BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament

Subject: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 08:12 PM

This was in the news last Wednesday. Briefly. How come I don't hear anyone here or anywhere else discussing it? Is it not important enough to merit public and media attention? Is it not a worthwhile enough idea?

I have copied and pasted the article directly from my Rogers Yahoo News page of last Wednesday. I've still got the page open, but the North American News media seem to have decided not to discuss it any further since that first announcement.

What if Obama had said it, and not Putin? Would we be discussing it then?

MOSCOW - Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is willing to abandon nuclear weapons, if the United States and all other countries that have them do the same.


"If those who made the atomic bomb and used it are ready to abandon it - like, I hope, other nuclear powers officially and unofficially owning them - of course we will welcome and facilitate this process in all ways," Putin said, according to state-owned RIA Novosti news agency.


Putin spoke at a meeting with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who said earlier that the idea of scrapping nuclear arms altogether rather than limiting their proliferation was a real prospect.


"The goal of global zero is not a game for utopians, but will be taken up by the doyens of U.S. foreign policy as well as by German and Polish politicians," Steinmeier said.


In a joint declaration on April 1, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered negotiators to start work on a new treaty reducing their nuclear stockpiles as a first step toward "a nuclear-weapon-free world."


Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in televised comments added that no unilateral steps on the nuclear issue were foreseen.


Eliminating the nuclear threat held by the former Cold War enemies was raised at a 1986 summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, between President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.


Putin's announcement came on the same day as a top Russian general warned of the dangers of cutting the number of nuclear warheads possessed by Russia and the Unites States to less than 1,500 each.


Col.-Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, the chief of the military's Strategic Missile Forces, said in remarks carried by Russian news agencies that it will be up to the Kremlin to make the final decision on how deep the cuts should be.


"We believe that we mustn't go below 1,500 warheads," Solovtsov was quoted as saying. "But in any case the issue will be decided by the political leadership."


Russian and U.S. officials are currently negotiating a successor deal to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START I, which expires in December. Negotiators are to give a progress report to their presidents by the time Obama visits Moscow on July 6-8.


Steinmeier met Medvedev on Wednesday and was expected to discuss economic ties and human rights. The trial of former Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky is being watched in Germany with particular interest as a measure of Russia's commitment to the rule of law.


Steinmeier also met with editors at newspaper Novaya Gazeta, one of Russia's few remaining media outlets critical of the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 08:41 PM

"MOSCOW - Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is willing to abandon nuclear weapons, if the United States and all other countries that have them do the same."

And be able to deal with countries that will then develop them how?

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 09:43 PM

It obviously wouldn't happen overnight, Bruce, it would happen in gradual stages. There would have to be verification procedures in place so all participants could check on the process.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to at least try to significantly reduce the numbers of these weapons around the world?

Don't think in all-or-nothing terms, because they will get you nowhere. Think in terms of generally improving the situation.

It's just like Dodge City in the gunfighter days...it was considered a good idea to try to reduce the number of guns on the street, correct? So the sherrif passed an ordinance and did his best to enforce it. That doesn't mean you will ever be able to make life perfect on the streets of Dodge, but it is at least a step in the right direction.

What we have now, on the other hand, is simply "might makes right"...the few most powerfully armed run the international show, invade whom they please when they please, and the rest either accept their powerlessness or they try by hook or by crook to build a nuclear deterrent for themselves so they won't be attacked by a greater power. It is so far the ONLY military deterrent that can definitely dissuade attack by a greater power. No wonder the weaker powers want it.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 09:43 PM

I agree Bruce! We have lived through the Cold War long enough to be less concerned about Russia and the USA than with the newer nuke wannabees like Iran and North Korea and the possible sale of their technology to terrorist groups. As well, it is not likely that the USA will call Putin's bluff.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 09:58 PM

Sandy,

The only good thing about MAD was that both sides could destroy the other. I have never felt nervous about Israel having nukes (not that I'm happy about it). I would be nervous if the Taliban had them. Those folks ain't too stable at the best of times.

As for accountability on all sides, LH, think about that one. The world can't even find out at what stage Iran IS with nuclear development. You want THEM with nukes?

The USA/Russia to my knowledge have never threatened anyone BUT each other with the use of nukes. (I am aware of the events in August, 1945, so no point telling me the US has already used them.)

In a perfect world, Russia's nukes would have been in the US and US nukes would have been in Russia. Push the button on NYC and I push the button on Moscow and shit like that.

As a btw, Israel has HAD nuclear weapons since about 1968--the late 1960s, anyway. None of their neighbours have been hit.

I don't 'trust' anyone with nuclear weapons, but then if I HAVE to trust someone it would sure as hell be the Yanks. They've had them for over 60 years, and other than the devastation at Hiroshime and Nagasaki, they have never used them on anyone.

In my youth I looked forward to a world without nukes. I still do, but in NO way would I ever trust places like Iran--or really any other 'fundie' type group. Too much 'let us bring on the Rapture' for this old boy. NO thank you.

Besides, nuclear weapons are not the things to be afraid of. Try chemical and biological warfare. Nukes no longer give me nightmares. B/C warfare does.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 10:24 PM

So far as I know no one has used nukes in a military strike but then no one has used atomic,,,,,,but US. Why trust US yanks, foolish? I don't we'd give them up even if everyone else did. I don't think Israel would either. A matter of dominance of a region or world. We love having that upper hand.

"As a btw, Israel has HAD nuclear weapons since about 1968--the late 1960s, anyway. None of their neighbours have been hit."

First you have to get Israel to officially admit that they had nukes in the first place.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 10:32 PM

So, you think they don't?

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 10:35 PM

That's as official as it's likely to get.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 10:37 PM

"Why trust US yanks, foolish?"

1) I don't trust ANYone with weapons
2) I said that if I HAD to trust someone it would be Yanks. You've had the things for 60 years an never used them.

Trust? No thanks. I phrased it sauyinf "If I HAD to trust."

No argument from me, unless you came looking for one. In which case, g'bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 10:56 PM

'"As a btw, Israel has HAD nuclear weapons since about 1968--the late 1960s, anyway. None of their neighbours have been hit."

First you have to get Israel to officially admit that they had nukes in the first place.'

I don't see how the admission that one has them changes anything about the fact that they DO have them.

G'night, all.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 11:44 PM

Israel has nuclear weapons and has had them for quite some time. The US, France, Russia, the UK, China, India, Pakistan and now N. Korea also have operable nuclear weapons. It is possible that Taiwan also has one or two; Japan could create them in very little time; South Korea gave up its nuclear weapons program back before the 1980s.

In the 1960s the US had several hundred nuclear warheads in S. Korea, although the pennisula was "officially" nuke-free. These were all removed by 1991 to Okinawa and Guam. In 1969 the US began removing all of the warheads for the "Davy Crockett" nuclear weapon -- there was something like 150 warheads but no way to deliver them!

The "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" says that NK's nuclear weapons are well below the yield of Fat Man or Little Boy, but when you're caught in a nuclear blast it doesn't matter if it's fractional kilotons or megatons.

If North Korea used a nuclear weapon offensively I strongly suspect that at least three, and possibly five, nuclear weapons would drop on each of the NK nuclear facilities (yes, we know where they are).

But I think we should at least START to make an effort at complete nuke disarmament. Obstacles? Sure. But the human race has been overcoming obstacles for the past few hundred thousand years -- what's a few more?

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:11 AM

My point was simply that Putin has offered a positive attitude on reducing nuclear weapons around the world and no one seems to be inclined to talk about it in the media. I find that odd.

Perhaps they would much rather we focus on something else? That would be my guess.

I'm not particularly interested in debates about who can be trusted to have nuclear weapons and who can't, because opinions about that are always self-serving. Obviously, the Russians think that the Russians can be trusted, the Americans think that the Americans can be trusted, the Israelis think that the Israelis can be trusted, the Indians think the Indians can be trusted, etc..... Yawn. How predictable.

They all regard themselves as the most trustworthy and responsible party. I regard NONE of them as trustworthy.

The fact that the Americans have not used a nuclear weapon on anyone since 1945 is not remarkable in any way...because NO one has used a nuclear weapon on anyone since 1945. They haven't done so, because they couldn't risk it. Period.

I will support any politician anywhere who speaks in favor of reducing nuclear arms worldwide. I don't care who he speaks for. Obama, by the way, has also made some noises about reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons. I hope he means it.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: michaelr
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:22 AM

They make nice noises, Putin being the latest to follow Obama's lead. I don't believe for a minute that they mean it. Either of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:24 AM

Oh, there is one little problem, though...

Nuclear weapons ARE a genuine deterrent against outside attack. It is probably the presence of nuclear weapons in both Pakistan and India which has kept them from getting into a major war with each other in the last 2 decades.

Bit of a problem, that! I think we might have a MORE dangerous world in some respects without certain countries having those nukes....but it depends on which countries.

If, as Peace says, each pair of countries that like to quarrel with each other had a few nukes already in position in each other's capital and major centres, and could set them off by remote control...and no one could do anything to stop it...well, then, they wouldn't dare attack each other, would they?

However, it's a hypothetical that'll never happen, so it's a moot point.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Janie
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 01:05 AM

Putin knows that it is a very remote probability that all countries with nuclear weapons, or that are close to having them, are likely to legitimately foresake them.    So his statement strikes me as insincere and not very newsworthy political posturing. I would guess little attention has been paid in the news for that very reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 07:37 AM

Peace,

Did you mean to post that link as evidence that Israel does admit to having Nuclear weapons?

Because you may need to read it agin.

Here's a snip of the text from it:

"Chaim Ramon, the government's minister for Jerusalem affairs, reiterated Israel's long-standing policy that it would not be the first nation to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.

While neither Israel nor the United States has ever officially acknowledged the existence of an Israeli nuclear weapons program, Israel is widely considered a de facto nuclear weapons state."


You may be right or wrong, but that evidence supports Barry Finns view.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 08:56 AM

Yeah, and the US didn't have nuclear weapons in South Korea, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 09:47 AM

Whatever the posturing may be, I still prefer talk of possible disarmament moves to a bunch of bellicose threats about expanding firepower. It creates a better atmosphere, and a better atmosphere between nations might possibly reduce the risk of war, mightn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 02:14 PM

I prefer talking to fighting and loving to talking. I'm funny that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 02:16 PM

Very sensible attitude, Rapaire. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 03:30 PM

Yeah, and if you don't agree I'll drop a nuke on ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 03:37 PM

I happen to know that all you have is a rusty old cap gun. Do your worst. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 05:17 PM

The title I put on the link was

"That's as official as it's likely to get."

Do not try to put words in my mouth, OK? You and I have nothing left to say to each other. So please do not address me. Address the post and keep it in context.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 05:17 PM

That post addressed to Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 05:21 PM

Site worth reading regarding nukes--who has what and how many.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 05:39 PM

An interesting list indeed, Peace. Man, what a sad situation it is.

I find it particularly sad that India and Pakistan, which should never have been split into separate countries in the first place, would spend their scarce resources building nuclear weapons with which to terrorize each other. They are really the same people originally, the same nation. It was all India not that long ago. It's utterly tragic that they have done this, but it will be a lot more tragic if they ever use those weapons.

As for that list, I think North Korea needs to be added to it at this point, with one or two or maybe three nukes...something along that line.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 05:57 PM

India has nukes thanks to Canada--although I'm not sure as a Canadian I'd be too proud of that. We sold them some Candu reactors and the result less than two years later was BOOM and their first nuclear test.

I happen to agree that disarmament is the road to explore, but no sane government will give them up until everyone else does first. And there's the rub.

I noted with interest--as I always have when nukes are discussed by people--that the sites separate them into strategic vs tactical. Yeah.

Tactical means it goes BOOM. Strategic means WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT?

Years ago when I first saw "If You Love This Planet" (H Caldicott) I though at the time that it was the most shocking 'movie' I'd ever seen. In many ways it still is. I do not make light of any country having the damned things. If Lucifer is loose on this planet, he's taken that form. I wish I knew what the answer was/is.

FYI, I do not think it good that Israel has them either, despite a gut feeling that without them they be toast real quick.

My biggest fear during the Gulf War was that the Scuds being lobbed at Tel Aviv and other places in Israel would contain either biological or chemical weapons. That would have made a sea of glass out of the Middle East. Despite the Israeli givernment not saying, 'Yes, we have nukes', if I were them I wouldn't say so either.

Kinda like the student with his karate master. The student says, "I will be able to beat you in five years." The master asked, "Why do you think that?" Student replied, "Because you are excellent and you taught me everything I know." The master asnswered, "That is true. BUT, I didn't teach you everything I know."

Look today at Iran--a country I would rather refer to as Persia--and tell me honestly that you'd trust their religious leader with nuclear weapons, of the Taliban leaders, or that you'd trust North Korea's leaders. These people are not what anyone would call sane.

I am not sure that ANYone with nuclear weapons can be trusted--words that were put in my mouth by a few folks here. Hell, I wish the fucking things would just disappear from this woprld forever. That said, if I HAVE to trust someone with the things I'd prefer countries that have had them for a while and NOT used them.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 05:59 PM

Sorry about the typos. Sometimes I just can't be arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM

Here's a website to scare the pants off ya -- and to inform you about the dragon. It's a created from a book issued in several editions by the US government.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:48 PM

Well, as I say, Peace, I don't trust anyone with nukes. But I do rely on the old survival instinct to prevent those who have far fewer nukes from lobbing one at people who have far more.

The Taliban is an exception to that, however, because they are not a sovereign nation, they're a resistance movement. Resistance movements and guerilla forces are, by nature, much more inclined to launching wacky attacks than sovereign nations are, because they don't have a whole bunch of cities and infrastructure and an econony to worry about. That makes them far more likely to engage in a suicidal operation, as we've seen many times already.

Yes, it would be extremely dangerous if a nuclear weapon got in the hands of any kind of guerrilla movement such as the Taliban, Al Queda, the Tamil Tigers, and others along that line. They don't play the same game that sovereign nations do.

Sovereign nations play the game of competition and survival.

You asked me if I honestly think the leaders of North Korea and Iran (Persia) are sane or not?

Okay. Here's my honest answer. Yes, I think within the usual limits of their own political viewpoints (like everyone else in the world) they are sane. I think they play the political game to survive, to compete, to prosper if they can, and hopefully (from their point of view) to win.

North Korea knows it can't survive a nuclear exchange with the USA...but they figure they can gain much from various forms of provocation and grandstanding. I read that the "Dear Leader" has a little sign on his desk...it reads "It's Survival, Stupid." They're playing to get foreign aid and assistance. It would make utterly no sense for them to attack the USA, and no, I don't think they would do that, but they're playing a psychological game.

They're only insane in the same sense everyone else in the world is: they think they are the good guys and that their system is "the only right one"! ;-) They're a bit wackier than most countries, for sure, but no, I don't think they're insane.

Nor do I think the Persians are insane, not even their religious leaders. They're just stuck deep in their own cultural rut, that's all. They're only insane in the same sense that everyone else in the world is: they think they are the good guys and that their system is "the only right one"!

The only truly sane person is the one who doesn't think his way is the single best way in the world...he just thinks it's the one he happens to like best right now, that's all, because he's familiar with it...and he's okay with other people who happen to like other ways of living right now. He doesn't feel he must convert them or fight them over it.

That is sanity. Sanity is the ability to surrender one's own egotism and give up fighting win/lose scenarios with other people. A sane person goes for a win/win scenario.

If the North Koreans and Persians are insane, they are so only in the same sense that everyone else is....the egocentric sense of imagining that their way is the best way in the world.

And that's an almost universal form of insanity...so common that most people take it for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:53 PM

I live in a town that for years has hosted children who were near or down-wind of Chernobyl, specifically Belarus. We have seen the effects of nuclear events on humans. It is heart-wrenching.

From the HACC
HINTON
ASSOCIATION FOR THE
CHILDREN OF
CHERNOBYL


"The Republic of Belarus lies to the north of Chernobyl and more than 70% of the fallout
from Chernobyl landed on Belarus. The majority of the population lives with the effects
of constant low level radiation and those most affected are the children. This kind of
radiation exposure drains immune systems and these children are unable to even fight
the common cold. Many suffer from fatigue, anemia, constant headaches, nosebleeds and
hair loss and much of this can be attributed to the radiation. It is in the air, the soil and
the water. It is in the food they grow and the livestock they raise and there is no escape.
Many, if not most, Belarussians also live in
poverty and this just adds to the ill health of
the children.
Our organization runs an eight week
summer recuperation program for
Belarussian children between the ages of 8
and 11. During their time in Hinton more
than 50% of the radiation will leave their
bodies and will allow their immune systems
to build back up. These kids arrive looking
pale and unhealthy. After two months of
fresh air and good food you can't tell a
Belarussian child from a Canadian child."


Sad. Very

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:56 PM

"Alexander Litvinenko was a former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service, FSB and KGB, who escaped prosecution in Russia and received political asylum in Great Britain. He authored two books, "Blowing up Russia: Terror from within" and "Lubyanka Criminal Group," where he accused the Russian secret services of staging Russian apartment bombings and other terrorism acts to bring Vladimir Putin to power.

On 1 November 2006, Litvinenko suddenly fell ill and was hospitalized. He died three weeks later, becoming the first confirmed victim of lethal polonium-210-induced acute radiation syndrome. According to doctors, 'Litvinenko's murder represents an ominous landmark: the beginning of an era of nuclear terrorism'.

Litvinenko's allegations about the misdeeds of the Federal Security Service of Russia (FSB) and his public deathbed accusations that Russian president Vladimir Putin was behind his unusual malady..."

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:58 PM

Well, that may be the only thing we ever agree on, LH. BTW, imagine the Taliban--which DID become the 'government' in Kandahar (circa 1995)--having nukes. Let's not worry about a 'governemnt' as being something 'duly elected'. Let's maybe see 'governemnt' as who controls the military forces and subsequently the coming elections. Indeed, the Taliban was in fact a government.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 11:27 PM

Yeah, they were, and they were a nasty one too. I wouldn't be so worried about them having nukes, though, IF they again became the official government of Afghanistan. They would have far too much to lose then by using one. They would have cities to lose, a bureaucracy to lose, a population to lose, and a country's infrastructure to lose. That's the way it is with governments...they have a lot to lose if they use a nuclear weapon...whereas a bunch of guerilla fighters scattered around out in the boondccks are not nearly so vulnerable to a counterattack. They don't make the kind of juicy target that a sovereign nation does.

Nukes are designed, after all, to take out major targets, not to exterminate penny packets of guerillas hidden away in caves, little villages, and mountains.

*******

That business about the kids from Belarus sounds horrible. It should serve as a warning to all of us of what could happen.

If there were a nuclear conflict involving strikes on Iran, it would first kill millions of Persians. Then the fallout from it would head directly for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India and would poison hundreds of millions more people in central Asia. It would be an utter catastrophe beyond anything we have ever seen in this world.

pdq - You may well be dead right about Litvinenko, and the Russian Secret Services may well have done just as you suggest. I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Those guys play hardball.

Now, don't say I've never agreed with you about anything political, man, cos it just ain't true. (smile)

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 08:51 AM

If there were a nuclear conflict involving strikes on Iran, it would first kill millions of Persians. Then the fallout from it would head directly for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India and would poison hundreds of millions more people in central Asia. It would be an utter catastrophe beyond anything we have ever seen in this world.

Well, yes and no. Air bursts create little fallout, and where the fallout lands depends upon weather conditions: rain, wind direction and speed, even fog. Mountains, of which the area has quite a few, would create areas of blast shadow and would affect the fallout patterns.

A ground burst would be different, creating lots of fallout, but again, it would be subject to the vagaries discussed above. The heavier fallout would, of course, fall closest to the blast center.

Fallout patterns would also be determined by what the blast center was -- what the target was. In fact, even the numbers of deaths would be determined by that.

I am in NO WAY condoning the use of nukes -- I know too damned much about them to do that, as the fascinated me (like a rattlesnake staring at you) as I was growing up. A nuclear war would be catastrophic no matter where it was, and far too many would die immediately and later. Children for several generations to come would be affected.

But there are so many variables that I can't agree with the "worst catastrophe" premise.

Subject: RE: BS: Putin suggests nuclear disarmament
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 09:54 AM

Hmmm.