Comments on: Nuclear Bombs Mistakenly Flown Over US http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/ None Sine Causa Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:53:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Didereaux http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-205496 Didereaux Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:12:13 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-205496 An update on how those nukes got mounted on a B52 and flown across the US. See it HERE: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1214/1381545132_48ab7e90a8_o.jpg http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/1381545132/ more here... http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/ yer welcome, ;) An update on how those nukes got mounted on a B52 and flown across the US. See it HERE:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1214/1381545132_48ab7e90a8_o.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/1381545132/
more here…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/

yer welcome, ;)

]]> By: Brian http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-199703 Brian Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:13:43 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-199703 Sorry to stir up sh*t and leave; it's been that kind of week. Anyway, a couple of things: 1. The statement that US bombers have killed "a far greater number of innocents" than "bad people" is an empirical claim that requires support. There's a lot of work to be done there: you'll have to tally up the combatants and noncombatants killed by the planes, then you'll have to establish the number of noncombatants who can meaningfully be said to have been "innocents". For example, does a non-combatant functionary of the North Vietnamese government count as "innocent"? Why or why not? 2. I suspect our general disagreement here is fundamentally philosophical and irreconcilable. I proceed from what I consider the very obvious premise that some people need killing -- even active, preemptive, "offensive" killing. It's a reasonable walk from that premise to my conclusion that, simply put, jet noise is the sound of freedom. I think you reject my premise, and thus can never reach my conclusion. That's OK, I guess. Certainly it doesn't make your opinions "sickening", even if it does make them (by my reckoning) incorrect. 3. The "cracks me up" part was a reference to what I read as the alarmism in the statement that the weapons were flown across several states. <i>Quel horreur!</i> The joke is that not so very long ago we had nuclear weapons on airborne alert or in transit over the US 24 hours a day -- and it made us feel safer. It's a then/now joke, not a here/there joke. And yes, I agree that any mistakes in handling H-bombs are very serious. It's the text of the article that amuses me, not the events it describes. Sorry to stir up sh*t and leave; it’s been that kind of week.

Anyway, a couple of things:

1. The statement that US bombers have killed “a far greater number of innocents” than “bad people” is an empirical claim that requires support. There’s a lot of work to be done there: you’ll have to tally up the combatants and noncombatants killed by the planes, then you’ll have to establish the number of noncombatants who can meaningfully be said to have been “innocents”. For example, does a non-combatant functionary of the North Vietnamese government count as “innocent”? Why or why not?

2. I suspect our general disagreement here is fundamentally philosophical and irreconcilable. I proceed from what I consider the very obvious premise that some people need killing — even active, preemptive, “offensive” killing. It’s a reasonable walk from that premise to my conclusion that, simply put, jet noise is the sound of freedom. I think you reject my premise, and thus can never reach my conclusion. That’s OK, I guess. Certainly it doesn’t make your opinions “sickening”, even if it does make them (by my reckoning) incorrect.

3. The “cracks me up” part was a reference to what I read as the alarmism in the statement that the weapons were flown across several states. Quel horreur! The joke is that not so very long ago we had nuclear weapons on airborne alert or in transit over the US 24 hours a day — and it made us feel safer. It’s a then/now joke, not a here/there joke. And yes, I agree that any mistakes in handling H-bombs are very serious. It’s the text of the article that amuses me, not the events it describes.

]]> By: probligo http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-193721 probligo Sat, 08 Sep 2007 19:29:18 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-193721 Which raises the question of whether weapons are intrinsically defensive or offensive. (I must resist the pun on "offensive") Which raises the question of whether weapons are intrinsically defensive or offensive. (I must resist the pun on “offensive”)

]]> By: Dave Justus http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-192833 Dave Justus Sat, 08 Sep 2007 02:31:44 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-192833 Actually, I don't think anyone is particularly worried that nuclear bombs were flown over the United States, only that it was done 'by mistake.' As for weapons of war being intrinically 'evil' because they cause death and destruction, I have to disagree with that concept. If those who desire good are unwilling to use force, those who do not desire good will conquer. Perhaps that seems acceptable to you, to me it is a morally bankrupt choice. Actually, I don’t think anyone is particularly worried that nuclear bombs were flown over the United States, only that it was done ‘by mistake.’

As for weapons of war being intrinically ‘evil’ because they cause death and destruction, I have to disagree with that concept. If those who desire good are unwilling to use force, those who do not desire good will conquer. Perhaps that seems acceptable to you, to me it is a morally bankrupt choice.

]]> By: probligo http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-192322 probligo Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:27:38 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-192322 "Today’s B52s have been doing nasty things to bad people all over the world for 45+ years. How cool is that?" Yes, and sickening as well. "...been doing nasty things" to a far greater number of innocents. But you only hear about <b>them</b> as "colateral damage". Cool? Only if your purpose in life is to bring death and destruction to others. Rant over, Dave. “Today’s B52s have been doing nasty things to bad people all over the world for 45+ years. How cool is that?”

Yes, and sickening as well. “…been doing nasty things” to a far greater number of innocents. But you only hear about them as “colateral damage”. Cool? Only if your purpose in life is to bring death and destruction to others.

Rant over, Dave.

]]> By: probligo http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-192319 probligo Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:23:39 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-192319 A laugh really... Fine to fly with them anywhere else, but across the US? A laugh really… Fine to fly with them anywhere else, but across the US?

]]> By: Brian http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-191526 Brian Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:38:47 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2007/09/05/nuclear-bombs-mistakenly-flown-over-us/#comment-191526 I agree. This part "flown for more than three hours across several states" cracks me up, though. Didn't SAC do that more or less 24/7, once upon a time? Fun note on the B52: it's actually possible that this very same airframe was once used for those old Cold War airborne alert missions. Not the same design. The same <i>plane</i>. Today's B52s have been doing nasty things to bad people all over the world for 45+ years. How cool is that? I agree. This part

“flown for more than three hours across several states”

cracks me up, though. Didn’t SAC do that more or less 24/7, once upon a time?

Fun note on the B52: it’s actually possible that this very same airframe was once used for those old Cold War airborne alert missions. Not the same design. The same plane. Today’s B52s have been doing nasty things to bad people all over the world for 45+ years. How cool is that?

]]>