Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SIGVARDR]

Look,We have to nuke it from orbit.It's the only way to be sure(the terrorists don't win)

[Il Palazzo]

Right, so we know we'd better not use that bastard, right?

Not really. Nuclear weaponry is pretty much the only thing that ensures safety of humanity.

All nuclear weaponry ensures is that noone else uses nuclear weaponry.

Which is good. Which is safe. Which prevents us from nuking the fuck of ourselves. Conventional wars waged witohut WMDs? Bah, not like death tolls are that high, or that human life is that expensive.

It doesn't prevent anything. It deters other nations from nuking each other, but even then only if the people in charge are rational individuals. It also means that if one terrorist gets ahold of a nuke that the entire world could be destroyed in a hail of failsafes and deadman switches.

This is often used argument, and I have to disagree with that completely.
People in charge of any country ARE rational individuals. They've got their countries' interests to think of, and nuking somebody is not going to help those interests in any fashion.
Having the ability to do so, does act like a deterrent for any possible aggressors, though. In this sense, having a nuke is akin to having a fortified castle in the days of yore - you're unlikely to ever use it aggressively yourself, but whomever decides to attack you, is going to suffer huge losses.

I'd say, why would anyone prevent other people from building castles if it helps to defend themselves? The only reason seems to be able to easily invade such a country.

As for "terrorists steal nuke" argument, knowing that nuclear arsenals are the most guarded and protected by multiple layers of fail-safe mechanisms, accounting for human error(read: going bonkers) as well - such a scenario appears to lie squarely in a fantasy territory, of the James Bond variety.
Hell, a sensible move for a nuke-sporting nations would be to offer their expertise on the above mentioned protection mechanisms to any upstart nuclear nations insted of telling them that they're somehow not mature enough to have the bomb.

[Zangi]

Except that people who already have nukes don't want anyone else to have the same toys.

EDIT: As for the culture book stuff....  What sort of books are we sending? Romance Novels? Fantasy? Sci-Fi?  Political Opinion?  Self-help?

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[fenrif]

Right, so we know we'd better not use that bastard, right?

Not really. Nuclear weaponry is pretty much the only thing that ensures safety of humanity.

All nuclear weaponry ensures is that noone else uses nuclear weaponry.

Which is good. Which is safe. Which prevents us from nuking the fuck of ourselves. Conventional wars waged witohut WMDs? Bah, not like death tolls are that high, or that human life is that expensive.

It doesn't prevent anything. It deters other nations from nuking each other, but even then only if the people in charge are rational individuals. It also means that if one terrorist gets ahold of a nuke that the entire world could be destroyed in a hail of failsafes and deadman switches.

This is often used argument, and I have to disagree with that completely.
People in charge of any country ARE rational individuals. They've got their countries' interests to think of, and nuking somebody is not going to help those interests in any fashion.
Having the ability to do so, does act like a deterrent for any possible aggressors, though. In this sense, having a nuke is akin to having a fortified castle in the days of yore - you're unlikely to ever use it aggressively yourself, but whomever decides to attack you, is going to suffer huge losses.

I'd say, why would anyone prevent other people from building castles if it helps to defend themselves? The only reason seems to be able to easily invade such a country.

As for "terrorists steal nuke" argument, knowing that nuclear arsenals are the most guarded and protected by multiple layers of fail-safe mechanisms, accounting for human error(read: going bonkers) as well - such a scenario appears to lie squarely in a fantasy territory, of the James Bond variety.
Hell, a sensible move for a nuke-sporting nations would be to offer their expertise on the above mentioned protection mechanisms to any upstart nuclear nations insted of telling them that they're somehow not mature enough to have the bomb.

Saddam Houssein? Kim Jong-il? Theres hundreds of examples throughout history of leaders acting in their own self interests, ignoring their own citizens needs and safety, and endangering many lives. Leaders of nations are not infallable. Often they are far from perfect. Sometimes they're batshit insane. You can't pretend to know the future any more than I can, noone knows who could rise to power in the future, or what their interests will be.

The castle analogy isn't really apt... If someone attacks your castle, and you use it in defense, it probobly wont cause untold billions of civillian deaths, and irradiate most of the planet. A castle is a purely defensive thing. Its also entirely stationary. You can't attack someone with a castle, you cant make any offensive manuevers with a castle. It doesn't even work as a good analogy for the defensive nature of nukes, since nukes don't actually defend you at all. They just enable you to make the other guys as dead as they made you. You're still dead. With a castle you're actually defended against your enemies attacks.

I never said terrorists would steal a nuke. It's entirely possible they could just buy one from a less reputable nation. Or build one themselves after buying the materials. No security system is undefeatable, and the human capacity for stupidity and negligence can be astronomical. Human error can defeat any layer of protection or security system.

stealth edit:

Bauglir: kudos on mentioning the Cuban missile crisis. Theres an excellent documentary about Robert McNamara called The Fog of War wherein he talks about the Cuban missle crisis being the closest we've ever come to wiping out our own species.

[Kebooo]

It is an interesting fact that a country with nuclear weapons has never invaded another country with nuclear weapons.  That may be a result of increasingly better and more responsible leadership, as well as more peaceful populaces, however, let's look at Pakistan and India.  They fought significant wars in 1947, 1965, and 1971 (Bengali independence).  India obtained nukes in 1974.  They have had some small skirmishes since, but no major conflicts.  This was an example of one country having them and another not, but it's still an interesting example of how the presence of nuclear weapons changed the political landscape.  Especially now that both countries have nuclear weapons, there is very little chance they will go to war again over Kashmir.

The problem becomes, what happens when a group that doesn't lead a country gets one?  Will the increases in technology over the next one-hundred years make it easier to obtain one, and would there be anything to stop that from happening?  As it stands now, it's exceedingly difficult to create one.  Let's hope it stays that way.

[Zangi]

It is an interesting fact that a country with nuclear weapons has never invaded another country with nuclear weapons.  That may be a result of increasingly better and more responsible leadership, as well as more peaceful populaces, however, let's look at Pakistan and India.  They fought significant wars in 1947, 1965, and 1971 (Bengali independence).  India obtained nukes in 1974.  They have had some small skirmishes since, but no major conflicts.  This was an example of one country having them and another not, but it's still an interesting example of how the presence of nuclear weapons changed the political landscape.  Especially now that both countries have nuclear weapons, there is very little chance they will go to war again over Kashmir.

Thats where the cold war and proxy wars come in.

Also...  people trust in the fallacy that humans are rational beings?  Maybe they have some of that... but that rationality can easily be knocked off for any number of reasons... human emotions, like fear and heart-break.

Fear that 'they' will preemptive nuke you.  Personal stress inducing problems in life like separation and divorce...
Something that hits home is more likely to get an unreasonable response...

[cganya]

I would like to step in and note that Mexico is far from being "screwed". There are trouble areas in Mexico (in the northern area iirc) but they have free college/university and free health-care. Crime is a problem yes but not much more so than in the united states. Sending books and teachers to Mexico is a moronic idea as they already have a functioning school system. maybe you're referring to people who live away from city centers and don't have access to well run schools? how is that different from the United States?

I find it funny that some people in the United States think its the best country in the world at everything and that every other country in the world could benefit from their wisdom.

Stick to helping nations that actually need help, sending books and literacy teachers is a pretty low priority for most nations that need help and certainly not in great need to countries like Mexico.

[fenrif]

From what i've heard, crime is a much much larger problem than in the USA.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175230/tomgram:_kellner_and_pipitone,_the_plague_of_mexico%27s_drug_wars/#more

Check that article for some info on the drug wars going on in Mexico at the moment. Admittedly this isn't iron clad evidence, but it seems articles like these coming out of Mexico are becoming more and more common. Thats not to say the country is completely screwed, but it's far from being fine.

[cganya]

From what i've heard, crime is a much much larger problem than in the USA.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175230/tomgram:_kellner_and_pipitone,_the_plague_of_mexico%27s_drug_wars/#more

Check that article for some info on the drug wars going on in Mexico at the moment. Admittedly this isn't iron clad evidence, but it seems articles like these coming out of Mexico are becoming more and more common. Thats not to say the country is completely screwed, but it's far from being fine.

thinking that cartels control Mexico is like thinking the mob controls the United States. It's a problem, yes, but it's localized to specific areas.

[fenrif]

I never said the cartels control Mexico. Neither does the article. It does say that if the problem isn't dealt with properly they could end up with de facto control in the future.

Saying it's localized to specific areas is under-estimating the problem. They control large areas of Mexico, and have influence in most major US cities. I'm sure that article mentions something about them having groups in many South American countries too.

Of course, the article could just be sensationalising the whole thing, but they do have cited sources, and this isn't something thats only reported in one source. So while I'm willing to admit I might not have a clear grasp of the situation, I'm fairly confident it's alot worse than the USA.

[Grakelin]

I don't understand why people think that America (or any Western Nation, really) is winning 'the Culture War' (whatever that is), except via ethnocentrism.

Stop and consider for a moment that the largest fraction of modern theatre as we know of it today was designed by Russians during the 19th century.

When you go to the bookstore, examine just how large the 'manga' section is, compared to the 'graphic novel' section. What is the difference? I'll give you a hint: One of them is from another country.

Plus, the United States is far from being popular in the eyes of the every-day world citizen. Even Americans don't like Americans anymore.

I don't know why I subscribe to threads where the OP clearly hasn't done any research. The United States already sells their books to other countries. Every popular book ends up going to every country. How many languages is Life of Pi in? Harry Potter? Lord of the Rings? (none of these three books were written by Americans, incidentally, so I still don't understand the 'winning the culture war' thing)

What sort of advanced culture does the USA contribute that other Western nations (Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, etc. etc.) aren't?

[alway]

There are litterally tons of nuclear material laying around gaurded by no more than chainlink fences (mostly ex-Soviet material). NPR was talking about that during the international nuclear talks a week or two ago. Thus far, according to the expert they had on the show, there have been 15 thefts of nuclear material that we know of. And we didn't know of them until the theives were actually caught. They didn't even notice it was missing; that's how lax the security is. And these thefts weren't organized crime or anything like that, but just ordinary guys who figured they could get some quick cash from it. My guess is, if terrorists actually did try to acquire nuclear material, they would have enough for a small nuke or at least several dirty bombs in a fairly short amount of time.

Obama's recent nuclear talks are improving things though, as many nations have declared their intent to hand over said nuclear materials to countries/storage facilities where they will be more secure.

As for the original post of exporting knowledge and culture: we should probably import some first. About half of Americans believe global warming does not exist; about 40% are creationists, and the list goes on from there. What we really need to do is get our military spending under control and take down our Soviet-era military-industrial complex before it takes down us. That eats up around half of the federal budget; money much better spent on more positive things like sorely needed infrastructure, education, technology, and space exploration. As for helping the rest of the world, we have too many neo-cons who whine about foreign aid to do much in that department.

[Kebooo]

The question becomes, is culture as distinct as it was before?  I'd argue it's not.  If Lord of the Rings was so popular in the US, does that make it not part of US culture?  Some cultures for example, Canada, UK, US share similar interests and lifestyles.  Like Grakelin said, popular books get published everywhere.  And this is often true of popular anything.  Taiwanese kids singing Whitney Houston songs.  The suit became a world standard for dress, is it somehow part of ___ culture (whoever first came up with it)?  Is English only English culture because they came up with it, but Americans use it?  If anything, it is the UK that won the 'culture war' in that their language and customs dominate the US, Canada and Australia, and in turn more of UK's specific culture has permeated the world than any other specific culture.  Is the northeast of the US winning the culture war against the midwest or the south? 

The real cultural differences come between a western country and say, Pakistan, or Egypt.  Maine (where I'm from) is more similar to Canada than it is to Georgia.  So are we Canadian culture?  When I went to England they had KFC, when I went to Japan they had McDonald's, and when you come to the US we have a huge amount of European based culture.  More and more, in a consumer based world, a product is judged not where it came from, but on its own merit and whether that population enjoys it.

[kuro_suna]