Alan Watts on modern warfare
17 Oct 2010, 5:23 am
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I can only assume you cannot find fault with my logic and therefore must attack me personally. It's not a technique I admire.
What logic? You called me naive and didn't advance any ideas of your own. I called you on this, you accused me of oversensitivity, and I replied by pointing out a pattern in your posts that makes you frustrating to debate with; not some unassailable logic you possess but an unassailable gloom. Make a point using logic and I'll respond in kind.
This is your statement : "Bringing us back to Atomics, they were always out there just waiting to be discovered, there is no morality associated with the decision to pursue that line of research. Like all technology, putting the genie back in the bottle isn't really an option, so we need to learn to live with the things, which we mostly manage just fine."
I merely indicated that your absolute trust in a world full of fanatics and power driven policies you were naive to express full confidence in the wisdom of humanity to control the immense force of atomic weaponry. That did not in any way indicate I knew or was required to know how to control or suppress this obvious insanity. And if you believe this basic distrust of mine is the result of some odd dour personality defect I can only suggest your view of political and social realities is sorely lacking.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Oct 2010, 5:45 am
Sand wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I can only assume you cannot find fault with my logic and therefore must attack me personally. It's not a technique I admire.
What logic? You called me naive and didn't advance any ideas of your own. I called you on this, you accused me of oversensitivity, and I replied by pointing out a pattern in your posts that makes you frustrating to debate with; not some unassailable logic you possess but an unassailable gloom. Make a point using logic and I'll respond in kind.
This is your statement : "Bringing us back to Atomics, they were always out there just waiting to be discovered, there is no morality associated with the decision to pursue that line of research. Like all technology, putting the genie back in the bottle isn't really an option, so we need to learn to live with the things, which we mostly manage just fine."
I merely indicated that your absolute trust in a world full of fanatics and power driven policies you were naive to express full confidence in the wisdom of humanity to control the immense force of atomic weaponry. That did not in any way indicate I knew or was required to know how to control or suppress this obvious insanity. And if you believe this basic distrust of mine is the result of some odd dour personality defect I can only suggest your view of political and social realities is sorely lacking.
We do live in a world full of fanatics, however disarmament by more rational nations would not mean disarmament by nations with insane leadership. A nation with sane leadership disarming themselves of atomic weaponry while nations with insane leadership pursue and develop atomic weaponry is like being in a standoff with a serial killer, disarming yourself, and letting the serial killer be the only one with a weapon. Then you are purely at the mercy of the serial killer.
17 Oct 2010, 6:17 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I can only assume you cannot find fault with my logic and therefore must attack me personally. It's not a technique I admire.
What logic? You called me naive and didn't advance any ideas of your own. I called you on this, you accused me of oversensitivity, and I replied by pointing out a pattern in your posts that makes you frustrating to debate with; not some unassailable logic you possess but an unassailable gloom. Make a point using logic and I'll respond in kind.
This is your statement : "Bringing us back to Atomics, they were always out there just waiting to be discovered, there is no morality associated with the decision to pursue that line of research. Like all technology, putting the genie back in the bottle isn't really an option, so we need to learn to live with the things, which we mostly manage just fine."
I merely indicated that your absolute trust in a world full of fanatics and power driven policies you were naive to express full confidence in the wisdom of humanity to control the immense force of atomic weaponry. That did not in any way indicate I knew or was required to know how to control or suppress this obvious insanity. And if you believe this basic distrust of mine is the result of some odd dour personality defect I can only suggest your view of political and social realities is sorely lacking.
We do live in a world full of fanatics, however disarmament by more rational nations would not mean disarmament by nations with insane leadership. A nation with sane leadership disarming themselves of atomic weaponry while nations with insane leadership pursue and develop atomic weaponry is like being in a standoff with a serial killer, disarming yourself, and letting the serial killer be the only one with a weapon. Then you are purely at the mercy of the serial killer.
The concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is valid only if all participating parties are rational and confident an opponent would be deterred from attack by the thought of retaliation . In a nuclear armed world with some participants irrational and fanatical and self assured of the devastation of a first strike as total, being nuclear equipped to strike back is no guarantee of safety at all.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Oct 2010, 6:27 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I can only assume you cannot find fault with my logic and therefore must attack me personally. It's not a technique I admire.
What logic? You called me naive and didn't advance any ideas of your own. I called you on this, you accused me of oversensitivity, and I replied by pointing out a pattern in your posts that makes you frustrating to debate with; not some unassailable logic you possess but an unassailable gloom. Make a point using logic and I'll respond in kind.
This is your statement : "Bringing us back to Atomics, they were always out there just waiting to be discovered, there is no morality associated with the decision to pursue that line of research. Like all technology, putting the genie back in the bottle isn't really an option, so we need to learn to live with the things, which we mostly manage just fine."
I merely indicated that your absolute trust in a world full of fanatics and power driven policies you were naive to express full confidence in the wisdom of humanity to control the immense force of atomic weaponry. That did not in any way indicate I knew or was required to know how to control or suppress this obvious insanity. And if you believe this basic distrust of mine is the result of some odd dour personality defect I can only suggest your view of political and social realities is sorely lacking.
We do live in a world full of fanatics, however disarmament by more rational nations would not mean disarmament by nations with insane leadership. A nation with sane leadership disarming themselves of atomic weaponry while nations with insane leadership pursue and develop atomic weaponry is like being in a standoff with a serial killer, disarming yourself, and letting the serial killer be the only one with a weapon. Then you are purely at the mercy of the serial killer.
The concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is valid only if all participating parties are rational and confident an opponent would be deterred from attack by the thought of retaliation . In a nuclear armed world with some participants irrational and fanatical and self assured of the devastation of a first strike as total, being nuclear equipped to strike back is no guarantee of safety at all.
MAD ought to be adjusted so as to take into account insane people wielding nuclear weapons, not discarded completely.
17 Oct 2010, 6:30 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I can only assume you cannot find fault with my logic and therefore must attack me personally. It's not a technique I admire.
What logic? You called me naive and didn't advance any ideas of your own. I called you on this, you accused me of oversensitivity, and I replied by pointing out a pattern in your posts that makes you frustrating to debate with; not some unassailable logic you possess but an unassailable gloom. Make a point using logic and I'll respond in kind.
This is your statement : "Bringing us back to Atomics, they were always out there just waiting to be discovered, there is no morality associated with the decision to pursue that line of research. Like all technology, putting the genie back in the bottle isn't really an option, so we need to learn to live with the things, which we mostly manage just fine."
I merely indicated that your absolute trust in a world full of fanatics and power driven policies you were naive to express full confidence in the wisdom of humanity to control the immense force of atomic weaponry. That did not in any way indicate I knew or was required to know how to control or suppress this obvious insanity. And if you believe this basic distrust of mine is the result of some odd dour personality defect I can only suggest your view of political and social realities is sorely lacking.
We do live in a world full of fanatics, however disarmament by more rational nations would not mean disarmament by nations with insane leadership. A nation with sane leadership disarming themselves of atomic weaponry while nations with insane leadership pursue and develop atomic weaponry is like being in a standoff with a serial killer, disarming yourself, and letting the serial killer be the only one with a weapon. Then you are purely at the mercy of the serial killer.
The concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is valid only if all participating parties are rational and confident an opponent would be deterred from attack by the thought of retaliation . In a nuclear armed world with some participants irrational and fanatical and self assured of the devastation of a first strike as total, being nuclear equipped to strike back is no guarantee of safety at all.
MAD ought to be adjusted so as to take into account insane people wielding nuclear weapons, not discarded completely.
What adjustments do you suggest?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Oct 2010, 6:46 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I can only assume you cannot find fault with my logic and therefore must attack me personally. It's not a technique I admire.
What logic? You called me naive and didn't advance any ideas of your own. I called you on this, you accused me of oversensitivity, and I replied by pointing out a pattern in your posts that makes you frustrating to debate with; not some unassailable logic you possess but an unassailable gloom. Make a point using logic and I'll respond in kind.
This is your statement : "Bringing us back to Atomics, they were always out there just waiting to be discovered, there is no morality associated with the decision to pursue that line of research. Like all technology, putting the genie back in the bottle isn't really an option, so we need to learn to live with the things, which we mostly manage just fine."
I merely indicated that your absolute trust in a world full of fanatics and power driven policies you were naive to express full confidence in the wisdom of humanity to control the immense force of atomic weaponry. That did not in any way indicate I knew or was required to know how to control or suppress this obvious insanity. And if you believe this basic distrust of mine is the result of some odd dour personality defect I can only suggest your view of political and social realities is sorely lacking.
We do live in a world full of fanatics, however disarmament by more rational nations would not mean disarmament by nations with insane leadership. A nation with sane leadership disarming themselves of atomic weaponry while nations with insane leadership pursue and develop atomic weaponry is like being in a standoff with a serial killer, disarming yourself, and letting the serial killer be the only one with a weapon. Then you are purely at the mercy of the serial killer.
The concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is valid only if all participating parties are rational and confident an opponent would be deterred from attack by the thought of retaliation . In a nuclear armed world with some participants irrational and fanatical and self assured of the devastation of a first strike as total, being nuclear equipped to strike back is no guarantee of safety at all.
MAD ought to be adjusted so as to take into account insane people wielding nuclear weapons, not discarded completely.
What adjustments do you suggest?
I'd have to think of it since I don't know and I'm not an expert as to how to best deal with people who want to bring about their version of the Apocalypse. Perhaps have better communications between nations such as America and Russia and China constantly going, give those more sane nations Airborne Laser platform technology and have the skies of the middleeast flooded with ABLs so as to, at least, stop ICBM based attacks. There ought to be inspections of cargo on planes and ships prior to them entering harbors or leaving airports of nations who have rallies where people call America "The Great Satan"™ or otherwise publicly chart "death to" this or "death to" that whenever they get the least offended. Either way, disarming nations which have leaders and governments who aren't so trigger happy and easily offended while permitting nations with the opposite form of leadership to possess nuclear weaponry is a rather bad idea.
17 Oct 2010, 6:54 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I can only assume you cannot find fault with my logic and therefore must attack me personally. It's not a technique I admire.
What logic? You called me naive and didn't advance any ideas of your own. I called you on this, you accused me of oversensitivity, and I replied by pointing out a pattern in your posts that makes you frustrating to debate with; not some unassailable logic you possess but an unassailable gloom. Make a point using logic and I'll respond in kind.
This is your statement : "Bringing us back to Atomics, they were always out there just waiting to be discovered, there is no morality associated with the decision to pursue that line of research. Like all technology, putting the genie back in the bottle isn't really an option, so we need to learn to live with the things, which we mostly manage just fine."
I merely indicated that your absolute trust in a world full of fanatics and power driven policies you were naive to express full confidence in the wisdom of humanity to control the immense force of atomic weaponry. That did not in any way indicate I knew or was required to know how to control or suppress this obvious insanity. And if you believe this basic distrust of mine is the result of some odd dour personality defect I can only suggest your view of political and social realities is sorely lacking.
We do live in a world full of fanatics, however disarmament by more rational nations would not mean disarmament by nations with insane leadership. A nation with sane leadership disarming themselves of atomic weaponry while nations with insane leadership pursue and develop atomic weaponry is like being in a standoff with a serial killer, disarming yourself, and letting the serial killer be the only one with a weapon. Then you are purely at the mercy of the serial killer.
The concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is valid only if all participating parties are rational and confident an opponent would be deterred from attack by the thought of retaliation . In a nuclear armed world with some participants irrational and fanatical and self assured of the devastation of a first strike as total, being nuclear equipped to strike back is no guarantee of safety at all.
MAD ought to be adjusted so as to take into account insane people wielding nuclear weapons, not discarded completely.
What adjustments do you suggest?
I'd have to think of it since I don't know and I'm not an expert as to how to best deal with people who want to bring about their version of the Apocalypse. Perhaps have better communications between nations such as America and Russia and China constantly going, give those more sane nations Airborne Laser platform technology and have the skies of the middleeast flooded with ABLs so as to, at least, stop ICBM based attacks. There ought to be inspections of cargo on planes and ships prior to them entering harbors or leaving airports of nations who have rallies where people call America "The Great Satan"™ or otherwise publicly chart "death to" this or "death to" that whenever they get the least offended. Either way, disarming nations which have leaders and governments who aren't so trigger happy and easily offended while permitting nations with the opposite form of leadership to possess nuclear weaponry is a rather bad idea.
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
17 Oct 2010, 6:55 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I can only assume you cannot find fault with my logic and therefore must attack me personally. It's not a technique I admire.
What logic? You called me naive and didn't advance any ideas of your own. I called you on this, you accused me of oversensitivity, and I replied by pointing out a pattern in your posts that makes you frustrating to debate with; not some unassailable logic you possess but an unassailable gloom. Make a point using logic and I'll respond in kind.
This is your statement : "Bringing us back to Atomics, they were always out there just waiting to be discovered, there is no morality associated with the decision to pursue that line of research. Like all technology, putting the genie back in the bottle isn't really an option, so we need to learn to live with the things, which we mostly manage just fine."
I merely indicated that your absolute trust in a world full of fanatics and power driven policies you were naive to express full confidence in the wisdom of humanity to control the immense force of atomic weaponry. That did not in any way indicate I knew or was required to know how to control or suppress this obvious insanity. And if you believe this basic distrust of mine is the result of some odd dour personality defect I can only suggest your view of political and social realities is sorely lacking.
We do live in a world full of fanatics, however disarmament by more rational nations would not mean disarmament by nations with insane leadership. A nation with sane leadership disarming themselves of atomic weaponry while nations with insane leadership pursue and develop atomic weaponry is like being in a standoff with a serial killer, disarming yourself, and letting the serial killer be the only one with a weapon. Then you are purely at the mercy of the serial killer.
The concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is valid only if all participating parties are rational and confident an opponent would be deterred from attack by the thought of retaliation . In a nuclear armed world with some participants irrational and fanatical and self assured of the devastation of a first strike as total, being nuclear equipped to strike back is no guarantee of safety at all.
MAD ought to be adjusted so as to take into account insane people wielding nuclear weapons, not discarded completely.
What adjustments do you suggest?
I'd have to think of it since I don't know and I'm not an expert as to how to best deal with people who want to bring about their version of the Apocalypse. Perhaps have better communications between nations such as America and Russia and China constantly going, give those more sane nations Airborne Laser platform technology and have the skies of the middleeast flooded with ABLs so as to, at least, stop ICBM based attacks. There ought to be inspections of cargo on planes and ships prior to them entering harbors or leaving airports of nations who have rallies where people call America "The Great Satan"™ or otherwise publicly chart "death to" this or "death to" that whenever they get the least offended. Either way, disarming nations which have leaders and governments who aren't so trigger happy and easily offended while permitting nations with the opposite form of leadership to possess nuclear weaponry is a rather bad idea.
But America already HAS nukes. Inspecting incoming cargo would never stop them!
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Oct 2010, 7:24 am
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
17 Oct 2010, 7:28 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Oct 2010, 7:30 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
17 Oct 2010, 7:34 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Oct 2010, 7:37 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
17 Oct 2010, 7:39 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
Since you're religious prayer seems more practical. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.
17 Oct 2010, 7:39 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
Since you're religious prayer seems more practical. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.
What strikes me as most peculiar is your admission that being nuclear armed is no protection from a massive first strike. Why are you so determined to hold on to these useless dangerous devices?
Last edited by Sand on 17 Oct 2010, 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Oct 2010, 7:55 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
Since you're religious prayer seems more practical. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.
Practical or not, if you want to feel as close to 100% secure as possible, then leaving the planet due to the prospect of unwanted fireworks is the solution. If you just wish to keep nay-saying and contradicting everything in order to feel important, that's your business too.
