"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11&

[kandrathe]

An Introduction to the My Lai Courts-Martial

Justice was undone by Nixon. There were many Courts Martial, which in the end due to a lack of evidence in the chain of command failed to hold it's officers accountable for the cover up, but Calley was convicted and sentenced to the most severe sentence short of death.

The President of the United States (for the military, or a General), or any state Governor can commute the sentence of a convicted criminal.

You try to judge people all the time, yet oddly enough don't like taking it for yourself.

No. What I object to is untruth, partial truth, and distorted truth. If we are discussing facts, then I'm willing to own up to our (US) responsibility, but I'm not willing to eat all the words you cram into our (US) mouth.

[Moldran]

It has to do with the fact that Saddam wanted to start selling his oil in euros instead of dollars,

Saddam was not allowed to sell any oil anyway, neither in euros nor in dollars.

[SwissMercenary]

He was the only one prosecuted for what was done. Nixon's involvement was just another slap on the face to justice.

And I am not applying that to any specific event. I am saying that no country can be completely impartial in dealing with things it has done. Yours included. Mine too.

[kandrathe]

Decisions were made to prosecute a total of twenty-five officers and enlisted men, including General Koster, Colonel Oran Henderson, Captain Medina.  In the end, however, only few would be tried and only one, William Calley, would be found guilty.

Calley was the only one convicted. I disagree with the Supreme Courts ruling on not holding former military personel accountable for their military actions. In our civilian law there is no Statute of Limitations for murder cases, and I agree that more of the participants in that massacre should have been tried and convicted. Would an International Tribunal have been less politicized? Perhaps more impartial, and perhaps less. Ideally there is little emotion in the interpretation of laws, and whether or not someone has violated one. It seems to me that the Army's Criminal Investigative unit tried very hard to go after anyone culpable in the incident. I think too that we are looking at events from 1968 with the lens of a 2004 world. If the US Army did a My Lai in 2004, the courts martial would be very different. I think you are seeing that with the cases at Abu Garib, although the culpablility of those higher up in the chain of command is still difficult to prove. I at least am hopeful that the MI officers that inspired the perpetrators will be prosecuted. There are many atrocious acts from 1938 - 1945 that went unpunished as well.

I am saying that no country can be completely impartial in dealing with things it has done. Yours included. Mine too.

An international tribunal might be neccesary when a nation refuses to hold its citizens responsible for their actions. Justice for My Lai would have included a few dozen murder convictions of the grunts in Charlie Company, 8 from Baker, along with censure of a handful of senior officers. Maybe an international tribunal would have exacted more justice, but I think the incident was eventually fully investigated and exposed. The results of that incident, and Nixon's, turned a nation that was marginally supporting the war in Asia, against it. The political fallout was enormous, and tainted an entire generation of soldiers as "baby killers" who were not welcomed back home, but rather scorned, and treated with contempt. I think the lesson learned by the US was that had more or the perpetrators been prosecuted and convicted, perhaps that "taint" would not have spread to the entire US Army.

[Moldran]

An international tribunal might be neccesary when a nation refuses to hold its citizens responsible for their actions.

Which is, BTW, a requirement for the International Criminal Court to be responsible.
The ICC is only responsible if no national jurisdiction claims responsibility. That again of course means that it is quite easy to create de facto immunity for your citizens on a case-by-case basis.

Whom do you mean? Surely the U.S. Let me throw just a few words to you: Immunity for War Crimes at Den Haag.

Ewww, yes, the evil evil US :P
They are at least not hypocritical about it, unlike a certain European country that signed the Rome Statute knowing that it can not actually put its citizens under ICC jurisdiction anyway, because of its own constitution.

The US did not "claim immunity". They simply stated that they do not want to become a party to the Rome Statute. That is how treaties work. You are free to become a party to them, or not.

[eppie]

QUOTE 
Bush says you will only get rebuilding contracts in Iraq if you support them.

Motivated by repaying those who shouldered the burden. The other shoe is that it is quite "unfair" to let some nations like France, or Germany stand on the side lines when the heavy lifting is going on, but step right back in when profits are to be had. The whole business of "War Profiteering" seems entirely unseemly to me, and I didn't agree with the Bush Administration on this one. It would be better for Iraq if everyone was involved (and us too in the long run -- good will and all).

Well I don't really agree with that. I understand that you say, the US does the war, their soldiers die, and than it is unfair that other countries that kept their hands clean get rebuilding contracts.
There are a few points that have to be mentioned however.

First the US soldiers that are fighting there don't get anything. Bush' familie (and more or less everybody in his circle of aquantainces) does not have their brothers, fathers, cousin fighting in Irak. They are sitting at home profiting form those contracts. Second, Iraq is not owned by the US, they should decide themselves who rebuilds their country, the best of course is that they do it themselfs. In understand all the infrastructure that has to be rebuild to get the country running, but should we then not say, "we do that without getting any profits. We get paid just as much it costs us to do the job, and not a nickel more."
The problem is a strange flow of money here. Money goes from US help (does billions that are probably somewhere in the US aid to poor countries) to these rebuilding companys. This is probably the reason that Bush does not want other countrys in on the deal.
Third, and most important, this is a very dangerous thing in setteling international conflicts. It opens the way for western countries to start a war (just before the other one does) to be able to get the rebuilding.

To me, twisting that history into saying "Bush Lied" or "Blair Lied" is just the oppositions propaganda. "Bush was wrong" or "Blair was wrong" are more accurate statements of reality in my opinion.

That's not completely true. Before this war several experts and "normal people" (read my old posts) allready said that WMDs (of any kind) were not in Iraq anymore (I mean the UN said, that it was highly unlikely that there were WMDs in Iraq). Then English and american sources started saying they had "found" ...you name it....to get support from other country's. Excuse me if you don't think this is lying, I would like to pass by your house to sell you a new car or an insurance or something. :D (just kidding, no this is called lying, in politics you almost never get the real proofs, but this was lying as big as it gets)


I don't have a reference for those numbers of % of GDP aid. (it was in a newspaper) I guess it depends heavliy in what you all count) I remember a number of 0.14 % most european countrys got up to 0.5. % I believe.
ANother thing, did you know only Luxembuerg, Holland, and Switserland treated prisoners in a "good" way according to amnesty International ( but this is another topic)

I've said this on other occasions; My problem with Bush is that his diplomatic style is too heavy handed, he does not play politics with the world like some of our prior Presidents did. I'm sorry for our big muddy boots lacking diplomacy trampling all over your sensibilities.

please don't say "our" Of course I do not blame americans as people. Just some of them, problem is that they are the ones in power. And now Bush is visiting his friend Berlusconi, (as we speak) I guess he picked up some new tips to control the media.

[ShadowHM]

It opens the way for western countries to start a war (just before the other one does) to be able to get the rebuilding.

This made me think of The Mouse that Roared by Leonard Wibberley.

A plan to get the wonders of U.S. of A. reparations to modernize a country that went rather oddly awry. :D

[Moldran]

(I mean the UN said, that it was highly unlikely that there were WMDs in Iraq).

Where did "the UN" say that, and who is "the UN" ? And what exactly do you mean by WMDs ?
What the UNMOVIC report said was that Iraq had remaining illegal weapons when the inspectors were forced to leave the country. European media like to assume that these somehow vanished in thin air.

[kandrathe]

Well I don't really agree with that. I understand that you say, the US does the war, their soldiers die, and than it is unfair that other countries that kept their hands clean get rebuilding contracts.

I really don't agree with Bush either on that. I'm sure it was part of the "Sell" on getting the "Coalition of the Willing" to offer some recompense for their expenses in the post war reconstruction. Currently, Iraq is occupied and under coalition control (most days). So in a way, yes, we own it for now. But, I don't think we want to own it for much longer.

It opens the way for western countries to start a war (just before the other one does) to be able to get the rebuilding.

The counter would be that we do not step in *cough*SUDAN *cough* when we morally should, because it is all economic down side.

Then English and american sources started saying they had "found" ...you name it....to get support from other country's.

Well, this is where I disagree with you. The evidence I have seen shows that the Russians, Isreali's, Saudi's, German's, French, British, and US intelligence thought Chemical and Biological stockpiles existed in Iraq. Even the summary of UNMOVIC after being booted in 1998, had unresolved tons of unaccounted for precursor supplies. BTW, there was a story in the papers a few weeks ago about a thwarted terrorist attack in Jordan involving barrels of chemical weapon agent being trucked in from Syria. Where did the terrorists get the chemicals? From Iraq, or from Syria? How much more do they have?

please don't say "our" Of course I do not blame americans as people.

In the end, it is "We the People" that form our government. I might not like Bush either, but my mother and other relatives sure do. I have friends of all different political persuasions, so I try to be understanding and open minded. There is an argument for claiming that the US government is out of control of the people, but generally I think it represents at least 40-49% of Americans currently.

Edit: I listened to a commentary on NPR by a Brit, Clive Crook on my way home tonight. Clive Crook - Reflections on America

[Chaerophon]

Ahem... The "UN" is the United Nations, and "WMD's" would be weapons of mass destruction, which United Nations inspectors had determined were, to a fair degree of certainty, no longer resident in Iraq. You can pick apart a whole lot of Eppie's opinions and points, but that one is cold hard fact. Basing your arguments on dated reports is like arguing that we should attack Germany because it used to house Communists.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm

[Jester]

"Ahem... The "UN" is the United Nations, and "WMD's" would be weapons of mass destruction, which United Nations inspectors had determined were, to a fair degree of certainty, no longer resident in Iraq."

Indeed, reading Hans Blix's book on the topic, the only things that had been lacking since the early '90s were a) wholehearted cooperation and b ) documentation of the destruction of WMD. No evidence was ever found that WMD were still around, that they were being produced, or even that there was any kind of preparation for their production. All sites investigated, including-but-not-limited-to the "best" that the various intelligence agencies could come up with, turned out to be astoundingly negative. They were, not generally but totally, exactly what the Iraqis said they were, totally harmless facilities for something else.

As for their stubborn resistance to inspections and lack of documentation, it can now only be assumed that this was exactly the most banal thing it could be: sheer pride. Iraq did not want to appear to capitulate, so they destroyed their weapons quickly and secretly, without any ceremony or documentation, and just assumed that this would be enough to get the UN off their backs while retaining their pride. Their non-cooperation was also an issue of pride, sensing that opening up the palaces of the "Emperor of Mesopotamia" to inspection would be a crippling blow to their image as the great military power of the Arab world.

So apparently, the US went to war over a lack of documentation and a few harsh words.

As for this...

"What the UNMOVIC report said was that Iraq had remaining illegal weapons when the inspectors were forced to leave the country."

If they said that, they certainly regretted it later. Do you (Moldran) have a link? This is not the impression I got from Dr. Blix's book at all. As far as I could tell, the only thing they really said was that Iraq had not adequately accounted for the destruction of some WMD, from which it could be assumed (but NOT confirmed) that they probably kept them. That assumption, apparently, was quite wrong, and it was the danger of that assumption being wrong that led to calls for continued inspections until either a substantial breach was found or Iraq found some way of convincing the inspectors that the weapons were actually gone. But some, apparently, wanted a war, and they got one. I hope they liked it, because the rest of the world sure didn't.

Jester

[Jester]

"The evidence I have seen shows that the Russians, Isreali's, Saudi's, German's, French, British, and US intelligence thought Chemical and Biological stockpiles existed in Iraq."

The difference here is that, while some nations choose to believe anything their intelligence services declare to be true, other nations insist on actually having factual evidence before voting to go to war. Yet other nations are so convinced by their own intelligence they're willing to override the legal mechanisms that require votes to do so. Still others get blown to smithereens for having weapons they don't actually have.

France, Germany and Russia were smart enough to say "well, if they're so obviously there, how about we try and find even a single instance of these supposed breaches before launching an invasion?", whereas the US and UK apparently thought that kind of dependence on confirmed fact was unnecessary. Who needs boring Dr. Blix (Hans Blinks, as one poetic commentator called him) to give us the green light when we've got satellite photos of trucks and buildings, forged documents, aluminum tubing, and the word of completely trustworthy exiles? To quote Dubya, what more proof could anyone need?

I hope they've learned their lesson, although I think what they may have learned instead is that if you pile crap a mile high, people can't see past it.

Jester

[dwa]

"Ahem... The "UN" is the United Nations, and "WMD's" would be weapons of mass destruction, which United Nations inspectors had determined were, to a fair degree of certainty, no longer resident in Iraq."

Indeed, reading Hans Blix's book on the topic, the only things that had been lacking since the early '90s were a) wholehearted cooperation and b ) documentation of the destruction of WMD. No evidence was ever found that WMD were still around, that they were being produced, or even that there was any kind of preparation for their production. All sites investigated, including-but-not-limited-to the "best" that the various intelligence agencies could come up with, turned out to be astoundingly negative. They were, not generally but totally, exactly what the Iraqis said they were, totally harmless facilities for something else.

As for their stubborn resistance to inspections and lack of documentation, it can now only be assumed that this was exactly the most banal thing it could be: sheer pride. Iraq did not want to appear to capitulate, so they destroyed their weapons quickly and secretly, without any ceremony or documentation, and just assumed that this would be enough to get the UN off their backs while retaining their pride. Their non-cooperation was also an issue of pride, sensing that opening up the palaces of the "Emperor of Mesopotamia" to inspection would be a crippling blow to their image as the great military power of the Arab world.

So apparently, the US went to war over a lack of documentation and a few harsh words.

As for this...

"What the UNMOVIC report said was that Iraq had remaining illegal weapons when the inspectors were forced to leave the country."

If they said that, they certainly regretted it later. Do you (Moldran) have a link? This is not the impression I got from Dr. Blix's book at all. As far as I could tell, the only thing they really said was that Iraq had not adequately accounted for the destruction of some WMD, from which it could be assumed (but NOT confirmed) that they probably kept them. That assumption, apparently, was quite wrong, and it was the danger of that assumption being wrong that led to calls for continued inspections until either a substantial breach was found or Iraq found some way of convincing the inspectors that the weapons were actually gone. But some, apparently, wanted a war, and they got one. I hope they liked it, because the rest of the world sure didn't.

Jester

So, let me get this straight. You are of the opinion that Bush was ludicrous to go to war with a man who was a)known to have used chemical and biological agents against his enemies, having gassed the Kurds and used such muntions against the Iranians, B) had promised to destroy these stockpiles, and agreed to have outside inspectors verify this, which he c) refused to do. So, we have no confirmation that a man who is our enemy, who also has demonstrated the will to use WMD, has in fact complied with requirements to disarm, and had in fact never even made the claim that he did, and yet we're supposed to just assume that that's okay? Color me confused, because that sounds like the worst possibly strategy one can take when dealing with these matters. And this is without even getting past the ridiculous "WMD was the only valid argument for war" nonsense.

[Moldran]

Ahem... The "UN" is the United Nations,

The Security Council ? The General Assembly ? The Secretary General ? UNMOVIC ? Hans Blix ? Or someone else ?
I suppose you mean Hans Blix. He is not "the UN", he can not even speak on behalf of the UN. He can give his personal opinion, and that's about it.

and "WMD's" would be weapons of mass destruction,

And this means what exactly ? Biological, chemical and nuclear weapons ? Does the term "WMD" also include systems that can be used to launch these weapons ? And production facilities for these weapons ?

The terms "WMDs" and "illegal weapons" are not synonymous. Iraq was not only disallowed to possess biological, chemical and nuclear weapons (that is what is commonly called "WMD", I think), but all weapon systems that fit certain criteria (certain medium-range missiles, for example).

You assume that Hussein destroyed his illegal weapons, in absence of the UN inspectors, and that his only fault was that he did not document that well enough.
I think it is much more safe to assume that the documentation was not there because the weapons were never destroyed. I just don't think Hussein is *that* stupid. It must have been pretty clear to the Iraqis that destroying the weapons and not being able to prove it would lead to the same results as not destroying them at all.
That you cannot find the weapons today does not mean that they do not (or maybe did not) exist. Maybe they are just very well hidden. Or maybe they have been destroyed during the war.

I read parts of the UNMOVIC report in print, not on the net, so I don't have a link. I think it is probably accessible somewhere at the UN website, though.

[kandrathe]

...before voting to go to war

You mean the US congress? They voted to go to war months prior to the WMD, UN diplomatic fiasco unfolded. It is clear to me that the US Administration did not trust Dr. Blix, and thought his entire operation was compromised. The evidence they presented showed that trucks would move in and clean out an area a day in advance of the inspectors arrival, or they would be delayed in getting to an area a sufficient amount of time for it to be scrubbed. I think there is still a chance some stockpiled weapons will turn up somewhere, either well hidden, or trucked to Syria prior to the war.

It was unfortunate that the focus was and has been on stockpiles of WMD. The threat from Saddam was in his WMD capabilities and programs, the ability with precursors to manufacturer, and use or distribute. He was increasingly being tied to more terrorist groups, and the fear was that they would eventually comingle their support for terrorism and WMD. Third, he was a brutal despot willing to use any weapon against his enemies. Having stockpiles is ancillary to those three factors which was why he was a threat to world security.

[kandrathe]

Timeline of UN-Iraq-Coalition Incidents, 1991–2002

UNMOVIC/IAEA Report to UN Security Council: Statements & Reaction, January 27/28

Hmmm, Let us see what Dr. Blix thought after 12 years trying to get Iraq to comply, and two months prior to the start of the war;

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

I think his book was a revisionist CYA.

[Chaerophon]

The Security Council ? The General Assembly ? The Secretary General ? UNMOVIC ? Hans Blix ? Or someone else ?
I suppose you mean Hans Blix. He is not "the UN", he can not even speak on behalf of the UN. He can give his personal opinion, and that's about it.

You're right, Hans Blix just walked on into Iraq and declared himself an agent of the United Nations, with no backing whatsoever. Bureaucrats are appointed according to the internal political structure of the United Nations. They represent it as a body. Furthermore, his opinions and findings dictated the subsequent policy of the United Nations. What are you trying to get at, here? Just because there may be dissenting opinions from within the United Nations does not mean that, as an organization, they were not in opposition to the war. They were. It is that simple. The United States adopted an official position in favour of war, while the UN adopted one that opposed pre-emptive military strikes. There are people in the US government who are against the war too - that doesn't mean that the United States government, as an organization, does not support the war.

The terms "WMDs" and "illegal weapons" are not synonymous. Iraq was not only disallowed to possess biological, chemical and nuclear weapons (that is what is commonly called "WMD", I think), but all weapon systems that fit certain criteria (certain medium-range missiles, for example).

Okay, your point is made, I suppose.... now tell me this? What difference does that make?

As far as the rest of your post is concerned... Your opinions are even more based in supposition than are mine, and I'm certainly not sure that they support military action; particularly given the fact that there are several nations in the world with as bad/threatening of dictators and much deadlier military capacity.

I read parts of the UNMOVIC report in print, not on the net, so I don't have a link. I think it is probably accessible somewhere at the UN website, though.

And I repeat: what would be the relevance of that considering that subsequent inspections, as were appointed and directed by the same regulatory body, to conduct inspections according to the same set of guidelines were coming to the conclusion that the weapons, and the capacity to make them, no longer existed in Iraq?

[Moldran]

Just because there may be dissenting opinions from within the United Nations does not mean that, as an organization, they were not in opposition to the war.

They were not. The *only* UN body that has the competence to decide in such questions is the Security Council. There is no SC resolution that says the UN are in opposition to that war. It´s that simple.
If their had been an SC resolution saying the war was false, then one could say that the UN as an organization were against the war. There is, of course, no such resolution, since the US have a veto vote in the SC.

H. Blix did of course NOT dictate UN policy. If he did, then their would have been longer inspections.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned... Your opinions are even more based in supposition than are mine, and I'm certainly not sure that they support military action; particularly given the fact that there are several nations in the world with as bad/threatening of dictators and much deadlier military capacity.

Personally, I think it was good that the Baath regime was ended no matter wether they had certain weapons or not. I would like to see other dictatorships go, too - but that´s another question. No reason not to get rid of this one.

[nobbie]

From Mike Moore's Website:

Friday, June 4th, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11 Opens June 25


Hey Everyone...

As you may have heard by now, we finally have a distributor in America for "Fahrenheit 9/11." Actually, two of them! Lions Gate Films and IFC Films have agreed to aggressively distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11" in theaters all across the country beginning three weeks from today on Friday, June 25th. We are, needless to say, extremely grateful for their courage (trust me, no matter what the potential box office may be, anyone who has considered taking on this distribution job has also met with a lot of pressure NOT to do it in the past month).

They will open it on a record number of screens for a documentary. There is no stopping it now!

These are great distributors. Jon Feltheimer, the man who runs Lions Gate, was the executive in charge of the company that produced my television series, "TV Nation." And the people at IFC (which owned Bravo) were the same people responsible for funding and broadcasting my other series, "The Awful Truth." So we are in very good hands.

(And, as an added bonus, Lions Gate is a Canadian company. Once again, the Canadians to the rescue! It was also a Canadian company, Salter Street Films, that produced "Bowling for Columbine." I know, it's kinda sad we have to keep depending on our good neighbors to the north. But maybe this is the year we give 'em their Stanley Cup back.)

There's a lot more to tell you -- and I will write to you again over the next few days. I'm in the mood to spill some beans, much to the consternation of certain people. Oh well!

Also, I have posted the trailer for "Fahrenheit 9/11" so that you can get your first glimpse at scenes from the movie--you can check it out at http://www.fahrenheit911.com.

Thanks for all your wonderful letters of support -- they have meant a great deal to us.

Save the date -- June 25! It's the first summer film where the special effects will be real...

Yours truly,
M-I-C (see ya real soon!)
K-E-Y (why? because they can't kill this
friggin' movie!)
M-O-O-R-E

P.S. For our fans in the rest of the world, don't worry -- you already have distributors. And most of you will also be able to see it this summer! Thanks.

[eppie]

So, let me get this straight. You are of the opinion that Bush was ludicrous to go to war with a man who was a)known to have used chemical and biological agents against his enemies, having gassed the Kurds and used such muntions against the Iranians,  had promised to destroy these stockpiles, and agreed to have outside inspectors verify this, which he c) refused to do. So, we have no confirmation that a man who is our enemy, who also has demonstrated the will to use WMD, has in fact complied with requirements to disarm, and had in fact never even made the claim that he did, and yet we're supposed to just assume that that's okay? Color me confused, because that sounds like the worst possibly strategy one can take when dealing with these matters. And this is without even getting past the ridiculous "WMD was the only valid argument for war" nonsense

Please don't try to convince us that Saddam is a bad guy! We all know that allready, I think that's established now. It is also good that Saddam regime ended, I think also everybody here agrees. But these things are not under discussion. The point of discussio is "the way the Iraq war was started and justified".

I mean your first point about Saddam use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. A that time the US did not have so much problems with that. They did not like the Kurds, they did not like Iran, so they did not really mind that Saddam did these things. This war crime of Saddam can not be used as a reason for starting a war 15 years later (I don't know the date, sorry for that).

Then the second point. Saddam destroyed all his weapons, there has not been the slightest indication that he didn't. He did difficult when the UN/US wanted to send inspectors. Which I can imagine (Irakis also have there sense of pride). Then there was the fact that the US used these inspection missions for espionage. (at least this is what saddam claimed, and I think he was right in that, seeing the eagerness of the US to start the war).

So finally there were (apart from the human rights violations of his regime) not so many real reasons to start a war anymore.

And that is the point of the discussion. There are a lot of countries who behave in a similar way, which could be attacked now. And I'm not talking about Iran and north korea.
I mean the US can do this because they are the most powerful country in the world, but what if it would not be like that?. Maybe belgium wants to attack the US beacuse of the possesion of huge quantities of WMDs (chemical, biological and nuclear) and the great risk of these weapons being used. What would you say about that?. :)