Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 1846 of 5179 (691234)
02-21-2013 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1831 by Faith
02-21-2013 3:38 AM


Re: Self-defence
Faith writes:
What a bunch of politically correct idiocy GDR. Right, it isn't that the second amendment is intended to protect US from our enemies, but now according to global PC we're to give our enemies the right to attack us via our amendment too.
OUR AMENDMENT FOR OUR DEFENSE, get it?
DEFENSE, GDR, DEFENSE, that's the purpose of the amendment, against aggressors AGAINST us.
That's all ICANT said. What is the matter with you liberals? You want us all dead obviously. Fortunately that will include you too.
No I don't agree with ICANT that we have the right to be armed to the degree of a modern army, but you should be tarred and feathered for your insane remark. And so should AZPaul for cheering it.
I think you have kinda missed the point Faith. I took an obvious example to make that point. Nobody wants to see nuclear weapons in the hands of the governments of those nations.
You say that you should have the freedom to go and purchase a hand gun or even semi-automatic weapons for the purposes of defence. If I am selling you that gun I have no real way of knowing if it is for your defence or if you intend to use in some nearby classroom. If I am a gun dealer I have to go on the assumption that you aren't going to commit a crime with the weapon, and even if I do have suspicions about your motives you still can demand your rights that I sell it to you.
We both have our doubts about the governments of Iran and North Korea but they claim that they have the right to the defence of their countries. Why then should they not have the same rights to arm themselves on a national scale as you do on an individual scale.
On a national scale the world is a safer place when there are fewer countries with nuclear weapons and by extension I would suggest that our individual countries are safer when there are fewer people with hand guns which they claim are for their defence.
Another point I'd make is that I have a right to self-defence as well and if my neighbour owns the type of weapons that we are talking about here then my safety has been compromised in my opinion. If the weapon is discharged it come through the walls and injure me or my family or for that matter it could be stolen and used against me. I should have the right to my self-defence and prevent my neighbour from being armed.
You are making yourself the final arbiter as to who is good and who is evil -who should be allowed to be armed and who shouldn't. You aren't God and you don't have a lock on all truth, and for that matter your views are contrary to the views that Jesus espoused, whether it be by arming yourself with a modern day sword, or with having someone who disagrees with you tarred and feathered.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1831 by Faith, posted 02-21-2013 3:38 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1847 by Rahvin, posted 02-21-2013 12:08 PM GDR has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 1847 of 5179 (691241)
02-21-2013 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1846 by GDR
02-21-2013 11:48 AM


Re: Self-defence
On a national scale the world is a safer place when there are fewer countries with nuclear weapons
That's not entirely true. Mutually assured destruction has proven to work extremely well as a deterrent.
The net effect is that if, say, Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, the US would not be able to "simply" perform the sort of military invasion and "regime change" that was done in Iraq. The presence of a nuclear deterrent serves as a shield against both nuclear and conventional attack.
From that perspective, the world is safer when minimally rational actors possess nuclear weapons. Now, that might also mean the continued existence of brutal regimes that we would rather change, but it prevents war.
The danger of nuclear weapons is where an irrational actor comes into possession; someone who doesn't know how (or doesn't care) to play out the Prisoner's Dilemma. Al Qaeda, for example.
Only an idiot would give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization or otherwise allow a warhead to be used even in a covert fashion; analysis of the fallout from a nuclear initiation can readily identify the source of the fissile material used, and the source nation would be attacked in retribution (in other words, if North Korea gave Al Qaeda a nuke that was then detonated in the US, the US would quickly be able to tell that North Korea was the source, and would retaliate).
I'm not terribly afraid of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons - Israel already has nukes themselves, and so does the US, and Iran is well aware of the results of actually using a nuclear weapon. I think an Iranian nuclear deterrent may prevent an "Iraq Part II: Iran" invasion from becoming a possibility, and I think that would be a good thing.
I'm much more concerned with North Korea, who already has nuclear weapons. I'm simply not certain whether I can consider them to be rational actors - the propaganda machine is too deep, the echo chamber is too loud, and I can't tell if their leaders actually swallow their own bullshit.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1846 by GDR, posted 02-21-2013 11:48 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1849 by GDR, posted 02-21-2013 1:39 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 1851 by dronestar, posted 02-21-2013 3:54 PM Rahvin has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 1848 of 5179 (691249)
02-21-2013 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1840 by Faith
02-21-2013 9:15 AM


Re: Self-defence
American Revolutionary War.
The Branch Davidians, Waco, Texas, 1993.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1840 by Faith, posted 02-21-2013 9:15 AM Faith has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1849 of 5179 (691256)
02-21-2013 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1847 by Rahvin
02-21-2013 12:08 PM


Re: Self-defence
Rahvin writes:
That's not entirely true. Mutually assured destruction has proven to work extremely well as a deterrent.
I think that it would work equally well with the most potent weapon available being a lot less potent. A nuclear war could virtually, if not actually, finish civilization. I still maintain that the world would be better off without any nuclear weapons.
Rahvin writes:
Only an idiot would give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization or otherwise allow a warhead to be used even in a covert fashion; analysis of the fallout from a nuclear initiation can readily identify the source of the fissile material used, and the source nation would be attacked in retribution (in other words, if North Korea gave Al Qaeda a nuke that was then detonated in the US, the US would quickly be able to tell that North Korea was the source, and would retaliate).
Idiot's exist and given enough time one of them will be in a position to provide a terrorist organization with a nuclear weapon. Don't forget, some of these groups have no problem with indiscriminate killing or blowing themselves up for their cause. These individuals can be found in our own societies so I don't think that Iran would be immune. It might not happen in our life time but as the technology improves nuclear weaponry will be more readily accessible. I still maintain that it would just be a matter of time. The trouble is, the genie is out of the box now and I have no idea of how it could be put back.
It's a pity that our ability to care for our neighbour hasn't advanced anywhere near as quickly as our ability to kill him.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1847 by Rahvin, posted 02-21-2013 12:08 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1850 by Rahvin, posted 02-21-2013 2:15 PM GDR has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 1850 of 5179 (691259)
02-21-2013 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1849 by GDR
02-21-2013 1:39 PM


Re: Self-defence
I think that it would work equally well with the most potent weapon available being a lot less potent.
It demonstrably has not. In WWII, long before the first use of nuclear weapons, conventional destructive power was already capable of destroying a city more thoroughly than a nuke. Despite the availability of extremely large quantities of conventional bombs, despite the well-known ability to burn and bomb entire cities to rubble, war was not averted.
Today, fuel-air bombs like the MOAB have multi-kiloton destructive capability, just as the first nuclear weapons...but nobody talks about a "MOAB deterrent."
Total annihilation of a nation's infrastructure could be performed through conventional means - we basically did that in Iraq. Mass casualties, too.
Nuclear weapons function as a deterrent because of the extra "fear-factor" they add to the equation. In large part this is because we can put multiple warheads onto a single ICBM and wipe out a large amount of infrastructure (and population) with a single weapon.
Note that new nuclear powers like North Korea don't have that ability. Relatively short-range missiles only, for them, with single warheads that have a much lower yield than what long-term members of the Nuclear Club tend to have.
A nuclear war could virtually, if not actually, finish civilization. I still maintain that the world would be better off without any nuclear weapons.
That's cold-war hyperbole, GDR. Nuclear war is certainly to be avoided, but to annihilate all human civilization would require a full international nuclear exchange targeting everybody. We're talking the US and Russia and China and Israel and Britain and everybody launching, not only at each other, but at everywhere. Even assuming the total nuclear stockpile of the world is sufficient to destroy civilization (which is a rather large assumption), the warring countries would have to purposefully target nations other than each other.
A nuclear exchange can destroy nations, it can possibly destroy cultures, but it won't annihilate all of civilization. Nuclear Winter is a myth. Nuclear weapons will annihilate their targets, fallout will provide a hazard for the surrounding area and to a lesser degree distant regions downwind, and secondary casualties will result from the destruction of the infrastructure. We could functionally wipe a small country "off the map," but we wouldn't kill off every single inhabitant; nuclear weapons wouldn't "glass" the country.
Look at it this way, GDR - more than one conventional war, which would include mass bombings, tank invasions, and boots ont he ground, has been avoided through the deterrent provided by nuclear weapons. If Iran's development of a nuclear weapon prevents the US chicken-hawks from launching another invasion, lives will be saved. The likelihood of Iran using that weapon in an aggressive act is vanishingly small - they already have a military, they could already attack Israel or try to smuggle weapons into the US for terrorists, and they do not because they are, behind the propaganda facade, rational actors who do not actually seek a military confrontation of any sort. They're afraid of the US pulling an Iraq, and justifiably so. They see a nuclear deterrent as a functional anti-invasion wall, and it would indeed work that way. I see no problem with letting them have exactly that. The understanding always exists that, if a nuclear weapon is actually used in an act of aggression, basically the rest of the world will annihilate your nation. The sort of suicidal idiots that blow themselves up in markets do not tend to rise to positions of national leadership.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1849 by GDR, posted 02-21-2013 1:39 PM GDR has not replied

dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(2)
Message 1851 of 5179 (691268)
02-21-2013 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1847 by Rahvin
02-21-2013 12:08 PM


Re: Self-defence
Rahvin writes:
Mutually assured destruction has proven to work extremely well as a deterrent.
But is that not the mantra of gun owners? Also, if you consider some close calls and serious consideration of limited nuclear weapons by US presidents, maybe we've just been lucky?
Rahvin writes:
the world is safer when minimally rational actors possess nuclear weapons.
Preparing, researching, funding for mass destruction should never be considered rational . . .
quote:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1847 by Rahvin, posted 02-21-2013 12:08 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1854 by Rahvin, posted 02-21-2013 7:47 PM dronestar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1852 of 5179 (691274)
02-21-2013 6:03 PM


This Thread Needs Some Entertainment
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1853 by Theodoric, posted 02-21-2013 6:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1861 by Taq, posted 02-22-2013 1:36 PM Faith has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 1853 of 5179 (691275)
02-21-2013 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1852 by Faith
02-21-2013 6:03 PM


Is there a point you are trying to make about the Battle of New Orleans. Please make it. I don't watch videos to try to glean someones argument.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1852 by Faith, posted 02-21-2013 6:03 PM Faith has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 1854 of 5179 (691285)
02-21-2013 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1851 by dronestar
02-21-2013 3:54 PM


Re: Self-defence
But is that not the mantra of gun owners? Also, if you consider some close calls and serious consideration of limited nuclear weapons by US presidents, maybe we've just been lucky?
Individual gun owners are intrinsically different from states on more points than I can reasonably address in a single post. A single burglar can be killed by a single gun owner, yet an invading nation has not in modern history ever been wiped out by a defending nation. While we cannot reasonably count on individual gun owners to be rational actors, we can reasonably count on heads of state to comprehend the consequences of military action. While a home invader has no foreknowledge of whether his target is armed, nuclear states tend to make it very well known that they have nuclear capability (even the "open secret" of Israel). An individual burglar puts only his own life and that of his victim at risk, while states place their entire populations, their cultures, their ways of life on the line. I can go on, at length, if required.
We have had some close calls - but in each instance, we saw evidence that nuclear powers are extremely reluctant at nearly every level (at least in terms of those relevant to "the button," not considering the public at large who are generally idiots) to actually launch a nuclear weapon. We've managed to go nearly 60 years without a nuclear attack - that's not a bad track record.
Preparing, researching, funding for mass destruction should never be considered rational . . .
"Never" is a strong word. Nuclear weapons research led to nuclear power, as just one example that even you should agree is positive. Nuclear "weapons" are also envisioned as a possible propulsion method for space exploration. Absolutes are rarely useful, Dronester.
You know the way to persuade me - show me the relative costs in human lives between a world with and a world without nuclear weapons. Right now, I think nuclear proliferation is less catastrophic than certain reactionaries would have us all believe.
quote:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
I very much like this quote from Eisenhower, Dronester. But the real world forbids us from becoming actual pacifists - defense spending will always exist. The question is simply where to spend that money. We've already begun reducing our nuclear arsenal, which I think is a good thing - there's just no point to having a race for the most nuclear weapons, it's not about numbers, it's about the ability to keep a strong deterrent, and we can do that just fine with fewer weapons.
And I'd rather spend money on keeping a moderate nuclear arsenal that we likely will never need to use and reduce the conventional forces that make force such an easy option in foreign diplomacy.
If America is actually invaded. you can be your ass we'll use nuclear weapons as a defense, and that's the point of the deterrent. A reduced conventional force would simply force us to let go of the "world police" role and stick to actual defense rather than invading more Iraqs.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1851 by dronestar, posted 02-21-2013 3:54 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1858 by dronestar, posted 02-22-2013 10:23 AM Rahvin has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 1855 of 5179 (691300)
02-21-2013 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1845 by Theodoric
02-21-2013 10:41 AM


Re: Self-defence
I was ignoring Faith's reference to the revolutionary war since it was out of context, but if we're going to talk about it then it is important to note that the colonists were revolting against an absentee government run from England, not their local governments. The revolt itself was carried out by the elected government of the colonists. The Continental Congress declared that they were at war with Great Britain, negotiated treaties with France for economic and military support, raised a standing army, and appointed General George Washington to lead it.
The kind of thing the gun advocates are thinking of is more like the Whiskey Rebellion back in the earliest days of the young US. Which by the way failed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1845 by Theodoric, posted 02-21-2013 10:41 AM Theodoric has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 1856 of 5179 (691314)
02-22-2013 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1836 by AZPaul3
02-21-2013 7:03 AM


Re: Self-defence
AZPaul3 writes:
As far as my "cheer," it was a reaction to your "jeer." I don't do jeers and where I think appropriate I try to counterbalance those that do.
Ditto. I'm especially irked when someone jeers a civil, thoughtful post merely because they disagree.
Sometimes someone clearly goes into a frenzy of jeer clicks, the jeers appearing rapidly, the jeered posts barely skimmed if read at all. It once made me think about those 1950s rats pushing buttons wired into their brains. The rats waste away, preferring the pleasure spikes to sustenance; it is more pleasurable (and easier) to jeer and sneer than to formulate a civil, thoughtful reply while expressing strong disagreement, and there is no sustenance in it for the mind.
As to Iran and North Korea (just to add a dash of on-topic): They clearly recognized that the U.S. never risks intervention in a nuclear-armed state. Indeed, the world has learned that lesson, and American military adventurism undoubtedly promotes nuclear proliferation.
As you say, every nation has every right, or at least rights as great as ours, to self-defense. If I governed a nation looked upon unfavorably by the U.S. in any way, I would make nuclear arms a top priority.
But states like North Korea and Iran, I fear, are flies in the Mutually Assured Destruction ointment: it works great until some of the MAD players really are.
Oops. I just meant to applaud your jeer-free and jeer-canceling policies.
Cheers!

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1836 by AZPaul3, posted 02-21-2013 7:03 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1857 by Faith, posted 02-22-2013 7:35 AM Omnivorous has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1857 of 5179 (691344)
02-22-2013 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1856 by Omnivorous
02-22-2013 12:39 AM


cheers and jeers
I would agree that jeers and cheers should not merely reflect what one agrees or disagrees with except that I have been jeered so often for perfectly civil posts, and some I worked hard at as well, therefore for what can only be disagreement, and often when I have absolutely no clue what provoked the jeer, I decided to do my best to bring down others' ratings for the same reason. Rahvin and Theodoric in particular throw jeers around like that. Way the game is played here, too bad but way it goes.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1856 by Omnivorous, posted 02-22-2013 12:39 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1862 by Omnivorous, posted 02-22-2013 1:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1863 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2013 2:59 PM Faith has replied

dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 1858 of 5179 (691382)
02-22-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1854 by Rahvin
02-21-2013 7:47 PM


Re: Self-defence
Rahvin writes:
Mutually assured destruction has proven to work extremely well as a deterrent.
Drone writes:
But is that not the mantra of gun owners?
Rahvin writes:
Individual gun owners are intrinsically different from states on more points than I can reasonably address in a single post.
Agreed, but I only meant that gun owners think their guns are a guaranteed deterrent to prevent violent acts upon themselves. It reality, gun ownership doesn't guarantee their safety, just like nuclear weapons didn't prevent 9/11.
Rahvin writes:
we can reasonably count on heads of state to comprehend the consequences of military action.
Have you that short a memory Rahvin?
Rahvin writes:
While a home invader has no foreknowledge of whether his target is armed, nuclear states tend to make it very well known that they have nuclear capability (even the "open secret" of Israel).
Nuclear weapons didn't stop the 9/11 terrorists or Hamas from lobbing missiles into Israel or Al Qaeda from attacking London's subway. Vast amounts of nuclear weapons will continue to be completely impotent against suicidal attacks.
Rahvin writes:
We have had some close calls - but in each instance, we saw evidence that nuclear powers are extremely reluctant at nearly every level (at least in terms of those relevant to "the button," not considering the public at large who are generally idiots) to actually launch a nuclear weapon. We've managed to go nearly 60 years without a nuclear attack - that's not a bad track record.
Again, can this just be luck, and if so, do you want to keep playing russian roulette?
Again, here is a typical US leader with his finger on 'the button.' Since Obama's foreign polices have not changed from Bush Jr.'s, I should think you would be terrified to sleep nights . . .
Drone writes:
Preparing, researching, funding for mass destruction should never be considered rational . . .
Rahvin writes:
"Never" is a strong word. Nuclear weapons research led to nuclear power, as just one example that even you should agree is positive. Nuclear "weapons" are also envisioned as a possible propulsion method for space exploration.
I just got back from India. There was crushing poverty, disease, and pollution in the major cities. The people didn't even have the dignity of defecating in private. If you'll allow me to speak for them, I think they would rather have clean water, safe food, shelter and clothing than space propulsion.
Rahvin writes:
Absolutes are rarely useful, Dronester.
Okay, I'll never use the word 'never' again.
Rahvin writes:
You know the way to persuade me - show me the relative costs in human lives between a world with and a world without nuclear weapons. Right now, I think nuclear proliferation is less catastrophic than certain reactionaries would have us all believe.
See my India example above, and re-read the Eisenhower quote.
Rahvin writes:
But the real world forbids us from becoming actual pacifists - defense spending will always exist.
Do you think this sounds like defeatist-talk? Also, I never have argued to reduce the military 100%. But really Rahvin, don't you believe we can do so much better than just accept the status quo. Where's your "fight the good fight" spirit?
Rahvin writes:
The question is simply where to spend that money. We've already begun reducing our nuclear arsenal, which I think is a good thing - there's just no point to having a race for the most nuclear weapons, it's not about numbers, it's about the ability to keep a strong deterrent, and we can do that just fine with fewer weapons.
Agreed. However, the US endangers the progression to a nuclear-free world when they keep doing nuclear testing. Especially unhelpful is the hypocrisy when the US tells Iran they cannot have any nuclear weapons while turning a blind eye towards India and Israel.
quote:
Nevada National Security Site had successfully detonated plutonium in a deep shaft on Wednesday (Dec. 5) to test the safety and effectiveness of US nuclear weapons.
U.S. Continues Nuclear Tests; Draws Condemnation From Iran ... and Bombed Japanese Cities - Activist Post
Rahvin writes:
And I'd rather spend money on keeping a moderate nuclear arsenal that we likely will never need to use and reduce the conventional forces that make force such an easy option in foreign diplomacy.
At the least, I think your word 'moderate' should be replaced with 'extremely small.'
Rahvin writes:
If America is actually invaded. you can bet your ass we'll use nuclear weapons as a defense, and that's the point of the deterrent.
Didn't stop 9/11. And really Rahvin, just what nation in your imagination is going to invade the US?
Rahvin writes:
A reduced conventional force would simply force us to let go of the "world police" role and stick to actual defense rather than invading more Iraqs.
A beautiful wish.
Edited by dronester, : My inline photos keep disappearing. Added new ones. (grrr)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1854 by Rahvin, posted 02-21-2013 7:47 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1859 by Rahvin, posted 02-22-2013 12:27 PM dronestar has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 1859 of 5179 (691453)
02-22-2013 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1858 by dronestar
02-22-2013 10:23 AM


Re: Self-defence
Hi Dronester,
Your reply was lengthy but comprised very few actual points, so I'll forgo repeating myself in a similarly lengthy post.
9/11 was the act of a terrorist organization, not a state. It was, by definition, not an act of war. Nuclear weapons cannot provide a deterrent against terrorist acts - they can only provide a deterrent against acts of war from an established state. You mentioned various other terrorist acts...but nothing ont he state level. Hamas is the closest, but Israel won;t nuke a part of what it sees as it's own territory...the Israel/Palestine conflict bears more resemblance to an internal dispute, like a "cold" civil war, than it does to a foreign aggressor.
How many nuclear powers have been invaded since they attained nuclear capability? I'll wait.
Even Bush was well aware of the consequences of military action, Dronester - he knew full well that Iraq could not retaliate. Sure, the war was bloodier than he expected, but you'll note that he didn't attack, for example, North Korea, because they do have the ability to retaliate (on our military base in South Korea, as well as out strong allies the South Koreans themselves).
If Iraq had actually had nuclear weapons...there would have been no invasion, because sending troops against a nuclear-armed state would have meant risking our troops or our allies being nuked.
As usual, you argue using a series of red herrings, irrelevancies, straw men, and lots and lots of Bush-hating. I get it. You hate Bush. I hate the shrub, too. But the monkey pictures don't advance your argument. And neither does bringing up 9/11 and Al Qaeda in a discussion about nuclear deterrents preventing acts of war from foreign states.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1858 by dronestar, posted 02-22-2013 10:23 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1860 by dronestar, posted 02-22-2013 1:25 PM Rahvin has not replied

dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 1860 of 5179 (691469)
02-22-2013 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1859 by Rahvin
02-22-2013 12:27 PM


Re: Self-defence
Rahvin writes:
Your reply was lengthy but comprised very few actual points, so I'll forgo repeating myself in a similarly lengthy post.
It seems you are irritated that I contested your individual points? If I skipped your individual points would you then be criticizing me for ignoring your individual points?
Rahvin writes:
Nuclear weapons cannot provide a deterrent against terrorist acts - they can only provide a deterrent against acts of war from an established state.
Errr, . . . I don't think I contested that. Though I did question the quantity you think is needed. In light of mankind's other pressing problems in the world, would you like to re-address the issue of quantity?
Rahvin writes:
How many nuclear powers have been invaded since they attained nuclear capability? I'll wait.
By asking this it seems you are ok with terrorists causing destruction to a nation as long as they don't invade. I'll ask again, in your imagination, which nation wants to invade the US?
I'll wait.
Rahvin writes:
Even Bush was well aware of the consequences of military action, Dronester
That is supposition. I'll equally maintain Bush Jr. is a mildly mentally retarded former coke-user with no empathetic awareness whatsoever.
Rahvin writes:
Sure, the war was bloodier than he expected, but you'll note that he didn't attack, for example, North Korea, because they do have the ability to retaliate (on our military base in South Korea, as well as out strong allies the South Koreans themselves).
I would assert that Bush didn't invade North Korea because there was no oil there.
Rahvin writes:
If Iraq had actually had nuclear weapons...there would have been no invasion, because sending troops against a nuclear-armed state would have meant risking our troops or our allies being nuked.
No argument here, I stated this many times: The lesson learned from the Iraq war is that EVERYBODY should acquire nuclear weapons to defend against US hegemony. The gun proponents use a similar argument when acquiring their vast stashes of weapons too. Is the end result good?
Rahvin writes:
As usual, you argue using a series of red herrings, irrelevancies, straw men, and lots and lots of Bush-hating. I get it. You hate Bush. I hate the shrub, too. But the monkey pictures don't advance your argument.
Actually, the Bush/monkey photo was used to 'nuke' your erroneous notion that "we can reasonably count on heads of state to comprehend the consequences of military action."
In addition, on an inner level, it surrrrrre felt good.
A win-win scenario for me, eh?
Rahvin writes:
And neither does bringing up 9/11 and Al Qaeda in a discussion about nuclear deterrents preventing acts of war from foreign states.
Sadly, you've somehow accepted that the world absolutely MUST be this way. Americans MUST continue voting for leaders who violate treaties and international law. Everybody then MUST acquire nuclear weapons for defense. Gun owners MUST see terror and threats on every corner. Gun owners MUST buy MORE guns.
Sigh.
Rahvin, please re-read my post. Is there any possibility it was written in the hope to show there ARE other options, and a bigger picture to consider?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1859 by Rahvin, posted 02-22-2013 12:27 PM Rahvin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024