Posted on 12/10/2015 11:14:54 AM PST by Kaslin
For decades I was convinced the degree I received in international relations at Cambridge was basically useless. After all, the Soviet Union had fallen and relations with nations such as China seemed to have stability, if nothing else, out of mutual interests in commerce and trade. I never thought that my grandchildren might have to learn a more advanced version of the civil defense training I received in elementary school. Does anyone recall the "duck and cover" drills of the 1960s?
And while I'll still likely never make a dime directly from my time studying what I later thought to be out-of-date issues, such as tactical or strategic nuclear theory, I can certainly attest that we are swiftly returning to the days where such training will once again be quite relevant.
As a result of our nation's current foreign policy, which to be kind I call naive but which could more accurately be labeled idiotic, we are again swiftly approaching days when the threat of nuclear warfare will not only exist; it will be far more likely.
During the Cold War it was not a secret that the force that most likely kept us all from a nuclear apocalypse was the concept of mutually assured destruction. That meant, for example, that if we attacked the Soviet Union they would retaliate at an equal or greater level and the ensuing retaliations would surely destroy a great deal of civilization. That concept worked because, for all of the bad aspects of what Ronald Reagan called "the Evil Empire," there remained a desire among its leaders and their countrymen to preserve whatever life they had.
Now we enter into an era in which leaders of nations that have, or easily could have, nuclear capabilities are seemingly less focused on what former President George H. W. Bush might have termed "that preservation thing."
What brings this all home is the combination of the rise of radical Islamic terror, the Iran nuclear agreement and the recent alleged testing of ballistic missiles by Iran. What ups the ante even more is Russian President Vladimir Putin's comments that basically boil down to saying, "I'd rather not have to use nuclear weapons to put down ISIS, but they are on the table."
Putin's sobering "musings" may one day be remembered as the moment that nukes were officially put back on the table as viable weapons of war.
I wrote in my new book, "Newsvesting," that I purchased numerous defense stocks in 2014 and 2015 as I continued to dig deep into the reaction of various nations to the leaderless U.S. response to the so-called "Arab Spring" and to the Obama administration's childlike insistence on a nuclear agreement with Iran (I'm still buying defense stocks, by the way). It's been a great way to see my portfolio grow in an otherwise sideways trading stock market. The problem is, of course, what good do profits do if the whole world is marching toward doomsday?
Putin still seems the less threatening of the potential nuclear players. He comes from the old school Soviet line: Bluster, but don't press the "red button."
But Iran is a different matter altogether. The U.S. agreement, which seems riddled with holes and exceptions, and which in great part is weak and unverifiable for enforcement, has terrified other nations, Israel the most obvious among them. And with news of two alleged Iranian tests of potentially nuclear-carrying missiles, which violates at least the spirit of an 11-year-long U.N. ban on such tests, confidence in the agreement is at an all-time low.
If one needed any additional evidence of the administration's naivety, look no further than to the statements of a State Department spokesman, John Kirby, on alleged missile tests. As reported by the Associated Press, he "stressed that ballistic missile activity was not a violation of the July deal," and that the "U.S. would monitor Tehran for 'destabilizing' behavior.' "
Not too comforting from a crew that dubbed ISIS the JV team, botched Benghazi, claimed ISIS was contained and still can't spot radical Islamic terror or utter the phrase.
With world powers muttering about the use of nuclear weapons, and with the U.S. policy so profoundly out of touch, it regretfully might be time to bring those duck-and-cover drill films back into the classroom.
“”Please don’t kill me or my family. I voted democrat, how can you shoot me? Please Mr Gunman, don’t kill me, I’m in my safe space.”
Now “Duck-and-cover” has been replaced by the equally useless “shelter-in-place”
Or “see something, say something so we can then arrest you for hate-speech”.
Pelosi accused Trump of using fear tactics.
Duck and Cover is only good for lifting the spirits and morale of the imbecile low information voters that put people like caliph 0bama, Hildabeast Clinton and JF'ing Kerry in charge of foreign policy. If a nuke hits anywhere in the vicinity, your toast - literally.
I remember how they taught us to hide under our desks at school in case of an atomic bomb attack by the Russkis. Thanks to Obama, they may make a comeback.
Finally, something I can teach my great grandchildren that the teachers won't say is the wrong way to do things.
(expletive deleted) common core crap!
Read it online at NWSS
Putin has threatened the U.S.A. with nuclear weapons many times in many ways while continuing to further build relatively fault-prone and imprecise nuclear weapons forces and vastly exaggerating their potential effectiveness.
Meanwhile, east coast and west coast leftists continue to whine about being traumatized by “duck and cover” drills, to exaggerate effects of nuclear weapons and to make uninformed, disproven claims that missile defense systems don’t work. The drills were a fun monthly break for a few minutes from regular school work. I enjoyed hearing the air raid sirens. They sounded really neat (and later, cool).
Looking back, the probability of someone immunocompromised by radiation surviving a compound fracture or sucking chest wound was pretty low unless you had some really good medical people. Improvisation is cool, but sterility is paramount for infection control.
If the time comes, it will be a question of whatever works, but sadly, little things, medically speaking, in these times will be big problems in the event the balloon goes up. Familiarize yourself with antibiotics and their uses, dosages, etc. and know their generic names as well as brand names.
If the time comes, and there is a loss of civility, that would be a primary acquisition target. Beware, though, the druggies will be after the painkillers and other 'get high' drugs, and might contest your acquisition...
Even in these times, the judicious prepper can stock a few fish antibiotics from Thomas Laboratories and some other veterinary antibiotics are okay in a pinch for human use (I have used a couple with good effect).
Make sure you know which ones remain effective after their use by date, and which should be discarded (Tetracycline, for example breaks down into toxic by products after too long, so throw old tetracycline away).
Learn side effects and contraindications as well, and keep hard copy of that data for all drugs you think you will or might need.
It won't make you a doctor, by any stretch of the imagination, but it will let you handle some things in dire situations that otherwise might be severe or even fatal.
Even in 3rd grade I knew crouching under the desk was worthless.
Thank you. Good advice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.