(Translate this site)
ABC News reveals Sarah Palin to be insaneSponsor this pageThis page last updated on or about 9-13-08a - j m o o n e y h a m . c o m - o r i g i n a l |
(Translate this site) |
|
This woman is either insane, incredibly misinformed, or mentally deficient. Saying war with Russia may be necessary-- for ANY reason short of Russia directly attacking America itself-- is little different from saying the extinction of humanity may be necessary. Hello? Palin? Russia's nuclear arsenal is the second most awful nuke collection on Earth. Second only to ours. If Russia used that arsenal on us, overnight we would become a place which dearly wished it was the Haiti or Bangladesh of 2008 (two spots of impoverished and desperate hell on Earth). The top defense we have against that is NOT going to war with Russia. Even by accident.
Couldn't we destroy Russia in return? Sure! But we'd likely wish we hadn't, afterwards. For we'd need all the help we could get then. And there'd be little love or mercy left for us among the rest of the world, after we'd helped destroy so much of it. Heck: our best allies on Earth live in Europe: next door neighbors to where we'd be most concentrating our weapons of mass destruction, in any war with Russia.
Plus, the latest research indicates the entire human race might never recover from an all out nuclear war between America and Russia. For the planet might be too heavily damaged, and far too much wealth and infrastructure ruined to allow it. Such a war truly might spell the end of humanity, despite the actual bombs only detonating on American and Russian soil.
I know about this stuff because I was a hard core survivalist back in the Reagan days. Stocked up and ready for the aftermath. After a while though, after researching the matter enough, I came to realize anyone who survived the war would soon wish they hadn't. For mythical hell might be downright fun compared to what the world post-all-out-nuking would be like.
So Palin appears to be insane. And McCain too, for selecting her for the VP slot.
RELATED LINKS AND INFORMATION:
As of September 11, 2008, only two cities have ever been struck with nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Japan, more than 50 years ago. By the United States of America. The bombs used were some of the smallest nuclear yields ever developed, for perhaps decades to follow.
hiroshima - Google Image Search
hiroshima victims - Google Image Search
nagasaki - Google Image Search
The aftermath of those two bombings so shocked and horrified the world as to successfully prevent anyone-- including America-- from using such weapons again. At least up through the present day.
Today's full-scale nuclear weapons are hugely more powerful than those dropped on Japan. But so-called 'tactical' nuclear weapons are also available now, meant to be used on battlefields, and so weak enough to (hopefully) not kill our own troops when they're used against enemy lines. 'Tacticals' have not yet been tested in war.
Another thing which helped prevent a third use of nukes for war was the ever growing awareness among scientists and military leaders than there could be no winner in a full-blown nuclear war between superpowers like the US and USSR: both parties would suffer death blows in the event. Some called it Mutual assured destruction (More on Mutually assured destruction...)
Even today, there is no defense against full-scale nuclear war. Once the missiles are launched, that's it. Game over.
global consequences of nuclear war - Google Search