on 04 Aug 2002 in the Chat board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Chat, or read more archived threads.