posted
Omega, what *specific* countries do you think have legitimate uses for nuclear weapons and what would they be? Be as specific as possible.
Countries whose judgement I trust, generally. That all depends on the military leadership, and who they answer to. I'd say the US, definitely, but that's just because I live here, and I know the system and the current government. Any country where the people have actual selection of the ones in charge of the military hierarchy, and where that government is actually stable, works too. Yet that country must still be willing to actually USE the weapons should it become obviously preferable, or they're worthless. I'd also say that any country with a running grudge against another, thus creating the possibility of using the nukes in an unnecessary situation, should be disqualified, i.e. India and Pakistan. You can also take the arsenal of freedom approach, where just the one country defends the rest, but you have to trust that one country, which can obviously be problematic.
In your words, is it preferable to use nuclear weapons as "weapons or deterrents or doorstops"?
Depends on the situation. I'd prefer that they only need to be used as deterrents, but if they need to be used as weapons to, say, prevent much higher death tolls in the long run, I'm all for that. Of course, you always have the problem of predicting the future, so whether it REALLY will lead to a better future is always just a best guess.
As for doorstops, well, depends on the door.
And, of course, you decide what's "preferable", yes?
Everyone decides what they consider to be preferable. I would argue that there are futures that are absolutely better than their alternative, because otherwise anything goes. You can be Macheavellian or you can have relative morality, but both at the same time sends everything straight to hell. Either way, though, you still have the problem with precognition.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think I'd trust Canada with nukes. And Australia and the UK. And France, because they'd only use them against iguanas and Greenpeace, even though only the latter deserves it.
Spain and Italy don't really have any enemies at the moment...
Switzerland...
Although I don't know if I'd TRUST Israel with nukes (what with the surrounding countries tempting them every second Thursday), I think a country surrounded by extremely hostile enemies might deserve a fighting chance...
Possibly a country which has openly given up its nukes, or renounced them entirely, like Ukraine or New Zealand...
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Excellent. We finally have actual examples to ponder. So a quick synopsis would be: Omega would trust any government that he trusts already, with the additional burden of nuclear weapons. This means the US, and by implication its allies, and perhaps any democratic government.
First would trust any government that hasn't and wouldn't use them in the first place. This parallels the nice rant in the Hitchhiker's Guide, paraphrased loosely... (The only people you can trust with power, are the people who don't seek it in the first place. etc. In short people are a problem) This does bring up an interesting problem with the US's initial acquisition of nuclear weapons, but we'll stick to the rules and ignore them for now.
Now, lets work with the examples given, and more importantly the omissions.
We'll discard the US as mentioned before, due to personal bias....and the UK as well for the same reason. (large numbers of forummites from both countries)
1) Now, India and Pakistan. As far as I recall India does have a democratic government. Despite Omega's implication, I would think that a potential conflict would be quite important. Perhaps with India's 1 billion+ population, more important than the number of people at risk in the WW2 Pacific theatre. As for necessary, we'll need more information, well Omega...please elaborate as to why India's democratic government might use nukes unnecessarily.
2) Omega's Running grudges idea vs. First's fighting chance idea for Israel: an interesting dilemna. Enough said.
3) Omissions:
Lets start with US allies and work ourselves outward:
a) Would we trust Japan with nuclear weapons? Democratic, US ally, seemingly no ongoing grudges... b) Russia: A rather glaring ommision, perhaps due to a bit of post-cold war chauvinism. Democratic, US ally, ongoing grudge against Chechnya...rather minor, much in the vein of say the US's grudge against Cuba or Iraq. Do we trust them with nuclear weapons? c) China: Not democratic, but no ongoing grudges, no invasions of foreign countries planned or on the horizon.
So, assume that these three countries did not in fact have nuclear weapons, and were trying to acquire them. Would these be "legitimate" acquisitions of nuclear weapons or not?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, the big problem is that you're trying to determine legitimate users of nuclear weapons from an American viewpoint. Plenty of people in the current list of legitimate users would class the whole US v Iraq thing as a running grudge. . .
posted
And would consider the Chechnya matter somewhat beyond the scope of the current US/Iraq grudge. Somewhere closer to the former US/Vietnam "grudge", probably.
Also, democratic election of the government does not necessarily extend to democratic control over nuclear weapons. The people in actual possession and ultimate control of these weapons are not elected, but nominated. Including the military and the immediate cabinet or advisory council of the elected leader. Were the elected leader to become incapacitated or otherwise inconvenient, any semblance of democratic control would evaporate immediately.
posted
The way Ommey stated his argument you'd almost think he feels that nukes are good for the future health of the human race when he talks about preferable outcomes? What the hell is a preferable outcome?
Let me ask you Omega...(or for that matter anyone else) do you think that we'll ever have the courage to unmake something that should never have come into creation in the first place?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
"Ommey" thinks people need to be nuked to live? cool.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
At times like these it is hard NOT to have hard feelings againt the U.S. - I would say hate is too strong a word. But with such an idiotic government it's no wonder most of the world is sceptical towards American politics.
Bush wants to get rid of Saddam and get a hold on Iraq's oil reserves at any cost and he is prepared to do anything to achieve this goal. The ridiculous peformance of Colin Powell and his so called "evidence" is a perfect example. Bad luck for Bush & Co that they couldn't stop the reporter who found out that part of that "evidence" was information copied from a student's thesis of several years back.
And that's just one blatantly obvious lie U.S. administration made to achieve their goal. One in a whole line of lies that undermine any credibility Bush and his cronies might have had - if ever.
As for the Columbia accident - that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the Iraq situation. It was a tragedy, sure, but one that could have happened at any time. Space travel is extremely dangerous and the Columbia disaster was not the first - and unfortunately certainly won't be the last. I don't believe the average Iraqi even knew about the disaster. After all they don't get a lot of news from the rest of the world - at least not uncensored news.
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: 1) Now, India and Pakistan. As far as I recall India does have a democratic government. Despite Omega's implication, I would think that a potential conflict would be quite important. Perhaps with India's 1 billion+ population, more important than the number of people at risk in the WW2 Pacific theatre. As for necessary, we'll need more information, well Omega...please elaborate as to why India's democratic government might use nukes unnecessarily.
I think it's more that the Pakistanis might use nukes first that I'd be worried about. Because then the Indians would reply. With interest. And, yes, India is a democracy, in fact it's the largest (in terms of population) democracy in the world and all a British creation .
As for the rest, I wouldn't trust anyone with nukes. But if we have to:
1)USA- I suppose kinda OK. Despite a worryingly macho tendancy among certain politicians . 2)UK- Of course we should have them. Despite a somewhat incompetant streak among certain politicians. 3) France. Hmmm... don't really think so. Though they probably wouldn't use 'em. 4)India/Pakistan: Well India'd probably be OK and if either country's leaders are actually thinking then I doubt they'd be used. But if it came to all out war then I'm not entirely confidant... 5) China- Need I say anything? mind you, they haven't really got any reason to be using then. Yet. 6)Israel- You have to be bloody joking. 7)Russia: ought to be OK, they are democratic now.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote: The ridiculous peformance of Colin Powell and his so called "evidence" is a perfect example. Bad luck for Bush & Co that they couldn't stop the reporter who found out that part of that "evidence" was information copied from a student's thesis of several years back.
Does not follow. The document was a minor point, of little consequence to the overall presentation. It made no statements that could not and were not confirmed by other sources.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Which doesn't change the fact that the rest of the "evidence" was just as substantial/irrelevant.
I know one can say a lot of negative things about our current chancellor/government - and I would be the last to disagree, but for once I think Schroeder is right to stand by his word and be one of the very few brave enough statesmen to oppose the very questionable plans of an administration crazed with delusions of world domination.
Iraq is just the beginning. Nobody can honestly believe the U.S. would stop their so-called "war on terror" after that. Read between the lines of any of Bush's or Rumsfeld's speeches. If they really wanted to fight a war on terror, then they should fight in Northern Ireland, in Spain, in Israel and any other country where terror is a threat to the daily lives of the citizens.
Bush & Co can't honestly believe they could prevent a second 9-11 by throwing Saddam out of office. They didn't even manage to get rid of Osama (whom they had "nurtured" years ago - when it suited their needs at the time!!)
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: Which doesn't change the fact that the rest of the "evidence" was just as substantial/irrelevant.
Just remember, you asked for it... From another discussion board (added emphasis mine)
quote:For those that don't know me, my name's Yancy, and I live in Phoenix, AZ. I served in the US Army for eight years as a 96B (Intelligence Analyst). I served almost all my time in the Republic of Panama.
I was one of USARSOs (US Army South), primary political/economic analysts covering Panama, and was one of the primary analysts tasked with following terrorist organizations and their activities in Latin America (spent a lot of time covering Sendero Luminoso aka "Shining Path" as well as following Hezbollah activities in the region).
Anyway to my point, I was mainly writing because so many people had questioned the validity of the imagery photos Sec of State Powell had shown in his UN briefing.. "how do they know what that is???" "How do they know that's a decontamination truck, it looks like a grey blob??"
Well the reason they know is simple... training. Imagery analysts are highly trained individuals who pour over hundreds of photos at a light table (usually at the cost of their sight... they don't go blind, but staring into a light table for hours on end usually results in the analyst needing glasses later on). These people know what they are looking for. They know the equipment the "bad guys" use... So when an imagery analysts says "that's an NBC decon truck," they KNOW that's what it is.
One of the main reasons it's fairly easy to determine what Sadaam is using is that he almost exclusively uses Russian/Soviet equipment (with the exception of some French, and Chinese stuff)... Heck, his armies use old Russian military doctrine... He's a pretty easy nut to crack. So, knowing that he uses primarily Soviet-era euipment, the analyst looks at the image and says,"what kind of Soviet vehicle configuration does this truck match?" Well, it could be the old Zil-131 or a Ural 375. Both trucks have a certain profile when configured for use in NBC decon... if someone put a gun to my head I'd guess the Ural 375 since the Zil is so antiquated.
Anyway, that's why these guys know what they're doing.. they know what they're looking for.
quote:Thank you First of Two, thank you for some common sense.
One other thing to keep in mind too is that no one, and I mean NO ONE would ever conduct an intelligence briefing based soley on one piece of information (a Satellite photo), or one aspect of intelligence collection (i.e., SIGINT -Signals Intelligence-, COMINT -Communications Intelligence-, ELINT -Electronics Intelligence-, or HUMINT -Human Intelligence-).
I have sat through or conducted hundreds of briefings for Senior Staff level personnel, and I have yet to meet any analyst who would, excuse the French, "hang their dick out in the wind" on a hunch, or guess... You need to have multiple sources to back up you analysis.
I could tell you all sorts of stories about tracking down bad guys, or monitoring terrorist groups... and never once did I tell my DCSINT (Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence) or the USARSO Commander... "well, it kind of looks like this, and I guess they will do this." No, I always had facts to back up my assertions, and historical precedence to back up my analysis. I KNEW what I was talking about, and my commanders had the utmost faith in me.
I'm not trying to brag or boast, but most PFCs (which is what I was two monthes after I got to Panama) don't brief Senior staff, I was... and you know what I found out??? I wasn't the only one... there are a ton of very talented analysts in the Army and they know what they are doing, and what they are talking about.
Sorry, given the choice of trusting the analysis of a U.S. Army Imagery analyst, or the "best guesses" of some Frech Foreign Ministry official... I'll take the Amry guy every time.
Yancey
quote:HOAH! I've briefed guys all the way up to the reprobate that was in NCA at the time (on Kashmir, of all thngs), and as Yancy pointed out, we do not make intel reports based off one bit of data. No one in authority is going to stick their neck out on a guess; they're too fond of their careers.
The sat images, the intercepts -- they're all great, but they only give you 'warnings and indicators'. The solid intel is done by some brave but scared guy, in country, who could be burned at a moment's notice if a particular bit of intelligence is released. Our 'flawed' intelligence in Bosnia and other missions through the '80s/90s were due to massive cutbacks in HUMINT (the guys on the ground) and thepolicymakers screwing up by not listening to what we tell them. It's been improving over the past couple of years as we've turned our focus back toward HUMINT to augment SIGINT and PHOTINT.
In Iraq, it's always been the case that our best data coes from some brave but terrified guy (usually a native) hanging it all out to get us the truth. We slip up with who gets the raw data, this guy dies.
quote:Yeah qerlin. guys on the ground a really hanging it all out for us. Just one bit of info I found very funny... I was watching Powell's briefing to the Senate Intelligence commitee on Thursday. Well, good old Sen Joe Biden chimes in about Powell's assertion that AL Qaeda operatives were working out of northern Iraq. Well, Biden presses Powell on the issue and ask (I'm paraphrasing): "If we know Al-Qaeda is operating facilities in northern Iraq, why don't we simply send in Special Forces to take them out???"
Powell's response "I'd like to answer that quenstion, but it must be in private." Okay, lets analyze for a sec... Joe, the reason I can't tell you is that we have an operative in that cell, or at the very least Special Ops guys in the area are monitoring their every step... My guess is we have a Kurdish operative in the cell. More than likely, a lot of the info that resulted in us increasing our threat level to "High" came from monitoring this group. Consequently Joe, we cannot afford to take out this cell just yet, it's probably providing us some of the best intel we have on Al-Qaeda.
BTW, check out these articles from the New York Post and New Yorker:
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The way Ommey stated his argument you'd almost think he feels that nukes are good for the future health of the human race when he talks about preferable outcomes?
Well, that depends on who you're nuking, now doesn't it? All nukes are is a really really efficient way of killing people, and much as I don't like it, some people do need to die on occasion.
do you think that we'll ever have the courage to unmake something that should never have come into creation in the first place?
It has nothing to do with courage, Daryus. So long as the information exists, and it always will, someone will try to use it. It's the same idea behind destroying all guns: you can't get 'em all, and even if you did, people can build more.
[Omega] thinks people need to be nuked to live? cool.
I didn't say anything remotely like that.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
