Just reading about the current negotiations and had a thought. What if Israel was got rid of their nukes. Think Iran would then agree to stop the development of theirs.
Opps. I’m sorry; politically impossible. How could Israel continue its land grab if it couldn’t threaten their neighbors with nukes.
What if everybody just got rid of their nukes?
And we approached the idea of “land” using reason and science?
I don’t know; I do believe that the world would be better off without nuclear weapons, but do we want to go back to fighting wars; like the world wars with their masses of soldiers?
I don't know; I do believe that the world would be better off without nuclear weapons, but do we want to go back to fighting wars; like the world wars with their masses of soldiers?Well the second part of my point would hopefully eliminate that as well. Yes it's pipe dreaming I know.
I don't know; I do believe that the world would be better off without nuclear weapons, but do we want to go back to fighting wars; like the world wars with their masses of soldiers?I would also add this Gary: What do you mean "go back"? That's how we are fighting wars. Nukes were used one time in the Summer of 1945 against Japan.(yes 2 bombs were dropped separately) Since then we(the World) have been fighting wars with masses of soldiers and guns and cannons. So what do you mean "go back"? Millions of people have since been killed by those "wars" with those "masses of soldiers".
Yes, wars are still being fought, but no where on the same scale as the World Wars.
Yes, wars are still being fought, but no where on the same scale as the World Wars.I knew that was going to be your response. That's compartmentalized thinking at best. Do you know what the scale is? :lol: If wars are still being fought all around the world(and they are!) then doesn't that make it a perpetual World War? Or are you happy thinking in terms of The Big Golden Picture Book of Wars? All of this is to say nothing of your stance on nukes as some kind of "war deterrent". Which of course it obviously isn't...in any degree!
No Darron, let’s not ramp things up. There’s no need for popcorn.
No Darron, let's not ramp things up. There's no need for popcorn.There are always going to be conflicts going on, but you can't compare today's conflicts with the massive wars we have had in the last century. They are much smaller in scale. Steve Pinker has a book on this if your interested. I don't have time to look it up at the moment. Have an appoint down the the Church of the Corner Bar. :coolgrin:
No Darron, let's not ramp things up. There's no need for popcorn.There are always going to be conflicts going on, but you can't compare today's conflicts with the massive wars we have had in the last century. They are much smaller in scale. Steve Pinker has a book on this if your interested. I don't have time to look it up at the moment. Have an appoint down the the Church of the Corner Bar. :coolgrin: My retort has very little to do with scale comparisons. I hope you said a prayer for me down at the Church of the Corner Bar.
I knew that was going to be your response. That’s compartmentalized thinking at best. Do you know what the scale is? If wars are still being fought all around the world(and they are!) then doesn’t that make it a perpetual World War? Or are you happy thinking in terms of The Big Golden Picture Book of Wars? All of this is to say nothing of your stance on nukes as some kind of “war deterrent". Which of course it obviously isn’t…in any degree!If I can wade in here, you're both right in a way except the definition of "war" is a formal declaration by a nation or nations (alliance) opposing another nation(or alliance) whereas a conflict is not formally declared. If we use your definition Vy we've been at a global war perpetually for over two centuries. And even if you add the casualty figures from all of those conflicts they don't stack up the body count of both World Wars, i.e. 9 million, 37 million wounded for World War I and over 60 million for WWII. And the book Gary mentioned is the Better Angles of Our Nature. And the concept of nuclear deterrent was a product of the real Dr. strangelove, Edward Teller, the father of the H bomb. He's the one who convinced everybody that having a stockpile of nukes would be enough to keep us out of the massive conflicts we had just ended. Well, as you pointed out Vy, it didn't. The only thing it did accomplish was to end the forgotten war, Korea in 1953. Ike threatened to use a nuke on North Korea so we divvied up the peninsula. So now Middle Eastern Countries have them and Teller's wacko plan is still alive. I remember a debate he had once with Carl Sagan, back in the 80's. Sagan used the analogy of a garage filled with gasoline and one guy had 30,000 matches while another guy had 20,000 and it only takes one to "start the fire". Sagan was commenting on the aftermath of a nuclear exchange, the nuclear winter would wipe us out as a species. Teller's plan was sheer madness, hence the movie. There's only one solution and that's to mutually disarm ourselves and prevent anyone else from attaining nuclear capability. The naysayers say it could open the doors for more massive conflicts but I think we've learned our lesson and global politics have shifted to economic dependency (you don't blow up your marketplace). Whatever, we gotta get rid of the nukes, and poision gas too just as an afterthought. Cap't Jack
An argument based on scale of people killed in a given war as a justification for thermonuclear weapons is what…what is that?
As long as millions of people are killed over a proportional time period, then we can thank nuclear weapons for never having to revert to
warfare that involves masses of troops and bombs?
Go back to that way of warfare!?!? Go back?!?!
We never stopped that way of warfare. Korean War was shortly after WWII. It’s estimated that 1.2 million people died in that war. That’s just deaths-not total casualties.
Moving forward through world history since that time millions and millions of people have been killed and maimed from war.
But I’m supposed to be grateful that Nuclear weapons are somehow(?!) spreading those casualties out proportionally over time?
In fact nobody who is against nuclear weapons should have to even entertain that counter argument concerning nukes.
It’s infantile, and literally a form of mental slavery!
No. One can be against nuclear weapons based soley on the sheer cosmic ludicrousness of such weapons.
Integrating some sense of strategic sensibility into a discussion about nukes is Mental Slavery.
Woah Vy! Are aiming your argument at me? No way am I advocating the threat of nuclear destruction as a deterrant to war in general. I say to hell with war itself as a means to peace unless absolutely necessary. If your post was meant for me then go back and reread what I wrote. I completely agree with Sagan and disagree with Teller! Personally I wish we hadn’t let the genie out of the botte in the first place but now it’s done and we as a species have the moral obligation to find ways to denuclearize the World. It only takes twelve MIRVs to take us outta here. I only mentioned Ike’s bluff as an historical incident. I didn’t mean to imply that we should adopt that policy, as in hell no! The game has changed now and with cruise missles and drones, a semieducated grunt could drop one in Ahmanutjob’s lap with little or no effort. But the fallout from one 12 megaton nuke would spread around the World. No, nukes aren’t a deterrant to conventional war. There as many other ways to prevent it. And I’m sure you know what I mean.
Cap’t Jack
Woah Vy! Are aiming your argument at me? No way am I advocating the threat of nuclear destruction as a deterrant to war in general. I say to hell with war itself as a means to peace unless absolutely necessary.No my comments are not aimed at anyone. Although my theme is generated by the points that Gary made. I made my initial remarks towards Gary. That was rested, and now I'm trying to steer the conversation in general.
If your post was meant for me then go back and reread what I wrote. I completely agree with Sagan and disagree with Teller! Personally I wish we hadn't let the genie out of the botte in the first place but now it's done and we as a species have the moral obligation to find ways to denuclearize the World. It only takes twelve MIRVs to take us outta here. I only mentioned Ike's bluff as an historical incident. I didn't mean to imply that we should adopt that policy, as in hell no! The game has changed now and with cruise missles and drones, a semieducated grunt could drop one in Ahmanutjob's lap with little or no effort. But the fallout from one 12 megaton nuke would spread around the World. No, nukes aren't a deterrant to conventional war. There as many other ways to prevent it. And I'm sure you know what I mean. Cap't JackYes, I feel a strong position must be taken in regards to nuclear weapons. I read what you wrote. I wasn't aiming my comments at you or anyone else. I'm just stating a position. I feel that it is important not to get caught up in any historical references or "memes" that attempt to rationalize MAD, SALT, or any other hogwash cultural-historical ideas behind nuclear weapons. One of the biggest ones being the one Gary "automatically" referenced. That is one of the most common ones and really is a complete false equivalency. A false dichotomy of the highest order. But it is ingrained in most people's heads. Mental Slavery. That is the idea that: "But do we want to return to large scale World Wars?" That idea, or meme is so disconnected from reality. 1. As I already stated, we never really left large scale World Wars. Not at all. And debates about proportionality are, are...what? What? That's sick really. 2. We can't view history as compartmentalized moments. That's "The Big Golden Book of Wars". That's using the idea of some kind of pre-existing condition of wars as an ongoing human condition, and basing rationalizations(such as nuclear weapons)on this pre-existing condition. That is Mental Slavery. Interestingly it leads to excellent studies on how humans co-exist with such a mechanism. And can this mechanism be changed? Obviously I think it can, or I wouldn't be wasting my time typing this. An example of this is how humans can go about their daily lives viewing nuclear weapons as just one part of the "daily grind". Everything I have mentioned above is a rebuttal of this notion. Because these types of seemingly normal rationalizations are what "enables" the machinery of war to continue.
That is the idea that: “But do we want to return to large scale World Wars?" That idea, or meme is so disconnected from reality. 1. As I already stated, we never really left large scale World Wars. Not at all. And debates about proportionality are, are…what? What? That’s sick really. 2. We can’t view history as compartmentalized moments. That’s “The Big Golden Book of Wars". That’s using the idea of some kind of pre-existing condition of wars as an ongoing human condition, and basing rationalizations(such as nuclear weapons)on this pre-existing condition. That is Mental Slavery. Interestingly it leads to excellent studies on how humans co-exist with such a mechanism. And can this mechanism be changed?Ok here's where we differ, at least regarding historical references. Yes, we have left large scale World Wars. Nowhere and at no time since World War II have we witnessed this much destruction of human life and property in that short span of time. It's not a meme, it's an historical fact. The campartmentalization as you call it is due to that time span (12 years for WW II and 4 for WW I.) call it what you will, no conflict or collection of them will equal the devastation of both World Wars even without the BOMB, i.e. conventional firebombing e.g. Dresden and Tokyo killed more people and destroyed more property than the results of the atomic bomb. now I believe it's your contention that this destruction should never be used as a justification to continue stockpiling weapons as a deterrent. That's dangerous "saber rattling" and I wholeheartedly agree! Where we disagree is in your concept of acknowledging past events as "mental slavery". Unfortunately mankind has been at war since the beginning of civilization (see King Sargon I of Akkad) but as Pinker aptly points out the World is becoming less aggressive, not more. This is due in part to nations becoming increasingly interdependent, As I pointed out earlier. I also agree however that we shouldn't rationalize any aggressive action on our part by using a preexisting condition or tradition. we should learn from the past, not simply repeat it. Can the mechanism be changed? Certainly. If it couldn't would we still hate our enemies? Would we continue our war against the former Axis powers? What would be the justification, tradition? That IMO would be mental slavery. What you are referring to is a mindset. And that's something we can overcome. If we couldn't real slavery would still exist in the American South. Cap't Jack
Whatever VA. You don’t get it. I have studied wars extensively just like you.
I see here you wish to open the “The Big Golden Book of Wars” and showcase your knowledge.
To what end?
Take it Bro. Run with it!
edit:
removed “I’m out”. No I’m still in.
Village Atheist-Yes, we have left large scale World Wars. Nowhere and at no time since World War II have we witnessed this much destruction of human life and property in that short span of time. It’s not a meme, it’s an historical fact. The campartmentalization as you call it is due to that time span (12 years for WW II and 4 for WW I.) call it what you will, no conflict or collection of them will equal the devastation of both World Wars even without the BOMB,Oh. Ok thanks for the history lesson. Great stuff here. So I can take this and apply it to my understanding of nuclear weapons how? Or was there another reason you brought up this stunning historical nugget? I don't know if you if you understood my points about "proportionality" in regards to "mindsets" or not? You don't have to agree, but I'm guessing you maybe just didn't understand my points. Otherwise why would you have written this interesting nugget on the history of WW I & II? Most likely you only want to recite about war. You being a history teacher and all.
Vyazma-But it is ingrained in most people’s heads. Mental Slavery. That is the idea that: “But do we want to return to large scale World Wars?" That idea, or meme is so disconnected from reality. 1. As I already stated, we never really left large scale World Wars. Not at all. And debates about proportionality are, are…what? What? That’s sick really.I'm quoting myself here. Korea was a large scale "World War". Millions of people fought in it. Who's going to say it was small? It involved the UN-thus "World". But none of that matters because my most stressed comments are those concerning "scale" or "proportionality". That has been a recurring point of mine since post number 4 or 5! Why are you arguing points of scale concerning war Village Atheist? My only point is(was) that WWII should never be used as a reason for why we should keep nukes around. That was my point. I bolstered it by saying any war, regardless of scale or duration should not be used as an excuse for nuclear weapons. That's my whole point. But you "waded in" and now we arguing about the very things I opined didn't matter- that is, the proportionality of the size and destruction of wars. So why are we back to this point? So you could remind me that WWII was a big war that was never equaled in size or destruction? All nukes should be banned. Now! And by the way. WTF is Pinker? I'm sure some people said the same thing about world stability in 1919 too.
My only point is(was) that WWII should never be used as a reason for why we should keep nukes around. That was my point. I bolstered it by saying any war, regardless of scale or duration should not be used as an excuse for nuclear weapons. That’s my whole point. But you “waded in" and now we arguing about the very things I opined didn’t matter- that is, the proportionality of the size and destruction of wars. So why are we back to this point? So you could remind me that WWII was a big war that was never equaled in size or destruction? All nukes should be banned. Now! And by the way. WTF is Pinker? I’m sure some people said the same thing about world stability in 1919 too.What the hell Vy? Are you just talking to hear your head rattle? That was my point too! Let's not discuss the historicity of war any more ok? Suffice it to say that building the damned bomb in the first place was the Worst thing we could have done. And remember that this is a forum and I can "wade" in anytime I want just as you can, and have. I found the topic interesting and wanted to throw in my two pennies. What's wrong with that? And Pinker? Have you read the book? And how the hell would someone in 1919 have the same insight as a scholar in 2013? Reeeead the damn book Vy. I dare ya. It speaks directly to this topic, nuff said. Now on to Iran. Cap't Jack