4 of 4
4
U.S. Nuclear Strategy for the Post-Cold War Era
Posted: 13 October 2007 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2007-09-28

TA,

the point is, stalemate. develop nukes and simply join the stalemate.

why develop bigger weapons? we (nato) have plenty of capability to glaze over all potential enemies, doing it twice or increasing the depth of glass seems pointless.

do you disagree with points 5 and 6 in my previous post.

Ski.

 Signature 

hmmmmm  π

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4095
Joined  2006-11-28

Ski,

You’ve clearly outlined the logic of MAD and then repeated it, but I do’t see that you’ve demonstrated it. The fact that it is a logical sequence of statements doesn’t mean it’s true. You’ve ignored the risks of poorly-controlled stockpiles of weapons or materials, the risk of nations who have “joined the stalemate” making irrational decisions, and other important issues that challenge the conclusion that the current approach is the best posisble one. I tend to think there are advantages to doing away with the weapons and perhaps maintaining a minimal production capacity. Deterrance on a small scale wouldn’t require the hair-trigger on thousands of warheads that deterrance against the USSR seemed to requiore. As you say, destroying the world multiple times is pointless. So maybe we could minimize the risks by doing the best we can to eliminate the devices, with the understanding that it wouldn’t take much to make a few and use them in response to the sort of small-scale attack a terorist group or nation like N. Korea would be capable of.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 October 2007 09:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21
SkiCarver - 13 October 2007 06:15 AM

I am not sure I understand your point/question.

also, I cannot realistically see justifications for the use of nukes in your own country. as the thread is about us nuclear strategy (supposedly) I didn’t feel the need to elaborate on this issue.

Ski.

My point is that the potential for misuse of nuclear weapons lies just as much within our own borders as without.  Any nation, even our own, that brings more nuclear weapons into the world is creating objects which are capable, by design, of destroying large chunks of the earth.  We live in a democracy, or at least something of a democracy, that is susceptible to the most delicate swaying of public opinion.  History would show that many such sways go in negative directions.  History would also show that the US is less reluctant to use nuclear weapons than any other nation.

To call this playing with fire is more than putting it mildly.  To build objects that are specifically intended to kill masses of people, I think, is a pretty clear step in the direction of using them.  It implies an escalation that is contrary to the necessary goal of global cooperation.  Furthermore, America is not an island that is separate from the rest of the world.  Due to the pluralistic and open nature of our culture so-called “enemies” can become Americans, influence American public policy and influence the usage of these weapons.  While many social conservatives would not like to admit it, America is not becoming but already is a global society.

As for the stalemate idea, we are certainly not talking about achieving a stalemate when we talk about the US development of nuclear weapons.  Last I checked, the United States was spending almost s much annually on so-called “defense” than every other nation on planet earth combined.  Nearly seven times the ammount of the number two contender, China who is an economic ally.  Since the fall of the iron curtain the US has been frantically installing missile “defense” systems across Western frontier of Eastern Europe.  The stalemate that you are talking about is a sixty year old argument.  The issue of American “defense” in the contemporary world is really an issue of promoting and maintaining an unquestionable global supremacy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 October 2007 09:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16
dougsmith - 13 October 2007 11:22 AM
truthaddict - 13 October 2007 09:01 AM

the altering or abolishing of the current structure, which I see as being a social revolution with the aims of reigning in power structures and restructuring along anarchsit principles.

So then we’d have all these loose nukes floating around, usable by anarchist cells that live around where the missiles are based?

[sarcasm]yeah, thats obviously what im saying[/sarcasm]

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 October 2007 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16
SkiCarver - 13 October 2007 11:54 AM

why develop bigger weapons?

to break the stalemate! obviously, my comment was rhetorical because the prediposition of the whole thing lacks any rationality. Trying to find reason in such barbarity is absurd. The whole history of warfare has been the endless claims of “stalemate.” I use sticks and you use rocks. I use rocks and you use arrows. I use arrows and you use bullets. I use bullets and you use cannons. I use cannons and you use machine guns. I use machine guns and you use bombs. I use bombs and you use nukes. Now we can destroy the world several times over, we are no less safe - actually now we risk destroying ourselves by ACCIDENT - and we just wait for the number of those who participate in the game of “stalemate” to rise which inevitably increases the chances of a nuclear war. What can we do to break this stalemate? LETS KEEP THE GAME GOING AND BUILD SOMETHING MORE DESTRUCTIVE!

again, im being rhetorical and sarcastic to highlight the lunacy in the argument for nukes

SkiCarver - 13 October 2007 11:54 AM

do you disagree with points 5 and 6 in my previous post.

yes I disagree because it was a loaded “point.” It was based entirely on a biased assumption.

How do we get around having “one man” controlling the nukes? The UN and IAEA has already offered solutions. Universal inspections made of an international team. Elbaradei offered FISSBAN, etc. The problem isnt a lack of solutions. The problem is a lack of implementing them.

And whether the world would be “compelled” to have war without nukes is ridiculous. Every continent was plagued with war after 1945. Besides, as I said. Treating symptoms is hardly the solutiono…

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 October 2007 11:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

back to FISSBAN and the problem of implementation: have you seen who has sabotaged implementation and why? UN General Assembly votes give it away.

“On the 4th of November, 2004, the First Committee of the General Assembly adopted Draft resolution A/C.1/59/L.34 with a vote of 147 to 1 with two abstentions. A later vote was similar with 179 in favor, 2 against, 2 abstentions, and 8 non voting countries. The United States was joined in opposition by Palau. The United States was the only country against with Great Britain and Israel abstaining. It is worth noting that Iran had supported this resolution. The United States supports the treaty but advocates an ad-hoc system of verification wherein states would monitor the compliance of other states through their own national intelligence mechanisms.” - from wikipedia

The US supports the ban but wants its “intelligence mechanisms” involved instead of an independent and international team. You can tell why the world is radically opposed. They apparently remember what UNSCOM did in Iraq.

anyway, you can look back at UN resolutions in the 1980s about nuclear disarmament and see the same thing: overwhelmingly the worlds governments support these initiatives but run into a veto-wielding obstacle known in Latin America as “the colossus of the North.”

this attitude and common result in the UN is why I think UN reform should be about doing away with veto powers, doing away with permanent security council seats, either expanding the security council considerably or doing away with it completely and making UN representatives democratically elected by their respective countries populations in free and fair elections monitored by international teams. that in implementing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…

I just bring up these things to highlight that most of the worlds governments are behind a plausible solution but the roadblock is limited to pretty much one saboteur

[ Edited: 15 October 2007 11:28 AM by truthaddict ]
 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 October 2007 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

I got more thoughts on “stalemate.”

you use this as if it is some form of disciplined reasoning. develope nukes, join the stalemate and give peace a chance!

the basis of this logic is that the attainers are not madmen and know they would destroy the world and thats why they dont use them. well what about people like George Bush or Harry Truman? Truman used them and Bush has announced he will use them even against non-nuclear states!

if world leaders are so rational then why dont we adhere to the NPT and stop producing and proliferating? why doesnt the US join the world and ending the stalemate by doing away with production, threats, proliferation, etc and put safe controls over existing stocks that could be converted to peaceful uses and then allow FISSBAN to proceed from there?

again, the whole concept of stalemate is not one about peace or security. its extremely barbaric militancy that seeks to use destructive weapons as a form of coercion and intimidation. the prospects of accidents, use or theft is too high to play a game driven by machismo and testosterone.

the problem comes down to two things: if we are reasonable and thats why stalemate works then we dont need stalemate because we are reasonable; and if we arent reasonable then stalemate is even more dangerous and all it achieves is upping the ante of possible annhilation.

again, and lucky for us, the world is apparently not behind “stalemate.” the solution is much easier. we just need to “compel” our own government to participate and cease and desist the belligerence.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4