Now I have become Death the destroyer of worlds

a reply to: MetalChickAmy

IMO "One" is a much better commentary on what we're seeing now. Pretty heavy anti-war tone in that song.

One lyrics

originally posted by: igloo
a reply to: peaceinoutz
There are forces that extend beyond any average human controlling it all. If it's human, it does not represent 99.9% of us but when they use endless fear to control the masses the collective human psyche can be controlled by it's lowest common denominator.

These wars, no one wants except those at the top. If people are on board it's because they have been brainwashed by fear.

Brainwashed by fear is human nature. Let’s don’t think these leaders are too separate from us since they represent us to a degree. And it’s the people who vote these savages in office and in the millions support them. So, I wouldn’t feel so good we are that much better than them.

Also, this anti-war stance is compounded by the reality of nukes. The fact is it has become abstract to the average person on the planet now. That is a sign they will be used soon. Trump even asked the generals why can’t we use them. A cavalier attitude indicative of my point here.

People should be horrified by them but they're not, we’ve become used to them like hurricanes and tornadoes. But these things we forget WILL end the human race as we know it, and that’s unique in history, not even God, other than a massive global weather change could do that.

Also, those nukes in Japan are like a pop gun compared to what they have now.

Unfortunately, it may take a massive destructive nuclear war to wake people up but then there might be no one left to wake up! Or nothing to wake up to.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Yes, the war was pretty much won, but the Japanese were going to fight to the finish anyhow. And that last battle was going to kill more of them and the allied forces combined than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki ever could have. As I had a grandfather who was a sailor slated to go in the first wave of ground invasion of Japan, a wave projected to have 90% casualties, you will never hear me speak against the decision that was made.

I likely would not be here today without that choice.

a reply to: ketsuko

I understand that but there still could have been alternatives other than killing 100 thousand civilians.

Many Generals said the Japs were beaten, and not all were for using it, such as MacArthur, but I understand the attack on Japan would have killed many. I’m not debating that choice. But there were alternatives, there always is

In the long run, it may have been necessary for the world to see the horrors of the bomb. But, as I said above, what we have now makes those bombs seem like firecrackers.

Some said Truman wanted to scare the Russians.

a reply to: AcrobaticDreams

The only thing preventing the US and EU from fighting Russia right now are the nuclear weapons. Weapons so devastating that they scare everyone.

Nuclear weapons don't scare Joe. In fact, he's talking about redoing the Iranian arms deal......like Iran would build a nuclear weapon to 'defend' America.

You can't buy friendship any more than you can buy love; the cost keeps increasing.

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
a reply to: ketsuko

I understand that but there still could have been alternatives other than killing 100 thousand civilians.

Many Generals said the Japs were beaten, and not all were for using it, such as MacArthur, but I understand the attack on Japan would have killed many. I’m not debating that choice. But there were alternatives, there always is

In the long run, it may have been necessary for the world to see the horrors of the bomb. But, as I said above, what we have now makes those bombs seem like firecrackers.

Some said Truman wanted to scare the Russians.

thats the problem,they were not civilians,they were guerilla fighters trained to fight to the last man woman and child by then. they were also military assetts,who could produce soldiers/offspring and work in the factories,making ammo and weapons.

One can’t blame Pakistan, India, and China for remaining neutral. The US and Russia will destroy each other but if nuclear winter doesn’t take out the whole planet some Asians and Africans might survive. I guess I'll get my passport in order to visit my friend in Senegal!

The fact is the US should have tried to unite Russia and the US after Russia fell in 90, and NOT go ahead and beef up NATO.

That said, Putin does suck and is a maniac but the US is NOT blameless. It allows the MIC to rule this country, which is NOT interested in world peace but profits.

WE IN AMERICA SHOULD DISMANTLE THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. They love NATOs growth since it allows them to build and sell weapons to the fearful NATO countries still wrapped up in this cold war. Russia IS NOT EVEN COMMUNIST ANYMORE...SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

End wars and WMDs NOW!

That's the lesson this world should take from this. If it doesn't then the children of the world will NOT live to the next generation.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

The MIC?! What do you think the last two years have been all about? I'll give you a hint - Follow the science!.

Everyone loves to talk about how Eisenhower warned against the MIC, but he also warned against government/science getting together in the same way, and we've been there for the past two years.

Did you like it?

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't get your point. Government and science, in terms of what?

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't get your point. Government and science, in terms of what?

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Eisenhower gave this warning as well in his farewell address just after warning about the MIC. Everyone ignores it, but we just got through with two years of living through it.

a reply to: ketsuko

I totally agree with you!!

And pretty sure there's worse coming - check out this link:

NATO's Plans to Hack Your Brain

The U.S.-led NATO military cartel has tested novel modes of hybrid warfare against its self-declared adversaries, including economic warfare, cyber warfare, information warfare and psychological warfare.

Now, NATO is spinning out an entirely new kind of combat it has branded cognitive warfare. Described as the “weaponization of brain sciences,” the new method involves “hacking the individual” by exploiting “the vulnerabilities of the human brain” in order to implement more sophisticated “social engineering.”

In a chilling disclosure, the report said explicitly that “the objective of Cognitive Warfare is to harm societies and not only the military.”

The study described this phenomenon as “the militarization of brain science.” But it appears clear that NATO’s development of cognitive warfare will lead to a militarization of all aspects of human society and psychology, from the most intimate of social relationships to the mind itself.

Scary stuff!

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I remember Atomism was related to Oppenheimer's choice of words.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism

"Atomism (from Greek ἄτομον, atomon, i.e. "uncuttable, indivisible")[1][2][3] is a natural philosophy proposing that the physical universe is composed of fundamental indivisible components known as atoms.

References to the concept of atomism and its atoms appeared in both ancient Greek and ancient Indian philosophical traditions."


"Ashes and diamonds, foe and friend, we are all equal in the end"
Roger Waters

This song always bothered me.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

I think you and many others think because they see what is shown on the internet and news, you know what is actually going on. What reality really is. When this is most likely very very false. You are making these statements when you know about 5% of what goes into making these decisions and who are making them and why.

This is why so many are consistently wrong and spend so much time consumed with the drama they see because to them it is so real but in reality, it is not representing what is actually occurring.

It is a very pitiful state to be in.

I think Megadeath said it best "Peace sells, but who's buying?"

a reply to: ketsuko

I get you. The government has claws in everything. That’s the fact of a philosophy of government. I don’t know what the solution to that is. Maybe making human beings better. Or government better.

a reply to: AcrobaticDreams

Well, what is your theory of what is going on?

I judge by what happens. War, violence, and suffering. Darkness over light.

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
a reply to: ketsuko

I understand that but there still could have been alternatives other than killing 100 thousand civilians.

Many Generals said the Japs were beaten, and not all were for using it, such as MacArthur, but I understand the attack on Japan would have killed many. I’m not debating that choice. But there were alternatives, there always is

I thought the alternative choice for the first bomb was for Japan to surrender, but they chose not to. And the alternative choice for the second bomb was also for Japan to surrender, but once again they chose not to.

originally posted by: AcrobaticDreams

originally posted by: ancientlight
a reply to: AcrobaticDreams

If someone provokes you , as in attacks you, that's an act of violence, you should defend yourself.
He's talking about at a world level.
So nations not attacking other nations etc.

What are nations made up of? The only thing preventing the US and EU from fighting Russia right now are the nuclear weapons. Weapons so devastating that they scare everyone. If we just had sticks and stones, we’d be over there right now.

If we just had sticks and stones then I would think we would not go unless we were living real close.

Detente (day-taunt) is what saved the world. No one wants to be Nuked. A 1st strike that is affective will be devastating to all the Earthlings. The winners only buy themselves some time for a slow death.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

It almost seems inevitable as we elect dumber and dumber leaders.