I've got an idea
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:19:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  I've got an idea
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: I've got an idea  (Read 1431 times)
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 04, 2006, 02:30:00 AM »

and I think it's pretty sound right now, but please criticise the hell out of it if it needs.  This idea even to myself sounds pretty naive so I welcome anyone else pointing out bad parts of it.

Pretty much this.  The idea of self-defense is one that I've long advocated, that people should be able to have a gun if they want to-and the nobody should be denied this.  If an aggressor knows or suspects a potential victim has a gun then they are less likely to violate the potential victim out of fear of death.

This said, why can't we do this on a macro-level?  Why can't we give every country nukes?

If every country in the world had nukes, the world would be safer because the fear of someone actually using a nuke would be enough fear to prevent a country from going to war.  Ever since the cold war, the United States will only go to war with a country that doesn't have the military or nuclear capacity to return the fire.  I figure every country can keep the others in check, now knowing that there's potential to use nukes.  Consequently, peace and diplomacy would be used more often under that fear of the alternative-getting bombed.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2006, 03:10:34 AM »

Ever since the cold war, the United States will only go to war with a country that doesn't have the military or nuclear capacity to return the fire.

Didn't we go to war with Iraq over "weapons of mass destruction"?

Consequently, peace and diplomacy would be used more often under that fear of the alternative-getting bombed.

You make the assumption that half of these countries would react to problems reasonably while in the possession of nuclear bombs.

There's a reason everyone pisses themselves whenever news about North Korea or Iran developing nuclear weapons hits the news.  We can't trust these countries, and obviously we shouldn't give them nuclear weapons.
Logged
AkSaber
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,315
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2006, 03:53:10 AM »

This said, why can't we do this on a macro-level?  Why can't we give every country nukes?

If every country in the world had nukes, the world would be safer because the fear of someone actually using a nuke would be enough fear to prevent a country from going to war.  Ever since the cold war, the United States will only go to war with a country that doesn't have the military or nuclear capacity to return the fire.  I figure every country can keep the others in check, now knowing that there's potential to use nukes.  Consequently, peace and diplomacy would be used more often under that fear of the alternative-getting bombed.

Well, that's a very original thought you have there. Smiley I would have never thought of it.

But I disagree with it. There are people that I don't want to have guns. Violent criminals and the like. I want to keep them unarmed. I would equate some of those governments out there with such criminals.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2006, 04:54:39 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
A once in a lifetime moment! Now don't do it again, please. Smiley

But seriously ... while certainly a far more reasonable assumption (and far better supported by the evidence around us) for nukes and countries than for guns and individuals, it throws up a number of problems ... not to mention undermines US, and First World in general hegemony and economic status, so it's not in your best interest. Wink
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2006, 04:57:43 AM »


Nuclear war for instance
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2006, 05:03:25 AM »

Actually, that's not that bloody likely ... as viz. the number of nuclear wars we've had so far.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2006, 05:08:46 AM »

Actually, that's not that bloody likely ... as viz. the number of nuclear wars we've had so far.

Yes, but that's with only a handful of countries having nuclear weapons, all believing in the MAD theory. Which breaks down if just one government decides it's not a problem.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2006, 05:15:45 AM »

Actually, that's not that bloody likely ... as viz. the number of nuclear wars we've had so far.

Yes, but that's with only a handful of countries having nuclear weapons, all believing in the MAD theory. Which breaks down if just one government decides it's not a problem.
Yeah, but why should a government do so? The only not-quite-100%-absurd theory I can come up with is if the government a) doesn't care one jot about their population, place in the history books, etc b) they themselves, and every individual that they do care about, are out of the country by the time they strike. Long odds against that ever happening. All countries that have obtained or tried to obtain nukes up to now, or that is trying to do so now, have done so out of paranoia and/or justified fear of attack, with the exception of the US (didn't know what they were doing) and arguably the UK and France (Useless effort at conservation of former superpower status). Not in order to attack other people.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2006, 05:25:19 AM »


I've really no idea, but that's not the point. The risk was bad enough during the cold war when there were just a handful of countries involved; one out of ten or twenty or whatver is less of a problem than one out of a hundred or so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but it's still possible. And more likely with a lot of countries having nukes to play with than just a handful.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's very true, but that doesn't mean that at some point a country won't try to aquire nukes to attack another country (however unlikely that is). Even if the risk is technically small, it's too great to make the idea of every country having nukes anything more than a nightmarish possibility (o/c even one country having nukes is a nightmarish reality, but that's not the point either).
Then there's the Somalia problem...
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2006, 05:37:26 AM »

Well, I'm fairly sure the US was aware of the German atomic programme.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2006, 05:52:49 AM »

Well, I'm fairly sure the US was aware of the German atomic programme.
IIRC that was started later than the US one. Anyways it had hardly gotten very far by the time the war was over.

Al - of course it's still "more likely" ... it's also more likely that I will strangle you if we ever meet than if we never meet, but that alone is no reason not to ever meet anybody.

A situation as in Somalia is the kind of problem I was thinking of when I said it throws up a no. of problems, though... or just the fact that countries are, in essence, artificial entities whose borders can change at very short notice.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2006, 06:20:40 AM »

Should Sealand get their own nukes?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2006, 06:26:55 AM »

Oh yeah, another problem... places like Monaco or the Vatican might hope to be spared a retaliatory nuke because that would also certainly damage neighboring countries.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2006, 09:08:53 AM »

I'll chime in with "bad idea" as well. Tongue
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2006, 11:53:06 AM »

Sorry M&C but I think you need a little disclaimer here. "The views expressed here are the views of M&C alone and do not represent the views of the Libertarian party."
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2006, 12:14:34 PM »

Mullah Omar with a nuke...that would help me sleep a whole lot better.

Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2006, 08:23:17 PM »

Sorry M&C but I think you need a little disclaimer here. "The views expressed here are the views of M&C alone and do not represent the views of the Libertarian party."

not even that much, I thought it sounded good at first, but knew that there was something wrong with it.  I guess it does boil down to having unreasonable rulers who would fire nukes at a country without caring if their own country blows up.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2006, 08:34:15 PM »

I have absolutely no problem with known violent criminals being denied a gun, and there's a reason for this: if someone is known to be insane enough that he or she wishes to hurt other people without concern for his or her own well-being, it seems reasonable to wish to prevent this person from receiving a tool that will more than likely facilitate hurting someone else instead of simply providing self-defense.

This also applies on a larger scale.  I have no doubt that some crazy African ruler would use nukes received to blow away some hated country without regard for possible retaliation.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2006, 09:33:11 PM »

Here's an idea, how 'bout no one has nukes? Tongue
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2006, 09:56:06 PM »
« Edited: May 04, 2006, 09:58:09 PM by Nym90 »

This would not be a good idea. Extending the analogy to guns, I would think that even the most ardent gun rights advocate would not support it being legal for a convicted felon to own a gun.

And no one would possibly support giving everyone a gun, especially violent criminals.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2006, 10:06:29 PM »

Here's an idea, how 'bout no one has nukes? Tongue
Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked

I agree. Sure, it works as a deturrent because of what mighgt happen, but eventually, that deturrent will be outweigh, and then what might happen will happen: We'll all die, or be thrown way back.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2006, 01:18:46 AM »

Here's an idea, how 'bout no one has nukes? Tongue

I really wouldn't mind that-in fact it would be highly preferable.  However, since they exist-evening the playing field would seem like the better alternative--at least sometimes...
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2006, 06:51:02 AM »

Here's an idea, how 'bout no one has nukes? Tongue

I really wouldn't mind that-in fact it would be highly preferable.  However, since they exist-evening the playing field would seem like the better alternative--at least sometimes...

Yeah yeah.  But at the very least, I think the US should reduce its arsenal so that we could only blow up the world two times over.  Or something Tongue
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2006, 06:55:56 AM »

Here's an idea, how 'bout no one has nukes? Tongue

I really wouldn't mind that-in fact it would be highly preferable.  However, since they exist-evening the playing field would seem like the better alternative--at least sometimes...

Yeah yeah.  But at the very least, I think the US should reduce its arsenal so that we could only blow up the world two times over.  Or something Tongue

No - we need to ensure that in the event of a nuclear war, we are able to exterminate everything! No chance of survival! Except the cockroaches, because you can't kill them off no matter what... maybe we need a new WMD. Grin
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 05, 2006, 12:38:05 PM »

No - we need to ensure that in the event of a nuclear war, we are able to exterminate everything! No chance of survival! Except the cockroaches, because you can't kill them off no matter what... maybe we need a new WMD. Grin

Maybe we need to integrate the Bug Bomb with our nukes to ensure that not even cockroaches can survive. Cheesy
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 11 queries.