[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Apr 24 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

2.  The SDI system also doesn't provide any kind of effective defense against rogue states or terrorist groups with a nuke.  If the US suffers a deliberate nuclear attack the nuke won't be delivered by anythign as obvious as an ICBM.

And of course this applies to any government that wants to attack in the future, not just the current "rogue states." Your Maginot Line analogy is right on the mark.

[PassedOut]

Gerben42, on Apr 24 2008, 07:47 AM, said:

You know from other threads where I work so you can take it any way you like, but I can't help saying that shutting down nuclear power plants at this point in time is a BAD idea.

I agree. We need to resolve waste and safety issues, but we really need the energy.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Apr 24 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

That enough for now? I can go on...

maybe everything you say is true, i just have a feeling our defenses are further along than you think they are... you can't always defend against every possible threat, it's true

[Al_U_Card]

Certainly couldn't defend against four airplanes....or so it appeared.

[luke warm]

illogical, al

[Al_U_Card]

ahhhh, so it wasn't a threat, it was a promise?

[onoway]

It is amazing to me that anyone anywhere with any sense of imagination whatsoever can conceive that the idea of nuclear strikes could possibly be anything but catastrophic, pretty much anywhere you want to say they happen.

It is also frightening that this is something which people discuss as though it could in any way be a rational thing to do under any circumstance.

Some time ago I took part in a simulation run by a Political Science class. After it was over the prof told us quietly that no matter how many times he ran it and no matter if he used real countries' names or made up ones...the simulation invariably ended up with nuclear war..

It used to be that in most wars there was supposed to be a winner and a loser..there is no way anyone anywhere comes out ahead in a nuclear war, including the people who had nothing to do with it..but the longer it is discussed as a rational possibility the larger the possibility becomes. The future is beginning to look very frightening.

[mike777]

onoway, on Apr 25 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

It is amazing to me that anyone anywhere with any sense of imagination whatsoever can conceive that the idea of nuclear strikes could possibly be anything but catastrophic, pretty much anywhere you want to say they happen.

It is also frightening that this is something which people discuss as though it could in any way be a rational thing to do under any circumstance.

Some time ago I took part in a simulation run by a Political Science class. After it was over the prof told us quietly that no matter how many times he ran it and no matter if he used real countries' names or made up ones...the simulation invariably ended up with nuclear war..

It used to be that in most wars there was supposed to be a winner and a loser..there is no way anyone anywhere comes out ahead in a nuclear war, including the people who had nothing to do with it..but the longer it is discussed as a rational possibility the larger the possibility becomes.  The future is beginning to look very frightening.

I agree using nuclear weapons is catastrophic. Keep in mind using 1940's nonnuclear bombs in one single raid caused more deaths and wounded than the atomic bomb did. So using nonnuclear bombs is catastrophic.

Given all of that I do not understand your logic here:

"It is also frightening that this is something which people discuss as though it could in any way be a rational thing to do under any circumstance"

If discussing using nukes is never rational any under circumstances why not argue to disarm and get rid of them now! Get rid of all catastrophic weapons now! It seems silly to not discuss this issue but keep these horrible weapons anyway.

The problem is not one person running for President in 60 years has advocated unilaterally getting rid of these things. No top leader in Russia, china, france, UK, India or Pakistan advocates this.

I think if you are not going discuss using them or if not going to bother, then disarm these nukes and nonnukes that are catastrophic weapons.

Keep in mind the USA has used atomic and nonatomic catastrophic weapons in our families lifetime, used them often. Even the other day Mrs. Clinton promised to use them. If using them is nonrational under any circumstance, the USA should get rid of all of them, now!

[luke warm]

onoway, on Apr 25 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

It is also frightening that this is something which people discuss as though it could in any way be a rational thing to do under any circumstance.

i can understand your fear as it pertains to the use of nuclear weapons, i think we all feel the same... i don't understand your use of the word rational, especially when you say "... under any circumstance"

[onoway]

Such little things that go wrong...there were only a FEW bees that got loose in South America ....there were only a FEW rabbits which got loose in Australia..both examples of little mistakes or miscalculations which got out of control with results far more devastating than the people responsible had ever anticipated. Some things, like nuclear war, we don't as a species have the luxury of making any mistakes or miscalculations at ALL.

The concept of suicide bombers is alien to me, though I suppose anyone in the business end of war has similar dedication, they just have better odds of surviving if they are in the usual sort of army. Starting a nuclear war is running the risk of being the biggest suicide bomber possible, because there cannot be a winner, all there can be is the questionable satisfaction of taking everyone with you when you go..some quickly some not so quickly...and saying oh my god I didn't REALIZE.. I'm so SORRY....isn't going to cut it.

If you believe the prospect of possibly causing nuclear winter is a rational choice to consider, under any circumstances, then you have a different understanding of the word than I do.

[mike777]

onoway, on Apr 26 2008, 05:26 AM, said:

Such little things that  go wrong...there were only a FEW bees that got loose in South America ....there were only a FEW rabbits which got loose in Australia..both examples of little mistakes or miscalculations which got out of control with results far more devastating than the people responsible had ever anticipated.  Some things, like nuclear war, we don't as a species have the luxury of making any mistakes or miscalculations at ALL.

  The concept of suicide bombers is alien to me, though I suppose anyone in the business end of war has similar dedication, they just have better odds of surviving if they are in the usual sort of army. Starting a nuclear war is running the risk of being the biggest suicide bomber possible,  because there cannot be a winner, all there can be is the questionable satisfaction of taking everyone with you when you go..some quickly some not so quickly...and saying oh my god I didn't REALIZE..  I'm so SORRY....isn't going to cut it.

If you believe the prospect of possibly causing nuclear winter is a rational choice to consider, under any circumstances, then you have a different understanding of the word than I do.

1) the country of usa used the atom bomb
2) they used it again...twice
3) they threatened to use it again and again
4) usa used nonnuclear weapons that killed and wounded more than the atom bomb did
5) the usa said they would use atomic and non atomic bombs again and again, often and often if they could.
6) american people....elected and relected these politcal leaders again and again.....
7) american voters take full responibilty.......

[mike777]

"The concept of suicide bombers is alien to me,"



I have no idea why this idea is alien to you.


You can go back thousands of years and learn but stop

In our families we can go back......zero years and learn


If suicide is too alien and for most western countries it is confusing....stop



Let us call it ...self defense.........


Can you ever give your life for your country or family? Can you every think it is rationial for 17 or 16 year olds to die for their country?

Granted we sit in our warm living room and we are old.

stop


Have you ever been young and made choice.......maybe die and serve your country or no...............never die.

[mike777]

"If you believe the prospect of possibly causing nuclear winter is a rational choice to consider, under any circumstances, then you have a different understanding of the word than I do. "


I repeat, having the entire world die in a 100% death,.....I go out on a limb and vote no.


'what is option two? you vote 100% death...I vote 99% death...you lose.....

[Al_U_Card]

Sadly, the long term consequences are just as bad, if not worse. Radioactive contamination. Genetic mutation. Cancers.

Stop the idiots in power from abusing and misusing that power.

Throw the bums out, while you still can.

[kenberg]

onoway, on Apr 25 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

It is amazing to me that anyone anywhere with any sense of imagination whatsoever can conceive that the idea of nuclear strikes could possibly be anything but catastrophic, pretty much anywhere you want to say they happen.

It is also frightening that this is something which people discuss as though it could in any way be a rational thing to do under any circumstance.

Some time ago I took part in a simulation run by a Political Science class. After it was over the prof told us quietly that no matter how many times he ran it and no matter if he used real countries' names or made up ones...the simulation invariably ended up with nuclear war..

It used to be that in most wars there was supposed to be a winner and a loser..there is no way anyone anywhere comes out ahead in a nuclear war, including the people who had nothing to do with it..but the longer it is discussed as a rational possibility the larger the possibility becomes.  The future is beginning to look very frightening.

This same argument from irrationality can be made and has been made against war in general, but still wars happen. It's my understanding that some 40 million people were killed during World War II. Most of us think, with a decent justification, that Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini were irrational, Churchill, Roosevelt, and De Gaulle were rational (or less irrational anyway). Whatever the case, a lot of people died. Many people died when we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people also died in great numbers during a few days in early June 1944. And quite a few at other times and places.

If the horrible consequences of war were adequate to prevent war, it would be a very peaceful world. Except for a few nuts, we all abhor nuclear war and for that matter any war. Preventing it from happening is another matter. I don't have great faith in the idea that if we are just really nice then everyone else will follow our lead and be really nice too.

So wish us all luck. Was it Thornton Wilder who wrote "The Skin of our Teeth"? Whoever it was, it always seemed he head it about right.

[onoway]

Unfortunately, you are right, Ken, being really nice would not have worked with people like Hitler, for example. In retrospect, though, it seems odd that the only way he and his sidekicks could be dealt with was to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of OTHER people..seems highly inefficient way to go about things. It seems to me that we are still in the stone age when we don't bother trying to find other ways to deal with people than hitting them over the head with a bigger and bigger stick. It doesn't work, as the two world wars to "end all wars" have shown.
If people never worked tirelessly on doing things that had never been done before, our lives would be shorter and more basic than they are, there would be no heart transplants, no space shuttle, no internet.
It seems that no-one has the interest in learning how to deal with the things/people that cause wars, it is a lot easier to spend a bunch of money to get a bigger club to bash people with. Well the club has gotton so big now, that using it potentially doesn't affect just the basher and bashee but everyone, everywhere, and not for just the moment, relatively speaking, but possibly for MILLENIA. If nothing else it seems to me the height of selfishness to decide that anyone has the right to make any irreversible decision which has potentially that sort of impact.
I don't know the answer, just as I don't know how to do brain surgery or fly a jet plane ( or even understand some of the discussions in the forums!)
That doesn't mean there isn't one. That doesn't mean that at least as much effort shouldn't be put into finding one as there is to finding ever more efficient ways to build a bigger and more lethal club. It's rather pathetic that in the 21st century we are still all acting like Neanderthal behaviour is the only option with people we fear or find obnoxious - or who have something we want.

[Winstonm]

If the money worldwide that has been spent on war and war machinery had instead been plowed into worldwide investment in health, education, infrasturcture, etc., there would be little need for war as we would all be too well off to support more war.

Military spending has a postive effect on an economy for about the first 6 years, after which it becomes a negative.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on Apr 26 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

Military spending has a postive effect on an economy for about the first 6 years, after which it becomes a negative.

I believe the term is "counter-attack".

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 26 2008, 09:29 AM, said:

Sadly, the long term consequences are just as bad, if not worse. Radioactive contamination. Genetic mutation. Cancers.

Stop the idiots in power from abusing and misusing that power.

Throw the bums out, while you still can.

you blame the idiots in power... why? run for office, al, on a ticket of unilateral disarmament, higher taxes to support environmental initiatives, and anything else you believe in... i doubt you'd have to wait until all the votes were in before you could turn in for the night

blame the voters, the politicians are only giving them what they want

[Winstonm]

Ian S. Lustick had this observation to make. (emphasis added.)

Quote

Why, absent any evidence of a serious domestic terror threat, is the War on Terror so enormous, so all-encompassing, and still expanding?

The fundamental answer is that al Qaeda’s most important accomplishment was not to hijack our planes, but to hijack our political system. For a multitude of politicians, interest groups, professional associations, corporations, media organizations, universities, local and state governments and federal agency officials, the War on Terror is now a major profit center, a funding bonanza, and a set of slogans and sound bites to be inserted into budget, project, grant and contract proposals. For the country as a whole, however, it has become a maelstrom of waste and worry that distracts us from more serious problems.