reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Your pretense that peace has been maintained because of nuclear weapons ignores the reality that since the United States dropped the atom bomb on
Hiroshima, the United States has fought the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, The First Gulf War, and following the Afghanistan War, the Second Gulf
War, not to mention the numerous military incursions the U.S. has been involved in since 1945, and that is just the U.S.
I was talking about wars between superpowers - WW2 style. Some local wars using conventional weapons will probably always be here, lets be
In 2004 it was reported that the Los Alamos National Labatory was unable to account for 765 kilograms of plutonium, enough to make 150 nuclear
bombs...but hey when those clowns lost that plutonium they were probably sober, right?
Probably yes. Now imagine how much more might they lost if they were allowed to work drunk. Saying that we should allow responsible tasks to be done
while drunk because accidents sometimes happen even to sober people is a logical fallacy. The probability is obviously different, especially in the
case of driving, since alcohol specifically impairs abilities needed for it.
The current DUI legislative acts are about aggregation of power, not protecting people.
Tell that to those 400 per year saved. They were obviously protected.
And I agree, legislature is maybe too harsh (for first time ofenses). But thats not a reason to jump to another extreme and abolish it outright. Just
relax it a little.
The belief that nuclear weapons maintain peace is insanity.
Even if it was not true, what do you want to do about that? Unless all nuclear powers agree to get rid of the weapons at the same time, not having
them would lead to imbalance and maybe even war.
I just dont understand your logic - you say having NW is insane and dangerous, yet you advocate that EVERYONE should have the right to posess them,
even average Joe (crazy), or you jum to another extreme - completely get rid of them (unreal). Why do you always advocate extremist solutions? The
truth is in the middle, and most optimal solutions also tend to be there - if we cant realistically get rid of them, at least ensure that they are
controlled by few publicly controlled qualified people with psycho checks, education, clearance. Not some obscure corporate CEO answering to noone.
Prudence is the better part of valor, and it is most imprudent to drive drunk, but without a victim, there is no crime.
400 ppl/year are saved by criminalizing DUI. There are your victims which would be dead if we used your idealistic anarcho-extremist ideology instead
of realistic preventive more utilitarian ideology to construct the laws.
Are you prepared to sacrifice the lives of real people so that some abstract principles of yours which are not even universally accepted in the
society would not be violated? Thats the very definition of fanatism (fundamentalism). Fundamentalists are dangerous.
An idealist such as yourself would probably be aghast at the notion of a populace armed with nuclear weapons. You might even think such a notion
Who is more competent to responsibly hold nuclear weapons? Qualified and tested nuclear commanders or average Joe on the street? There might me
exceptions to both sides, but statistically, its obvious. So yes, any reasonable analysis must conclude that making NW available to everyone without
control or licensing would increase the net risk of misusing them, compared to making them available only to few carefully selected people.
Also, how would public posessing NW increase their protection against tyranicall governments? Its not that dictatorships can use NW to harass their
people, Nuclear WMDs can only be effectivelly used in full-scale war against different states. I cannot even imagine how can a dictator use nuclear
bombardment for example to supress dissent among the citizens. Conventional weapons are enough to keep the nation enslaved.
edit on 7/1/11 by
Maslo because: (no reason given)