Printable View
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?actio...tegory&id=2703
Man, I wish we still had the sperm holders that the Greatest generation had. I only wish we'd do the same to the multitude of TRAITORS that walk amongst us. So I think this day should be a holiday. The Reds can go to the coffee shop on their day off from the bookstore or hemp shop and read poetry and smell each other's BO. Whats your opinion?
Thank you, and a good idea, but I think I would take the opportunity to throw a few pipe bombs into government offices when there's noone around to stop me or get injured. That would send a message to the TRAITORS who hold office these days. :rifle: :beatnik: :smg:
Call it "Revolutionary day."
Is that sufficiently extremist for you, Dave? :laugh4:
Dave for president?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
:elephant: :elephant: :elephant:
Well, it all depends on who you think are traitors of course. Maybe you should team up with Gonzo.
It always bothers me when I see documentaries about the creation of the atom bomb or the Rosenbergs that casts them in a sympathetic light. Handing over the secret to the most great and terrible invention mankind has ever conceived to a tyrannical regime founded on an ideology that believes human nature can be coerced into a hive mind, insect-like existence offends me to my very core. The Rosenbergs were living proof that intelligence and idiocy are not mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
I do take point to your comment regarding the 'Greatest generation'. The 'Greatest generation' is an impressive generation but certainly not the greatest. If the fruit of the loins of the Greatest generation is the Baby Boomers I'd hate to see what the progeny of the 'Worst generation' will be like.
Deifinitionally, they'd have to be an improvement, no? :devilish:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
So, allowing the US to have exclusive access to such a weapon would have been just fine? Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Spino can speak for himself, but he's not saying anything about American exclusive access. He doesn't seem to be advocating that anyone who got information to the French, British or Israeli gov'ts regarding nuclear technology should be executed with little or no sympathy. Just the ones that helped 'a tyrannical regime founded on an ideology that believes human nature can be coerced into a hive mind, insect-like existence'
Exactly.
Wait, what?
The two mentioned were war-time allies, and happened to be democratic in some fashion.
Israel's possession of the nuclear weapon was the Frenchies doing wasn't it.
Right. None of the three were 'a tyrannical regime founded on an ideology that believes human nature can be coerced into a hive mind, insect-like existence,' unlike Russia at the time, so CrossLOPER was putting kind of a strawman out there, imho. Anyway, I like Spino and LOPER's posts are both generally alot funnier and insightful than what I have to add here, so I'll butt out. Sorry if I was confusing, MM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
woohoo Dave lets celebrate executing a woman who didn't pass on atomic secrets and was falsely grassed up by her own brother , who was a spy , so he could protects himself his wife and kids .
what a bunch of bollox , but hey if you think its worth celebrating then fair play to ya Dave...wear that shirt with pride:dizzy2:
methinks someone doesn't know their history:thumbsdown:
would those be the traitors who sent young people to go off and die in an unwinnable war based on a bunch of lies.....AGAIN...or would those be different traitors you do be thinking about ?:inquisitive:Quote:
I only wish we'd do the same to the multitude of TRAITORS that walk amongst us.
Wouldn't it be easier just to quote Wikipedia instead of paraphrasing the entry yourself?:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Its a beautiful day in the neighborhood... :holiday:
I would like to say how much it all smells like nineteen-fifties anti-communist paranoia, with a dash of anti-semitism thrown in for good measure, but I won't. Wiki says that declassified US and USSR records revealed that Julius really was involved in atomic espionage. It remains a bit inconclusive, especially the usefulness of his espionage activities, but the consensus seems to be that he simply was a Soviet spy. So shame about the wife, but other than that...
As for making the execution a public holiday, I can see some buts:
-The death penalty, whether you're pro or con, is no reason for celebration.
-I think that the SU bomb was really just a matter of time anyway. It is not hard at all to make a nuclear bomb. With the right equipment, any half-decent physics student could do it. The Rosenberg case is not important in this respect.
-As for spying: does the Rosenberg-variant even exist anymore? America is an open society and communication and globalisation have created a world entirely different from the 1950's. Just about any new technology will find it's way to the web instantly, for ready viewing in caves everywhere. Not to mention, there's no telling what those hundreds of thousands of foreign students are up to. Lord only knows how much technology is unwillingly transferred to China from the US.
But even so: is your Chinese exchange Ph.D. student a spy, a scientific asset, a potential business partner - or simply all three at the same time? Do the benefits of a free academic environment outweigh unvoluntary transfer of technology?
The French bomb was an independently developed product. As far as I know, there was no spying involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
The US openly and voluntarily shared nuclear technology with the UK, France covertly, but voluntarily again, shared technology with Israel.
I don't think there was any spying involved in each of these cases. I do not know about China, South Africa, India. Pakistan's bomb was a clear result of spying, and I wouldn't take kindly on anybody involved.
Well there is precendence for having a death sentence as a holiday.
Right, and I should've been more clear that I wasn't saying that they all obtained nuclear capability through espionage. Spino was saying that it sucked that this couple often gets a sympathetic take, but if you think about who they were helping, it's appalling. He wasn't saying at all that only America has a right to nuclear technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
:thinking: Who exactly? I'm not saying you're wrong, because I have no idea; in fact, I am quite interested in finding out whom. And is it an American holiday, or a British one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
UK, US, Aus, NZ, EU...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
They even commemorate the death sentence by having replica dead bodies, still hung up on their proto-gibbets, displayed everywhere. Some sickos even hang replicas of these proto-gibbets around their necks, in their unsavoury obesession with death. Absolutely disgusting death-cult that has followers on both sides of the Atlantic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Gonzo
:laugh4: Oh, right. My family didn't celebrate it; honestly, I had no idea what Good Friday was until about six years ago. I always thought we just got a Friday off in the middle of April just for the hell of it.
And all this time I thought KLAUS FUCHS and Theodore Hall. were the men who stole the Atom Bomb. :dizzy2:
Besides the case against the Rosenbergs has a fishy smell about it. The Ruskies had spies in the project from the start.
Well, ya gotta give props to the fact that over 200K Japanese civilians and two American maybe-spies, died, and yet no one has, in 60+ years, popped another 'big one' that hurt/killed a bunch of people all at once, despite the sabre-rattling and proliferation of a generation-and-a-half.
I'll join D.Dave in using this day to commemorate that fact. And wish upon the next generation-and-a-half the same result. May you next guys in charge find a better way.
That said, I'm somber when any human dies. And edgy when they die prematurely, especially when 'we teh people' cause it. Let's not break out the Champagne; rather, I think, let's drink a beer to human experience, and shake our heads at the marvel of it all.
Some of the original developers of the A bomb really believed in MAD and would be all to willing to share the information. I don't knwo the whole case, they might have done 'something', but they're probably scapegoats none the less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I don't think "MAD" was common jargon until the sixties, when anybody who worked on the Manhattan project would be either geriatric or dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I remember Oppenheimer (a crucial figure in the project) later argued against the development of the hydrogen bomb because he believed that the targets they would be deployed against would be almost always civilian in nature (since dozens of megatons is overkill against military installations)
Anyway I agree that what the Rosenbergs did was treasonous and a harsh punishment would be in order for that. I have some problems with the death penalty in general though, but that's a different discussion.
Most scientists are like athletes... they do most of their great work when they are young... mathematicians and physicists original work typically peaks before 30.
Most of them were alive and well in the 60's. Feynman was probably the youngest of the great scientists in the group and enjoyed himself immensely in the '60s and '70s... pity he died relatively young.
I support anyone who betrays their government. ~:)
I see it as my right to do so.
And I see it as a right for the respective government to kill pieces of #### that risk thier fellow citizens because their brains lack the brain cells to understand the difference between "rights" and "treason".:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Of course, and I also see it as a right for us to put said presidents brain outside his skull with a rifle. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
I thought you were a pacifist? You do realise that political violence is not an option for proponents of non-violence?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
:inquisitive:
Ah, but if you read the corporal punishment thread, you'll see that I've turned to the biblethumping side!Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Quote:
I support anyone who betrays their government.
I see it as my right to do so.
One mans traitor is another mans patriot I guess :laugh4: Heck the founding fathers sure betrayed their government and if caught would have been executed just like these people.
Heroes = successful traitors/traitors on the winning side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Uh, I suppose you mean people who've betrayed the losing side?Quote:
Heroes = successful traitors/traitors on the winning side.
The moment that you're betraying your government/country it's irrelevant wether it's right or wrong, since you'll be imprisoned or executed regardless if you're caught. History makes its own judgements though, wich is why we honour those who went against the Nazis but look down upon those who voluntarily aided the Soviet Union.
Since you seem to imply that treason is always good, regardless of the government targeted, I wonder: do you consider yourself an anarchist?
Well, I meant traitors belonging to the winning side, ie. betraying the losing side...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
And no, I don't consider myself an anarchist. I'm a pretty hard socialist, although I guess I sympathize with anarchists. I feel we need some order, but only some.
BTW, I never said that treason was always a good thing.
This...
...doesn't make any distinction between governments, or between the different motives that traitors have.Quote:
I support anyone who betrays their government.
Do you sympathize with the Rosenbergs, who betrayed the USA with the intention of helping the Soviet Union?
Hell there were so many spies. Some great British ones to be precise. Sides it's not like the Russians wouldn't have made bombs if the Rosenbergs weren't spies.
But it doesn't state it as either good or bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Yup. And history hasn't shown it to be a bad move either, if anything, they should be proclaimed heroes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I think you enjoyed quoting my sentence more than I liked typing it. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Prol hit the nail on the head though. It's very difficult to take exception to the nations that the US helped to develop their own bomb during the Cold War. All of them demonstrated a decidedly defensive posture in the post-WW2 era (Israel excepted, but in its defense its very survival was at stake the moment the nation was founded in '48). Last time I checked it wasn't the French, the British or the Israelis who sent their armies into places like Prague and Bucharest and used their tanks to crush people beneath their treads. People who defend the Soviet Union acquiring the bomb via espionage ought to think about why so central European nations get nervous whenever the subject of Russia and Putin's Soviet pedigree comes up.
Your leaving out one minor detailQuote:
(Israel excepted, but in its defense its very survival was at stake the moment the nation was founded in '48).
It wasnt us.Quote:
France's contribution
Franco-Israeli nuclear cooperation is described in detail in the book "Les Deux Bombes" (1982) by French journalist Pierre Pean, who gained access to the official French files on Dimona. The book revealed that the Dimona's cooling circuits were built two to three times larger than necessary for the 26-megawatt reactor Dimona was supposed to be--proof that it had always been intended to make bomb quantities of plutonium. The book also revealed that French technicians had built a plutonium extraction plant at the same site. According to Pean, French nuclear assistance enabled Israel to produce enough plutonium for one bomb even before the 1967 Six Day War. France also gave Israel nuclear weapon design information.
In 1986, Francis Perrin, high commissioner of the French atomic energy agency from 1951 to 1970, was quoted in the press as saying that France and Israel had worked closely together for two years in the late 1950s to design an atom bomb. Perrin said that the United States had agreed that the French scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project could apply their knowledge at home provided they kept it secret. But then, Perrin said, "We considered we could give the secrets to Israel provided they kept it a secret themselves." He added: "We thought the Israeli bomb was aimed against the Americans, not to launch it against America but to say 'if you don't want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us, otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'"
U.S. intelligence reports
After the United States discovered the Dimona reactor in 1960, U.S. nuclear specialists inspected Dimona every year from 1965 through 1969, looking for signs of nuclear weapon production. It is not clear what they found, but in 1968 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reported to President Lyndon Johnson its conclusion that Israel had already made an atomic bomb. In 1969, Israel limited inspection visits by U.S. scientists to such an extent that the Americans complained in writing. Without explanation, the Nixon administration ended the visits the following year.
The CIA continued to report on Israel's nuclear weapon progress during the 1970s. In a September 1974 memorandum, "Prospects for Further Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the CIA cited "Israeli acquisition of large quantities of uranium, partly by clandestine means" as further evidence that "Israel already has produced nuclear weapons." The CIA also cited Israeli missile development as evidence that Israel had made nuclear weapons--the CIA said the Jericho made little sense as a conventional missile and was "designed to accommodate nuclear warheads." In a February 1976 report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, CIA Deputy Director for Science and Technology Carl Duckett reported that Israel was already making bombs with plutonium produced in its Dimona reactor.
You said you support anyone who betrays his government, and that you consider that a right, in other words that anybody should be free to betray his government for whatever reason he likes.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
:rolleyes:Quote:
Yup. And history hasn't shown it to be a bad move either, if anything, they should be proclaimed heroes.
Yup. But where's the goodness? I support it, but that doesn't mean it's good, does it? Supporting something doesn't equal agreeing with it. And besides, why should I only support good things? Why can't I support bad things?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
And as for Rosenberg, well, how many nukes have killed people since they spied for the soviet union? Noone, you say? Hmm... So then, their actions haven't hurt anyone, how can that be evil? Further, the fact that both the soviet and the US had nukes is claimed by some to be the reason why there hasn't been a third world war. So, perhaps they should be thought of as the heroes who prevented WW3?
That's an all too convenient answer, especially now that we have 60 years of history and hindsight under our belts. True, the bomb prevented WW3 from happening but in those early years before ICBMs were the primary delivery system for nukes and MAD became a reality the threat of another world war was quite real.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It may seem like water under the bridge now but at the time the news that the secret to the bomb was simply handed over the to Soviets must have been an incredibly horrifying experience to anyone with half a brain living in the West. People working for the military and intelligence agencies in the West must have felt like they had the weight of the world on their shoulders. Talk about something that would keep you up at night and make you break into a cold sweat!
Im not supporting what they did but couldnt the claim be made that they actually saved lives? Who can say for sure?Quote:
And as for Rosenberg, well, how many nukes have killed people since they spied for the soviet union? Noone, you say? Hmm... So then, their actions haven't hurt anyone
If their actions avoided a third world war, they've probably saved hundreds of millions, if not billions when including the aftermath(I think a third ww would have killed at least twice as many as ww2). The US could indeed have executed two people responsible for saving much of the world, in the name of fear, patriotism and show of force...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
As one of these 'red traitors' you so happily go on about, i would just like to point out you're getting communists confused with hippies, who we all know are the real problem in our society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Yes the brother ratted them out (tacky), but most sources -- including Soviet material from that era -- confirm their guilt. Note:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/alpha_...r/rad-rah.html
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page101.html
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/espionage.htm
It appears that they ended up getting the chop because they were dedicated enough not to roll over on their sources and contacts -- as had her brother. Give them points for bravery in their chosen cause, but traitors to the USA they were.
I could argue the "unwinnable" and "lie" labels you attach -- but that is not germane here so let's table it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
However, if you are going to label as "traitors" and execute any politician in a leadership position who makes a dumb mistake/policy/policy-implementation that gets people killed, you will set up a rotating electoral abbatoir of epic proportions.
Since you, Tribesy, (at least seemingly) tend to view anyone in politics as inherently criminal by their choice of profession, you may prefer such a result, but I think it would put a damper on the democratic process.:cheesy:
That makes absolutely no sense. If treason against a legitimate, democratic nation-state is bad, why do you support it?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Mutually Assured Destruction prevented the USA and SU from actually lobbing missiles against eachother, but MAD as a garantue for peace didn't exist from the start. I hope someone more knowledgable about the Cold War can elaborate, but it's my understanding that both tried to prepare for nuclear war in the sense, that should it break out, they'd try to completely wipe out their ability to hit back before they had a chance to respond. It's why the Cuban missiles were such a hot point, and could have caused a global war rather than preventing it.Quote:
And as for Rosenberg, well, how many nukes have killed people since they spied for the soviet union? Noone, you say? Hmm... So then, their actions haven't hurt anyone, how can that be evil? Further, the fact that both the soviet and the US had nukes is claimed by some to be the reason why there hasn't been a third world war. So, perhaps they should be thought of as the heroes who prevented WW3?
Hypothetically, if the USA continued to have a monopoly on nuclear weapons they probably would never have felt the need to create strategic nuclear weapons.
Realisticly the SU would have developed them anyway as the Americans had predicted, but it would have taken them considerably longer. That the SU got theirs in less then 5 years time was a considerable shock and added to the "Red Scare" hysteria.
Besides, to argue that the Rosenbergs foresaw any of this is ridiculous. The fact is that what they betrayed their own country and helped a murderous dictatorship get hands on the most destructive weapons in history. They most definitely weren't heroes.
Ill bet they were to the USSR , just like Benedict Arnold was a hero to the British.:yes:Quote:
They most definitely weren't heroes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The only logical point I can see in his argument is that you have the right to choose which side you stand on....
just because you were born in one country does that mean you must have unquestionable loyalty for that country?...or are you free to choose to fight for some other country?
of course states have treason laws and enforce those in their own self interest of survival...but that doesn´t make the action itself is inherently "evil"
Hmmm sounds familiarQuote:
ust because you were born in one country does that mean you must have unquestionable loyalty for that country?...or are you free to choose to fight for some other country?
of course states have treason laws and enforce those in their own self interest of survival...but that doesn´t make the action itself is inherently "evil"
Quote:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
I find it curious how this thread title is in violation of the oft-enforced "You may not celebrate anyone's death at the Org" policy, yet for some reason it gets let off the hook for that whereas other celebrations of deaths would not.
Kind of... we try and not celebrate current events and if a thread is for remembrance &/or condolences it should remain such. Threads that are critical (in a bad light) of a persons life should
a) Wait until the person has had a funeral
b) Not be stated in the remembrance thread even after the funeral so they should form another thread still obeying all the forum rules too.
Funny we didnt have that with Saddam. Not even one RIP if I remember right :laugh4:
Remember Voltaire's famous words: "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say with my life"(taken from memory, no need to correct mistakes).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec