Bosco wrote: If India and Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons, we would be at war, with major consequences, at least twice in the past decade, if nuclear weapons was not part of the equation. That is a benefit!!
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0530 From: Frederick Noronha <[email protected]> That's what the nuclear hawks would like us to believe. We often believe what we want to believe. Me too. Yet, without nuclear weapons we've had no full-scale Indo-Pak wars since 1971. Mario responds: But, also without nuclear weapons we had three full scale Indo-Pak wars between 1947 and 1971. So, you have no point, Fred. The point is we have not had any full scale wars since India and Pakistan went nuclear. Fred wrote: As for the 'positive benefits' of nuclear weapons, we all know of places called Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, the spin doctors then told us that the dropping of the bombs ended WWII speedily. In hindsight, it was perhaps meant more to overawe the US's European still-colonial allies into accepting the reality that the post-WWII reality would be US, and not European, dominated. Mario responds: I'm not sure what this side debate is doing in a learned discussion on cow urine, but, notwithstanding Fred's admission that he often believes what he "wants to" most rational people try and use facts as a basis for their beliefs. Rather than some whimsical conspiratorial speculation by Fred that the US "perhaps" wanted to impress the colonies of their European allies, which they had nothing to do with directly, the actual facts show that the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought a brutal four year WW-II to a screeching halt in just four days at a cost of 200,000 enemy citizens versus another million or so people many of whom would be from the Allied side. The idea behind a war is to beat the enemy, especially one that was a far more brutal aggressor than even the Germans or Italians. The goal is not to reduce enemy casualties while risking the lives of your own people. If Fred wants to "blame" someone he should blame Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese Generals who chose to enter the war on the side of the Nazis and Fascists, then refused the ultimatum to surrender once they were beaten back to their own islands with great loss of life on both sides, and also refused to surrender after the first nuclear attack on Hiroshima. Furthermore, it was nuclear weapons that also kept the peace during the long Cold War, and kept the Soviet Union and their threats to dominate the world, by force if necessary, at bay until their socialist economy began to finally implode and they cried, "No mas! Mo mas!" Fred wrote: My wider point is that we need not worry too much about the personal beliefs of anyone, provided it doesn't affect the public order or threaten other citizens. I fail to see how cow's urine could do any of this. It's specially easy to laugh at the beliefs of others which seem odd to us. But, I guess, our beliefs seem equally ludicrous to others. Mario responds: Finally, some wiser and more tolerant ruminations from Fred than being a spin doctor for the aggressive and brutal Japanese Imperialists, but I think he should speak only for himself when referring to "But, I guess, our beliefs seem equally ludicrous to others." While those who want to imbibe cow urine laced soft drinks are certainly free to do so - after all, Morarji Desai drank the human version neat - imbibing waste bodily fluids seems strange by any rational standards, especially in a country aspiring to be a super power some day. If urine was beneficial, would the body - bovine or human - have filtered it out and discarded it?
