American Politics

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

The START initiative is a good thing, and I am glad to see that not all Repugnicans are idiots.quote>

I fail to see how the systematic destruction of a weapon that is helping to keep the peace is a good thing.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Slashback 136]

Originally posted by: hym

I fail to see how the systematic destruction of a weapon that is helping to keep the peace is a good thing.

quote>

"...a weapon that is helping to keep the peace..."

I don't really see nuclear weapons as something that helps to keep the peace. The world would be more peaceful if there weren't any nukes.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: ImVhOzzi

Originally posted by: hym

I fail to see how the systematic destruction of a weapon that is helping to keep the peace is a good thing.

quote>

"...a weapon that is helping to keep the peace..."

I don't really see nuclear weapons as something that helps to keep the peace. The world would be more peaceful if there weren't any nukes.quote>

He's referring to MAD. The fact that the United States has such a massive arsenal at its disposal means that noone is going to launch a nuclear attack against the US, or else they face their own destruction.

And, to be fair, the world wasn't any less bloody pre-nukes. See: World War 1, and most of World War 2.

[Larks2242 251]

Originally posted by: ImVhOzzi

The world would be more peaceful if there weren't any nukes.quote>

Yea and more defenceless too.

[Duke87 1,070]

And so the anti-gay policy ends. Which means, hey, the Obama administration actually accomplished something productive. That's a first!

As for the START issue.... a general "meh". 1500 nukes, 2000 nules, what difference does it make? Either number is more than enough. I suppose keeping fewer will save a little money, so that's a plus.

The only problem I have is that some are inevitably going to try to treat this as a step towards total disarmament, and we don't want to go there.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I am fine with a reduction in the total amount of nuclear arms but we still need our missile defense systems.

[Meg 368]

I believe total disarmament is a bad idea.  But, for several decades in there, we were playing "My nukes are bigger than your nukes."   When you think about it, that is asinine.   Once there is enough to blow up the world once (hey, let's have a buffer and keep enough to blow up the world twice), what is the purpose in having more?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Furthermore, note that this is a reduction, not an elimination.  Do you seriously think that reducing the number from 2000+ to 1550 is bad?  Just how many missiles do you think we need?quote>

I am well aware of the fact that this is an arms reduction, not a complete arms elimination.  However, this legislation is spawned from the same misguided notion that nuclear arms are some sort of great evil on the world, and that is why I have problems with it.

Do you also think that returning to yearly inspections are bad?  Why would anyone think that is a negative?quote>

I never said such a thing, nor even remotely suggested it.  It is entirely possible for a person to be opposed to an arms reduction treaty and not be opposed to increased monitoring and control of said arms.

Originally posted by: ImVhOzzi

Originally posted by: hym

I fail to see how the systematic destruction of a weapon that is helping to keep the peace is a good thing.

quote>

"...a weapon that is helping to keep the peace..."

I don't really see nuclear weapons as something that helps to keep the peace. The world would be more peaceful if there weren't any nukes.quote>

Which is a perfectly understandable viewpoint.  However, consider the following fact.  In the years following WWII, there have been numerous wars between nations where one nation was armed with nukes and the other nation wasn't, but there have no major wars between two nuclear armed nations.  It's no coincidence that nuclear armed countries don't get into wars with each other.  If that alone isn't convincing, consider this comment made by a military commander to then President Clinton during a 1993 meeting regarding how to handle North Korea's nuclear program: "If war is to remain an option, it must be done quickly.  You can go to war with a non-nuclear nation, but you cannot go to war with them once they have gained nuclear capabilities."

If we seek a nuclear free world, we have to ask ourselves, "What comes after nukes?"  Idealists would like to believe that we won't build anything more destructive than nuclear weapons, but that is a fantasy.  The US military already has an answer for what kinds of weapons might be deployed to the battlefield in a post-nuclear world, and they are just as deadly as nukes, with none of the radioactive fallout that makes politicians and military commanders hesistant to use them.  A world without nuclear weapons is a world where there are no nations that you can't attack for fear of retaliation, and we will be fighting with weapons that make nuclear explosions look like large fireworks displays.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

We know perfectly well what comes after nukes because it has already beed used in WW I.  CBW agents are now thousands of times more deadly, and everyone has them as well.  It just doesn't get much press.

As for reducing the number of nukes, more power to them, so long as MAD remains intact.

I actually like the idea of a doomsday machine, well documented, of course, and not activated until everyone knows about it.  The big mistake in Dr. Strangelove was that the Russians kept it a secret until it could be announced at some political event, but activated it before hand.

A proper doomsday machine would ensure a complete ELE by causing at least 10 years of winter.  Dumping vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere would do the trick, so all any arctic nation, like Russia or Canada would have to do would be to thaw the permafrost.  No one would die of nuclear burns, but everyone would either freeze to death or starve, your choice.

[Lacey14 3]

Why can't we get rid of nukes in all of the nations that seek to use them offensively? Then only the more defensive nations would have them and there would really be no point.

Oh and The Employment Non Discrimination Act needs to be passed ASAP. 'nuff said.

[Cobraroll 138]

Originally posted by: hym

Which is a perfectly understandable viewpoint.  However, consider the following fact.  In the years following WWII, there have been numerous wars between nations where one nation was armed with nukes and the other nation wasn't, but there have no major wars between two nuclear armed nations.  It's no coincidence that nuclear armed countries don't get into wars with each other. quote>

India and Pakistan say hello. The last time they were at war, in 1998 if my memory serves me correctly, both countries had nuclear weapons. They are also locked in an unending dispute over Kashmir, and Pakistan's government is infested by religious extremists. Expect to see the next nuke go kaboom somewhere in there (or in North Korea, if they test another one of theirs), unless terrorists take one of Pakistan's and detonate it elsewhere.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Cobraroll

Originally posted by: hym

Which is a perfectly understandable viewpoint.  However, consider the following fact.  In the years following WWII, there have been numerous wars between nations where one nation was armed with nukes and the other nation wasn't, but there have no major wars between two nuclear armed nations.  It's no coincidence that nuclear armed countries don't get into wars with each other. quote>

India and Pakistan say hello. The last time they were at war, in 1998 if my memory serves me correctly, both countries had nuclear weapons. They are also locked in an unending dispute over Kashmir, and Pakistan's government is infested by religious extremists. Expect to see the next nuke go kaboom somewhere in there (or in North Korea, if they test another one of theirs), unless terrorists take one of Pakistan's and detonate it elsewhere.

quote>

Ah, yes.  One mustn't forget the second largest people heap in the world.  Not only are they members of the nuke club, they are also members of the MAD club.  I hope some nut holding the football in one of these countries doesn't fall off the sanity wagon.  Both of them have had nukes for a long time, and nothing has happened so far, touch wood.

In the case of the Hind sub-continent, I think MAD is limited to them, but it would be a mess if it triggered others.  If there was ever a place for an NEO to strike, I vote for the Khyber pass.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

One of the nicer things about the Congress of the United States is that it takes extremist politicians in stride.  While I am not much in favour of tripartite governments, it does work most of the time which is what you can also say for our paliamentary system.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Lacey14

Why can't we get rid of nukes in all of the nations that seek to use them offensively?quote>

Well, how do you intend to make it happen? Tell them "no nukes" and expect them to listen? Yeah right. Just look at North Korea and Iran. Iran, in particular, thinks we are the biggest hypocrites in the world for keeping huge stockpiles of nukes and at the same time trying to tell them they can't have any, and thus does not take us seriously when we try to stop their nuclear program.

[Lacey14 3]

It was more rhetorical. I just wanted to be on subject before I go off topic about ENDA.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Wasn't ENDA where the second death star was?

In all seriousness... the idea of forbidding employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation/identity (with reasonable exceptions, of course) should be a no-brainer.

The idea of doing it on the federal level makes me a little uneasy (yeah, I'm a big states' rights guy), but I suppose it's for the best.

[Slashback 136]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

An interesting thought, but as mentioned, India and Pakistan do prove otherwise.  I also think that we cannot dismiss the Cuban Missile Crisis.  It wasn't a war, but it certainly wasn't all peace and flowers.  Not having a physical war does nothing to relieve the threat of it, especially when those powers are vying for surpemacy.  Nuclear-armed nations won't hesitate to go to war with another nuclear-armed nation, provided the conditions are powerful enough to demand.  What I am trying to say is that the threat of nuclear war, while powerful, is not a... um... war-breaker.  It would just be more catastrophic.

Barbarossa

quote>

Excactly. And both countries were ready to nuke each other during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we're just lucky that it didn't end up in a nuclear war.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The whole thing makes me ill to think of it.  Nobody wins, and there wouldn't be anyone left except a few people on some Pacific islands, if at all.  Now this could easily be a manifestation of natural selection, would you not say?  All it would take is someone like Nehemiah Scudder (see R. A. Heinlein's Revolt in 2100) in the White House.

On the other hand, if I wanted to really reduce world population without causing a nuclear winter, I would use a weaponized version of pasteurella pestis.  I would be willing to bet that most doctors wouldn't know a case of bubonic plague if it came complete with a few dead rats.

[Duke87 1,070]

Nitpick: the bacterium responsible for bubonic plague is Yersinia Pestis.

And isn't biological warfare supposed to violate international law or something?

[Lacey14 3]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Lacey14

It was more rhetorical.  I just wanted to be on subject before I go off topic about ENDA.quote>

The subject is American Politics.  Why would you think that ENDA is off-topic? However, a reference would be nice, since not everyone knows what you are talking about.  =)

Barbarossa

quote>

Yes, But everyone was currently talking about nuclear arms and me talking about ENDA is going off topic a bit on my mind.

ENDA is bill that would stop employment discrimination against the LGBT community. Basically, if it passed you can't be fired or discriminated against by your employer for being who you are.

I believe that's correct, but I don't stay too up to date on these things.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Sure, CBW is illegal, so what?  Nukes should be illegal, too.  That hasn't stopped development of CBW agents and countermeasures.  All this lucre would look much better in figuring out how people are going to survive in the coming geological age when the sea levels are up, and the storms a lot more vicious.

Dumping junk into the atmosphere isn't going to succeed, and if the methane frozen at the bottom of the oceans is ever released, to say nothing of the amount in the permafrost, the paltry amount of carbon dioxide released by man will be totally insignificant.  The politicians are beating their gums over stupid attempts at weather engineering, when they should be considering building the world's biggest dykes along the coasts, and some kind of general refrigeration system to keep people from frying.  There is no political will in the U.S. to do anything about CO₂ so, will they, nil they, they are going to have to cope with the vast amount of cow farts (CH₄) that is frozen in various places.

If you look at the Greenland ice cap melt rate, you'll soon realize we have passed the tipping point.  So instead of jumping up and down on party lines the Repugnicans and the Democrabs should get along with doing something together and stop all the stupid bickering.  They both need a good spanking and be required to write out the Sermon on the Mount ten times each.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

So, the Terminator has terminated his run as Governator of California.  In view of the track record of holders of that office, will it take a consitutional amendment to allow him to run for president?

And, does anyone think he would be as good a president as Ronald Regan?

[Larks2242 251]

Well, thats tough Ronald Regan was arguably one of the top 3 best presidents, Arnold would never be able to run because he was not US born, so its kinda not possible.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

So, the Terminator has terminated his run as Governator of California.  In view of the track record of holders of that office, will it take a consitutional amendment to allow him to run for president?quote>

Yes, it would take an amendment to the Constitution.  Such an amendment will never pass for any time in the foreseeable future.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, that's maybe a good thing.  The political steam-roller plus the recession seems to have flattened Arnold out a little.  Maybe he should do something non-political for a while, like be an actor.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Regan's sole claim to fame from my perspective is that he drove the final nail into the coffin of the CCCP.

I think your best modern president was probably Herbert Hoover.  Measure him by his times not the current ones.

George H. wasn't a bad Bush, but that shouldn't have allowed the American people to be saddled with Dubya who was definitely a boot rear Bush.

FDR wasn't all bad, but he did run roughshod over many American ideals.  Harry Truman had the right idea but is tainted with the A-bomb according to history.  I think he was right at the time and that that war was a tradgedy.

As for would have beens, consider what a mess you'd have had with Wendel Wilkie.  He was as bad a Neville Chamberlain.