The Strangest Dream
This is a documentary on the life of Jo Rotblat, who mobilized the world’s leading scientists to save the world from nuclear annihilation and won the Nobel Peace Prize for his life-long dedication. Rotblat and the Pugwash movement have inspired thoughtful people everywhere.
The film retraces the history of nuclear weapons, from the first test in New Mexico, to Hiroshima, where we see survivors of the first atomic attack.
Branded a traitor and spy, Rotblat went from designing atomic bombs to researching the medical uses of radiation. Together with Bertrand Russell he helped create the modern peace movement, and eventually won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Featuring interviews with contemporaries of Rotblat and passionate public figures including Senator Roméo Dallaire, The Strangest Dream demonstrates the renewed threat of nuclear weapons and encourages hope through the example of morally engaged scientists and citizens.
There is nothing better than watching a documentary about a scientist with a conscience, who refuses manipulation by the powers that be for bad intentions. Sadly, they (like their political counterparts) only come around once in a while, and cannot prevent the inevitable. (perhaps only slow it down)
Anyone who is awarded a Nobel prize has nothing to say I'm interested in.
why are you here then
dafuq that is like saying anyone who has won a superbowl is not playing a football game worth watching
Weapon invented with potential to destroy humanity. One out of 100 of the smartest hominids on the planet thinks it's a bad idea. Hominid u so smarty.
Ha! You know you're right.
For most of my adult life I have thought that our name for ourselves, Homo Sapiens, was such a gigantic misnomer. Wise, we are not. And the subject of this here documentary is a major reason for my sentiment.
'Homo Lunatico' would be a little closer to the truth, methinks.
Relament, you are dead wrong about what iran has or hasn't said... Ahmadinejad has openly stated on more than one occasion that he wishes to wipe Israel off of the map.. Not sure how that would be an effective strategy for removing a "political movement" as you say is his only target. The fact that yes, he has also come out and said his nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes means absolutely nothing.. Are you really so naive as to think that dictators, especially ones who align themselves with Assad and fund hezbollah, won't lie? It's typical of mideast dictators to say one thing on arabic television and to say something completely opposite to english speaking media..
You also site the UN and their constant petitioning for punitive measures against Israel, as though that somehow solves the entire issue, or that we should abandon any nation to nuclear obliteration if the UN has criticized them.. Need I remind you how in the past, attrocities in Sudan, Iraq, Syria, etc have gone on and on without any similar petitioning by the UN for a stop to those attrocities? It's obvious to any fair-minded person to see that the UN has it out for Israel.. Only a person who is either ignorant, or has their own bias against Israel would think otherwise.
As for your statement that "other Jewish people feel the same way", I hardly find that to be relevant at all. There are lunatics among every people.
I think you should go research the findings of the IAEA who have confirmed that Iran has time and again not been forthcoming in disclosing their nuclear related activities. It's been confirmed that Iran is enriching uranium way past levels needed for peaceful purposes. You should really take a look at the facts, before allowing your antisemitism to blind you to the fact that a nuclear Iran will harm Muslims as well as Jews.
Save it, Rosenberg. You sound like Netanyahu having a seizure. Go throw-up your Zionist propaganda at the next AIPAC meeting.
Wars started by Iran.... 0.... Wars started by America ...... ....
Well said, relament! I wish Americans understood US foreign policy to the extent you do.
It brought tears to my eyes to know that such men existed and can transcend conflict and hate with hope in their hearts
ya nuclear distribution is mainly done in japan
Roblat was a very intelligent, decent human it seems. A clear thinker who saw implications before most, and had the courage to do what he felt was right.
As he said, we can't un-invent those weapons. I find it hard to see how we can rid ourselves of them while we as a species hold onto so many divisions. Maybe it will take a nuclear war, the survivors (if any) learning the lesson the hard way. Seems the typical way our species learns. Remembering the lesson is a whole new problem again, we don't seem to do that very well either, especially with war. It would be kind of ironic if the first 'highly intelligent' life this planet produces brings about it's own extinction using this intelligence.
Survival of the 'thickest' might be an option. Just smart enough to get ourselves into trouble we are.
I very much liked this Documentary, touching story of an inspiring man. Just for that it is worth a watch.
Every additional nuclear weapon that is produced by ANY country moves the entire world closer to intentional or accidental human disaster and enviromental catastrophe. "Nuclear blackmail" has become the new stepping stone to international relevance for many countries. Poor countries such as the Sudan are left to beg for help while Nuclear N.Korea can negotiate for food aid and Nuclear Pakistan can support terrorism without fear of invasion from the West.Any country that even threatens to develop nuclear weapons is rewarded for doing so with negotiating power. The nuclear "club" will continue to expand as long as it is profitable to do so.
Why does this discussion have to degenerate into another discussion about the past crimes of this or that country or what their future intentions might be? Can't we simply agree that all nuclear weapons are bad no matter who has them or what they say they will or will not do with them? It seems a fairly common sense posisition to take in my opinion. Of course this video refrenced Iran, considering the topic at hand it would have been odd not to mention them. However, the doc made it plain that they objected to all countires possessing or using nuclear weapons, it had plenty negative to say about the U.S. and its past use of the bomb, it talked extensively of how Rotblat walked out of the Manhattan project and did all he could to stop the bomb being developed and used. This was clearly not a pro U.S. or Canadian documentary, nor was it an anti Iranian or middle eastern documentary. It was simply a doc about a man that wanted ALL nuclear weapons done away with and for us to start intelligently using atomic technology to better peoples lives instead of destroying them. If that is something we can't all get behind then something is wrong, in my humble opinion.
anything remotely connected with Betrand Russell is black art at work; after all, what better way to fuel the ultimate destruction, that of 'global warming/climate change' than by advocating the lunacy of nuclear energy whilst funding it all the while.
contemplate how many have died since the 'peace movement' was formed? When these psychopathic pederasts talk 'peace' expect war has been brokered as in R.I.P. humanity.
Once again your logic eludes me. It reminds me of the Bizarro World, where up is down and yes means no. No matter what one says or does he is actually doing the opposite.
The doc is about an anti-war scientist and his influence on subsequent arms limitationa and disarmament. It's not propaganda as far as I can tell, certainly no more than anything is. It's about Rotblat and the Pugwash movement.
I stopped watching seven minutes into this film, because they showed Ahmadinejad giving as speech during a military parade while people were speaking about the terror of nuclear weapons. Canadian propaganda.
That may be true but Ahmadinejad has, more than once, relayed how he longs for the coming of the 12th Imam. According to the Shia religion, he will come to help fight a final apocalyptic battle with the enemies of Islam, much like the vision in the book of Revelations in the Bible. One third of the people of the world will die in this war according to this belief. It is scary enough to have fundamentalist Christians in the United States, who would love to see the start of the end times, in control of nuclear weapons, let alone another fundamentalist religious leader. In principle, Iran has every right to have nuclear power. I just hope that we are not allowing someone the ability to instigate the beginning of his own religious vision. Two religious fanatic sects with such destructive power could be a nightmare. That is not propaganda. That is a rational and justified fear that should trouble any reasonable person.
Nope. The Iranians don't invade other countries, while the Americans always are invading countries, used atomic bombs on two cities, and use depleted uranium. Ahmadinejad is only in charge of domestic affairs, and speaks at the UN and other world-wide conferences. The Ayatollah would make any decisions regarding war, and it would most certainly be to defend against an invasion by the U.S. and/or Israel. The nightmare scenario is pushed for by the U.S. and Israel. What I saw of the documentary was propaganda that is quite familiar and disgusting.
The Iranians haven't invaded anyone...yet. Any country is capable of imperialistic agendas. The Japanese were isolationists for centuries till they started invading Korea, China, Mongolia, etc. I agree that the Ayatollah is the true power in Iran and that thought does not make me feel any easier. A religious fundamentalist is not to be trusted.
Although using the A-bomb in WW2 was horrible, it was a different time, following the bloodiest 6 years in the history of man. The world was relieved that this action brought the war to a close despite the horror it caused. Today it would be inexcusable. We all know the devastation and the implications a nuclear strike would entail. The Ahmadinejad rhetoric, implicitly supported by the Ayatollah, concerning the destruction of Israel should be enough to worry anyone. Also, the hatred felt for Sunni Muslims and the belief that their beliefs are heresy and abominable is also quite frightening. Don't let your justifiable fear of America lead you to believe that no one else could be just as bad or worse. The enemy at the back door may be more fearsome than the one at the front door.
If Ted Bundy(America) is walking around with a gun, and someone else(Iran) wanted to get a gun to defend themselves, I wouldn't say that they shouldn't because they are also capable of using it aggressively. No. I would say Ted Bundy has demonstrated many times now that he certainly can't be trusted, and the only way to defend yourself is to get a gun.
There is no excuse for dropping those atomic bombs.
Ahmadinejad wants to get rid of the zionist regime in Israel, and I say, who doesn't want to get rid of those crazy zionists, as well as the crazy neocons and any other political party that is so destructive?
So, no, I don't even remotely share your concerns about the Iranians. I think the world should support that country against the crazy imperialists.
Bravo. Precisely. Aggressors are aggressors. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.
Also, Iran has not invaded anyone for over 300 years. End of argument.
No one has the right to the type of destruction that nuclear war carries with it...even in defense. It is defense by suicide. Not a reasonable response or a response that leaves any type of desirable future. A government is not doing its citizens any favors by putting them is such a situation.
Destroying the destructive with destruction. Great idea.
It sound as if you don't have a problem with nuclear annihilation. You just want your team to do the annihilating and you hope the other team doesn't annihilate back.
The U.S. has invaded and murdered millions of people without provocation. Though Iran is not building a nuclear bomb, the U.S. has already demonstrated that a nuclear bomb may be the last deterrent available for countries to escape having millions more people murdered by the U.S.
It is only a deterrent if not used. If someone calls the bluff you are almost obligated to follow through with the use of the weapon that you hold as a deterrent. That is the danger of a nuclear arsenal. You cannot unexplode the bomb once used. It is better that no one has these weapons. Since that is not the case at the moment, the next best situation would be that no new nation builds a nuclear weapon. Whether one is right or wrong in their politics is not the issue. It is of very little advantage to be right if it means the destruction of a good section of the planet.
"Expressing a desire to develop a nuclear weapon is a veiled threat. That is not propaganda."
Iran has never expressed the desire to develop a nuclear weapon.
"...the next best situation would be that no new nation builds a nuclear weapon"
That's a good situation for the U.S. and Israel to keep doing what they always do, which is threaten, invade, and bomb sovereign nations, murdering millions more people.
They have never made an explicit desire to build a nuclear weapon but their stance in the Middle East has not been one of goodwill either. They support Assad in the uprising in Syria, have shown support for Shia factions in Iraq, have been a long term rival of Saudi Arabia, are in a dispute with the UAE over Abu Musa and two other strategic islands in the Persian Gulf and have strongly stated its wish that Israel is completely destroyed. They then state they want to develop a nuclear program. What their goal could be is something that you or I cannot know because they are not saying but it is not unreasonable to some to connect the dots all the way to nuclear weapons. That thought and its possible use on Israel would not sit well with any of the countries of the Middle East. Nuclear fallout would not respect international borders.
Blowing up my house along with my family to stop a home invader would seem an excessive way to protect myself. That is what nuclear weapons is, in effect, doing. Not everyone in the United States supports American foreign policy and a grass roots movement there supporting change would be a safer and more viable solution for all of us. It may be a slower and less satisfying option than a military victory but in the long run a solution that would change the way we think in terms of the way international entities interact. That is what we should strive for. That is the way to finally end imperialism. The military option has quite obviously failed so far. A nuclear option could mean the ultimate failure for all of us.
Yes, they support Assad over NATO intervention into Syria. So do I. A Shia government supporting Shias in Iraq makes sense to me. Who likes the Saudi Arabian government? You? The Islands you speak of are Iranian. And finally, you're just outright lying about Iran having stated anything about destroying Israel. Iran has stated over and over again that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, so quit lying about them not having said so.
You just keep repeating lies, while at the same time acting like the world is frightened that Iran is going to attack Israel. It's not. Turn off your television. It's doing you no good.
I guess you forgot about all the people murdered by the germans and japanese in world war 2! By all the people murdered by the dictator in iraq and by all the communists in vietnam in the 60"s and by north korea in the 50's! DO NOT BE SO NIEVE!
Just to be clear, I do not approve of American foreign policy or aggression. However, every time a nation arms itself with nuclear weapons the earth the threat of nuclear war increases. If Iran wants to demonstrate that they are the good guys, they should not use the threat of nuclear destruction as a negotiating tactic. One more nation with nuclear warheads pointing outward does not make our world or their country any safer. In fact, it is saying it would rather take part in world destruction then to give in to outside interference. They are not only pointing the gun at their enemies heads but at their own heads as well. That is no way for any government to care for its own citizens. It is one thing to defend oneself against imperialists. It is another issue altogether to blow it all up.
A nation with any social conscience would not develop these weapons. Their existence is an implicit threat of use and a threat is of no use unless there is a willingness to follow through with that threat. There must be a better way to resolve the problem how nations interact.
Iran has never used the threat of nuclear destruction. You're just repeating propaganda.
Expressing a desire to develop a nuclear weapon is a veiled threat. That is not propaganda.
If you truly look at history ask yourself why the United States bombed Japan with the two atomic bombs in the first place?! Who were the true aggressors that started world war 2 and who bombed Pearl Harbor? If Iran gets the atomic bomb it will be set at Israel by the next day! Quit blaming the good guys all the time with left wing propaganda! If it was up to me I would pull all foreign aid and use it in our country and say the hell with the rest of the world!
American ignorance and superiority complex.