Anti Nuclear NZ

[toprob]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Jul 22 2012,12:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How many people can honestly put there hands up and say they have not seen 'TOPGUN' .. that was a Nuclear powered aircraft carrier and the 'Big E' , least Hollywood put part history into factual even if they went overboard , but that's Hollywood for ya ...

I do like all historical WW1 , WWII , Korean , Vietnam , the Gulf and the weapons .... just what was in that ute !

Topgun is meant to be released in 3D this year -- cool!

Actually, I always thought of Topgun as an anti-war movie -- portraying today's 'warrior' as a hyped-up, roid-rage, over-compensating ego-maniac. But it is a great movie, I watch it often when my flatmate is away, so I can fire up the surround sound system.

Great stuff, Charl, sorry, I did get off the subject of nuclear power, but I'll save my opinions for later.

[IslandBoy77]

QUOTE (toprob @ Jul 22 2012,12:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the US has done a great job of dehumanising Muslims, for instance

That shoe is worn on the other foot, too. You might like to have a close look at the propaganda from Iran, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia and other fun vacation spots - dehumanising of people THEY consider "the enemy" has been in full swing for some time now, and is far more "in your face" than the politically correct "west" (where in Britain, for example, they go to the nth degree to avoid using the "M" word and only refer to them as "Asians"). Now I'm not saying that labelling ANYONE as this, that or the other thing is good, right or proper - regardless of who's doing it. Let's face it: at the end of the day we're all human, and there is no bad attitude uncommon to any of us. It might be expedient to play the "us" and "them" game - but the truth is that we are ALL (humans) guilty of painting someone else as the bad guy and directing whatever malice and invective their way whenever it suits our purpose.

The world is so full of machinations, of string-pulling and "wheels within wheels" plotting and scheming by people of all racial groups, countries and ideological backgrounds - people who think of us who aren't "in" as just pawns to be moved around their chess board, or sources of money to be wrung dry for whatever cause they have in mind (or cannon fodder for their militaries). But most people are too frightened by the enormity of it all (understandably: its not like any of us can really do anything about it) and just want to plug their ears and close their eyes and hope that it will somehow all go away. Unfortunately, no amount of Neville Chamberlain-ism is going to change the fact that our planet has been in a more or less constant state of "war" (to various degrees) for almost 200 years (Last 100 years-only count: WW1, Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Russia's Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq x 2, US Afghanistan - and that ignores the multitude of "smaller" conflicts throughout Africa and other places) - its only a matter of time before the hounds of war start knocking insistently on the doors of the "west".

[Ian Warren]

Pete .. between 1945 to 1985 there were 485 - whats consider wars , since then we keep counting , currently Syria was know as the don't touch state , good example of the Middle East was Beirut , the so called Jewel capital of the area around the 1975 - by 1980 it was a shambles ... thoughtfully you can say no buckets off sunshine were used or have been since WWII.

[IslandBoy77]

Hey Ian - 485? Wow. Can you give me the link to the website that has that?: I'd like to have a look through the info out of curiosity. I was just thinking actually that I'd missed a few "key" ones: Syria now, of course, and Beirut as you've noted, but also the Iran / Iraq war of the early '80's, Sri Lanka, Sudan (which is still bubbling and looking to boil over again), Somalia, the various rumbles between Israel and Egypt / Syria / Jordan, the Falklands war - going back further, the Japanese invasion of China (I suppose technically part of WWII, but I usually think of it as separate), the Khmer Rouge decimation of Cambodia - I also thought of the Balkans war of the very late 1800's which was quite significant. Oh, and then there was the Grenada "action", Honduras, Panama, various "revolutionary" flare-ups all through South America, not including the continual spats between Ecuador and Peru.

[toprob]

The implication here is that war has become a lot more prevalent in the last 100-200 years, but I don't believe that at all. It has been a lot easier to document, and later history hasn't yet been re-written to the same extent, so it seems more common. These days we can get news footage within hours of the outbreak of war in some place we were barely aware of before -- a thousand years ago you'd be lucky if you got any news from outside the valley in your entire life-time.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jul 22 2012,2:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Ian - 485? Wow. Can you give me the link to the website that has that?:

The info is not on the website , it in my volumes of 'WAR in PEACE' .. think about it , had that many up to 1985 .. crikes 27 years along still at it ... weird thing and again people forget Syria has been the strike first to rally to cause and cause war , must be those peace pipes they smoke over there .... so who stole that ute , all it takes all type to create to start something .

[IslandBoy77]

QUOTE (toprob @ Jul 22 2012,1:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The implication here is that war has become a lot more prevalent in the last 100-200 years...

I'm not sure that I actually had that in mind, but yes, I do believe that war has been much more prevalent in the last 100-200 years. Yes, it's true that we get to hear about it more readily. And yes, documentation of prolonged or "high body count" conflicts in times gone by is patchy, at best - although there IS quite a bit of fairly reliable documentation available from antiquity. The accuracy of it may be a bit off, as we know that history is most commonly written by the victors, and it's always been the practice of the "winners" to portray themselves in the best light. But I don't think such prejudices alter the general fact that conflict took place. It would be fair to say that I haven't done an intensive organised study on world history over, say, the last 6,000 years. But it would be fair to say that I'm very widely read in this area. My conclusion from everything that I have read, seen or heard is that "war" has been on a much more frenetic, wide-spread and global scale in the last 100-200 years. This belief in no way detracts from the suffering of the millions over the last 60 centuries who've endured the horrors of war in all it's forms and guises. I believe strongly that if one were to do a study into what material is available on the subject, one would come to the conclusion as I have, that humanity has more or less been in a perpetual state of war in a fairly contiguous / continuous fashion since the early-mid 1800's. I would be a lot happier if it were NOT the case...

[chopper_nut]

I think we all wish that war wasnt so prevalent however where would we be in terms of technology and aviation in particular without conflict.... Interesting to ponder...

[Ian Warren]

Its not like me , all this over a Ute .. think i'll pull a good War movie off the shelf ... now what one

[chopper_nut]

Ill have to watch Trinity and Beyond now.

[Ian Warren]

Bugger don't have that one , I ordered 'Letters from Iwo Jima' and has'nt arrived yet ... wonder if it was on the back of that stolen ute with all that nuclear stuff

[chopper_nut]

Haha classic. Just on a side note for you Mr Warren, I bought From the Earth to the Moon on DVD the other week. Really good watch. Ive also got the complete film record from Apollo 8 on the way from Spacecraft Films

[Ian Warren]

Cheers for the link Nick , i'd be able whiz thru the radiation belt and not return home glowing ... bookmarked this site for sure ... Just in case i'm needed in Star Wars

[IslandBoy77]

QUOTE (chopper_nut @ Jul 22 2012,4:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think we all wish that war wasnt so prevalent however where would we be in terms of technology and aviation in particular without conflict.... Interesting to ponder...

Yeah I've mused over that a few times now. On the one hand, I find it galling that so much of our technological development has come via the agent of war (in all its forms, shapes and guises). On the other hand, necessity has always been "the mother of invention", even if that necessity is questionable. I'm also aware that it's easy for me to sit comfortably behind my computer screen and decry the horrors of war, yet had a bunch of young men on "our side" not heeded the call to arms, my world could be a much darker, bleaker place. A real condundrum that: the good old "Die on your feet fighting, or live on your knees in subjection". And to top it all off (my musings, that is), I find all the hardware of "war" very interesting in a "big boys toys" sort of way - maybe some of my ancestors were of the warrior caste...

[toprob]

I mentioned that war is complex, and like a lot of things there is no one right way to look at this. We would be a very different species if it wasn't for our ability to go to war. We'd still be digging for roots, if we were not already extinct. On a personal level, though, I have real problems even understanding the concept. I look at things from the point of view of a father -- which is what I was considering in my comment about war becoming less prevalent. I was comparing the likelihood of any of my kids being seriously affected by some sort of armed conflict -- which is not high at the moment, and it is possible that they can go their entire lives without being seriously in danger. This is a definite improvement over a kid in the 17th century or earlier.

So although I can accept war as a part of being human, I don't want my kids to go anywhere near it.

[toprob]

Just heard on the news that someone has handed in the stolen gear --so NZFF is now moved to Defcon 3. Whew, it's over.

[deaneb]

QUOTE (toprob @ Jul 23 2012,2:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I mentioned that war is complex, and like a lot of things there is no one right way to look at this. We would be a very different species if it wasn't for our ability to go to war. We'd still be digging for roots, if we were not already extinct. On a personal level, though, I have real problems even understanding the concept. I look at things from the point of view of a father -- which is what I was considering in my comment about war becoming less prevalent. I was comparing the likelihood of any of my kids being seriously affected by some sort of armed conflict -- which is not high at the moment, and it is possible that they can go their entire lives without being seriously in danger. This is a definite improvement over a kid in the 17th century or earlier.

So although I can accept war as a part of being human, I don't want my kids to go anywhere near it.

Unfortunately with the worlds population expanding rapidly and increasing demand for food, oil and water the threat of conflict is very real. Water especially will become a fought over resource in the future. Additionally we are still not out of the economic crisis the world has been going through. If that were to deepen anything could happen. I find the UN's lack of action in Syria to be another example of how conflict can go on while diplomacy flounders and thats concerning for a nation of our size at the bottom of the world. Having said that the UN's mandate is more about protecting Nations from conflict with others, rather than from internal conflict. But I still think they are gutless. In a nut shell, in the future - "what you cannot protect will no longer be yours". As a remote Island nation we will rely heavily on Australia, UK and US to protect us (as we always have).

[Ian Warren]

Least they found the ute .. nothing top secret i guess .. now i wonder if my DVD War movie was in the trunk ... NZFF is now moved to Defcon 2

[AndrewJamez]

QUOTE (deaneb @ Jul 23 2012,5:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a remote Island nation we will rely heavily on Australia, UK and US to protect us (as we always have).

Not to worry the Yanks will be down this way soon flaunting their power in the Pacific rim trying to keep china in Check. Already have new bases in Oz. Another reason to keep their ships out. If it all went to hell in hand basket they COULD become a target right on our doorstep.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Jul 26 2012,4:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They sure as heck have a better record the passenger liners and cargo ships in the recent era ... Rena and Lementov in perfect conditions ....... The USS AMERICA - CV66 visited Wellington in 1966 , they had to dredge the Harbour our to get her in - 4 ft keel to the bottom , CV66 being a conventional fossile funneled , but sure as heck would have been carrying nukes on board , the US Military are good at keeping Nuclear power eggs in good condition but not required here .. she left without a hitch , its when its given to some civies or the Russians you run into trouble , end of the day ..
Targets , contradiction is another government flip flop ... only to suit the greenies .

About 1980-82 another US Carrier was near New Zealand and F-14s flew over the North Island. I'm not sure which Carrier it was though.