Quoting Captain Jack:
. . . building the damned bomb in the first place was the Worst thing we could have done.Maybe, but had we sprayed nerve gas or biological weapons over our enemies during that war, that might have been worse, do you think?
Maybe, but had we sprayed nerve gas or biological weapons over our enemies during that war, that might have been worse, do you think?Depending on the gas it would have been very bad although we'll never know because the post WWI nations signed a treaty to ban it and no power used it in the next war. It would also depend on rhe volume and dispersal method. The problem with gas is that it dissapates quickly but as you well know, radiation doesn't. The bombs we still have have a half life of a thousand years. But as I stated before, we should outlaw bio and nerve gas. We've already seen their use in Iraq. The World War I variety was bad enough. Cap't Jack
Vyazma
I hope you said a prayer for me down at the Church of the Corner Bar.
What the hell is right VA. I really showed an ugly side here. I let the train derail. I'm sorry. I got nothing more to say. Other than I apologize for being so obstinate and rude.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
VyazmaYes I remember. Thanks. I do often imagine different scenarios of the Cold War. Even though it is ridiculous to do so.I hope you said a prayer for me down at the Church of the Corner Bar. We don't say prayers, but offer toasts. Sudari, the Celestial Barmaid, sends you her greetings. If you remember my original proposition was to have Israel give theirs up as part of the deal to have Iran stop building theirs.
What the hell is right VA. I really showed an ugly side here. I let the train derail. I’m sorry. I got nothing more to say. Other than I apologize for being so obstinate and rude.Hey man, no problem. We're both on the same side of the argument. You confused me there for a minute; I do enjoy reading your posts and when you hit on a familiar topic I dove in. Remember I'm a product of the 50's too and recall the scary "bomb" editorials and cartoons. When you're a kid that stuff stays with you. And the Korean war. But you're right, it's a subject better dropped for now. :) Cap't Jack
I'm not a product of the 50s myself VA. I was born in 1970.(but actually I could still be considered a product of the 50s-we all could) It got confusing because I'm taking the metaphysical approach to nuclear awareness. Kind of a transcendental awareness. In doing so I'm not interested in the nuts and bolts of histories or dogmas. My view is more of a stark reasoning. It's my firm belief that all of these discussions(the "nuts and bolts") about history and tallies and treaties(for example)only go to further the human acceptance of war and nukes specifically. It's a type of "confirmation awareness". A cyclic confirmation acceptance if you will.(the mental slavery I mentioned) It's my opinion that only a radical "cultural revolution"(no NOT Mao's kind.) and a laying down of all arms will accomplish any real peace. I also think this could be initiated by the US alone. Perhaps you and Gary are correct in quoting Pinker. Who knows? Maybe the world is "evolving" away from war. I myself doubt it. And I think what you said Pinker said is brash and daring. I stand by my comment: "that's exactly what many thinkers, politicians were saying in 1919." Maybe you and Gary and Pinker are right...but like I said in my first post in this thread, "Until science and reason are applied to the concept of land we will just be spinning our wheels. Land. ie resources and living space. Maybe science and reason is slowly being applied to it. Maybe we'll see.What the hell is right VA. I really showed an ugly side here. I let the train derail. I’m sorry. I got nothing more to say. Other than I apologize for being so obstinate and rude.Hey man, no problem. We're both on the same side of the argument. You confused me there for a minute; I do enjoy reading your posts and when you hit on a familiar topic I dove in. Remember I'm a product of the 50's too and recall the scary "bomb" editorials and cartoons. When you're a kid that stuff stays with you. And the Korean war. But you're right, it's a subject better dropped for now. :) Cap't Jack
Even Israel accept to leave nuclears in my opinion Iran would continue to their work.
Iran is doing this for “balance of power” purposes. If Israel terminates all nukes Iran will seize this opportunity to become a dominant power in the region.