What do you think of this?

soph · 2003-01-06 15:43:07

Who are we to keep tabs on anyone? why do we have a nuclear monopoly, along with russia?

and your post clearly states if they were overrun. as i said, having nuclear weapons doesnt necessarily mean we have to attack them. im divided on this issue. on one hand, sovereignty is at stake. on another WMDs are dangerous, and i think nobody should have them, including us.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 15:55:02

Without WMD's, we would have gone to war with the Soviets back in the 1960's. This whole planet would have been devestated by the Cold War, instead of being a peaceful rivalry between two nations that ultimately diffused itself, with us on top.

And we have a right to keep tabs on people because they are living in OUR country, and they pose a threat to OUR safety. We should keep tabs on nukes because it's our ass on the line.

soph · 2003-01-06 19:13:44

and should north korea invade us because we have nuclear weapons? why havent we stopped china? im right on a lot of things, but this is bullying at its finest.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 22:21:08

We had the chance to stop China back in the 1960's. All it would have taken was a few strategic thermonuclear detonations at their key facilities and the whole program would have been lost. Nixon (or maybe it was Johnson) felt that China couldn't pose that much of a threat, especially when Asia was as hostile of a place as it was. I guess that short-sightedness really leaves us in a bind...

And we can invade North Korea because we're not a rogue state. The US wouldn't launch our missiles if we were being invaded (which would never happen, but it's something we need to think about, nonetheless). North Korea has questionable integrity, they will use their weapons to create an uncomfortable amount of leverage on our allies in Asia, and if they continue to starve and experience economic destruction like they have up until now, who knows what kind of "blackmail" North Korea may be able to get away with. We will be the prisoners of North Korea's threat because we didn't act swiftly now while there's still time.

soph · 2003-01-07 05:32:52

Thanks for rehashing the party line.

ah, using nukes on china, i see. theyre not people just like us? We decide who lives and dies based on our power monopoly on nukes? I completely disagree with this point of view.

AltToWar · 2003-01-08 00:43:43

while we are at it, I think we should just nuke the middle east, burn it till the sand turns to glass.

then we pave it all over, and turn it into one giant starbucks.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-08 14:57:57

We decide who lives and dies by harnessing aggessors (ie North vs. South Vietnam, North vs. South Korea, Iraqis vs. Kurds, etc.)

while we are at it, I think we should just nuke the middle east, burn it till the sand turns to glass.
then we pave it all over, and turn it into one giant starbucks.

I hate it when people lose all faith in humanity. I read this stupid poem about how we'll end up paving everything over and placing white cubes for buildings to make everything homogenous, and then we'll all walk barefoot through the grass and eat eels by the light of the moon. Bight me.

If it weren't for those 2000 ICBMS sitting in their silos, you'd be toast right now, soph. Be grateful for them.

clark · 2003-01-08 15:06:10

I for one am very grateful that myself, my family, my friends, and everyone else on the planet is held hostage to a few individuals authorized to obliterate us and any hope of a future.

Very very very very very very grateful.

soph · 2003-01-08 15:06:23

Why cant you look at anything from the perspective of the North Koreans, Pakistanis, etc. Why should they have any less right than us? They should assume that they are inferior?

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-08 15:17:54

They aren't inferior; they pose a threat. As a powerful, soverign nation in the position we are, we have a right to contain possible aggressors.

And clark, you're not being held hostage. You're just hiding under the shield.

clark · 2003-01-08 15:37:13

Cal, in the case of a nuclear confrontation, who dies?

If you are a smart cookie, you will say "millions upon millions of people".

But who would those peopel be, civilians or our glourious leaders?

Last time I checked, there was contingency plans to protect our politcal, military, and scientific elite in the case of a nuclear war.

I think I was taught to "duck and cover".

MAD, which you seem to go gaga over is based on the idea that no country would attack another becuase each sides entire population is being held hostage.

Kings used to send their children to live with other Kings as collateral- in effect hostages. this systems was updated for the modern era.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-08 21:19:13

I don't understand clark. Was that a response to my last post? I've been saying that North Korea's real threat is that it doesn't play by MAD. That's why we should disarm them.

Weren't the 60's goofy? I mean, like hiding under your desk or under a newspaper during a nuclear attack would save you.

soph · 2003-01-08 21:23:32

The world hates us for being big brother. why should we perpetuate that hatred?

clark · 2003-01-09 09:25:05

And clark, you're not being held hostage. You're just hiding under the shield.

That was what i was responding to.

? I've been saying that North Korea's real threat is that it doesn't play by MAD. That's why we should disarm them.

Our ability to COMPLETLY ANIHILATE THEM makes your suggestion that "because they don't play the same crazy game" a bit silly. N.Korea will not attack the US, or it's allies for the simple reason that ALL of N.Korea would be obliterated.

If N.Korea is capable of striking the US with nuclear weapons that only means we can't run roughshod over them. We have to consider their point of view since they would have the ability to cause some pretty heavy damage to us. That's why we don't want third world nations with nuclear weapons- it destroys any possibility for unilateralism.

The 60's were indeed goofy- so has every decade since. "Duck and cover" has been taught to US school children well into the 80's as well.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-09 17:38:03

Exactly clark, we like stomping third world nations, because it's so utterly easy. We wouldn't be able to do that, and would have to resort to diplomacy otherwise. This is why we're trying to build this ludicrous defense shield. So that we tell ourselves that even third world nations with nukes aren't an issue.

soph · 2003-01-09 17:39:35

if the thing could work, i would have no problem with it. whats wrong with defense? but i dont think it can work, so the simple economics of it makes me angry.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-09 17:47:05

It can't work because it's an exponential problem. Decoys are so easy to make. Plus, third world countries wouldn't need to fly nukes in. They could drive nukes in via shipment or whatever. And plus, there's the matter of third world countries allowing terrorists to have WMDs (which aren't going to be launched, but rather brought in with a suitcase or whatever).

But yes, you're right. It's about pork. There may be good intentions in there somewhere, but it won't work.

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-10 15:20:42

...They could drive nukes in via shipment or whatever. And plus, there's the matter of third world countries allowing terrorists to have WMDs (which aren't going to be launched, but rather brought in with a suitcase or whatever).
But yes, you're right. It's about pork. There may be good intentions in there somewhere, but it won't work.

What was it that Rumsfeld said? Something to the effect of 'we can't guarantee that it will work, but if we don't build it we can guarantee that it won't.'

"Take the hit" is beginning to look like a viable policy option. ???

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-10 16:21:15

Correct me if you were being sarcastic, but ARE YOU CRAZY?!!!!

So we should just sit back and "take the hit?" Lose 16 million people (ie New York or Los Angeles) because we were too damn lazy to act while the time was right?

Rumsfeld was right. The only sure way to lose anything is to not try in the first place. And I can guarantee that if ANYONE detonates a nuke within US borders or in a US installation overseas, we will shut down our borders permanently, and kick out all non-citizens. And I would agree with them 100%. Of course, I don't want to see this happen, so I think we should take all precautions necessary to prevent it.

soph · 2003-01-10 16:24:43

When every respected scientist in the field says it doesnt work, i wouldnt trust bush or rumsfeld to decide that it does, so they can spend $200 billion in pork money, that would be better used in building something that will work.

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-10 17:11:11

Correct me if you were being sarcastic, but ARE YOU CRAZY?!!!!

There was a certain degree of sarcasm intended, so I pardon you.

And I can guarantee that if ANYONE detonates a nuke within US borders or in a US installation overseas, we will shut down our borders permanently, and kick out all non-citizens.

That seems unlikely.
Moving on...

When every respected scientist in the field says it doesnt work, i wouldnt trust bush or rumsfeld to decide that it does,

Well, according to tests, it does work. Sort of. Sometimes. Better than never, but not terribly effective. If no one tries to launch a missile at us it's $200 billion wasted. If they do, a prototype system is better than nothing. Besides, nothing ever works when it's first put into use. It's unrealistic to expect that we'll have a flawless missile defense right off, we'll need to field a system and develop it. As I recall, that is precisely what the purpose of this limited system is, to work out the bugs before a more extensive system is built. Even its supporters admit it's half-assed.

soph · 2003-01-10 17:20:10

wait wait wait. we're supposed to spend $200 billion on a prototype that might or might not work? so we can spend at least another $50-$100 billion for another system?

I havent seen a single successful test yet...

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-10 17:28:40

wait wait wait. we're supposed to spend $200 billion on a prototype that might or might not work?

Actually, I'd say we should do some more work on it, then build a cheaper protoype system, them develop that if it warrants it. $200 billion right off is a bit steep for such an early stage of development. Of course reforming the way in which these defense contracts are paid would cut that down considerably.

Not that the US government ever listens to ol' Cobra Commander...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2003-01-06 15:43:07

Re: What do you think of this?

#102 2003-01-06 15:55:02

Re: What do you think of this?

#103 2003-01-06 19:13:44

Re: What do you think of this?

#104 2003-01-06 22:21:08

Re: What do you think of this?

#105 2003-01-07 05:32:52

Re: What do you think of this?

#106 2003-01-08 00:43:43

Re: What do you think of this?

#107 2003-01-08 14:57:57

Re: What do you think of this?

#108 2003-01-08 15:06:10

Re: What do you think of this?

#109 2003-01-08 15:06:23

Re: What do you think of this?

#110 2003-01-08 15:17:54

Re: What do you think of this?

#111 2003-01-08 15:37:13

Re: What do you think of this?

#112 2003-01-08 21:19:13

Re: What do you think of this?

#113 2003-01-08 21:23:32

Re: What do you think of this?

#114 2003-01-09 09:25:05

Re: What do you think of this?

#115 2003-01-09 17:38:03

Re: What do you think of this?

#116 2003-01-09 17:39:35

Re: What do you think of this?

#117 2003-01-09 17:47:05

Re: What do you think of this?

#118 2003-01-10 15:20:42

Re: What do you think of this?

#119 2003-01-10 16:21:15

Re: What do you think of this?

#120 2003-01-10 16:24:43

Re: What do you think of this?

#121 2003-01-10 17:11:11

Re: What do you think of this?

#122 2003-01-10 17:20:10

Re: What do you think of this?

#123 2003-01-10 17:28:40

Re: What do you think of this?

Board footer