MJB said:
Fear is the strongest emotion known to mankind.... It has caused us to all change our lives drastically in the past 5 years... It is taking our freedom away inch by inch.
Sue
Why we fight
- Thread starter ouch
- Start date
Fear is the strongest emotion known to mankind.... It has caused us to all change our lives drastically in the past 5 years... It is taking our freedom away inch by inch.
Sue
ouch said:
I heard that DaVinci water was powerful stuff......!
You bring up some interesting points. No, I do not advocate the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocents. Yes, I also have a friend or two in Pakistan, and appreciate the help they have given us. My opinion is why have a weapon if you are never willing to use it. I think the problem is that people and their understanding of nuclear weapons dates from the M.A.D. days of the cold war, in which the U.S. and Soviet Union were developing(and testing, by way of intimidation) larger, and larger and more horrible weapons on a regular basis, some ranging many megatons of yield. These were not all practical weapons, rather, it was a race (the Soviets won the "biggest nuke" contest, BTW with the test of their Tsar Bomba which had an obscene yield). The reality is that nuclear weapons technology has come along since the 1940's just like everything else. I doubt many would advocate the use of these enormous cold war-style weapons (designed to evoke horror in entire cities, flatten theoretical columns of tanks coming through the corridor into West Germany or crush the hulls of Soviet boomer submarines a few miles off our own coast....). No, that would be like burning down your neighbor's house because their dog barks at you. However, we could actually be using smaller, "tactical" nuclear weapons on Al Quaeda training camps RIGHT NOW, and it is highly unlikely anyone would know, unless we told them. No one is talking about levelling cities here; if that were the case, I would be with you and could not conscience such actions.MJB said:
I guess I just don't see why the special horror assigned to nuclear weapons in this regard. I think we still have this pent up terror from the cold war when thousands of [huge, city levelling] nuclear weapons were aimed at various places in the world, with the promise of killing every living thing on the planet some 27 times over....
NOT dropping a [small] nuclear explosive with a tiny fraction of the yield of even the WWII nukes... down a tunnel in a mountain somewhere in afghanistan, and collapsing it on the terrorists inside...
I would not be surprised in the least that there are weapons capable of destroying only a single building at this stage.
I guess I am arguing semantics anyway. I just do not understand why one form of killing, considering the same numbers and scale, is somehow more immoral than the other, given that both are instant. If one collapses a tunnel system with a bunker buster nuke, or if one does the same thing at the cost of hundreds of engineers and special operations troops, carrying backpacks full of C4 or Semtex....the target is destroyed, and contrary to apparent popular belief, it is not going to start a "nuclear winter" or destroy the place for decades to come. People live in Hiroshima (and Nagasaki...and Fallon, NV....and Pahrump, NV...) and all of those places suffered larger yield (in Nevada's case, by FAR) detonations by far than the weapons that would be useful today. We aren't trying to destroy columns of soviet tanks, or incinerate Minsk at some multiple of the temperature on the surface of the sun. I do not support such wholesale destruction, nor do I support killing millions of innocent people. Just because a weapon is nuclear does not automatically mean it is one of these monstrous city-levelling cold war style weapons, and it is annoying to me when people automatically assume such weapons are being prepared to slaughter the civilian populations of the middle east, etc.
that, and I like to stir the pot sometimes...
John P.
I believe that when you have a war, you do not have a winner. You have a survivor. This thread is no different. We can argue (discuss) until the cows come home, but no matter who makes what point here, lets be sure that we remain civil (as I believe we have) and keep things nice. Regardless of the individual, when you have people who are willing to strap on explosives and blow up innocent people, there is something wrong. Just like the war on drugs, the war on terrorism is destined to fail without drastic measures. Unfortunately, that does mean that innocent people are going to die. And what does it all accomplish? Nothing.
Randy
Randy
JohnP
I do not know personally the thoughts of every person regarding nukes, however these are my opinions and I know I have heard of similar opinions being expressed.
1. We are trying to stop nations that we feel would be far more willing to use large nuclear weapons from possessing said weapons while we do possess them. That has caused many places in the world to view us as a bit hipocritical and thus they are more willing to ignore us since we are essentially telling them "do as say not as we do." If we actually begin to use even the smallest tactical nuclear weapons, how much more will our non-proliferation stance be compromised?
2. Even small nuclear weapons leave a nuclear footprint. If I am not mistaken Hiroshige and Nagasaki both are still dealing elevated health problems due to the lingering radiation. Why should we use a weapon that could affect innocents several generations from now when there are currently non-nuclear bunker busters and so forth?
3. My last point goes back to a similar point made earlier. Where do we draw the line on what is an acceptably sized nuclear bomb? If a .25 megaton nuclear bomb is acceptable, well a .3 isn't THAT much bigger. Then once .3 is acceptable, a .4 is still not that much larger. And so forth until we don't even know how we got to the place where there are multimegaton bombs being used. Isn't avoiding such a scenario easier than trying to convince people that the government will be able to constrain itself to using only the smallest of nuclears? Everything I know of the government inclines me to believe it wouldn't take much for someone in power to say x nuclear exploses are too small for this mission we need y amount more, just this once. And once you use that extra amount it becomes so much easier to use it again, and likely increase it once again.
I do not know personally the thoughts of every person regarding nukes, however these are my opinions and I know I have heard of similar opinions being expressed.
1. We are trying to stop nations that we feel would be far more willing to use large nuclear weapons from possessing said weapons while we do possess them. That has caused many places in the world to view us as a bit hipocritical and thus they are more willing to ignore us since we are essentially telling them "do as say not as we do." If we actually begin to use even the smallest tactical nuclear weapons, how much more will our non-proliferation stance be compromised?
2. Even small nuclear weapons leave a nuclear footprint. If I am not mistaken Hiroshige and Nagasaki both are still dealing elevated health problems due to the lingering radiation. Why should we use a weapon that could affect innocents several generations from now when there are currently non-nuclear bunker busters and so forth?
3. My last point goes back to a similar point made earlier. Where do we draw the line on what is an acceptably sized nuclear bomb? If a .25 megaton nuclear bomb is acceptable, well a .3 isn't THAT much bigger. Then once .3 is acceptable, a .4 is still not that much larger. And so forth until we don't even know how we got to the place where there are multimegaton bombs being used. Isn't avoiding such a scenario easier than trying to convince people that the government will be able to constrain itself to using only the smallest of nuclears? Everything I know of the government inclines me to believe it wouldn't take much for someone in power to say x nuclear exploses are too small for this mission we need y amount more, just this once. And once you use that extra amount it becomes so much easier to use it again, and likely increase it once again.
Fuerein
(What is your name, or is that it?)
You have an interesting point.
Fact is, however, the nonproliferation treaties have no teeth if we do not enforce them. We do not. We keep telling them "You better not" just like a bad mother, and then when they finally succeed, we wring our hands, saying, they have a NUKE, oh what can we DO? It is our own fault. When a country is in mass production of enriched radioactive components, or chemical weapons, it is OBVIOUS they have no intentions of observing any nonproliferation treaty, and it is time to destroy said facility, using nuclear or otherwise, immediately. All the people we were worried about getting nuclear weapons have basically told us to stick our treaties where the sun doesn't shine, and now have nuclear weapons or are rapidly approaching them. If everyone is going to get nuclear weapons ANYWAY, then blackmail us for aid, money, etc etc to prevent them from using said weapons (not mentioning any names, Kim Jong Il...)
Sure nuclear weapons have a footprint, but to say that ALL of them are going to destroy something for generations is not something I believe. Nor do we have non-nuclear "bunker busters" of the capability needed, say to crack Iran's heavily protected enrichment facilities, or N. Koreas...or collaps tunnels on Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan or wherever.
IMHO the attitude of these various nations seems to be that of "We're going to build it, what are you going to do about it?". We should show them. It is obvious that we are never going to earn their respect, at least not to the level that they are going to obey the treaty. Of course it seems unfair. We have discovered a poisonous snake, and now everyone else wants to play with it. Doesn't mean we should hand it to them and say "here ya go". We should, then, IMHO earn their fear. The respect can come later.
As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the claimed health issues....perhaps. But when a 80 year old gets cancer in the United States gets cancer, do they automatically assume it is because of the (enormous) nuclear tests done several states away in Nevada? No. Not saying some may not have health issues based on that nuclear hit 60+ years ago, but I just think it would be interesting to compare them with other cities with a similar population makeup...I would wager that it will be a telling report.
Your point about escalation of force is a good one, although again, I am not sure it is realistic. Just because a weapon is used operates on a certain technology or other does not mean that no doubt, we will INSTANTLY start incinerating cities. As to the nonproliferation treaties, they need to go away if we do not enforce them (and btw USING a nuclear weapon does not violate any non-proliferation agreement, only making NEW ones). The only ones obeying them is US. My feeling is that, just like any other weapon, you should match the weapon to the task at hand. A 500 Megaton cold-war city killer would no doubt be out of place when the target is small.
We make all these treaties, and then pat each other on the back like Neville Chamberlain, pointing at the ink on the paper...then we wonder why N. Korea and Iran and....the list goes on....STILL continue developing their weapons. It is because we do not enforce them. And sending in ground troops is simply playing by their rules (N. Korea, China, Pakistan, India...perhaps Iran...have huge standing armies. If we were to fight China, for instance, we do not even have enough BULLETS to win that fight). We need to show said countries it is in their best interests to comply with the nonproliferation, rather than simply trying to argue a way around it, then declaring themselves a nuclear power, much as N. Korea did, and Iran is doing.
What are you going to do about it, they ask? They are testing us.
John P.
(What is your name, or is that it?)
You have an interesting point.
Fact is, however, the nonproliferation treaties have no teeth if we do not enforce them. We do not. We keep telling them "You better not" just like a bad mother, and then when they finally succeed, we wring our hands, saying, they have a NUKE, oh what can we DO? It is our own fault. When a country is in mass production of enriched radioactive components, or chemical weapons, it is OBVIOUS they have no intentions of observing any nonproliferation treaty, and it is time to destroy said facility, using nuclear or otherwise, immediately. All the people we were worried about getting nuclear weapons have basically told us to stick our treaties where the sun doesn't shine, and now have nuclear weapons or are rapidly approaching them. If everyone is going to get nuclear weapons ANYWAY, then blackmail us for aid, money, etc etc to prevent them from using said weapons (not mentioning any names, Kim Jong Il...)
Sure nuclear weapons have a footprint, but to say that ALL of them are going to destroy something for generations is not something I believe. Nor do we have non-nuclear "bunker busters" of the capability needed, say to crack Iran's heavily protected enrichment facilities, or N. Koreas...or collaps tunnels on Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan or wherever.
IMHO the attitude of these various nations seems to be that of "We're going to build it, what are you going to do about it?". We should show them. It is obvious that we are never going to earn their respect, at least not to the level that they are going to obey the treaty. Of course it seems unfair. We have discovered a poisonous snake, and now everyone else wants to play with it. Doesn't mean we should hand it to them and say "here ya go". We should, then, IMHO earn their fear. The respect can come later.
As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the claimed health issues....perhaps. But when a 80 year old gets cancer in the United States gets cancer, do they automatically assume it is because of the (enormous) nuclear tests done several states away in Nevada? No. Not saying some may not have health issues based on that nuclear hit 60+ years ago, but I just think it would be interesting to compare them with other cities with a similar population makeup...I would wager that it will be a telling report.
Your point about escalation of force is a good one, although again, I am not sure it is realistic. Just because a weapon is used operates on a certain technology or other does not mean that no doubt, we will INSTANTLY start incinerating cities. As to the nonproliferation treaties, they need to go away if we do not enforce them (and btw USING a nuclear weapon does not violate any non-proliferation agreement, only making NEW ones). The only ones obeying them is US. My feeling is that, just like any other weapon, you should match the weapon to the task at hand. A 500 Megaton cold-war city killer would no doubt be out of place when the target is small.
We make all these treaties, and then pat each other on the back like Neville Chamberlain, pointing at the ink on the paper...then we wonder why N. Korea and Iran and....the list goes on....STILL continue developing their weapons. It is because we do not enforce them. And sending in ground troops is simply playing by their rules (N. Korea, China, Pakistan, India...perhaps Iran...have huge standing armies. If we were to fight China, for instance, we do not even have enough BULLETS to win that fight). We need to show said countries it is in their best interests to comply with the nonproliferation, rather than simply trying to argue a way around it, then declaring themselves a nuclear power, much as N. Korea did, and Iran is doing.
What are you going to do about it, they ask? They are testing us.
John P.
John P.
My name is Adam, as at the end of each of posts.
So, since others are building and are more willing to use a weapon that as a rule we find reprehensible to use, we should stoop to their level and use the same weapon to stop them? Does this really make us any better? Doesn't that truly give them no reason not go ahead? If we are going to tell them not to make them, shouldn't we lead by example? Or are we better than the rest of the world just because we are the most powerful nation at this point in history?
Personally I find the building of nuclear weapons pointless, not to mention if I am not mistaken (and on this point I am more than willing to admit I might be) we are bound by treaties not to manufacture any new nuclear weapons. We can reconfigure existing weapons such as upgrading the existing missiles that are in the ballistic missile subs, but I don't believe we are allowed to actually manufacture new ones. Feel free to correct me, but I seem to remember that being part of the current nuclear treaties. As such the production of new weapons would be the ultimate hipocrasy.
As for the escalation factor, I didn't mean that we would jump within a matter of days from tactical weapons to a boomer launching its full compliment of ICBMs and leveling the entire arabian peninsula. More what I was saying was the buildup could happen and when it eventually gets to the use of the multiwarhead ICBMs there will be plenty of people wondering how we went from using small tactical weapons to where we really are risking the future of the planet.
I, for one, feel the use of weapons has been increadibly detrimental to any and all nuclear technology. People are so terrified from their knowledge of the previous weapon uses/tests that they are unwilling to view even the possible positive aspects of nuclear tech for fear of what they view as the inherent risks. If we begin using the tech as weapons tech again I fear we will never overcome the fear, when it could have far more beneficial uses than trying to blow up someone.
My name is Adam, as at the end of each of posts.
So, since others are building and are more willing to use a weapon that as a rule we find reprehensible to use, we should stoop to their level and use the same weapon to stop them? Does this really make us any better? Doesn't that truly give them no reason not go ahead? If we are going to tell them not to make them, shouldn't we lead by example? Or are we better than the rest of the world just because we are the most powerful nation at this point in history?
Personally I find the building of nuclear weapons pointless, not to mention if I am not mistaken (and on this point I am more than willing to admit I might be) we are bound by treaties not to manufacture any new nuclear weapons. We can reconfigure existing weapons such as upgrading the existing missiles that are in the ballistic missile subs, but I don't believe we are allowed to actually manufacture new ones. Feel free to correct me, but I seem to remember that being part of the current nuclear treaties. As such the production of new weapons would be the ultimate hipocrasy.
As for the escalation factor, I didn't mean that we would jump within a matter of days from tactical weapons to a boomer launching its full compliment of ICBMs and leveling the entire arabian peninsula. More what I was saying was the buildup could happen and when it eventually gets to the use of the multiwarhead ICBMs there will be plenty of people wondering how we went from using small tactical weapons to where we really are risking the future of the planet.
I, for one, feel the use of weapons has been increadibly detrimental to any and all nuclear technology. People are so terrified from their knowledge of the previous weapon uses/tests that they are unwilling to view even the possible positive aspects of nuclear tech for fear of what they view as the inherent risks. If we begin using the tech as weapons tech again I fear we will never overcome the fear, when it could have far more beneficial uses than trying to blow up someone.
General Turgidson is alive & well.
Regards
John
Regards
John
Gatorade said:
I'd agree entirely with your statement above. And add that not all things that happen in the name of governments necessarily represent the people of the nation either.
- Thread starter
- #50
yasuo200365 said:General Turgidson is alive & well.
Regards
John
Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.
"I know how it is, baby. Tell you what you do: you just start your countdown, and old Bucky'll be back here before you can say "Blast off!"
- Thread starter
- #52
One of my all time favorite movies.
That's what I get for hitting "send" before reading over the post again....it isn't the first mistake I've made this week, and probably won't be the last...fuerein said:John P.
My name is Adam, as at the end of each of posts.
Adam, we haven't made any more nuclear weapons that I am aware of, but it to date hasn't prevented ANYONE we were worried about, from developing WMD's to include nuclear weapons. So we are already trying the methods you suggest, and they are not working. One other thing. We are NOT the most powerful nation in the world. We may like to THINK we are, but we are not. Want to know who is, and who is quietly sitting on the sidelines while we enslave ourselves to them? Go to your local Walmart and pick up 5 different items. Now look where they were manufactured....fuerein said:
Adam, you are right about the prohibition of building new nuclear weapons; the "nonproliferation" treaties you mentioned earlier are the very ones prohibiting the manufacture of new nuclear weapons. No one is advocating we produce new ones, but reconfigure (for smaller, more useful yields) the ones we have, so if it comes down to it, we don't HAVE to level Tehran to quietly destroy their enrichment facilities, but rather have the workers show up one day and their factory/reactor/whatever is simply not there...fuerein said:
That is one of those situations where it depends on who one is fighting. It is currently a goal of our enemies to detonate a nuclear weapon in a western, (preferably U.S. or Israeli) city. Will they succeed? I don't know. I can see how fighting another nuclear power (speaking of another country, not a terrorist group) could escalate as you say, but if they are already desirous of using one of the big ones on us, I doubt seriously it will matter what we fight them with, whether we use spears or our own nuclear weapons. My thinking is that once you flatten a production facility or a launch silo/platform, it is over. Now if you want to stupidly advertise that you used a nuclear weapon to do it, that's your decision. But the residuals and the "footprint" will be gone within a week or less for some of the smaller nuclear weapons, and the threat from the facility will be gone, and with minimal loss of life, especially on the friendly side, but even on the side of the enemy.fuerein said:
Adam for the most part I agree with you on this. Nuclear energy (especially if we had continued the research we were doing previously) is among the cleanest, most efficient, and cheapest forms of energy there is; but because of the cold war, not to mention various popular movies of the 80's and 90's, the word "nuclear" has been used to connotate this huge "boogie man" that is far from the truth. The word "nuclear" has been politically charged by people who know little more than what they see on TV about it. People are pre-programmed to think of enormous mushroom shaped clouds, or some futuristic scene from a Terminator movie. It didn't help with the cold war race to get the biggest nastiest weapons possible and test them, as if to display, See? that could have been Los Angeles....not to mention various doomsday prophets and religious figures using photographs of huge thermonuclear fireballs to frighten their sheep into believing their tales of woe.fuerein said:
Personal opinion if we had continued developing nuclear power into the safe efficient energy source that it COULD be, (let alone medical and other benefits) we wouldn't NEED the oil in the middle east to the level we do now, the price of oil would go down, with the demand, and IMHO it could be a much better place.
John P.
yasuo200365 said:General Turgidson is alive & well.
Regards
John
You trying out for the new Bat Guano or Group Captain Lionel Mandrake?John P.
Can't say I entirely agree, but then that point has already been made several times. However, considering I'm feeling like this is basically at the point where the arguments are going to start (if not already) just travel in circles and few if any new points will be made, I'm going to step out. It was a fun debate though. I do have to give that we both made good points, even if mine are better.
Thanks for the debate.
Can't say I entirely agree, but then that point has already been made several times. However, considering I'm feeling like this is basically at the point where the arguments are going to start (if not already) just travel in circles and few if any new points will be made, I'm going to step out. It was a fun debate though. I do have to give that we both made good points, even if mine are better.
Thanks for the debate.
Tye said:
Sorry, I got to this thread late but I saw this comment and wanted to respond. Many terrorist 'attacks' have been committed by groups of American citizens on US soil. Many extreme animal rights groups or eco groups are labeled as terrorist and commit acts of terrorism in the US (for exampe, ALF; animal liberation front and EarthFirst!). So it is not true that all terrorist attacks have been committed by Muslims.
Another issue (that I've dealt with for a considerable amount of time) is the definition of terrorism used by states excludes actions by states from being labeled as terrorism. However, I think that whatever it is that makes terrorism wrong has less to do with the group committing the act and more to do with the purpose and targets of the attacks (to inspire fear, and innocent people). For this reason I don't consider attacks on military targets to be terrorist attacks (perhaps guerilla warfare). There are acts committed by many governments (even the US!?!?!) that have the same morally repugnant components as many 'terrorist' attacks.
Someone else commented that you don't see other groups attacking other people because of their religion. However, this has not always been the case (think Crusades and the inquisition). Also many christian sub-groups do attacks innocent (by my lights) people when they bomb abortion clinics etc.
In any case, if anyone is interested in reading some nice stuff on Terrorism, I worked closely with a professor who spends a lot of time thinking about terrorism and the ethics of war and would be glad to recommend some readings to anyone interested. I also have a paper I wrote (awhile ago so its probably not very polished) with an analysis of terrorism and what is morally wrong with it.
BGog said:
Christianity had it's time of blood in the name of religion, it was called "the dark ages". Remember the Crusades, the Inquisition, and various other nasty events?
Pretty much what is happening here is a religion being forced to have to accept the world in general, much like christianity had to realize. In times like this, you have religious leaders who do adapt, and others who refuse to, and fight tooth and nail to try to keep up their outdated ways. Those who refuse to adapt will eventually fail, leaving only the ones who have adapted to the times.
Modernization is a must for any mainstream religion. It doesn't mean give up your morals, but it does mean that the practitioners have to realize that they have to be tolerant of those who are unwilling to abide by their diety's word.
Keep in mind, about 500 years ago, in some nations you could have been executed for being a different sect of cathlolic than what the rest of the land was...nice religion of peace and love right there too.
I'm not trying to cut down on anyone's religion, but it is worth noting that any religion can get out of hand at times. The key to keeping a religion sane is remembering that religion is not something you can touch, see, taste, or smell....it's something you feel in your heart and in your mind. That said, it's a personal decision, and we have to respect the personal decisions of others, even if it seems wrong to us.....of course remembering that tolerance of an individual's decisions end at our noses.
Catatonic/Steve makes a series of excellent points on the power of organized religion, both good and bad. (Monty Python made it in a much lighter, more sardonic way with The Life of Brian!)
Though raised as a Catholic, I am ashamed to say I have not been to church in years. I find myself out of sync with many of the church's positions on some of the important social issues we face today, and am offended by the financial aspects of the institutional church--maybe it would be better not to see behind the Wizard's curtain. . .
Though raised as a Catholic, I am ashamed to say I have not been to church in years. I find myself out of sync with many of the church's positions on some of the important social issues we face today, and am offended by the financial aspects of the institutional church--maybe it would be better not to see behind the Wizard's curtain. . .
Adam and John P,
Debate well ended gentlemen.
Cheers,
Jeff
Debate well ended gentlemen.
Cheers,
Jeff
