USA developing new nuclear weapons

Remove all ads!

Why ? Haven't had philosophy, but it may give insight, which enables better debating people, who like Laches are obviously trained in debating (and philosophy ?).

Hey, isn't that the prisoners dilemma ?

In BG2 in the Irenicus level, just after the beginning, there's a guy presenting you with the prisoners dilemma. That's why I know of it.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PRISDIL.html

Jesus christ is in a dilemma. He has only two choises, play the game or loose. The answer is, don't get into a dilemma and don't become prisoner. By the way, Darth Vader cheats, because he can read the mind of Jesus.

But what, if Darth Vader becomes the President of the USA ?

My personal favourite text about the nuclear dilemma is the following:

 

I'm not that bright sometimes so please spell it out for me.

Edit: ----> Latches...the point that is

[ May 26, 2003, 00:01: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

Ahm, isn't that a bad plan of Darth Vader, because nuking the western world means at the same time causing enough radioactive hevoc to finish the rest of the world ?

 

So...according to the prisoner arguement...if we both co-operate and all remove our nukes...we both win. Correct?

BAH...I don't know...how is this useful?


I hope this doesn't anger anyone...but philosophy seems like a way for someone to increase their social standing without actually accomplishing anything. Nature has infinite riddles that could use solving...why create ones that lie entirely within the domain of the human head?

 

Lol, if there was no philosophy, there would be no natural science. Because philosophy and natural science are born in the same place. Secondly, "applied" philosophy is law, economics, the other social sciences. The prisoner's dilemma is used in economics and political science, as far as I know. You can say the same about engineering and math. Why all the fuss ? It's only an equation on a paper.

Why even have science at all ? Taking it to the absurd: If there was no philosphy, there would be anarchy. Greek philosphy discovered and described anarchy, monarchy, aristorcracy and democracy. Withouth philosophy, development in science would not have been possible. You would not have a computer and would not live in America and would not live in a democracy.

 

I fail to see how conjuring imaginary scenerios that have no possibility nor basis in reality has anything to do with the advancement of mankind.

Imagination is one thing. The science of philosophy is quite another.

Why do I think philosophy is useless? Well...when I'm trying to have a rational discussion about nuclear weapons and the arguement becomes what if Jesus Christ was President and Darth Vader was the leader of "the others"...then we have entered the realm of uselessness.

Now obviously philosophy has it's place. The greeks would never have found their way out of caves without it. But not here.

Edit: and saying there would be no natural science without philosophy because they were born in the same place is a logic fault...

 

Is that a hidden link to platon ?

Logic fault. Just another achievement of greek philosophy

No, it wasn't a logic fault, bad language and communication skills. -> Greeks used to be all in one -> Philosophers started biology, geography, geometry, mathematics and all that.

 

My ability to see the difference between someone creating imaginary scenerios and someone dutifully taking notes and observations of nature was not given to me by the greeks.

Science and philosophy are not related unless you say the scientific method is a philosophy of sorts. Which i'm not sure about.

 

Laches, what would stop Darth Vader from launching his missiles as soon as he sees Jesus preemptive strike? Then both the US and the USSR are burning deserts of radioctivity. I think that is a pretty obvious flaw to your example. Especially since you already earlier in your example stated that it was possible for Jesus to launch missiles after Darth had but he would choose not to. Thus the best thing Jesus can do against a s.o.a.b like Darth is nothing. True, his realm would be burning but the poor buggers that are under Darth's power would live. In your example the US is screwed anyway, thus there is never any need to waste the other half of the world too, except for good ole fashioned revenge. I would hope that Jesus was above that.

 

For those just clicking in...

How do you feel about the development of new nuclear weapons? What about disarming and destroying all nuclear weapons?

 

Unfortunately I doubt that all nuclear weapons will be completely destroyed - at least while mankind continues to be mankind.

The only thing that civilization can do now is keep the existing weapons in the hands of democracies and other responsible governments. For this reason, the world should be ready to launch attacks against third-world states and organizations such as al-Qaeda that gain nuclear weapons.

Otherwise, massive numbers of people will die.

[ May 26, 2003, 01:06: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

 

joacquin, Jesus wasn't going to launch a preemptive strike. He just needs to get to the point where he would launch a retaliatory strike even though his half of the world would be destroyed anyways. Darth can read minds remember? He would know when Jesus changed his thinking in such a manner. Darth doesn't want to die. So, he won't launch and there is nothing for Jesus to retaliate to. The point is that Jesus can't be "above" good ol fashioned revenge if he wants to prevent destruction in the first place. To prevent destruction you better be willing to destroy -- the old MAD doctrine. The point is that it is rational and even good as opposed to the old sort of common thought that you'd have to be some crazy nut.

The point is this LNT: you seemed to come up with an absolutist stand that it can't ever be ok to use nukes. I used what I thought was a silly but entertaining and absolute example of when it would be ok to become the type of guy who would and indeed you should become that sort of person. If you can't say in the example that it wouldn't be ok to be that type of person, then your absolutist stand can't be correct. Then you start to look for the line where it may or may not be ok which should lie between the two extremes.

The other point is to talk a bit about MAD. You can't put Pandora back in the box. The method of creating nukes is common knowledge. There are a lot of "Darth Vaders" in the world. One thing they typically have in common is they don't want to die. Thus, for the US or any nation to just get rid of its nuclear arsenal is an invitation to the "Darth Vaders" of the world to create and use weapons like nukes on you since you will be unable to respond in kind; take out your nation and then go about business. Given that the world has lots and lots of Darths, to voluntarily give up your only deterrence to those guys would border on treason (aiding of the enemy) and should get you run out of office asap.

It would be nice if we could all get along, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

@Laches

If you frame the arguement according to parameters that are non-possibilities and support your cause...then yes you are correct.

How about this one...if God came down to earth and said "You will nuke all nations or I will destroy the Earth through divine might!" Well then yes, it would be the prudent choice to fire away. But that will never, ever, ever happen, and neither will your scenerio.

Keep it real.

 

I think you're hung up on the silly aspects of the example which were really just for fun. I tried to warn against it. The parameters aren't non-possible, that's how MAD has worked for decades. No matter how tense things got the US and the Soviets didn't use their weapons because they had to think the other side was mean enough to be willing to kill everyone.

 

I think they didn't use their weapons because both sides are populated by human beings. In reality, nobody wants to use nuclear weapons. So why are they still around tempting the less wise to push the button?

Edit: And about creating nukes being common knowledge. You are correct. If I take a quantity of Uranium 235 and surround it with explosives powerful enough to create energy levels so great that the bonds holding the nuclei together let go, fission occurs. That is common knowledge.

But guess what? Common Uranium will not work. The process requires Uranium 235. Very difficult to make. Requires years and years of work. A warlord in Afghanistan could not suddenly open up a physics book and decide to nuke New York.

But you know what he could do? Buy an already made bomb that is sitting around because we are too stupid to destroy the horrible things.

 

Ok, now I get your example, I did find it a bit strange that an example stolen would have a such obvious flaw, which it of course did not have. Yes you are right, that is what MAD was and in a way still is based on. If I may be so stubborn and point out that it is exactly why the Strategic Missile Defence is incredible dangerous to the world. What if Darth Vader gets into power in the US?

 

Hm, I've got a problem with that statement. Who decides what a "democracy" or a "responsible Goverment" is. The Darth Vader example shows some dangerous ethnocentricity. Don't break your back with the burden of the white man. What if someone came and said, the American goverment is no responsible goverment ?

And anyway, I always thought EVERY nation has the right to defend itself versus other nations, that attack them. So, third-world countries would need nuclear weapons to defend themselves versus first-world countries. But, oops, pre-emptive doctrine. It is strictly forbidden to have nuclear weapons, if a country has not a "responsible" goverment. Did you hear that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, China, Brazil and especially you, Iran. And every other nation who's economical and scientific developement has reached a stadium, which allows them to develop nuclear weapons.

Isn't that a little bit hypocrit ? You are not allowed to have nuclear weapons. We have them only for self-defence and we would never use it. Ooops, we have changed our minds. We develop now tactical-nukes, which will be used in pre-emptive strikes. Hm, crystal ball tells me, Indonesia, that you're will be able to develop nuclear weapons and pose a strategical threat to the US in about 30-years or so. Let's do some preemptive strike.

 

Democracies by their nature exist to better their people. Since the government derives its power directly from the people and, as a result, consists of those is represents, all decisions are rational and logical.

On the other side of the spectrum are tyrannies and monarchies. These governments are controls by individuals whose actions and decisions are made to better themselves rather the people. Sometimes, considerations are made for the common man to prevent problems, but this is all done out of basic fears.

If you look at world history, a democracy has never gone to war with another democracy. When the situation gets heated, both governments find common ground because they have common goals.

As an American, I was not at all worried when India became a nuclear power. They are a democracy, and we have no fear that they would create a nuclear war unless attacked in kind. On the other hand, Americans are quite worried than Iran may become a nuclear power - since they may use it. In need not mention Iraq.

For a while, Americans were worried about Pakistan - since it is hardly a Democracy - at least when they did "join the club". However, from their fight on terrorism, the government demonstrated that they have a moral and honor grounding and, therefore, "responsible".

Russia is a powerful nuclear nation, but a new Democracy. Americans do fear a nuclear was with Russia - even though America and Russia are not the best of friends.

If Palenstein ever got the bomb, it would be used. From an American standpoint, this is an absolute, not a maybe.

 

The problem with a democracy is that it is unstable. Very much so. All the democracies that are also nuclear powers are in my eyes neither very good democracies nor very stable ones. I can see madmen grasping power by democratic means in all of them. Yes even the USA. Hitler after all came to power through democratic means, you might say that Germany of that time was not a very mature and good democracy and well, I can say the same about India, Pakistan, Russia and the US. France whom I still consider a slightly more stable democracy than those others are still not safe from lunatics. Just look at how close Le Pen was to gain the presidency there.

I would not put all that much stock in the idea that just because a leader and government is elected they have the well being of their people first and foremost either. The leadership, especially in the big nations comes from small elites with little or no ties to the common populace. Thus they have no real perception of what the populace wants and no sense of responsibility to anyone else than their peers. This is even more pronounced in countries where large chunks of the population neither care, know, or understand about politics. Thus they do not vote. Low turnout is the death of a democracy.

Addition: Furthermore so is your example Laches not an example when it is right to use nuclear weapons, it is an example when it is right to be prepared to use nuclear weapons or atleast give the perception of being prepared to do so. A difference there.

[ May 26, 2003, 20:31: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

Ahm, no. That would mean that the people decide rational and logical. That was not the case in Italy in the 1920s. A democracy which voted for a faschist party, which abolished democracy with the approval of the people.

I tend to disagree with that. Which makes the whole thing much more frightening. Germany was a very stable, very democratic state. The best comparision to the German Empire is the British Empire. The Germans even were more demorcratic then the British. This changed with WW1, the exile of the German emperor (sp ?) and the Weimarer republic. But the Weimarer Republic was doomed, the Versailler treaty, the backstab legend, the hunger for war and revenge of the German lords and military, the never ending fights betweeen the main democratic parties, SPD and CDU (if it was in this time already called this way, I guess I don't remember correctly), the big world-economic-crisis from 1929 led to a goverment crisis and to the inforcing of state-of-emergency laws. This laws gave strong powers to the goverment and Reichspresident Hindenburg, at that time around 90 and with clear signs of seniltiy, the right to appoint state-of-emergency goverments. Then one after one after one goverment broke down and alway new Reichskanzlers were appointed. Until Hitlers turn came. Shortly after he became Reichskanzler, the German parliment building was burnt down. Who burned it down, is until now unclear. But, like Cicero said, who profited from it ? Hitler took the chance, accused his political enemys as enemies of the state and whoops, the half of the parlimentarians "disappeared" into "camps". So, the Nazis never won one single election in Germany, never, even with the biggest forging of election results. But it didn't matter, because the seized power.

This is the most frightening part about the German example, I think. A stable, fully developed, military powerfull country became a giantic lunatic. And most of the Germans were convinced, they were the "good" guys, and that they were fighing for a "just" cause. A lot of them really believed that. Misled Paladins.

I don't agree with that either. Even after WW2, most European countries stayed bellegrient (sp ?). The Dutch in Indonesia, the French in Algeria and Vietnam, the British allied together with the French to assault Egypt....

They were belligrent, because "colonization" was still legitim policy in the name of national interest. Of course, all this changed, after realizing that it didn't work any longer. Moral insight came a little bit afterwards.

And if America really was a democracy from the day independence on, what was that with the civil-war. Democracies would never fight eachother ?

Still, are you not sending a message to former colonies, that their own raise to power is only allowed, if the finally give in to "western-civilization". I know, that's a little "blunt" formulation, but still, I guess the point is valid.

Now India worries me more than China, to be honest. The goverment of China seems to me very reasonable. Yes, they are are brutal dictatorship versus the inside. But very calm versus the outside. And they ARE reforming themselves. At least, they try. India and Pakistan are somehow in an everlasting bellegrient status versus eachother.