M.A.D. About NukesWritten by Ed Howes
Every living person and every one to come has right to have and use any weapon that may be used against them. The only way to prevent pre emptive strikes is for opponents to agree to a simultaneous strike, which seldom happens. Who doubts that defense policy of Mutually Assured Destruction prevented war between Soviet Union/Russia and U.S. for 50 years? Who would argue that it has not prevented a recent war between India and Pakistan? These nuclear powers have made it so obvious that nukes make friends of adversaries; Iraq, Iran and North Korea had/have every intention of acquiring them. I'm all for it. The U.S. needs all friends it can get, for foreseeable future. Pakistan and Russia can definitely use income from nuclear trade. In fact, Russia and Pakistan should dominate this market unless U.S. decides to compete for business. Recent talk about mini nukes tells me U.S. Government intends to compete in new rush to proliferate nukes. These nuclear powers all have technology to make relatively cheap and portable nuclear devices, which are so much more practical and democratic for people, than guided missiles. Three of these powers possess these portable nukes and all three are probably already selling them to customers who cannot make their own, or refuse to go to trouble and expense. Sure, nuclear contaminated conventional weapons, called dirty bombs, will have a powerful psychological effect on their victims and possible victims. Yet, a small thermonuclear device that can destroy from one quarter to all of a city would be so much better. Wouldn't you agree? I'm not talking absurdity. I'm talking reality. It is political leadership that is absurd in trying to regulate who in world may own what weapons. "We get good ones; you can have rest, like Israel and Palestine." Does it matter if I am destroyed by a nuclear weapon planted by a terrorist or a missile from some nation state? In fact, I do prefer that it be a small nuke affecting fewer of my neighbors. Where can I buy that insurance, from Homeland Security? I don't think so. How long would Saddam have held power in Iraq if an ex patriot or other enemy could have planted a small nuclear device near a Baghdad palace he frequented? How long would Castro, Stalin, Mao or Idi Amin have lasted?
| | The Ironies Of MASH Written by Stephen Schochet
The TV show MASH ran for 11 years taking nearly every opportunity to bash US involvement with Korean War, which was actually an allegory for Vietnam. Many episodes showed a moral relativism between US side and communists, doctors(with exception of Frank Burns) made no distinction between wounded and often talked about declaring war a tie so they could go home. The MASH set sometimes was a tense place to work, especially in early years. One episode featured a sniper who was eventually shot by an army helicopter. Alan Alda objected to use of gunfire to settle issue, some on writing staff pointed out that he had recently played an armed sheriff who had drawn his gun in a TV movie which angered star who retreated to his dressing room. Some who worked on show speculated that pro-feminist Alda had problems reconciling playing skirt chasing Hawkeye. Although, he was always professional he stayed aloof in early years of show, going to his dressing room whenever there was tension on set. Part of job of being star is setting standards of behavior for cast, but Alda just wanted to deliver his lines, contribute his creative ideas, and fly home to New Jersey on Friday. One time he was asked to record a video greeting to Navy stations, he refused claiming it would encourage troops to prolong Vietnam war. Even at Christmas he remained withdrawn refusing to buy any presents for cast and crew, going against traditional television star rituals.
|
