weapons of mass destruction

Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Nov 2010, 7:41 pm

nullnaught wrote:

Thank you for all your input.

The main point is that Pandora's box is open and the knowledge and technology is now up for grabs. It seems unlikely that nuclear weapons will be offered at Walmart but all sorts of nefarious characters are eager to hurt lots of innocent people and you can plainly see by the action /(or inaction) of the current US Congress that the stupid people control the world.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

26 Nov 2010, 7:51 pm

nullnaught wrote:

@ 91 I can not believe you are bringing in moraltiy into this. All morals are subjective. And you should realize that. How does any countries culture become more superior than anothers? And i did not know that our constitution says the united states can defend itself and keep others from doing so. IF so please let me know.

I personally don’t have any problem with the concept of morality in international relations. I believe the international system is at its best when it is supported by moral clarity. I can understand that there are a great deal of moral systems at work within the international system. Therefore it is reasonable to work with more practical assumptions when working on issues that are not clear cut. If you want to see what happens when moral relativism gets applied to Human Rights, check out the United Nations Human Rights Council; you will discover that relativism just isn’t livable when you want to condemn anyone.

We are talking about two issues though; relativism on its own is relatively benign, when it is combined with moral equivalence, then the international system is grasped by paralysis. I will not argue that the United States has not done wrong actions; that does not mean that it is not entitled to a say when it comes to how the international system is run. The reason for this is twofold; one, as a democratic state it is automatically more responsible than a nondemocratic state (please see democratic peace theory before you blow a gasket at this) and two, when people say, ‘the United Nations must do x’, they invariably mean, ‘the United States should do x’. Whatever the outcomes, the biggest international actor is the United States and its military will usually be expected to solve every problem.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Nov 2010, 9:09 pm

ruveyn wrote:

nullnaught wrote:

I don't understand why the united states is allowed weapons of mass destruction while certain other countries aren't. Now if the united states was the boss of the world i'd understand. But i dont believe the united states is. Shouldn't what happens in other coutries be none of the united states bussiness. And doesn't this make the united states look like nothing but a big bully

The biggest and the strongest. But not as strong as Rome in her prime.

For a little over 200 years, very few people f*cked with the Romans.

ruveyn

I think the USA plays a similar peacekeeping role as Rome did.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Nov 2010, 9:15 pm

91 wrote:

nullnaught wrote:

It is quite amazing to me how someone who lays claim to morality and awareness and intellect can be so totally blind to the nefarious and violently self interested operations of the USA from its inception to current actions and policies.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Nov 2010, 10:23 pm

Sand wrote:

All nations behave badly. And the U.S. is not the worst. So what are you complaining about?

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Nov 2010, 11:49 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

All nations behave badly. And the U.S. is not the worst. So what are you complaining about?

ruveyn

Again and again the same horses**t about one example of extremely bad behavior being excused by examples of other bad behavior. I am seriously in doubt about your claims of superior IQ. If you've got it be aware it needs exercise.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

27 Nov 2010, 12:08 am

Sand wrote:

I am seriously in doubt about your claims of superior IQ.

He's well educated but he seems very sheltered.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Nov 2010, 6:09 am

skafather84 wrote:

Sand wrote:

I am seriously in doubt about your claims of superior IQ.

He's well educated but he seems very sheltered.

Sheltered from what? Realizing that war is going to go on no matter what or sheltered from liberal pc crap about how knives and pointy things are evil in and of themselves?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Nov 2010, 7:29 am

Sand wrote:

Daily and often. I do not buy into your kind of bullsh*t. Typical of the Left, you are. You truly believe that your assumptions are True, Right and above all Self Evident.

When you going to realize that Humans are an advanced form of Ape. We are not Gods. We dump solid waste daily and we live for our moment. We are NOT Good. As Primates go we do well for ourselves in the material sense, but we are not a Nice species.

ruveyn

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Nov 2010, 7:38 am

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

You don't need to be an evolutionist to realize that humans are horrible, such as "All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." - Psalms 14:3, 53:3, Romans 3:12

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

27 Nov 2010, 1:33 pm

nullnaught wrote:

Thank you for all your input.

Thanks for asking a good question.

Trouble is there is no good easy answer.

My girlfriend agrees with you- we are being bullies and hypocrites.

Im for non-proliferation. The fewer itchy fingers on the trigger the better.
But I have to concede that you cant copyright the laws of nature. Nuclear power, and nuclear bomb capability are going to spread eventually. You can delay its spread but not stop it. So theres not much we can do about it in the long run- even if we do allow ourselves to be bullies.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Nov 2010, 2:38 pm

Still, it's a good idea to reduce the rate of WMD acquirement by nations whose leaders have expressed interest in using them for the sake of fulfilling their desired version of the Apocalypse.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

27 Nov 2010, 2:45 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Still, it's a good idea to reduce the rate of WMD acquirement by nations whose leaders have expressed interest in using them for the sake of fulfilling their desired version of the Apocalypse.

Although North Korea seems a possible danger point The very well armed and highly paranoid Israel looks far more likely to break the abstinence of nuclear use since Hiroshima. It is a very loose cannon.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Nov 2010, 2:55 pm

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Still, it's a good idea to reduce the rate of WMD acquirement by nations whose leaders have expressed interest in using them for the sake of fulfilling their desired version of the Apocalypse.

The last nuclear weapon exploded by Jews was the Trinity T est early in 1945.

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

27 Nov 2010, 2:57 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Still, it's a good idea to reduce the rate of WMD acquirement by nations whose leaders have expressed interest in using them for the sake of fulfilling their desired version of the Apocalypse.

The last nuclear weapon exploded by Jews was the Trinity T est early in 1945.

ruveyn

And here I thought it was the presence of Hungarians that did it..

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Nov 2010, 2:59 pm

Sand wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Still, it's a good idea to reduce the rate of WMD acquirement by nations whose leaders have expressed interest in using them for the sake of fulfilling their desired version of the Apocalypse.

The last nuclear weapon exploded by Jews was the Trinity T est early in 1945.

ruveyn

And here I thought it was the presence of Hungarians that did it..

Richard Feynman was there also.

Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

weapons of mass destruction Post Reply New Topic

weapons of mass destruction