Alan Watts on modern warfare

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rAjI1sNfTU[/youtube]
I personally think all the nukes in the world need to be destroyed right now. Every country should destroy their nukes even if the others don't agree.

Watts never heard of a tactical nuke before? Nuclear weapons with yields of less than a kiloton can be made and in fact are made. They are essentially the bunker busters that can take out missile silos. Strategic nukes (so-called) are the megaton weapons and are only contemplate as second strike weapons, to be used when one is loosing. Think of Sampson. He used his great strength to bring down the Temple of Dagon in Gaza on his enemies AND himself. The megaton weapons are weapons of desperation and no rational strategist will consider using them right off.

ruveyn

Frankly, I'd be more concerned about irrational people using them.

Nukes are the only reason we're not on World War VIII right now. They've saved millions of lives.

Cause every ruler of a country wants to have the biggest,most and best weapons under the guise that its for protection
their ideology is whoever has the biggest stick wins

The Japanese tried unilateral disarmament in the 1500 or 1600's regarding guns; it didn't go well for them. Mind you that in their case the reason was to prop up an overbearing warrior class, the samurai, not some moral rejection. Guns were too egalitarian for their society, the numerically few samurai couldn't oppress the masses if any lowly peasant could bring one down with a well placed bullet.

Samurai: Prepare for your death you lowly peasant!

Peasant: Like to see musketball, you would. *Boom*

Yep, the Daimo couldn't have the proletariat busting caps in their samurai's exquisitely trained and extremely expensive asses, it just wouldn't do at all. So they tried to close Pandora's box only to have it bite them all in the ass when Europeans and Americans showed up with guns. Look at any Japanese designed firearms from the WWII era to see just how behind they still were at that point.

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.

There is a certain time lag between the original innovation of atomic weapons and how long it takes to seep into general culture. With a planet well spiced with idiotic and vicious maniacs your confidence in controlling this menace is grossly misplaced. Pakistan seems, perhaps, the most likely place for the first major tragedy.

And your idea/solution would be...? Anyone can tear down other people's posts, but that's hardly contributing to the discussion.

Goodness you are sensitive. I merely indicated conditions and consequences. Does that feel like a personal assault? You are asking me how to make humanity act sensibly. Why do you think I have any answers?

[quote="Sand"

There is a certain time lag between the original innovation of atomic weapons and how long it takes to seep into general culture. With a planet well spiced with idiotic and vicious maniacs your confidence in controlling this menace is grossly misplaced. Pakistan seems, perhaps, the most likely place for the first major tragedy.[/quote]

I see Pakistan as a greater nuclear danger source than N. Korea. What happens when nuclear devices, especially small nukes, are passed by the Pakistani folk to the terrorist groups? Such things do not bode will for the United States.

Looking back, I sort of wish that the Trinity Test failed and the U.S. had not used nuclear weapons to end the Pacific War. That is one Djinn that were best left in the lamp. The U.S. would have won the war without nuclear weapons although at a higher cost in casualties.

ruveyn

I'm sort of referring to a pattern here Sand, very seldom do you actually contribute an idea or propose a solution, you're content to sit on the sidelines and poke holes in other people's posts. You put on airs of wisdom, but only seem to use it in a pessimistic, world weary sort of way that can be frustrating to deal with sometimes. If someone by chance comes up with something and backstops it to your satisfaction with data and details, more often than not you move the goal posts and say it wouldn't work for this situation; I've seen you do it and been on the receiving end.

"Debating" with you can be like having a conversation with an acid tongued version of Eeyore, the depressed donkey from Winnie the Pooh, does any of this sound familiar?:



All that's missing is the condescending humor and occasional aggressiveness, otherwise it's a pretty accurate description.

It's a scary thought what would happen. I'm sure the US and India have contingency plans if they felt Pakistan's nuclear weapons were ever compromised but would it would involve I dunno. The only two solutions I could think of would be a massive invasion by the US and India to disarm Pakistan's nukes before they could be used but Mujaheddin or the Pakistani government/military would probably launch a retaliatory nuclear strike no matter who had control of the nukes. That's no small task either, this is a country of a 175 million people. The other course of action is preemptive nuclear strike to on their nuclear facilities which would risk being nuked in retaliation too if they weren't all destroyed.

Now would be a good time to invest in missile defense.

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.