Slashdot Mirror
Obama Calls For Nuke-Free World
jamie points out news that President Obama has put out a call for a world free of nuclear weapons at a speech in Prague today. He acknowledged that it was a long-term goal, perhaps not something that can be accomplished in his lifetime, but promised to encourage the US Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty. According to the BBC, he also stated his desire to "negotiate a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons," and to hold a global summit within the next year to work out agreements for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Obama said, "As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it." His speech came less than a day after North Korea's launch of a long-range rocket.
Prepare for fallout!
The Long Now Foundation
Could this guy be any stupider?
Always playing at the wrong end of the bell curve
Task Mangler
Free of nukes only works until some other 4 foot 9 dictator decides to raise his status the only way he can to impress the world.
What then? Does he become emporer of the world or just harasser of the world as Hannibal did to Rome?
And now, Ill come forth and call to an end of mean people. And a pony. I want a pony.
Really though, nuclear technology isnt that hard. Take 2 pieces of near-critical U235 and smack them together.. Hell, we could have Soulskill clap them together.
And dont forget yeah, the US, France, UK, Russia, and China all have nukes. Those countries like India, Pakistan, and Israel also have them, and we dont have a nuclear holocaust yet, either.
Just a bunch of North Korea fearmongering. After all, if they do get scared, China WILL step in and handle the situation.
If he's trying to stop the production of fissile materials, how will this affect nuclear power?
I understand that fuel for nuclear power requires much less enrichment than for nuclear weapons, but would they require the same sort of facilities?
The United States has 5,914 strategic nuclear warheads, followed closely by Russia with 4,237 deployable warheads. (Source: Arms Control ). The rest of the members of the nuclear club -- UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel -- have less than 1,000 combined nuclear weapons. Clearly, if Obama wants the world to take him seriously, he needs to restart the START-II treaty and disassemble his own stockpile before he can expect others to do the same.
...as long as we get rid of them in reverse order of discovery.
By the end of the projected total nuclear ban, there will be much stronger weapons than nuclear. Why stick to some outdated weapons?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
But then how will we fight off the aliens?
Nobody is going to disarm if another country still has nukes, that would be suicide. Furthermore, countries that possess nukes would still have the knowhow to produce them after the destruction of all of the nuclear weapons. That alone would create an unbalance in the worldpower, some countries can still make nukes if the situation warrants it and they can be produced in a year or 4(probably less) so any war with these powers would mean a re-arming of the nation involved and as a reaction a re-arming of all other nuke-capable nations.
Furthermore, some countries still rely on nukes as a deterrent like Israel. I just don't see them disarming, and my believe is affirmed since Israel categorically refuses to say anything about its nuclear capabilities which leads to the last objection to these plans. You can hide your nukes and feign compliance with disarming programs.
In short, it won't work and Obama is not believing his own words if he has any intelligence.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
only outlaws will have nukes!
With states like North Korea and Iran actively pursuing nuclear technology, can the US, Russia and the other nuclear states afford to lose their deterrence? It seems that states like Pakistan that are potentially fragile are also on the list of potential threats.
I'm all for getting rid of nukes; they're the most terrible weapon we have and really serve as a weapon of last resort. However, in the current political climate, is it possible to eliminate the stockpiles and deterrence that goes with them?
Signing on to the Test Ban Treaty is a great first step that shows that the US is willing to practice what it preaches as far as disarmament and peace. The actual removal of nuclear weapons from the arsenal seems unlikely, however.
Along those same lines, it would be great if the US could get on board with the Global Landmine Ban Treaty. Landmines are perhaps even more terrible in their effect on people and the environment. Landmines kill and maim thousands of people every year and rarely serve the purpose they were intended for. The only even semi-valid argument for the continued use of landmines is the 38th Parallel between North and South Korea. Though given the current world political climate is pretty flimsy. North Korea wouldn't stand much of a chance invading South Korea these days.
This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
I'm not one that believes in using nuclear weapons, but not having them seems worse than having them.
Ya, I know, pretty easy to say when I'm in one of the countries with a crapton of them (US).
but without nukes there is no apocalypse wtf? or doom's day. Isn't our role to go destroy ourselves so that JC can put a stop to it? or does our world have real choices?
So we get rid of our nukes and so does other 'law abiding' countries. What about the 100's that really don't give a damn?
Then again, he thinks banning personal guns will work too.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I was lucky enough to be born in France too late for the mandatory military service, so instead of months of military training all we had was a full day of lecturing about how much arse the French military kicks (try to keep your generic obligatory jokes for yourself). I slept through most of it, but I recall them insisting on how deterrent nuclear force was what shielded us from any invasion, and I believe that holds true for any country with nuclear ICBMs and such.
So we know we need these, but these days, it's all about Iran and North Korea trying to join the club, and we don't want that to happen. What this story is talking about is preventing new weapons from being created (in a nutshell), that means precisely these guys, we still keep ours, but they can't get any. So this move isn't about making the world free of nukes, it's about making sure they don't fall in the hands of worst rivals. In other words it's completely opportunistic and hypocritical, amirite?
You just got troll'd!
Its how you get the populace to give up their rights 'for their protection'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
End result of Reagan's plan: Collapse of the USSR, and reduction of the probability of nuclear armageddon.
Obama's solution to eliminate nuclear weapons: Curtail or eliminate defenses against nuclear weapons, sign on to a treaty that would have no effect upon those that would actually use nuclear weapons, and ensure that nuclear deterrence would eventually fail, as there would be increasing uncertainty whether the nuclear weapons of the nations that had signed the Test Ban Treaty had functioning nuclear weapons or not, especially if you're going to then go and end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
End result of Obama's plan: Defenseless US et al against those whose moral duty to act includes nuking us.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Has America invaded any nuclear power?
Deleted
This will work just like the UK banning hand guns, now the only people with hand guns are bad guys AND they all know the law abiding citizens aren't armed. Also once we get rid of all our nukes, then the bad guys get to turn the tables on us and say okay if we see you guys trying to build any nuke we're gonna nuke you.
One of the main problems with getting rid of nukes has been mentioned here: no one wants to give their own up. A few countries have already given up nuclear weapons, including South Africa. All countries cannot be expected to do the same with their weapons, which leaves us with one solution...
We have to nuke the nukes from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
I thought sheep were mostly white.
If he really thinks this would work, he is stupider than I thought.
As a side note, Obama claims to be Christian doesn't he? Evidently he hasn't read his own book of Revelations. Pretty much any christian who actually reads what they are supposed to believe should know better than to hope for world peace. If they do, its just hypocrisy.
To respond to a bunch of folks here:
First of all, it would be economic suicide for any country to be a nuclear aggressor. The World's economy is so integrated that it can't happen among countries that trade internationally or want to.
Now the countries that don't want to: N. Korea. International trade would undermine his regime. Yes, Jong Ill will use nukes for blackmail purposes. Launching missiles, threatening the World, mostly the US, with nuclear aggression. From what I'm seeing, he's so fucked up, he doesn't care about retaliation. He's starving his own people to keep his pathetic little country. I don't know enough about international affairs to know exactly what to do, but Nukes aren't the way to deal with that fuckwit.
Islamic fundamentalist. The Muslim community will have to deal with those themselves. For one, they're the only ones that those wakos will listen to - maybe. And two, if they don't, the entire Muslim World will be caught up in the backlash against the fundamentalist nuts. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying what will happen.
The international money folks and traders are driving all this. Sovereign nations are also becoming a thing of the past. Yes, I am saying that the one World government is on it's way. Not in our lifetimes, but not too far either.
Too much so far for a post. Here's more from some great books: "The World is Flat" by Friedman and "The World is Curved" by Smick.
But seriously, what the heck are we doing with over 10,000 nuclear warheads on our planet and over half of them in the north american continent.
I mean 100 wouldn't do it? We need 6000?
I just, can't say enough... goes and lets North Korea shoot a rocket... oh, he'll get a warning letter out of the UN, is going to sit and watch the world gather up nukes... and he wants to disarm the USA? Even worse, he's basically going to eliminate nuclear power to do it?
Obama is an idiot. Why doesn't he go out and buy a unicorn for Sasha and Meliah and sing happy love the earth songs...
This is my sig.
Steve Wynn announces ambitious plan to start charging for drinks at all his Vegas Casinos. More at 11.
The nuke has very effectively prevented WWIII from happening as the deterrent of MAD has proven to be histories most effective peace policy. The concept of non-proliferation, to keep nukes from spreading is one that that world has turned it's back on. You want to make the world a safer place, get real about nuclear programs run by countries like Iran and North Korea.
In the event that nukes were somehow magically put back in the nuclear genie bottle, countries would simply go back to larger standing armies. Conventional armies with conventional weapons have proven their ability to kill in large quantity time and time again.
Yet another reason why the world needs to mature beyond this old model of ruler-based government and evolve into open source government.
After all, if they do get scared, China WILL step in and handle the situation.
Not if North Korea gets nukes first, they won't.
- Alaska Jack
He says that a complete ban is probably not going to happen during his lifetime, so he's a realist and the talk about the USA being defenseless anytime soon appears like nonsense to me.
His goal is probably a heavy reduction of nuclear weapons and by doing the first steps he wants to get more support from the UN to put more pressure on countries like the Iran, North Korea, Pakistan etc. to stop their efforts. That's not stupid, that makes sense.
Besides that one shouldn't forget that the USA is surely the most advanced country, when it comes to simulating nuclear weapons, which needs a lot of know how and computing power and is currently done on some of the fastest supercomputers world-wide.
So if the USA manages to get real world tests banned, they have probably gathered more knowledge than anyone else to stay on top of the food chain, because there software is probably so good that they don't need a lot of real world tests anymore to get more data.
The USA have the most powerful conventional military in the world. So the only way to ensure the USA don't attack you is to have a nuclear bomb. And the USA have clearly shown that they want and will attack you, take Serbia or Iraq for example.
It's political posturing, with more important objectives.
In short, the "nuke-free world" is window-dressing for more real, practical objectives.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
What Obama is seeking is similar to the consolidation of material advantage when you trade pieces away on a chess board when you are already up in material. If major nuclear powers were to unite in disarming small nuclear powers first and controlling proliferation it would consolidate their strategic control of the world through these weapons. This could be done under the guise of world nuclear disarmament but of course it would take a "little" longer to disarm the major powers that would drive the effort. I think that this is less about dreaming of a day without nuclear weapons than it is about dreaming of a day when it is possible to control the rest of the world through possession of these weapons again. Admittedly the chess material analogy is a little strained: a nuke isn't a pawn advantage, hell it's not even like being a queen and 2 rooks up. It is more like being a Wookie opponent at the chess table.
Nuclear weapons continue to exist not just to deter nuclear war, but major wars in general. Too many conventional war scenarios lead to nuclear war with disastrous consequences; the very idea has taken war between the major powers off the table. They are the reason for why there have been no major European wars since WWII and why China was restrained during the mad years of Mao. Conventional weapons can provide the same deterrence, assuming everyone, every where destroys their nukes, but only a massive increase in conventional forces. No one believes Obama or the public in the US or Europe would be willing to make the sacrifice. Barring unicorns springing forth and the seas turning to lemonade, the threat of war will be with us always. If you want peace, or at least avoid another world war, nukes are the cost effective deterrent.
Yes, I know I'm paraphrasing pro-gun rhetoric here, but I believe it applies. The only way that International Law works, is if all the countries involved agree to abide by said laws -- which we all know doesn't work often enough. One day, assuming the human race actually lives long enough to see it, we MAY evolve enough, physioligically and mentally, that our needs for things like solving problems with aggression will become obsolete; THEN things like nuclear weapons will have a chance to go the way of the dinosaurs. Until that day comes this technology will (unfortunately) have to exist. You can't put the genie back in the bottle once you've let it out, after all; knowing something is possible is half the battle towards MAKING it possible, even if we effectively buried the knowledge of how to create nuclear fission, physicists would work backwards and rediscover how to make it happen anyway. I applaud Obama's sentiments on the subject, as I applaud the realism of his thoughts when he says "not in my lifetime".
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
After Gulf War 1 an India offical said "The lesson of this war is do not fight the United States unless you have nuclear weapons." I can see the path down to under 1000 nuclear weapons world wide. But i can't see the path to 0. As long as US conventional strength is strong enough to topple regimes China, Pakistan, North Korea etc are going to want to hold on to their nuclear weapons. These countries know they could never defeat the united states in a fight with or without nuclear weapons their only option is to raise the costs to the point a fight becomes unacceptable for either side.
No capability for critical thought, or nuance.
The problem is there's a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Thats why nukes are such a security risks with terrorists about, and a lot of attempts to acquire missiles by al queda. They will succeed as long as nukes are in the hands of a small few. The solution is to make nuclear weapons open source, so we can better secure them. Open source = better security.
If nukes are available to the common man for free, then anybody from part-time nuclear engineers, to hobbyist reactor specialists in their spare time, at home, can better analyze the security around them, test them in their backyard, etc. Put the specs on the internet for everybody to download and install in their home uranium enrichment centres. Most security holes are found by accident, so home-made nukes will help reveal more holes than any other method available.
Open Source Nukes, FTW!
Like any technology, once the ability to produce nukes is available it will not go away. Trying to make this happen will succeed about as well as prohibition did or banning firearms would. It is obviously a larger project than a still or a machine shop but not beyond the realm of possibility for any nation to try.
goodluckwiththat
No capability for critical thought, or nuance.
Well let's think about the nuances of this. Obama goes to Europe, embarrasses the country by continually apologizing for everything, gets stiffed by the Europeans on the war and on economics, backs down from North Korean threats and lets them launch their rocket at Japan, and then, expects that the Security Council will accomplish something more than issue a letter saying they will "remain seized of the moment."
How much failure do you need in a week?
This is my sig.
This is a good thing.
The fact is large scale deliberate civilian killing is not acceptable by any democratic country, in the cold war era it was barely acceptable when the US could have been destroyed. MAD doesn't work when your fighting an enemy that are smaller than you and surrounded by innocent people.
The enemy know the US won't use a nuclear weapon on them so it doesn't act as a deterent:
*9/11
*Taliban handing over Osama
*Both Gulf wars
*etc
Nobody takes the threat of the US launching a nuclear attack seriously. The only things that the huge stockpile does:
*Cost a fair bit of money
*Remove any high ground the US may have, you can't expect other to give up their weapons if you keep yours
*Increase the risk of one going missing (minor in the US, but in Israel/Russia/china this is a risk)
*Increase the risk of semi-produced materials being stolen (Again lower in the US, but non-trivial elsewhere)
So by starting to reduce the pointless arsenal in America (see above), Obama can try and convince other to follow. Negotiations are just that, and you never get anything by just shouting louder. Even if Obama only convinces the 'good' guys (US/china/russia/uk/france) to disarm, that is still a significant reduction in the risk of one of them inadvertently helping the bad guys (hell in the uk we seam to be losing everything, I wouldn't trust us with a nuke), while simultaneously putting you in a better position to convince the 'bad' countries (Iran) that they should disarm.
The total loss for the US is NOTHING, you can't use the nuclear weapons anyway!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
i agree with that man, let's all 'dump' our nukes in north korea
Sure, Ill will continue to blackmail the World, but let's face it, he doesn't give a shit about retaliation. He is starving his own people, after all. Do you really think that he'd give a shit if we nuked them? He's tucked away in his palatial bunker with his whores.
And there's the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists. Nuking a country won't do anything. If anything, that's exactly what they would want: great recruiting tool! The Muslim community will take care of those folks eventually. Their development requires that Islamic terrorism be stopped.
For more, please read: "The World is Flat" by Friedman and "The World is Curved" by Smick.
The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 13 to 18 kilotons and the Nagasaki bomb 21 kilotons.
The 10 to 15 megaton weapons in the US arsenal are close to a thousand times greater yield, with all the trappings that go with it.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
Nuke free... or else.
but action is where things get done. As a lot of people have said, no one is going to give up nuclear weapons. Especially those smaller countries that cannot support a standing army/navy/air force of any size to defeat invaders. Prez. Obama is trying to make nice with other countries and get people liking America again. While that is a nice and worthy goal the last time anyone liked us was when we sent thousands to their deaths helping defeat their enemies. Other countries, Europe included, will continue to do what is in their best interest and allow Obama to weaken America's power around the globe. Whether that is a good thing or not is yet to be seen. But while the invasion of Iraq is roundly seen as a mistake at least there are signs of previous enemies working together for the whole country. All the U.N. talk and sanctions did nothing in post-Invasion Iraq, nor in Rawanda and it isn't doing anything about the massacres going on in Sudan and other areas of Africa. Talk is cheap and accomplishes little. Taking action along with responsibility is what drives "real change". Thanks for reading.
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
...and the Republic Died.
(as did the rest of the planet when another socialist bat-shit crazy leader who lied his way into power nukes the US and all the other nuke powered countries respond in-kind).
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
We are all patterns that want to copy themselves and that is all. Right down to our genes, war is at the heart. IMO all of our behavior can be traced down to this.
The idea that there can ever be a stable peaceful state is flying against the entire history of life in this universe.
Man, Obama really IS an idiot. Removing guns from the people obliterates any personal freedoms, and disarming the country removes any sort of relevance the US of A used to have.
If he tries to take my firearms, he can have them...little round end first. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
In God we trust, all others we virus scan.
Fuzzy kittens and bunnies. XOXOXOXO!
Where are you going to put 5000 nuclear weapons' worth of highly enriched uranium, which represents several times the amount of the total nuclear waste of US nuclear power plants for all history?
Change his last name to Peacecraft! Then we'd just wait for our real Mariemaia Khushrenada to come start taking over the world.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Mod up! Can't see the point why this was modded flamebait.
A little nukie never hurt anyone!! .......sorry - I just HAD to say it
The problem with disarmament asks for something impossible - positive evidence of non-activity. A state can merrily destroy its weapons in front of the whole world, but how do you prove that they aren't secretly building some weapons in another place? You can do all the inspections you want and find nothing but that does not prove that they don't have a small stockpile stashed away somewhere. A dozen ICBMs or so should not be that hard to hide, and with megaton payloads have all the destructive power one needs for retaliation.
checkout
Ground Zero
BTW, Japan had a little help rebuilding. Also destroying a city or country doesn't require killing ever single person. Just checkout New Orleans, very few were killed and it hasn't recovered from partial infrastructure destruction in how many years?
If Obama is serious about disarming rogue states with Nuclear Weapons, should he not have at least mentioned ISRAEL ? I mean, he has professed on many occasions how much he supports them and how close the US / Israeli relationship is. How is it that they are allowed to not even admit their Nuclear capabilities, let alone regulate them ? You would be hard pushed to even find any mentioned of Israel's nuke's until recently and they have had them for 40 years.
Or some free hot Obama action
This proves that Obama hasn't seen Yes, Prime Minister. It might have explained to him why his plan is folly. Noble, but folly.
she doesn't go back in.
"Dear USA,
Please keep your "help" to yourself.
Sincerly,
Signed: The Rest of the World"
P.S. If something bad happens, can you save our sorry asses again for the Nth time?
If there are no nukes, then what are we supposed to blow up the life ending meteors with???
Consider if someone in 1910 had suggest than in less than a century europe would probably never have another war. Moreover all of the countries would acquiesce to a single common currency without losing in a war.
People would think you were nuts. in was unforseable. Yet the League of nation set the stage for cooperative behaviour, and the generation after WW2 made it happen.
in his speech in strassbourge he challenged the youth of europe not to take peace for granted but imagine a world that extended it even further.
if you can conceive of the paradigm shift from a continent at war since recorded history to one that is peacefully unified and no one feels oppressed by a conqueror then you can conceive of a world without nuclear weapons.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
For the Stark Fist!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=13050
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
A "nuke free" world would be one in which we use no fission/fusion of atoms for the energy. Weaponizing it is one aspect of the technology.
The problem is, a power plant program can (and likely will) be used to make weapons. The horse is out of the barn. Obama is advocating that we can have the knowledge to make steel, but no one will make swords.
It's somewhat naive. We'll see how he executes his plans, or us.
--
Toro
As a veteran of the first gulf war, I suspect the US nuclear arsenal had a measurable effect on that conflict even though they were not used.
During the build up to the invasion of Kuwait, we did daily CBR drills. Ships tv system played lectures on how to don, decontaminate and remove MOPP suits and MCU-2P gas masks. We were required to carry our masks with us constantly ( yes, even sleep with them ). Daily GQ drills with an emphasis on CBR defense.
We knew Saddam has a history of using nerve gas on his own people. The nightmare scenario was anti-ship missiles first followed up with chemical weapons.
Question: In the first gulf war, why didn't Saddam use chemical weapons against coalition forces?
Answer: I suspect that the threat of nuclear retaliation prevented the consideration of chemical / biological weapons against coalition forces.
A Human Right
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183673
by Henry Kissinger
The real story is about the fact that nuclear prolifiration and nuclear disarmament should have gotten a lot more attention from previous presidents (both Clinton and Bush completely failed on this one) and Obama's pledge came much too late. Now trying to go as far as possible (nuke free world) is the least he can do.
I'm all for a nuke free world.
My plan: We should use them all up. Then not make any more.
Not that there would be anyone around to make any more after they are all used.
Finally, there would peace on earth.
I feel a lot safer now that the current President of the USA is trying to reason with potential enemies, instead of vilifying them.
Not everyone agrees with his plan, but it has shown his ideas for Foreighn Policy.
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
have an Obama-free world.
The messiah has spoken, everybody check your nukes at the door. Let's get rid of ours so we can be held hostage by the likes of North Korea. We should switch over to neutron nukes which makes the threat of use more realistic.
As technology moves further forward and people slowly slip away into intellectual oblivion, there will be no need for human destruction. Your physical enslavement is all the "powers that be" ever wanted, as to provide this convenience only to these privileged, all the comforts of this numerically guaranteed leisurely existence. But alas, many will dismiss this point, which in the end, only provides the truth of what I am saying. So sit idly back and ride that wave, eventually they brake for everyone. Unless you obtain the skills of the "great ones" who only catch rides on the backs of anothers wave, only to stab its back as the shoreline comes into view. See, who needs nukes. We have our lab rats right where we want them. Only reality is, those lab rats are each one of us. Personally I don't give a fuck. Most people are morons anyhow. Good luck with the vote...heh
Anyone else reminded of the old novel Seven Days in May?
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
There are countries that have Nukes, but don't admin to having them. Israel is probably on the top of that list.
How do you get a country like that to sign a treaty saying they'll stop producing fissible material and stop testing when "officially" they don't have any nuclear weapons.
I'm sure there are others out there, but most despots WANT the world to know they have a bomb. Helps them overcompensate for small genitalia.
... and I thought one had to be at least 45 to become POTUS. What a child this guy is.
Will be dead by the time something like this happens, if ever! http://asrokhel.mybrute.com/ http://rollandrock.myminicity.com/
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
The foreign aid budget is relatively small compared to the budget. The military budget is large, but a lot of that money goes to US Companies and taxpayers. The foreign aid budget was much larger during the cold war when we used it to counter communist influence. Something like 26 Billion out of 2.9 trillion dollars in 2008, I think, compared to 626.6 billion on Defense not counting the two wars.
I believe the US gives a great deal of foreign aid through the IMF and such--aid programs where we lend money to developing nations so that they can buy our DRM'd agricultural seeds or patented anti-retroviral drugs, in part.
We also give a tremendous amount on a non-governmental basis. The good work done by private donors in this country is amazing, but is done out of personal generosity rather than legislative intent. As such, it's not being footed by the American taxpayer so much as the generous American. Obviously, giving is down in the recession.
--- Thousands are enslaved every day.
b. In that region, nuclear weapons are still a hot topic political issue.
c. Obama gives the crowds what they want to hear. He's prven that already. In essence, a good (but typical) politician.
d. Slashdot took the bait, and now we're discussing what was discussed 10yrs ago. Only difference is we think we have someone that can do something about it... Just like 10yrs ago.
1. The Israeli's ain't giving up their nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons.
2. President Obama would never treat Israel as a rogue state for refusing to give up their nuclear weapons.
3. President Obama is just spinning comforting lies... he knows that a nuclear weapons free world is just a pipe dream.
Just look at Japan, normal people over there don't have any and they hardly ever kill themselves...
The problem is the thug-life culture that's oh so popular in urban areas.
For a certain version of "works". You cannot murder people into loving you, for example. You can bomb people into true submission, but that requires blazing a path of epic destruction through their homes like Hitler through Poland, only more thorough. To consider yourself one of "the good guys" when you're openly advocating that sort of thing requires the sort of masturbatory self-delusion endemic to cokeheads and Americans.
Like Hilzoy said, "Violence is not a way of getting where you want to go, only more quickly. Its existence changes your destination. If you use it, you had better be prepared to find yourself in the kind of place it takes you to."
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Also, much of this "aid" comes in the form of loans with strings attached saying "get rid of any governmental function that helps poor people" and "sell your natural resources to corporations based in our country for a pittance".
Mmm, freedom. Can you taste it?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"What if one of these "rouge" countries nuke a neighbor?"
Their face would sure be red!
We have the most powerful conventional army. In a nuke-free world, we'd be able to apply that power in far more places (not saying we SHOULD). The nuclear deterrent works both ways.
Plus, maintaining and securing our nuclear stockpiles is insanely expensive.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Where "doing anthing to protect ourselves" means lighting a whole bunch of civilians on fire by "mistake", right? (Hey, it's not like those terrorists place the same value on life as we do!)
Of course, you might mean things like boring investigative work to monitor potential threats and bring them through the justice system in the full light of day, or not blowing up civilians as "collateral damage" and then being so darned surprised when survivors and their relatives are unhappy with us. But somehow, I doubt it.
Because the only way to relate to a world full of strange and alien people is to terrify them into submission, and crush any hint of dissent within your own ranks, lest it betray weakness to the enemy.
I think you're confusing Warhammer 40K with reality.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
In a well-ordered society, maybe such a mandate would work. But, the moment someone ignores it, everyone is in trouble. Well-placed nukes keep global politics polite.
Nonsense! You just start with a commercial interest being threatened, and fire up a propaganda campaign painting those standing in the way as authoritarian nutbags who pose a threat to the free world. Mouth a few platitudes about "human rights" to the left, so they'll fall in line, and poof, you have a mandate for an invasion. Send in the troops, pick a viceroy, and accept a pleasant sinecure at some pseudo-academic "Institute" once you retire.
I mean, if you consider that kind of thing "evil". Maybe it's not evil when Americans do it; I'm not that familiar with the sliding scale we judge them on.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It's just about as likely to happen...
Change will occur 1/20/2013... A change is going to come....... and I can't wait.
1311393600 - Back to Black
Lead by example--- right?
President Obama is quite sincere in this goal to eliminate nuclear weapons. During much of his time as Senator, it was one of his many interest to encorage peace between nations and to reduce the risk of mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) by reducing the number of warheads and the access to them by hostile states.
So far, the UK, Russia and Iran have been willing to work with American negociations to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, while the North Koreans clearly have not.
The North Koreans are probably scrambling their efforts to try a second attempt at a rocket launch as we speak. With their "communications satilite" now a convienent buoy in the North Pacific, there is no question that the North Koreans are working to deploy a second on probably with in days of the first launch.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
This amounts to nothing more than Mr. 'Im from Chicago, bribe me" Prez telling would be nuke owners that the required bribes to obtain them just went up.
today= 30.000 nukes = plentiful....the economic, political or military benefit of having one more warhead is practically nil. The big powers, Russia, and the US, would gladly trade between half to two thirds of the nukes for the ability to test them once in a while. Obsolescence is a problem, the number of warheads is not.
...
After that cut, tough, the numbers go crazy, not for the number of warheads, but for the vectors, intercontinental missiles, manned bombers, submarines and the like. They are already far fewer than the warheads; and the economic viability of keeping the same number of vectors, with far fewer warheads, is shaky at best. Reducing the number of vectors opens up a first strike option that is not in the cards in today's numbers. True, Russia is a democracy, sort of, but you do not do policy by intentions, but by capabilities.
tomorrow: 0 us nukes, 0 russian nukes, france and the UK about 100 each, china 500, pakistan and india 50 each, Israel 50, Iran any number between 5 and 50......did I leave anybody out? this does not look like Heaven to me, not one bit, especially if I live in Israel/Taiwan/Japan
The equation no nukes = safer world is to me mindboggling; since the fall of the old Soviet Union, the number of nuclear warheads has dwindled, , but I do not feel "safer".
Lots of "rogue states" have appeared on the maps; all these people have a strong incentive to acquire nukes + vectors, but especially nukes; after all, smuggling the weapons might not be necessary, you can load them on a ship and send it to a big, peopled port town....like New York, for example. Do you think that the implied threat to become the world's biggest Asphalt Parking Lot in two minutes could, somehow, work as a deterrent?
I perceive that people are, to this day, unable to think coolly about nukes, and I admit that these are frightening weapons; but they do serve many uses. For example, no army facing the West has been able to contemplate concentrating forces against the US army. the concept was born in NATO, to deter the massive superiority in conventional armament that the USSR had at the time. No use having 32.000 tanks if you have to spread a division over 25 miles. So another darling of the world opinion, Michael Gorbaciov, offered a "no first use" treaty, which was wisely refused by the west.
So since I am Italian, I owe my liberty not to George Washington, but to Edward Teller.
However, it would be nice if there weren't enough to destroy the world a couple of times over.
I guess this is all based on the idea that total destruction isn't necessary to drive home any political goal a war might have. The sides involved need to understand though that total anihilation means that, and that there is no afterlife or something like another planet you can evacuate to.
Je me souviens.
We should have Iran and North Korea handle the disposal of the worlds nuclear weapons.
There is not a single scenerio where nuclear weapons CAN EVER BE USED AGAIN...unless against a hostile aliens, or by break away colonies.
No, seriously, when can you ever use nuclear weapons anymore?
Nuclear weapons are Minovski particles of the future!!
-Super Sexy Commando
Some people here think Obama is stupid, but I think he is not the dumb person illustrated in this forum. First, he didn't say that he want to destroy all of them right now. He said that he want to talk with all weapon owners and reduce the number of nukes. Second, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) does not only state that nuclear weapon technology should not be distributed. It also includes the plan to dismantle all nuclear weapons. So Obama is only pointing out that we already agreed to do so.
Third, the presence of nuclear weapons frightens other states so far, that they a) try to build their own and b) do not trust us. And why should they if we do not hold our word what can they do? Nothing. So it is reasonable to reduce the military dominance of the West a little bit.
To understand my point, look at these numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures
It's not Americans' fault that power makes you stupid. I mean, how would these mouth-breathing jingoists live with themselves if they didn't maintain a profoundly unjust, parochial worldview?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Mod +1 informative: this gentlemen knows history. :-)
This comes from the only nation that "used" them?
This comes from the country that burns 1/4 of the oil the world "produces".
People who read on slashdot should consider making a trip to SE Asia and while in the Hotel they should turn on the TV and watch say CNN. Its like being in a whole new world.
The USA should start dealing with reality. There is NO global warming. There is NO nuclear waste problem. There is NO USA universal health care.
Give me a break.
Nukes are already outdated, as of about six years ago.
Why deal with fallout when you can just drop eight and a half tonnes of H6 on your enemy instead?
Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal. -- Zaphod Beeblebrox
It would be welcome to get rid of nuclear weapons around the world, however if he continues to go after the 2nd Amendment right, he'll have to take my gun out of my cold dead hand!
Obama is a tool of the people running the show behind the scenes, see the movie, The Obama Deception, by Alex Jones
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
I wonder what would be the first action if U.S.A were to give up all their nukes over night?
would there be world peace?
Would Russia follow suit or launch theirs at us?
Every country knows if they get a nuke they have some bit of strength against the big boys because they don't have any anti weapons against it yet.
This has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, Obama just finished watching Robocop 2.
Do you honestly believe the world would be a better place if the US was 100% isolationist during the 20th century?
You don't get to pick and choose when we engage the world and when we stay home.
All or nothing. Which way would you prefer?
The only reason nuclear weapons are outdated is because they still exist....Basically, the existence of nuclear weapons make the old tactics obsolete. Remove the nuclear weapons and the old ways are no longer obsolete.
Ah, I strongly doubt it. If anything nuclear weapons have created alternative ways to wage war, because after they became the doomsday device they still are today, NO ONE in their right mind would ever use them. We simply tiptoed quietly back from that dark road the superpowers went down, but kept our finger on the infamous button.
It's a last-resort device, capable of damn near wiping out the planet if ever used in any large scale, which there is NO other scale, really.
That being said, taking away the nukes if anything would likely target those countries who still have a "button" to push, because there would no longer be that dark cloud threat to worry about.
In a number of recent articles, we learned that if we were not climate scientists, we had no business spouting off about climate change. So, in the interest of intellectual consistency, those of you who are not military experts in the design and use of nuclear weapons -- and that includes U.S. President Obama -- can kindly shut the fuck up about nuclear weapons.
Both of limp wristed faggots. The day the US disarms is the day China swallows up most of Asia and probably california. They can have california IMHO. Chairmen Obongamessiah should do more important things then worry about "dem silly nukes". Maybe making sure every home has a puppy and it's own rainbow, for example, would be a more worthwhile endeavor.
The nuke has very effectively prevented WWIII from happening as the deterrent of MAD has proven to be histories most effective peace policy.
MAD is a doctrine; that is, a dogma of belief; it is, more accurately, a statement of condition about the geopolitical theatre. In any case, it is neither a policy nor a hypothesis. By definition, it is untestable, because the first time it is tested is the last time it is testable. MAD is often held up as a policy that is "effective," but it is not, because its efficacy will never, and can never, be established. MAD simply means, "the condition within which major nuclear powers have not yet engaged in a large-scale offensive nuclear exchange" (emphasis mine). The "not yet" is a vitally important point. The MAD doctrine categorically does not and will not prevent a nuclear exchange. In other words, it is not a policy of safeguard. MAD means that the possibility -- indeed, the likelihood -- of nuclear conflict is still very real.
This is the whole point of non-proliferation, and is the fundamental and scientifically demonstrable reason why non-proliferation is the only safeguard against nuclear exchange.
More to the point, the phrase "Mutually Assured Destruction" is a euphamism which has the look-alike appearance of a military policy; however, the more accurate rendition of the doctrine is "Global Nuclear Annihilation."
And I say this not as a warmongering conservative, but a liberal pragmatist: Nuclear weapons are the final and complete realization of Giulio Douhet's philosophy on air power - which in a nutshell states that only the threat of swift and complete annihilation of a populace can prevent war in it's worst forms. Remove that and we would return to conventional world wars that kill tens of millions. Sad but true...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I really like my microwave!
8==8 Bones 8==8
Who's. Not Whose.
I dread to think what could've happened in the recent Russia vs US proxy conflict over South Ossetia if Russia didn't have the capability to turn the US into ash from afar.
I'd have put good money on the chicken hawks in Washington overplaying their hand and sending a carrier battlegroup in to provide direct support. That would, probably, have led to an all out European conflict, with Russia responding the only way they could: Hitting US proxies/support mechanisms in Europe. To the neocon's that kind of distant conflict would be fantastic, it is afterall WW2 that transformed the US a superpower and industrial/economic powerhouse. It's why they're always trying to pick fights with non nuclear powers they can walk all over.
The number of nukes both powers hold could probably be reduced significantly, as I think all parties realise now that any kind of atmoic exchange is the opposite to good, but they need to keep enough to guarantee enough will get through to secure MAD (ABM's exist, afterall). A nuclear free world is not a good idea.
"how much arse the French military kicks"
So this was the 30 second intro?
1) Ban nukes making old style wars valid
2) Start old style war
3) Make loads of stuff
4) Corporate America rejoices
5) Profit
Actually, gun types are considered such simple devices that little boy (the hiroshima bomb, gun type) was untested by the time they dropped it. The big problem with its production is refining the weapons grade U235. They are also inefficient and unsafe, too. In fact, a big problem of gun types is that something (like an accidental detonation) might accidentally smash those two pieces of fissile material together, so it can't be that hard to do it right. In fact, I don't think "too fast" is a problem ("too slow" is, though). And you can't do it with plutonium from a reactor, it will blow itself too early and you'll get a fizzle.
Apparently, North Korea is/was building an implosion device, and they did not do it right. In an implosion bomb, you need to have almost perfect timing, or it won't go off (of it will fizzle if your timing is not off by much). Instead of getting 20 kilotons, they got only 1 before it blew itself apart. On the other hand, PU239 can be made with a breeder reactor with relative ease.
So, basically, smacking two bits of metal is easy, provided you have them. Imploding a ball of metal is harder, but the metal is easier to obtain.
GPG 0x1B479C78
Why don't we just outlaw war and be done with it? Sort of like the Kellogg-Briand Pact back in the 1920s.
Oh, wait. That didn't work. Some really nasty people just decided to ignore it since it was inconvenient for them. Well, who knows, maybe this time it will work. What have we got to loose except civilization as we know it?
Cheers,
Dave
BTW, I'm currently reading "Return of the Enola Gay" by Paul Tibbetts (autographed by the author).
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
You know, it is ironic that Obama stated this while carrying the launch codes for America's missiles on his person, with the radio to call them in not more than a few footsteps away.
(See: wikipedia:Nuclear Football)
Guerilla warfare works only when the terrain allows it. The reason we haven't had a WW II-scale conflict since 1945 is nuclear weapons. Remove the concept of MAD and we are back to the 1940's - China would dominate (much more than it does today) Southeast Asia. Given their technological advantage, I would pick China over India in this real-world game of Risk - so they would split Asia with the Russian Federation, with the only hope for a free Europe being a forced confederation. Of course, if that happened we could drive south if desired and eradicate the drug-related violence on our southern border. Realistically, of course, the genie cannot be stuffed back in the bottle.
I know a lot of WOMEN Republicans who liked McCain but were absolutely furious at the pick of Palin. Palin was a two edged sword. She got a lot of people fired up but she also lost a lot of people. Had Palin not flubbed Katie Couric, it might have been different, but, a lot of women looked at her, and said, "jeez, I though we were the party of working and being successful and you guys went and picked a bimbo."...
This is my sig.
Please pray for the USA, we obviously need help.
Our new president may not be an idiot, but he certainly is acting that way.
He seems to think the world will put the nuclear technology back and forget all about it. For many, that's like asking us to de-discover the digital computer. Not gonna happen.
Being an idealist is fine, until you are a PM or President of a country, then you need to be a realist.
It may mean that the US has a weapon that can replace nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Most likely an antimatter weapon.
Finally they'll be safe from all that nuking.
Isn't China still a localized power?
Do they have the capability to deploy troops in any significant number overseas?
1. That takes more work
2. Any nation that uses nukes as first-strike weapons will be a pariah
And what flavor of wingnut kool-aid are you drinking this morning? Whatever happened to the militia types when Bush was spying on Americans and arguing he had the right to lock them up without a warrant or trial, and torture them?
Sure, countries may try and stash to a few nukes. But if the vast majority are destroyed, then we don't have to worry about nuclear winter for most of the planet. And even those last few will be used as last resort, as any nation that uses nukes as first-strike weapons will be a pariah.
Lend Lease
It was Detroit and Pittsburgh that allowed the Russians to fight Hitler.
Being a graduate (top 3) of the Nuclear-Biological-Chemical Weapons school, I can honestly say that tear gas is not torture. It is actually really good for the sinuses and will clear up a head cold in a matter of minutes.
Having 2-pam-chloride and atropine injectors demonstrated before requiring you to inject yourself is pretty close to torture, but even then, the scary effects only last a little while.
My brother is a graduate of the Search, Evasion and Rescue school. He was tortured, but laughs about it now.
First off, when the activists at Seabrook said "no nukes," it most certainly did not stand for "nuclear weapons." Look it up. Given the historical meaning of the word "nuke," the headline was a bit shoddy, not Obama. Obama was clear. He's an excellent and deliberate speaker.
1. That takes more work
Our enemies are, if nothing else, patient.
2. Any nation that uses nukes as first-strike weapons will be a pariah
What makes you think we're going to be able to track the "nation" that used the first strike nuke, if it even is a nation, and not some decentralized covertly funded group with an agenda? And what makes you think a retaliatory or tactical use isn't possible?
And what flavor of wingnut kool-aid are you drinking this morning? Whatever happened to the militia types when Bush was spying on Americans and arguing he had the right to lock them up without a warrant or trial, and torture them?
I was decrying the Patriot Act, advocating for Geneva P.O.W. status, opposing the Iraq invasion, and weeping into some very strong coffee, IIRC.
No wingnut Kool-Aid here, sir. Geopolitical games are dangerous, and no one really has the right to play them, especially the incompetant. Barack Obama seems totally naive on that point, judging by the content of his speeches.
The nuclear horse is out of the barn, forever, and I can only pray that Obama knows what he's doing, but is making foolish speeches to mollify the fools. If that's true, this is not a change from Bush. It's the same old "continual campaign." It's the same old, "Say one thing, do another." :^(
Clearly, "no weaponized nukes" is not a possibility in a world where there is any discord. If the technology exists, it will be weaponized, regardless of any attempt to ban the process.
War, contrary to Geneva, doesn't actually have rules. The only road to peace isn't "ban all the weapons," it's "Don't give anyone a reason to kill your people, remain reasonable and as passive as possible, give reason and blessings a chance to work, and after that, annihilate anyone who wants you gone and fails to see reason."
If we do the first steps right, there should be no reason to get to the last step.
--
Toro
"Among other things that being unarmed causes, it causes you to be despised." - Machiavelli, The Prince
Gorbachav, not Reagan, was responsible for the breakup of the USSR.
Would Gorbachev even have become General Secretary had not Reagan began his audacious, and successful, foreign policy?
Really, imagine another four years of Jimmy Carter (who is a piece of shit). The Soviets would likely have held Afghanistan, taken Baluchistan, and had a warm-water port. Jimmy Carter (who is a piece of shit) would have responded by withdrawing from International Curling Championships.
Jimmy Carter (who is a piece of shit) gave Iran to the Khomenids. His ambassador to the U.N., Andrew Young, was a fan of the ayatollah's. By destroying that ally, Jimmy Carter (who is a piece of shit) left Afghanistan open for invasion.
And remember, if you can, the economy under Jimmy Carter (who is a piece of shit): the worst economy since the Great Depression. Gas lines and stagflation. Jimmy Carter (who is a piece of shit) had an economy so bad it is immortalized in cosmology - it was an astronomically bad economy.
And speaking of gas lines, it was Jimmy Carter (who is a piece of shit) who made sure the United States has to import most of its petroleum.
Which gave the Sunni plenty of money to arm against the new Jimmy Carter (who is a piece of shit) and Ayatollah Young-created Shia Islamic Republic of Iran.
For all his bitching about "inheriting" problems, President Hussein Ubama should remember that the Middle East was absolutely FUCKED UP by Jimmy Carter (who is a piece of shit), and that every president since has inherited the problems Jimmy Carter (who is a piece of shit) created.
Resurgent Wahhabism, the Taliban, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and high petroleum prices are just a few of the modern-day problems caused by Jimmy Carter (who is a piece of shit).
If President Reagan had not been elected, the Soviet Union would still exist. Who would stop them from stomping down their rebellious populations? Jimmy Piece of Shit Carter?!?!
So the plan is to take the thousands of nukes we have and dismantle them into millions of parts that will be even harder to keep track of?
Seriously the nukes themselves are allot easier to watch than a million different pieces. It'll be bad when the triggering devices and other parts that are impossible for small terrorist type organizations to make start showing up on the black market.
In your bed at night because there are rough men ready to do violence on your miserable behalf
George Orwell (everything but the miserable that is, thats all mine)
For you delusional utopiast global warming loving peaceniks, if it wasn't for these rough men who now have evolved to master fission, you and yours would have been conquered and subjugated, dumped in a mass grave long ago.
Sleep Well Idiot
... and from your point of view, you're justified in murdering anyone who lives within a certain proximity of people who remind you of them, and they're under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to either care what your point of view is or to sympathize with it. So, from your perspective, you're morally equivalent to anyone who was cheering on the 9/11 hijackers.
I already knew that you inhabited a moral void of your own design, but I didn't expect you to come out and embrace the idea.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
First off, when the activists at Seabrook said "no nukes," it most certainly did not stand for "nuclear weapons." Look it up.
This story is about what Obama said, so that's a red herring. Google that one, too.
Our enemies are, if nothing else, patient.
Also irrelevant. Even if North Korea develops a nuke AND an ICBM in secret AND manages to strike the U.S., we have more than enough conventional weapons to blast the country into bedrock multiple times over.
What makes you think we're going to be able to track the "nation" that used the first strike nuke, if it even is a nation, and not some decentralized covertly funded group with an agenda?
Because producing a nuke (that context thing again) isn't like making homemade dynamite in your basement. It takes considerable time, considerable resources and significant facilities to construct.
Barack Obama seems totally naive on that point, judging by the content of his speeches.
[Citation needed]
Why is it that the US suddenly has the power to decide who can have nuclear weapons, and who can't?
It seems rather interesting that a country with the largest stockpile of weapons, a country WHICH INVADES SOVEREIGN NATIONS, a country that bombs the population of any nation they consider a risk, this country has the right to dictate the actions of others...
No one stopped the States from going ahead with the Manhattan Project, who are they to arrest any weapons research in other nations.
Do the world a favor America, and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, you have enough troubles as it is.
I know a nuke-free world *sounds* like a good idea, but it's not.
Why do you think it is that for the first time in over a thousand years we have just gone, since the conclusion of WWII, more than sixty years without a major serious all-out war between any of the major world powers? Do you think human nature has suddenly improved, and everyone now feels so strongly that war is bad, so nobody would ever start one? Haha. No.
It is because the threat of nuclear war has constrained us. Why didn't we go to war with the Soviet Union in the sixties, seventies, or eighties? We *wanted* to. We believed we were right, and they were wrong, and they deserved to be chastened militarily. And they believed all those things about us. In any other era we would have gone to war with one another, but in the nuclear era, we did not. We did not go to war, because we knew that we could all be annihilated in a matter of hours if we did. We boycotted the Olympics. We spent millions of dollars a year developing and stockpiling weapons. We encouraged our young people to go into math and science. We launched rockets into space and put satellites in orbit and landed on the moon. But we DID NOT GO TO WAR, because that would be suicide.
Nuclear weapons are dangerous, and you have to be very careful with them. You want triple secret launch codes and double keys and blah, blah, blah, and you do NOT want anyone with "nothing to lose" to have them (like, for instance, a third-world dictator with his back against the wall). And it's not necessary for every major world power to have them; five or six countries is probably enough, and a dozen is more than plenty. But *somebody* should have them. Have them and never use them.
Nukes are a deterrent against major wars.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Oh there's no void in my morals. They're quite clear and sharply defined, thanks much. You just don't happen to agree with me.
They're self-supporting, self-contained and immune to argument or disagreement. They float, as it were, in a void.
I am more important to myself than you are to me. Therefore, my morals are always superior to yours. QED.
Spoken like a true psychopath. Aren't you the least bit familiar with the concept of moral codes that work well if everyone accepts them, both because they benefit the user personally ("I'm not constantly fighting for survival!") and they make for a more pleasant society in general ("We're not riven by brutal and unending conflict!").
"Every man for himself!" isn't a stable solution for anything other than a world in flames. It is a profound lack of morality. By claiming that no one has a better standing than anyone else to define right and wrong--that arguments about utilitarianism and such are irrelevant to your monstrously solipsistic ego--you're defining everyone as morally equivalent.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"Nobody is going to disarm if another country still has nukes"
One can eliminate this problem and disarm within 15 minutes more or less. Should we be worried?
And you prefer your morals to be ones you're uncertain of? Please, arguing that you shouldn't believe something because you've thought it out to as near the point of certainty as you can some is hardly a brilliant strategy.
I didn't say that it was unlikely that your ideas, as you define them, could be wrong. Because you've defined your morality to be, in essence, that might makes right--and claimed that everyone else holds this same belief--there's no arguing with it. It's self-contained, hermetically sealed. That's what I'm trying to say.
As for the rest? You're obviously confusing morals with mores. Morals are always personal and mores are always a societal consensus.
I dislike definitional arguments. By "morality", I'm referring to your sense of what right and wrong actions are. For instance, I think it's immoral to kill people because they make me nervous, or to expect to have different rules apply to me than apply to other people.
Above all you seem to be misconstruing what I've repeatedly tried to explain. There is no equivalency in morals. It is not possible for there to be without a complete lack of a sense of self.
I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean here. By "moral equivalence", I'm referring to your claim that you hold the same moral values as anyone who was cheerleading the 9/11 attacks. You felt threatened, and according to you, that justified violence carried out on your behalf. By your lights, that's the whole story.
For the purposes of this argument, that means that I don't need to feel Al-Qaeda are amoral bastards to want to see them rounded up and executed. All I need to do is give the proper response to their actions.
I suppose they probably feel the same--there's that equivalence I keep pointing out.
Hell, there were probably plenty of Nazis that were certain they were doing what was good and right; doesn't mean they were any less deserving of a good killing.
And yet feeling that same certainty, that same feeling that darn it, you're doing the right thing, doesn't make you wonder if perhaps you're the bad guy... because you don't think it matters.
You're obviously an educated person; please attempt to be an intelligent one as well. Think about what your brain's been fed before you just go believing it on faith and regurgitating it in public.
What exactly do you think I've been fed? Am I reminding you of someone in particular, or unwittingly quoting something?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca