Not to alarm anyone but...

Zhukov

VIP Member
Dec 21, 2003
3,492
302
83
Everywhere, simultaneously.
To anyone knowledgeable of human history it is clear that at some time around the midpoint of the previous century humanity reached a pivotal moment in its evolution.

Though war had been a ubiquitous and nearly constant fact of life for thousands of years of civilization, human technology had finally, by the middle of the 20th century, reached a level capable of exterminating all human life. From the development of guns capable of firing massive amounts of rounds, to mass gas chambers, to the use of biological agents on civilian centers, to the atomic annihilation of cities, it quickly became obvious that humanity was racing towards a precipice.

Chemicals, biological agents, and nuclear weapons; weapons of mass destruction.

Fortunately, and perhaps because of these technological advances, the last great war ended and saner minds prevailed for nearly 50 years. Despite fear and differing ideologies and aspirations, nothing was worth mutually assured destruction.

But, as some have lamented, those were simpler times. Once upon a time the enemy feared death.

Though each side developed enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world many times over, the only thing that prevented the destruction of humanity was the fear of death.

Today, though we needn’t worry about thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles tipped with multiple nuclear warheads, the threat of weapons of mass destruction is much more real in my mind.

Though of prime attention during the Cold War, nuclear weapons are neither the most dangerous nor the most insidious of weapons of mass destruction. A nuclear weapon is a crude tool, capable of indiscriminately destroying everything in its vicinity. A chemical weapon is also a crude tool, bursting in the air and depending upon the vagaries of the wind or environment for its effectiveness.
Both of these types of weapons are to be sure certainly dangerous and, if applied in appropriate quantity, threatening to the continued existence of humanity, but what is a far more dangerous and an insidious weapon?

A single biological agent.

During the Cold War it is reasonable to suspect that the United States continued its wartime development of biological agents (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm) to create a ‘super-bug’. Evidence exists to suggest the Soviet Union proceeded apace with its own biological weapons program.

Considering we felt the need to produce enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world several times over, it is further reasonable to conclude in a short matter of time, with the vast amount of money, minds, and resources available to the United States, we were capable of producing an airborne communicable virus with an appropriately lengthy latency period and a nearly 100% mortality rate once contracted.

That means, that in all likelihood, buried somewhere in the desert, there is a virus that if released would spread around the world as easily and as quickly as the flu and kill nearly everyone who contracted it within a matter of weeks.

Naturally, we would never even consider using such an awful weapon, because it will kill everyone, indiscriminately, and despite what our detractors may think of us, we are not insane. And neither were the Soviets, who quite possibly developed a biological agent along similar lines.

Unfortunately our contemporary death worshipping enemies, though perhaps not technically, are insane by any meaningful definition of the word. I find it unlikely to believe that if such a weapon were in the hands of our enemy they would feel much compunction against using it. What do you think?

Imagine a small group of religious extremists living an isolated existence in a cave in a desolate and remote area. They come across a biological agent, by one means, or another, and devise a plan:

Five or six martyrs will travel to a populated area, infect themselves, and board an airplane. These martyrs will be carrying no contraband, have no prior record, and be associated with no one. They will however be coughing.

One may fly to Istanbul, asking passers-by directions, and coughing, and then board a train into Europe to visit the malls and other populated areas. Another may fly to Southeast Asia, and make their way to Australia. Given the interconnectedness of our modern world it’s not difficult to imagine the ultimate result. The enemy himself may need never come to our country at all, but will instead send thousands of unwitting emissaries.

Does anyone believe our enemy would regret the demise of the vast majority of humanity, even a billion Muslims, if it left the world free for them? I don’t doubt they would call those Muslims they sacrificed martyrs. Meanwhile, isolated as they were, they would not fear infection.





Possessing what knowledge I have of micro- and cellular biology, and genetics I am of the opinion that the ability required for creating such an agent is not great, but is instead well within the means of any state with the will, the money, the time, and the resources. I flatter myself, thinking given enough time and resources I could come up with something myself. What’s more, considering that the information concerning biological agents concocted by the Soviets or us may well be available for sale, the difficulty in producing such an agent could be far less than even what I would imagine.

Considering this very real threat, I believe there are two options.

The left and the far right alike would likely champion the first: isolation

But what sort of isolation would be effective against such a threat? First it would be necessary to construct an impenetrable barrier at the US/Mexico border, and the US/Canada border, and patrol those borders with tens of thousands of guards. It would be further necessary to patrol our coastal areas, on sea and land, with several tens of thousands of more guards. No one would be allowed entry into our country for fear of infection, and in those cases where special considerations are made, an extensive period of quarantine and study would be required. No one would be allowed to leave, unless they understood they would not be allowed to return, and rather than monitoring all foreign mail in sealed safe rooms, mail from out of country would not be permitted.

Extreme measures, but were that the course to be followed, necessary ones.

Of course, what would be the ultimate result of such an isolationist policy? With the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from the rest of the world, the globe would be left to the remaining factions: the muddling pacifistic European socialists, the Chinese and other communists, and the Islamic extremists. In short order, South Korea would disappear, Taiwan would be engulfed, Israel would be destroyed, Russia would rethink whose side it was on, and Europe would be overrun.

Antagonism in Kashmir would increase, likely leading to a nuclear exchange, and China and the remaining Islamic world would split the prize of India.

Afghan would revert to Islamic rule. Pervez would be shot and Pakistan would fall to the Islamists. Iraq would be torn apart internally only to have the Iranian Shiites arrive to install their form of Islamic rule. All moderate Islamic states would revert to a more extreme version or be destroyed by terrorists from within. All extreme Islamic states would quite possibly merge into a single caliphate.

The end result would be an Islamic superpower.

In short, our attempts at security against Islamic extremists would have utterly backfired.


The other option, the only rational one, is to fight, to determine what nations may posses the capability to develop biological weapons, and to utterly destroy those institutions. Iraq was found to have been continuing it’s biological weapons programs. Destroying that regime was the right and sensible thing to do. To deny that is wildly illogical.

The administration never claimed it was an imminent threat, and justifiably understood that it was the responsible thing to do to attack Iraq anyways. It was later confirmed that Iraq was an imminent threat, and more dangerous than most analysts, including Dr. Kay, had suspected. To continue to bemoan our involvement beyond that point far transcends the borders of irrationality.

It is far better to steady our resolve for the years of tribulations to come. There will be more deaths and more bad days in the war against terrorism. Let us not forever seek to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

The threat of a biological agent being developed by a rogue state and then passed along to be released by our demonstrably suicidal enemies is too great to intentionally ignore by naively wishing it will evaporate like a bad dream at the coming of dawn.

The only morning we will have is the one we fight to insure.




Some reading:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/review/impevents.htm
 
If it were a simple existence of only human dealings and no unearthly goings on, I would agree.

-Except it will never get to that point.

It is a physical impossibility. You have other technologies that will not let that happen before civilized rule through chip implimentation takes place. Add EU and its country gobling policy, and you end up with a completely different scenario completely matching Biblical prophecy.

So, from 2 angles: Technology and Prophecy, I can't see it.
 
Originally posted by Zhukov
Well....I'm not what you would call 'religious'.

Still, the technology and the politics. -They would disagree with that outcome as well.
 
The point is, during the Cold War, the fact that we could wipe the Soviet Union off the map and they could wipe us off the map, eventually prevented either from doing so. That is known as deterrence.

And what I think Zhukov is trying to say is, in the age of terrorism, technology knows no deterrence. Terrorists defend no population. They protect no land. They follow no rules of war and no laws of morality. They cannot be contained. They cannot be deterred. WMD is a real threat. Saddam and WMD and terrorists was a real threat. Yet we face more. And we must confront them in this terrorist war we've entered. We must endure it.
 
Zhukov, scary, yet true. September 11th was not a one-time fluke. It was the climax of decades of ignoring terrorism. It wasn't just a recent terrible event. It was the beginning of an era, the opening of a chapter in American and world history.

If there has ever been a war worth fighting, it is this one. It is civilization against all of civilization's enemies.
 
Which outcome, and how?

The one I just listed.

And BOTH of you ignore anything about those 2 factors when there IS more going on in the world than the whole "terrorism" thing that affects the ultimate outcome.

This isn't a chess match with only a knight on one side and a rook on the other. This is a 3 dimensional chess set of pawns with a 3rd person functioning as referee who can do what ever they want, whenever they want and will gladly step in any moment to run the board.

Technology and the EU turn this into the 3 dimensional board.

I will let you guess who the referee is. Again, religious or not, you cannot ignore the fact it IS layed out propheticly in a book older than 2000 years.
 
Not that I believe much of this stuff, but the Bible Code (which predicted 9/11) is saying there will be a chemical attack in NYC in the summer of 2004.

Just tellin' ya. Not saying I believe that junk.
 
Originally posted by preemptingyou03
Not that I believe much of this stuff, but the Bible Code (which predicted 9/11) is saying there will be a chemical attack in NYC in the summer of 2004.

Just tellin' ya. Not saying I believe that junk.

"the Bible code" is NOT the Bible, nor is is Biblical prophecy.

It is man coming up with an algorythm that proves something he was looking to prove any which way he can, wether real or not.

-Kind of like socialists trying to prove socialism economically feasible.
 
Also, one need not believe in gravity to be subject to it when jumping off a cliff.
 
Originally posted by preemptingyou03
I was simply just letting you know that's what it is predicting. I don't believe it one bit.

I know. I was just letting you know how much validity it has.
:)
 
Originally posted by NewGuy
Again, religious or not, you cannot ignore the fact it IS layed out propheticly in a book older than 2000 years.

I'll ignore whatever I wish thank you very much. ;)

The one I just listed.

And BOTH of you ignore anything about those 2 factors when there IS more going on in the world than the whole "terrorism" thing that affects the ultimate outcome.

Technology and the EU turn this into the 3 dimensional board.

I'm not understanding. I fail to see your connection between the EU and their technology (and chip implementation?), and the ability of terrorists acquiring and releasing a biological agent.

I'm not comprehending your point. Could you please elaborate on it.
 
Originally posted by Zhukov
I'll ignore whatever I wish thank you very much. ;)

:cof:


I'm not understanding. I fail to see your connection between the EU and their technology (and chip implementation?), and the ability of terrorists acquiring and releasing a biological agent.

I'm not comprehending your point. Could you please elaborate on it.

The EU has quite a bit of news and documentation in the last few years pointing clearly to the fact that they side with palistinian policy and rule over Israel. They also stand against the US in equal resolve. They have the desire to (by force if necessary (as stated in much of their doctrines and press releases)) place the rest of the world at a subservient role.

We all see the US as the "world superpower", however, this has not been the case for about 6 months or so. The EU has aquired their new military strategy of terrorist cell-like warfare with Russia and Germany bringing enhancements to the table. They are gobling up countries left and right and aquiring military and power agreements as well. In economic circles, the Euro is powerful enough it now rivals the dollar. When the US gets hit by an attack, THE EURO GOES UP IN VALUE. When the US imposes a sanction, and the EU doesn't like it, they hammer us with one.

Recently, steel was the issue. They decided to flex with an embargo, and we caved. The EU owns the world. -Wether we want to accept it or not is irrelevant.

While we watch the idiot box listening to war in Iraq, the EU passes a law in favor of either palistinian behavior or Islamic rule in the EU its self.

While we bask in luxury of our "free nation", their socialism lets the verichip loose in Spain and accepts several other nations of the EU gain contracts for it.

While we are asleep at the wheel, the world is being overtaken slowly, but surely.

Not by Islam, but by the EU and socialism.

How does this relate to the technology? You have the verichip, you have the war capabilities of the EU. You have world agreements and alliances. Then, you have Iraq with the EU going into position to RUN IT. You watch as Islam gains ground, and Catholocism plants its self in the EU constitution.

When it does, the EU then runs the world and has then a universal religion base of catholocism. Islamic law has already found favor in the EU. As such, the EU combined with Catholocism and Islamic law will rule the world and utilize the cashless verichip to run the economy.

A person will step in in the midst of the EU transitioning to ruling the US and Iraq with a 7 year peace plan in which he will break it halfway through. The verichip will be a tool to run his system of cashless economy.

Him, his mark, the EU government, the one world religion, the one world government, and this whole scenario are Biblical prophecy.

None of this lets Islam rule the world technologically, politically, nor prophetically.
 
Originally posted by preemptingyou03
Do you view the EU as some sort of Soviet Union with socialism?

I do not view them as anything but what they state in their documents. Do you need links to the EU website?

Google wil do a fine job.
 
So the outcome you disagree with is the predominance of an Islamic superpower in the event of our complete withdrawal from international affairs, yes? Well worry not, because that withdrawal will never happen.

I don't think the socialists are as faithful to Catholicism as you might imagine, and though they may be accepting of Islamic law, I don't believe the Islamists are as accepting of the socialists. I would venture that most European socialists are a-religious.

Further, if confronted by the combined pressure of a massive amount of muslim immigration to and propagation within Europe (which is going on right now), in conjunction with repeated terrorist attacks (were we out of the way, the jihadists could concentrate on regaining lost ground, and taking land closer at hand), I believe many are too soft to effectively respond. I would sooner believe the French, for example, would pay the infidel tax than I would believe they would fight the Islamists.

I don't think Europe owns the world, and I don't think they are strong. Instead I think by it's very nature socialism has a detrimental effect on those who practice it. ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2572 )

I don't believe Europe could survive without us. Some Europeans just fail to accept it.

But its all speculation.
 
Originally posted by Zhukov
So the outcome you disagree with is the predominance of an Islamic superpower in the event of our complete withdrawal from international affairs, yes? Well worry not, because that withdrawal will never happen.
Yes.
And- Personally, I don't care if we withdraw or not....I see it as a no win situation. There are too many wrongs and not enough rights. In any case, I see the other international developments WITH REGARD TO IRAQ as being much larger than ours. I don't like it, but it is clear that we are dwarfed by what is about to happen.

I don't think the socialists are as faithful to Catholicism as you might imagine, and though they may be accepting of Islamic law, I don't believe the Islamists are as accepting of the socialists. I would venture that most European socialists are a-religious.
I don't either. The problem is, I dont make their policy. THEY DO. Just look at their developments and their Constitution. This isn't guesswork. This is THEIR statements.

Further, if confronted by the combined pressure of a massive amount of muslim immigration to and propagation within Europe (which is going on right now), in conjunction with repeated terrorist attacks (were we out of the way, the jihadists could concentrate on regaining lost ground, and taking land closer at hand), I believe many are too soft to effectively respond. I would sooner believe the French, for example, would pay the infidel tax than I would believe they would fight the Islamists.

What I am trying to point out is that these religions have just a LITTLE common ground on their moral issues. Islamic law will rule while catholocism becomes the belief system. If you read the Koran, they are looking for an appearance of God right now. The appearance they are looking for will be fit into by the guy with the peace treaty. This will unite all.

I don't think Europe owns the world, and I don't think they are strong. Instead I think by it's very nature socialism has a detrimental effect on those who practice it. ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2572 )
You are right. Socialism IS detrimental. The problem is how the US is being ganged up on. You have the EU in one corner and the US in another. Look at the sides being taken. It is quite clear. The European Union DOES own the world. Again, check the news, check their site.

I don't believe Europe could survive without us. Some Europeans just fail to accept it.

But its all speculation.

It isn't speculation if you look at the horses mouth.
 
Well, you certainly have interesting ideas about the EU, but I believe an economic alliance between us, the rest of the Western Hemisphere, and Japan should be able to compete easily.

The EU currently has vitality as a result of the new blood from eastern Europe, newly free peoples ready to work to improve their lot in life and get back into civilization, but wait for the old welfare states to drag it all down and see what happens.

I really can't see any sort of co-operation between Islamic law and Catholicism, and besides many european countries aren't Catholic anyways. Which will become more common as the EU moves into Orthodox countries in the east. But with respect to Christianity in general, the Koran says the New and Old Testaments are lies does it not?


At any rate, none of this has any bearing on the capacity of middle eastern terrorist elements to acquire biological weapons from rogue states anywhere in the world with the intended purpose of destroying the bulk of humanity
 

Forum List

Back
Top