Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The strategy of doing the unthinkable

Posted 2 years ago on March 24, 2012, 9:36 p.m. EST by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If you follow the online videos at Youtube on WW3, you may get the impression that our enemy, the war mongers, are in fact trying to trigger a global nuclear war by initiating hostilities in Iran.

There is so much support, or indifference, for such a war among the people, because of our exposure to the endless stream of wars that the US has engaged in, in the middle east and Africa.

But since Iran would be the meeting ground of the major nuclear powers of the world, Russia, China and the US, there is the possibility of triggering a global, nuclear war by the indiscriminate use of a nuclear weapon, even if just for bunker busting purposes.

Once this is done, a global Pandora's box will be opened, in which nuclear war is won only through the complete destruction of one's enemy, so that both sides must unleash the entirety of their nuclear arsenals to have any possibility of winning.

Are we going to let them have their WW3 just like we let them have every war they wanted from Vietnam to Libya? Call your representatives and support Resolution 107, declaring that the president must be impeached for involving the US in any undeclared war:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

This is meant to let both Democratic and Republican candidates or incumbents know that no undeclared wars will be tolerated.

56 Comments

56 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Ummm, this isn't accurate. Our bunker busters are 30,000 lb. "conventional" bombs (we scrapped the idea of using nuclear warheads in bunker busters years ago, for pretty much the reasons you're discussing here). Hopefully, we don't wind up bombing Iran. It is a terrible regime, and we'd only empower it more if we bombed (because then Iranians would likely rally around their flag, and we all know what the result of that is e.g. even a fucktard like Bush won a second term because of judgement clouded by the nationalism of wartime).

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Ok, but you are not considering that there may actually be some people who want to start a nuclear war, and so would find some way to justify using a "tactical" nuclear weapon. I know it sounds crazy, but that is what the title of this post is about:

The strategy of doing the unthinkable, its a way of conducting a surprise attack against an unwitting population.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Well, yeah I guess really crazy shit can happen. I don't see any real prospect of this happening, but it's certainly not impossible. I mean, why would anyone want to start a nuclear war (besides maybe a religious fanatic)? The consequences of a nuclear war, with modern weapons, aren't even predictable.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

This is the way I see it. The western financial oligarchy is going through a terminal collapse, that can't be fixed, while the countries of Asia are experiencing substantial economic growth. Our oligarchs refuse to recognize a world that is not ruled over by them.

And to say that they are indeed insane does not require a stretch of the imagination. The highest levels of the western oligarchy include aristocratic families that have been inbreeding for centuries. These are people who belong to secret societies, so you could say that they are quasi-religious fanatics.

This, along with the brainwashing they apply to each other, turns them into a kind of "idiot savant" or perhaps "psychopath savant" is more of the idea. They are very talented at their financial manipulations, but I think must be somehow demented on an emotional level.

So, what they want to do is take the rest of the world down with them as they collapse, through a global nuclear war.

Our oligarchs figure that if they can start a nuclear war that kills billions of people, they can hide in their bunkers, and come out when most of the radiation is gone to reclaim what's left of the world. The remaining population will be so traumatized, that they will obey every order.

At least, that is what is hoped. However, wars, as you said, do not always turn out in the manner that the people who started the wars hoped for.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

There's a surprising number of people that believe the scenario you spell out and have been preparing for that possibility for at least the last few years. There will be a lot more pissed off survivors than the elite realize and guess who will be waiting at the the steel doors when they eventually come crawling out of their bunkers back into the real world. I sure would like to be there to see that.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, that's true. The consequences of a nuclear war are quite unpredictable though. There may in fact be no survivors. Lets just do what we can to prevent it from happening. Please contact your senators/congressmen and ask them to support Resolution 107:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

It would result in the immediate impeachment of any president, republican or democrat, who gets us into another undeclared war.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I will check that link. Thanks. I agree 100%.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Anything to point the finger at Obama - divide and conquer. You make me sick. You and your handlers. He's been trying to prevent this idiotic war, which the oil giants and the global fascist wannabees are trying to provoke. FUCK YOU!

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

Do you honestly believe that?

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

There are many people who seem unable to distinguish the many shades of gray between black and white, and that the rational means is to sway those shades is in the direction you desire through reason, rather than forcing a confrontation between the two extremes, which results in the various shades of the dripping blood red of the innocent caught in the middle.

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

Okay, I can respect that. But; it seems that the admittedly small portion of the national population that can even comprehend anything beyond television are steadily drifting to the extremes of far left and far right. Many of the people of OWS are on those extremes already...

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

There is, perhaps, a new vision at the heart of Occupy that transcends the tired, worn out divisions of right and left. Humanlty must finally rise to it's full potential, or die. Our job is to help them realize this.

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

I!m afraid that your vision may be too grandiose.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Then human survival miay also prove too grandiose.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

he is the chief executive

he can prevent that war

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Yes, we will see, but it is the forces pushing for that war, rather than Obama, that must be checked.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Those forces originate in the City of London financial district, so we don't have direct control over them. Obama is doing what they tell him to do, and he is the only one we have any control over.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

None of that is true,

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

The fact that Obama is the only one that we have control over is most certainly true. And why would you doubt the financial oligarchy's involvement in war profiteering? Professor Anthony Sutton has clearly shown the involvement of Wall Street in WW2:

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

And Wall Street is just the junior partner of the City of London.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Well, you said the London financial district, rather than Wall St,. and I don't think we can control Obama, any more than the other branches of government. In what way do we have more control over Obama. That's the primary problem, we have control once every four years, or at least we presume we still do.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think London's financial district and Wall Street are just parts of the same thing. And the control we have over Obama is that we can have him impeached if he starts another war. That is, we can influence our representatives to impeach him, or at least, to threaten to impeach him, which is what got Nixon to resign.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Okay, granted about London and Wall Street, but in order to impeach Obama we would have to influence Congress, not Obama. I am not arguing with you in substance, but would just like a little more clairity.

Thanks.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

That's right, we would have to influence congress. Currently Resolution 107 is the way to do it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

Please contact your representative in support of it. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

Wow, amazing insight. Solidarity.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Thanks, are you serious?

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

Totally, I hate the way words on the screen can't show sarcasm or in this case no sarcasm. I think you are great & I love your ambition. It is a honor to be schooled by you. We might not agree on all things but I respect you. Plus, I like your name. :)

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Thanks, Quark is a cool name too, are you interested in physics or are you a graphic designer? I used to be a designer and worked with a program called Quark a lot.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

Both, I was thinking of physics with the name, but I work as an editor.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I see, what do you think of nuclear energy?

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

fission or fusion? Against fission, interested in fusion. What do you think?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

There are emerging technologies for reducing the amount of nuclear waste, the Chinese are starting to implement them:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-03/07/c_131452769.htm

I don't know about Tesla's technologies that you mentioned. I know that he was a brilliant person.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

Thanks for the links. My brother had an idea that the roads could have magnets in them. When a car rides over them they spin generating electricity. Maybe it is dreamy idea, but it sounds like something is there. My point is everything is light & electricity so we could get it almost from anywhere. When I hear GE is the biggest makers of Nuclear Power Plants somehow I don't feel safe. When an earthquake hits a NPP the effects are deadly for everyone. I think there are safer ways especially on a finite planet.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think that fission is a lot safer than people are allowed to know. I mean, how many people have died in some manner related to a nuclear fission plant? There was three mile island, but I don't think anybody even died from that. There aren't even any deaths claimed from radiation in the Tokyo nuclear breakdown.

People die from many kinds of industrial accidents, but you don't hear about it happening from a nuclear plant.

Of course, if we can achieve fusion some day, that would be even cleaner. But I think that we have to build an advanced enough infrastructure using nuclear fission to get to the point at which we can use fusion to generate electricity economically.

A kind of fusion "fuel" is also proposed for a form of space travel that would be so rapid as to allow us to get to Mars in less than a week.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Good to see you are against nuke-war. Sad however to see you still pushing dangerous, expensive, and with so many externalized costs, un-profitable (for earth/people) tech.

consider Chernobyl;

"the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit watchdog, puts the global death toll closer to 27,000."

"The 30-km radius around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is known officially as the "zone of alienation." Here, abandoned cars, tractors, buildings and homes are slowly being devoured by trees and shrubs."

"Some 300,000 residents near the power plant were forced to leave,."

"Asked when the reactor site would again become inhabitable, Ihor Gramotkin, director of the Chernobyl power plant, replies, "At least 20,000 years."

From: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2067562,00.html

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

I'm worried that fission will produce too much radioactive materials for the planet to store. I'm worried that too much oil drilling will increase the chances of earthquake. I call it the Empty Eggshell Effect. I like Tesla's ideas about energy from the atmosphere. I like the ideas about harmonic earth energy which creates energy from the earth's vibrating frequency & rotation. Bruce Cathie has a ton if ideas on the subject.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well, the only reason we might see a WW III is because that's what they did back during the depression to get the country back on it's feet. Spending didn't solve the problem, WPA didn't solve the problem WW II did.

You see we are in the same fix as those during the depression. The only difference is we have heating, air conditiong, cell phones, I-Pods, flat screen tv's, internte and a host of other things they never had back then when they were "depressed".

The only thing people get depressed over today is not being able to make big bucks so they can have everything they want.

So with nothing on the horizon to get our country up and running again, maybe the only thing this administration can do to get it going is start WW III.

That will create more then enough jobs for anyone who wants one and I might add they will be government jobs so they will be "great paying jobs" - and as they say - the rest is history.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I wish it were that easy, but from what I hear, this time around it is quite different. The western financial oligarchy is going through a terminal collapse, that can't be fixed. So, it wants to take the rest of the world down with it.

Our oligarchs figure that if they can start a nuclear war that kills billions of people, they can hide in their bunkers, and come out when most of the radiation is gone to reclaim what's left of the world. The remaining population will be so traumatized, that they will obey every order.

At least, that is what is hoped. However, wars do not always turn out in the manner that the people who started the wars hoped for.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Unfortunately, he may have been selected by the powers that be to carry out such a war.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I said that if he moves towards this war, he should be impeached. Most of what he has said so far has been lying though, so I wouldn't be surprised if if his "anti war" stance is also. Obama works for Wall Street.

Try getting your language out of the gutter and you might project a little more credibility. Or do you wish to explain how your foul mouth is completely justified?

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

It is completely justified by the confusion between the real players; the 1% who still control not only congress, but the entire economic system, most state governments, internatitional governments through collusion and intimidation, and the state security apparatus - and you blame Obama for all of this!

Well, $&^$$&* you!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Obama is going along with it. Its not so much what he is doing, but what he is not doing. He is not, for example, enacting Glass Steagall, and in fact has refused to do so.

Considering that this is absolutely necessary to get our economy back on course and that it did work for us once under FDR, this is absolutely inexcusable. FDR did this in the first two weeks of his presidency. And it is not due to the times being different. The physical principles that recovery depends on do not change over time.

And this is a discussion between two people who are both probably democrats, so if you want to confront the problems that we face today, which look increasingly intractable, you have to learn how to work with people that you might disagree with, without hating them. Whether you think you are justified or not.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

LOL Obama is the biggest chickenhawk there ever was. I can't believe how blind his followers are.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

I'm not an Obaman follower, but "when the wind is north-by-northwest I know a hawk from a handsaw,"

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

fuck the government of the most nuclear weapons to be making excuses for bombing iran

[-] -1 points by Secretariat (33) 2 years ago

""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think NATO not only wants to give a lesson to China, but to drag it into a nuclear war, for the purpose of reducing the world's population by 90%.

[-] 0 points by Secretariat (33) 2 years ago

No, number one reason is to maintain petrodollar hegemony, which let bankers print as much money as they want. Once you dictate oil countries you can print as much as you want. The sky is the limit.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think that is one layer of the objective, but that there are deeper levels of motivation as well.

[-] -1 points by Secretariat (33) 2 years ago

""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""

[-] -3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

YOU AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE……………………….. BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE……………………….. BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . .

. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . .

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Boom! - New York, bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha

Boom! - Miami, bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . .

Boom! - Cleveland, hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

What is wrong with you?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Are you concerned about the possibility of Obama getting us into this war?

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

Actually my post was directed at that sniffer of Obamas rectum bensdad. He is not very intelligent I'm afraid. He can only spew democrat propaganda.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I see. And what perspective do you maintain? What do you think should be done about the economic crisis and the threat of war?