It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Deterrence Theory is a Fraud

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Deterrence theory is a relic. If it is proven wrong, as many theories are, we will all be very sorry. In my opinion, it does far more harm than good, should an accident occur.


Deterance theory works.

DT is our only option since we have fixed variables such as "NUCLEAR WEAPONS".

Nuks are not going anywhere.

Do you have any other options that would be better in your opinion than DT?

-Reason




posted on May, 10 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Do you have any other options that would be better in your opinion than DT?

Your avatar is pretty cool looking. It looks like you are glorifiying the US nuclear arsenal tho'. Do you feel a sense of pride at our power to destroy massive amounts of people? I'm not being a smart-alec, I just think that it would be impossible to convince such a person that nukes should not be under sovereign control.

I do not trust the administrators of America. I do not think they are responsible enough to keep me or my loved ones safe. I think they are being stupid or careless and I have given more reasons in this thread than anyone could ask. Ike Jeanes' book sells used on Amazon for less than ten dollars. I am amazed that nobody on ATS has read this book. It is the ONLY book in the world that discusses the nuclear problem in detail and the author is the first person to give us systems with which to understand the issues. I'm not sure how much truth is worth to people, but I am very glad I read this book. I'd always rather know an unpleasant truth.

As for how we should control nukes, I suggested a solution earlier in this thread and don't feel like retyping it. In fact, I have suggested this same solution (ATM-controlled nukes) elsewhere on ATS with little or no comments from anybody. The more I think about it, the more I am realizing that people would rather believe they are safe than to actually find out. There is a "this life and then done" mentality that has soaked into 95% of American skulls. No thoughts about their children or the possible failure of Deterrence in their lifetime. It is truly pathetic how much trust people will place in their leaders.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by astroblade
decent logic but i must play devils advocate now. how then, do you explain the fact that the U.S. and Russia never used nuclear weapons on each other during the cold war?


There was a third player on the scene, China.
Then there was a fourth player France
Then France gave the bomb to Israel
and so on and so on and so on.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   
SmallPeeps,

I must regretfully bow out of this discussion now as I can see that your arguments are based on your beliefs and opinions as opposed to facts and logic. You continue to attempt to muddy the waters through the use of false analogies with systems like the Space Shuttle and MS Windows, using a few examples of commonality of concept but ignoring the large numbers of differences which make up the reality of the comparison.

Your reliance on Ike Jeanes book to the point of falsely claiming that it “is the ONLY book in the world that discusses the nuclear problem in detail and the author is the first person to give us systems with which to understand the issues” highlights your lack of objectivity. It may be the only one that ties in with your opinions but that does not make it the only one to discuss this issue in depth.

I suggest that you read a few other books and articles on the subject, to try and get a better understanding of what fundamentals of deterrence are. I do not want to come across as condescending but I feel that you have a rather simplified view of it. Your desire to merge the concepts of nuclear deterrence with C4I for nuclear weapons shows this.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

I must regretfully bow out of this discussion now as I can see that your arguments are based on your beliefs and opinions as opposed to facts and logic. You continue to attempt to muddy the waters through the use of false analogies with systems like the Space Shuttle and MS Windows, using a few examples of commonality of concept but ignoring the large numbers of differences which make up the reality of the comparison.

No problem, by why all the drama? Is it more important for you to show a certain flair than to actually present any data?

Yes, this book seems to be the only book to discuss the issue of nuclear war in a statistical context. In addition, the author has written a computer program which allows you to see for yourself. Have you seen the computer program "Nukefix" that I referred to earlier in this thread? I have yet to hear any contributors who have anything to say about it.

BHR, you've got an elitist mentality, it seems. In the real world, unlearned men like myself can only rely on books and our own common sense. I'm farm-stupid in that sense. In my investigations of this issue of nuclear weapons, I have read a book which gives a detailed system for grasping the issues involved in nuclear war. The title of the book is "Grappling With the Nuclear"... Don't you think that should be your first clue that the author is trying to help you to understand what is a very complicated problem? Please show me another book that aims to deconstruct the matter for us. Until you do that, what are you contributing to the discussion? We will all learn best if you bring your stack of books up against my stack of books.


Your reliance on Ike Jeanes book to the point of falsely claiming that it “is the ONLY book in the world that discusses the nuclear problem in detail and the author is the first person to give us systems with which to understand the issues” highlights your lack of objectivity. It may be the only one that ties in with your opinions but that does not make it the only one to discuss this issue in depth.

I suggest that you read a few other books and articles on the subject, to try and get a better understanding of what fundamentals of deterrence are. I do not want to come across as condescending but I feel that you have a rather simplified view of it. Your desire to merge the concepts of nuclear deterrence with C4I for nuclear weapons shows this.

What books have you read? You told me to go read about "MacArthur and WWII"... What kind of lazy advice is that? I have done the reading my friend. I ask you to guide me to better reading material or disprove the material I have mentioned. I do not have a desire to merge anything. I am discussing a related system and these components are interrelated. The idea of Deterrence (as I described in my first post) acts as an inflammatory agent if there is an accidental launch. It's very simple to grasp.

I'm not too smart, BHR, so please do have patience with me. How is it that DT will keep us safe under a world of nuclear proliferation? You still haven't gotten to that part although I've given you lots of targets to shoot at. Tell us what YOUR views are, please and also what books you have read to support those views of yours.

This is not a debate because I have always hated debates. I have no incentive to respect my opponents on this issue of nuclear weapons because what is at stake is my own survival. How does one remain objective when one is contemplating a nuclear war in which they may die? No, I am very subjective about it and yes, I need better proof that we aren't in danger.


[edit on 13-5-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

MAD works, so long as those in charge are sound of mind. There is no way for the US or Russia to launch a nuclear first strike and not recieve a near equal strength retalitory attack. You can't argue that.

Who's arguing that? I am aware that MAD will result in destruction on both sides. It will not be "Assured Destruction" because there will be survivors.


Assured Desruction, doesn't mean there is no way to survive. The term Mutually Assured Destruction means that it is gurinteed that both side will face major distruction! Assured mean Gurinteed, not total! Some degree of major distruction is inevadable for both sides.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Nukes are not going anywhere hey?

Well, how is this for a little known fact.

The first country EVER to give up its Nuclear Weapons VOLUNTARILY was South Africa. And most people never knew South Africa had Nuclear Weapons, the people of South Africa certainly didn't!

And you guys maintain that they aren't going anywhere? Well, I say they must be planned for use, otherwise they would have been scrapped like those that were scrapped by South Africa VOLUNTARILY, and its gotten more dangerous in the country since then. Reckon that. I guess the big weapons were replaced with small weapons.

As it currently stands, the Boer, the White South African is the most murdered person on the planet. But of course, it is justified, like everything else.

And the Nukes, they won't be aim at America itself. They will be delivered off coast, I suspect, to sink a small landmass into the ocean, causing a mass flooding of the entire seaboard.

Yeah, and thats within 10 years probably. From China. Say thanks (for the warning).

[edit on 17-5-2005 by akilles]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Small,

As someone who has spent a large part of his adult life in the study of nuclear conflict strategy I feel that I am educationally qualified to discuss this issue.

I have only a few points to make to you here as I can see that your mind is more than made up.

The nuclear issue is not a public health issue as Jeannes would like you to believe. It is not like AIDs or cancer or smoking. It is a geo-political issue.

Even without downloading the statistical propaganda tool that is NukeFix it has proved itself irrelevant yet this is glossed over. Why is it irrelevant? Well by its own calculations we should have experienced at least 2 if not 6 serious failures leading to the launching of nuclear weapons in the last 50 years. How many have we had? None. Any statistical model which cannot even be shown to prove the past is no use at all for modelling the future.

As is often said, why let the facts get in the way of a point of view. This seems to be the motto of Jeannes.

You have asked for my opinions and if I thought you would actually understand them I would supply them but you have yet to understand any of the points I have made so far. If you view this as elitist then so be it.

“The idea of Deterrence acts as an inflammatory agent if there is an accidental launch. It's very simple to grasp.”

This is a fundamental error in your logic. What acts as an inflammatory agent in the event of an accidental launch is the concept of MAD not deterrence.

I could go on like this through your whole post but I think you see where this is going.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

I could go on like this through your whole post but I think you see where this is going.

Interesting that you mentioned your lifetime of studying nuclear war and also that you still have not shared any information on the subject. Why are you hoarding all that grand knowledge? Please put me at ease. I sensed a little pride attached to your posts. I however have no pride attached to this issue. I am looking for info. If you feel that you will lose credibility in your years of research on nukes by discussing it with some internet schmoe like me, I would encourage you to think again. If you defend what you believe here on ATS, wouldn't you then have more credibility?

You are wrong about nukefix being propaganda. It is a tool. I gives us a handle with which to grasp the complex problem of nukes. Statistics tell us how the world works. If you walk through a pit of vipers, your odds of being bit are controlled by many factors, but the single most important factor is how often you walk through the pit. Ten trips across the pit will increase the odds that you will be bitten. As I have said before, modern statistical analysis wasn't available until the rise of the personal computer. Now everyone can decipher the big lies for themselves.

My opinions are based on just a few books. If you have read a better book that explains the nuclear problem in layman's terms, I'll read it. Otherwise, what have you contributed?

I am happy to make a fool of myself if it leads to a greater understanding for the group. I would encourage all the silent folks watching this thread to pay attention to how little data the critics actually present. There's nobody on this thread who is presenting any contrary data which says we're safe. In the end, you will have to trust them. Deterrence is like Christ's return, in that sense. Believing it gives people the freedom to live their lives because it removes the worry.

Do you folks really believe that Osama is some larger threat than a handful of nuclear bombs which hang by nebulous controls? I cannot believe that all Americans believe that 'terrorism' is a bigger threat to American cities than nukes. If they do believe that, they have been media-conditioned to believe it.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   
SmallPeeps,

"Statistics tell us how the world works."

Wrong. If you think this is true then I cannot help you.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

SmallPeeps,

"Statistics tell us how the world works."

Wrong. If you think this is true then I cannot help you.

I'm not asking for your help, the human race is. Why would you keep information about nuclear safety to yourself? We all know the official story, which is that nuclear weapons will not be used due to MAD. I've dissected that in this thread and yet you say that I am confused or somehow not lucid.

You cannot "Assure" your enemy's "Destruction" so the acronym is meaningless. If your enemy thinks he can survive exchange with say, 50% casualties, then he may or may not decide to fight you. MAD is a lie because our nuclear opponents are prepared and they will have lots of survivors. If I am wrong about MAD, please explain how the imaginary assurance of your enemy's death is the road to reality or lucidity, as you seem to be implying.

Once a nuclear launch happens (accidentally or otherwise), there has been a failure of some kind because DT did not deter that missile. At that point, the decision rests with the key-turners in the silos and subs. Will they follow through on the game of MAD which says that their enemy must be destroyed? Of course their enemy won't be destroyed, just some of them. The enemy nation will still have a flag and still have citizens. The enemy does not go away after nuclear war.

So far, the consolidated responses to this thread are:

1: "Chill out, you don't understand Deterrence. It will continue to hold."
2: "Chill out, you don't understand MAD. It will continue to hold."

...Forgive me if I am underwhelmed. I was born onto this suicidal Earth where nukes are a part of everyday life. I'm sorry folks, but this meme represents collective dissonance and social-insanity. So-called 'experts' have only evasions and soothsaying to offer. As I mentioned earlier, DT represents first-generation nuclear thought, at best. It would be far better for us as humans to PLAN for an accidental use of nukes so that we can then plan for how we would collectively respond and ensure that DT does NOT ruin us all as a result of that accident.

The people in power will tell you you are safe because it profits them to do so. They want you to stay in the cities and keep working. I believe that the administrative cabal that's steering America is mostly unconcerned about the Americans in the cities and near nuclear targets. The rich and powerful have bunkers to which they will run when things get bad, and these bunkers are stocked for decades of survival. When that day comes, city-dwelling Americans will not be prepared and they will not have as many bunkers to jump into, as our enemies do. These enemies of ours have expected the US to use nukes again and they are ready to grind through whatever comes afterward. You do remember that Asians are proven to be the world's best underground fighters, correct? These folks have been conditioned (by our history of bombing them) to dig into the Earth and they will not all be killed by surface detonations. We have a tradition underestimating our Asian opponent's fighting spirit, as history has shown us.

Americans in the cities are being encouraged to remain on the frontlines of the next war without their knowledge. It's really not so different from the backdoor-draft travesty of sending the US militia (citizen-soldiers) to fight a foreign war in Iraq. Citizens are disposable, you see? What difference does it make if joe-six-pack dies as a National Guardsman in Iraq or at home under a mushroom cloud?

Americans should demand better civil defense training, federally purchased radmeters and much larger nuke-shelters if we aim to raise our families under the "safety" of Deterrence Theory and MAD.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
SmallPeeps,

"So far, the consolidated responses to this thread are:

1: "Chill out, you don't understand Deterrence. It will continue to hold."
2: "Chill out, you don't understand MAD. It will continue to hold."


First off, I think you will find at no point have I said "Chill out".

Secondly, there are no guarantees that MAD and deterrence will hold. My argument with you has been that the so called facts and statistics you are using do not disprove either deterrence or MAD. In fact in the case of Nukefix this actually proves both.

Nuclear weapons are bad. No doubt about it. However, they exist and no amount of wishing them away will change that. So the next question is what to do with them?

I think you will find that the only thing guaranteed to bring about a massive nuclear exchange would be a massive nuclear strike on either the US, Russia or China by one of the same. In my opinion an accidental would not be enough. Why, you might ask? Well because a single accidental strike would kill perhaps 10 million people ( worst case ). Retaliation would mean a likely twenty-fold increase in this number. Now it would take a special kind of maniac to think that the best way to avenge 10 million deaths is to sentence another 200 million of your countrymen to the same.

Now before you say it I know this is not impossible.

So where does this leave us?

The US has the most advanced C4I ever created. The Russians are dismantling their nukes yet still have a decent C4I setup. The Chinese are sticklers for centralised control and the long picture.

You have made several mentions of India and Pakistan. As horrific as it may sound I feel that as a planet we could absorb a nuclear exchange between the two without it expanding out to involve any of the other nuclear powers.

As for the Middle East, the same exists as no one there has anything other that theatre capability.

So in summary I understand your concerns, however, I feel that the information you are using to make these assumptions is wrong and misleading. We are in danger, not just in the level or way you think.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   

I think you will find that the only thing guaranteed to bring about a massive nuclear exchange would be a massive nuclear strike on either the US, Russia or China by one of the same. In my opinion an accidental would not be enough. Why, you might ask? Well because a single accidental strike would kill perhaps 10 million people ( worst case ). Retaliation would mean a likely twenty-fold increase in this number. Now it would take a special kind of maniac to think that the best way to avenge 10 million deaths is to sentence another 200 million of your countrymen to the same.

Now we're getting somewhere.

I don't quite understand this paragraph. Are you saying that the key-turners will not follow through on MAD? I believe that in the scenario you describe, retaliation is likely to happen. How do you reason that MAD will not be followed through upon?

You must be saying that if they knew it was an accident, then they would not retaliate. For example, if Marco Ramius in Hunt for Red October had launched his missiles in an attack on the Eastern seaboard, the US would not retaliate because they have been informed that Ramius was a traitor (failure of 'Command') and so the USSR would not be punished or suffer for the strike?

If you truly do believe this then it must be based on your superior understanding of the matter. From where does your confidence come?



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
SmallPeeps,

Let me portray a scenario for you.

5 Russian ICBMs are launced at the US. For simplicities sake they are not MIRVs. They are single shot city killers (10MT).

They are aimed at San Diego, Grand Forks, Offut, Norfolk and Seattle.

They have a flight time of about 25 mins.

As soon as they are launched, Putin is on the phone to Bush telling him they have had a accidental launch and giving him the full info on the missiles (type, launch location, target, etc)

Putin says they are trying to destroy them remotely.

Decision Point 1 @ TTI (Time To Impact) 24:00

What do you do as Bush? Do you launch a retaliatory strike or do you do something else? If something else, what?





I will continue the scenario upon reciept of your answer. Try and keep the answers brief as you do not have a lot of time

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

I will continue the scenario upon reciept of your answer. Try and keep the answers brief as you do not have a lot of time

Why am I on a clock here? Are you trying to make some cute point? Frankly you sound semi-coherent.


San Diego, Grand Forks, Offut, Norfolk and Seattle.

San Diego County, CA: 3 million people, Naval bases.
Grand Forks, ND: 50k people, Air Force base
Offutt, NE: 9k people, Headquarters of Strategic Air Command
Norfolk (and Portsmouth), VA: 330k people, Norfolk Navy Base (largest in the world)
Seattle (and Puget Sound area), WA: 3.8 million people, Naval Bases

My answer would be this: If those ICBMs are not intercepted in some way, and they hit and detonate, I would estimate 50% casualties in each location, probably higher in San Diego because the whole area would be aflame, particularly if the attack came in Summer. So that'd be around 3 million casualties with maybe 2 million wounded.

If such an event occurs, and Putin claimed it was an accident, I think the executive office would become irrelevant. Would Bush order retaliation? No, he probably would find a political angle and use it for his own benefit. Such is the nature of politicians. In fact, it would be he and others like him who killed those three million people due to their collective irresponsibility. Frankly, if such a thing happened, many people outside America would probably consider it payback for the US bringing nukes into the world. Assuming we saved 300,000 US soldiers from dying on the ground in Japan by our WWII use of nuclear weapons. This means that it took less than a century for that action to come back and bite us, killing ten times as many people. At that moment, America would be paying dearly for inventing the bomb. Sad but true.

I think the better question would be: How will control of military commanders be held in that critical moment? How will you keep the hawks from retaliating which they surely would be inclined to do, even if only to equalize the body count. How will these men be controlled? That's the real question. US sub skippers and their XOs are responsible, sober men. If, however, any of them have family in Seattle, San Diego, etc, then their whole world view would probably change in this moment of accident. Can you describe to me how their loyalty to the president would keep them leashed?

Also, the people of America would demand some kind of action. If Bush started preaching 'patience' and 'It was a mistake', I do not think he would be listened to. The US would change on that particular day, and the next few days afterward would probably have very good odds of an unauthorized retaliatory launch happening, probably against a moderately populated Soviet target. This could be done by any of a number of military men in power. Nuclear warriors/technicians have been quoted in the published material saying that they knew how to launch, if they wanted to. I think such an accident might give them a reason to act on that temptation. Even if you say that a rogue commander could not retaliate with an ICBM, the relatives of those dead at Offutt and Grand Forks could probably arrange a stealth bomber to deliver a payload for them. If a small group of Americans were determined to retaliate, I am certain it could be done.

One thing's for sure: If such an event happens, and there is an isolated military person who does strike back (and possibly is punished for it) this person would become an iconic hero for many Americans, for generations to come. Watch "Seven Days in May" for an interesting picture of the power the military has. If 3 million people died due to the scenario you described, the collective American bloodlust would applaud a lone commander who launched his nukes back and killed an equal number of Soviets. Not all Americans would approve, mind you, but many of them would support this action, chilling as it sounds. After that, we would probably see full exchange, depending on how the Soviets took it.

I do think that the accident you describe could also have a rosy side to it. If those three million deaths could be used to remove nukes from the planet (and they easily could produce such a result) then those people will not have died in vain. If we just went on as usual, it is safe to assume the nuclear scars would last for centuries and would possibly provoke future events.

Anyway, that's my answer.




[edit on 19-5-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Comparitively:

US revolutionary War: 7,000 dead
US Civil War: 700,000 dead
WW2 [US]: 400,000 dead
Korean War [US]: 36,000 dead
Vietnam War [US]: 58,000 dead

I want to show you a great graphic from Matthew White's outstanding website. Here we see the number of deaths due to war and atrocities during our century:




Nukes and Deterrence have flattened out the number of deaths in our century, and we can easily observe that without nukes, there'd probably be much bigger spikes between 1950 and 1995. As the graph moves to the right, however, which it does with every hour, we get closer to the consequences of our deal with the nuclear devil. Also, please bear in mind that this graph only represents 100 years, and in my examples of a ten-nation nuclear world, I used 1000 years as the base number. This means that nuclear peace would have to extend to the right of this graph for ten more lengths. How likely do you think that is?

Nuclear bombs are not helping us, they seem to be regarded as necessary evils. But if we all had a cancer, and we could all unite and thereby heal that cancer, wouldn't we do just that? Why are we so stratified on this issue? We all know most of what is being said in this thread. I want to talk about the alternatives.

I want to untangle this Gordian Knot of nuke-war. I will have only respect for anyone who posts any ideas toward that goal.



[edit on 20-5-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Small,


Originally posted by smallpeeps
I want to untangle this Gordian Knot of nuke-war. I will have only respect for anyone who posts any ideas toward that goal.
[edit on 20-5-2005 by smallpeeps]


If you are wondering why I have not responded sooner it is because of this last paragraph.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Adios to you, BillHicksRules. We only just met. Too bad you never really contributed anything to the discussion of nuclear weapons and the theories that are supposed to control them. What a waste.

Hmm well, I've let this thread mellow for long enough. Figured I'd bump it since my argument is being made for me on a world scale.

As we can see, the theory of Nuclear Deterrence (commensurate death by nukes) has not deterred Iran's national "nuclear rights". Iran obviously sees a need for a nuclear "Deterrent" from the 300+ warheads which Israel owns. ...Or is it that Iran's regime has recently been built for war by Ahmadinejad and he's headed for massive Muslim glory by eliminating Israel at any cost? Surely these are not rational players, are they?



en.wikipedia.org...

"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."

And so the wheel of nuke-proliferation turns. Every nation player must have nukes under the policy of Deterrence Theory otherwise they aren't "safe". Also mentioned in this thread is the sister concept to Deterrence Theory; Mutually Assured Destruction... This is a fallacious concept. One cannot ensure the enemy's destruction, even with nukes. After nukes, conventional war must follow. There is no mutal destruction, only destruction of the citizenry. Militaries will still exist in large part.

But Germany is united in their insistence that Iran come to its senses. Bush is there also. Deterrence Theory is not mentioned, it's just taken for granted. Of course, reality says otherwise. Surely there'll be more nations that want their own nuclear autonomy.



Bush, Merkel united on Iran's nuclear threat

www.cnn.com...

The EU-3 nations of Britain, France and Germany -- which have negotiated with Iran in hopes of reaching a resolution -- together with the United States must work to persuade other nations to join their stance, said Merkel.

"And we will certainly not be intimidated by a country such as Iran," she said.

Hmmm... Strong words.

Now Ukraine wants their own nuclear power. Why not? Everyone's jumping on the bandwagon.



Ukraine Wants to Produce Own Nuclear Fuel

news.yahoo.com...

"Yushchenko's call could put his Western allies in an awkward position as they seek to balance the desire to help Ukraine shed Russian influence with concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation and their campaign to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions."

The energy shifts have settled in and humanity really didn't notice. Now Russia's ready for war, as with their deliberate provokation of Ukraine. Who can blame them for taking this bold move? Deterrence Theory demands it. Will Russia allow autonomous nukes? Who's next to want a credible "Deterrence"?

Solar power, conservation and Internet could save us, but let's face it, the lullabye is just too sweet. We want so desperately to believe that things can't go wrong.

I wonder if the top 10% of the world, who own all the wealth, could build bomb shelters large enough to house all their families? Surely it would only require a year's vacation in the alps for the worst to pass, right? A planet without the crawling, unpropertied little people would be sweet enough to endure a little radioactive destruction, right?

As an aside, I am wondering why MadMissileer stopped posting to this thread?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Sorry it has been so long since I posted. I tried sending you a message, but I don't have enough posts yet to have that option enabled.

I have been taking master's classes and changing bases, so my time has been limited. This topic is certainly heating up on the world stage since this thread was started. I fear it is only a matter of time before we are hit with a nuke.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Hey MM, good to see you back. We do have the best people manning our nuclear safetys, of that I am sure. But how good is pakistan's missile force? Doesn't each new nuclear player bring us closer to an accident?

You know earlier in this thread you said that the real key to te geo-politik problem is that we (westerners) are being out-bred by Muslims. Essentially, they're having way more kids than us mostly due to their culture. Even western muslims are having more kids. In America:



www.themodernreligion.com...

"The American Muslim birthrate is about 4.5 children per couple, versus the 1.9 child per couple national [USA] average."

I'm not sure if these numbers are true (the site seems to be pro-Islam), but can you expound on this idea? I think this is on-topic because Deterrence Theory is applied by strategists, to cannons and cavalry, as well as to nuclear bombs. I'm not sure how you equate birthrates to politics and warfare.

please note: I have adjusted some of my thinking since I wrote this thread. I do now believe that there is hope to avoid nuclear war. Previously I thought there was no hope but now I know there is a great hope for nuclear non-use. I'm encouraged, and I rarely have much to say about the subject these days. If it's to happen, it'll happen. Anyway, I'm way out of the blast radius.

We might dodge nuke war, but I do think big-scale death is coming, but probably from plague.
Heck, we've gotta go somehow, right?

Anybody who wants to discuss this issue is welcome. Here's a couple other threads on the subject of nukes:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join