So, I wanted to interject my comments about the latest terrorist "threat", and a shocking realization that was only reinforced by a recent posting in DailyKos -- and mind you, I should say the same think that they did, that there are countless brave republicans who really need to stand up and take the debate back from the chicken shit chicken hawks that have co-opted their party:
Our current administration and the republican't power brokers (read: sugar daddies) behind them are cowards.
Yes, terrorism is a horrible thing, and we need to do something about it. However, running into a high school and shooting indiscriminately because you know one of the local high school aged bullies poisoned your cats and you want "justice".
Trouble is the bully dropped out of another high school two years ago and is in hiding in another county, and despite being 6'2" and on dialysis the local sheriff is a drunken incompetent that couldn't find his fly with both hands, and winds up wetting himself while trying to parse "My Little Goat" for a pre-school class.
But I digress.
I spent a large part of my life worried about this happening:
H-bomb test Castle Bravo shown to rough scale behind lower Manhattan with the two World Trade Centers for reference. The skyline has actually been made larger (By maybe a factor of ten as near as we can figure) for purposes of clarity--in actual scale it would be so small you wouldn't be able to recognize it. Now multiply that by a thousand to get a handle on the cold-war. Yes, 9-11 was a shocking tragedy, as was Katrina, Oklahoma City, and the nation rightfully mourned them all and many more like them. But in even a limited nuclear exchange with the former USSR, there would have been no nation left. Photo work by Karen Wehrstein (Artist tip jar)
The rest of the post points out that we, as a nation and a people, have confronted this, Hitler and Japan during WW II, literally dozens of natural disasters, and countless other events that make the terrorists look like the feeble fucks they are. At their current "success" rate, it would take terrorists about 200-300 years to match the deaths as a result of one 4 year period in this country -- 1860 through 1864.
And that one we did to OURSELVES.
I put "success" in quotes earlier when describing the outcome of a terrorist act. That's because the true measure of success in terms of such acts of willful destruction aren't the number of body parts strewn about the local landscape, but by how a population reacts to it.
I noted many years ago, while watching the palpable sense of fear in an airport while men in fatigues carried automatic weapons about the terminal, that succumbing to fear means the TERRORISTS WIN. So when I hear Cheney having the unmitigated chutzpah to suggest that people voting for Ned Lamont were voting for "the Al Queda candidate", what I'm hearing is "You should all be terrified, and thus concede victory to the very people we say we don't want to win!".
See that picture? At least during the McCarthy era that provides the textbook for the recent neo-con quivering-in-fear-mongering there were up to 1100 of those bad boys pointed at the continental US, less than an hour away after the buttons were pushed. While many people built and cowered in their fallout shelters, most people just lived their lives.
When neo-cons insist that a bunch of spent shells found in the dessert are WMD's, think of that picture. That explosion would take out NYC, Westchester, a good chunk of western CT, Northern NJ, most of Long Island. Millions immediately dead, millions more dead within the week or two that follows (more or less depending on which way the wind was blowing). THAT'S a weapon of mass destruction.
Scared little bullies who pick on the little kids because the bigger kids would kick their asses. "Big kids" defined as Iran and North Korea -- and don't even THINK about China, as they own the same people whining about Iraq and Afghanistan. Little kids who shocked the bully by kicking him in the crotch, sending him whining to his mommy about them not fighting fair. Note that I'm not referring to our armed forces as the bully here -- if anything they're the equivalent of the bully's well meaning bigger brother who's being sent into a situation ill-prepared (and ill-equipped) for the reality, a point undiscovered until they've become too involved to back out without being over-taken from behind, much less gracefully.
I wonder how far even a devoted sibling would go before turning around and kicking their snotty little brother's ass?