~e; EM event analysis

From brian carroll <human@electronetwork.org>
Date Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:23:28 -0600

  I feel a need to write about recent events in
  the context they exist within, as where I exist
  (.US) now is, in my opinion, not addressing
  the gravity of the situation in the Middle-East
  with respect to its potential for nuclear war.

  It is official policy for 'second strike' retaliation
  by a certain country, if attacked in such a way
  that its health and existence are threatened. It
  is known to have an arsenal of 100-200 nuclear
  weapons which has been a double-standard of
  disclosure, deterring transparency and enabling
  countries to hide nuclear programs behind lies,
  justified by those who allow the open deception.

  In what is a horrifically frightening turn of events,
  a provocation has occurred to such a degree, in
  such a way, followed by an insane 'call to calm'
  by the offending and supporting parties ('can we
  now talk peacefully about this'? says .US' Rice)...

  Well, something changed. Something happened.
  And, probability should enter into the equations
  not being considered. It is clearly unreasonable
  to expect provocation to not incite some reaction.
  And then to call for calm, and not condemn what
  is basically an act of war by a nuclear state is, to
  be historical, quite a 'madman strategy' right out
  of the Nixon days, or for those in the .US media
  commercial culture- 'i dare you to knock this off
  my shoulder' (it was a battery, if remembering).

  i.e., in essence, a "'nuclear' madman strategy".

  The description of the severity of events has yet
  to address the grave concerns that must be under
  consideration by many if not all around the world.
  The response indicates a response with a change
  in kind, of escalation of events, and in this it is of
  another order which could be into the realms all
  have feared thus far. To put it simply, there is not
  a lot stopping worse types of things from occurring
  which would fall into another category of exchange
  so widely described it will not be repeated here--
  only that it involves feasible, low-tech devastation.

  Should anything of this kind occur, the official
  'second strike' strategy held by both the party of
  recent provocation is within the realm of nuclear
  weaponry. And, given the givens, while this is a
  much more complex, non-EM question of state
  affairs, it could have opened the window for a
  retaliatory nuclear exchange should this go into
  a realm that all have feared, for themselves and
  their children. Some may find these words are
  out of place, obscure, make no mistake- these
  are the actual stakes of what has just occurred.
  And it is not outside possibility that this is even
  thought out in advance, to the retaliatory level,
  should such a response come. That is, nuclear
  war, if what is known to exist is acted upon by
  a state whose leader made this strategic move.

  Therefore, it was thought responsible to voice,
  one, the grave concern and shock at what has
  been done (in the name of the .US war on terror,
  no less, now also on the list for retaliation for the
  hands-off approach to Middle-East peace)- yet
  also, secondly, should something of such scale
  occur-- it would be wise to know what might be
  the infinite consequence of illegal provocation.
  That is, should something happen, next, which
  would set-up a nuclear posture as a response-
  what would all nations and peoples do if such
  a thing were to suddenly start to spiral upward
  into inevitable chaos?  I am not going to write
  or say anything more on these matters now yet
  it may be worth considering as an unspoken
  dimension of this newly provoked escalation.
  The most basic question might be: what is the
  policy of your government. If in the .US this is
  a policy that, since 2000-2001 has changed to
  ease the use of nuclear weapons in conflicts.
  And, thus, the question of .gov representation
  of people's needs are of utmost importance--
  that is, that decision-making can be trusted to
  represent the will of the people (at least here).
  And, if things are not in checks and balances,
  they exist so, most possibly, in such a context.

  It is again not believed irresponsible to state
  this situation in these, realistic, terms. There
  is no commentary here of extra-electromagnetic
  strategy that is largely despicable in the extreme
  for the following result is the questioning above,
  which may leave the realm of the unimaginable
  and enter into the present moment, with children
  and all the possibilities. And this is the nature
  of EM knowledge put to uses other than security
  and peace. And that is what is at stake right now.

  And, it is critical that there is an utmost certainty a
  further escalation will not result in such response,
  by way of provocation. This must be assured, else,
  this enters a realm no one wants, except terrorists.

  Be they heads of state or other madmen strategists.

  the electromagnetic internetwork-list
  electromagnetism / infrastructure / civilization