Yes, I understand: nuke, nuke, nuke....but the question I still have is: why? why? why?

As much as this discussion is interesting, I think I'll leave it as it stands now....potential responses will be read, but I think I am done.....the questions that I have will lead into a further geopolitical debate, and I don't want McCarthy* coming along :P

*edited to say that McCarthy doesn't refer to the BA

__________________
"Its full of stars!"

McCarthy? Are you referring to the BA?

Maybe you should ask more specific questions. You earlier questions were were asking for ethical support to my analysis. My point is that the there may be none. It's like the difference between explanations and excuses. If accused of wrongdoing I may offer an explanation, it may or may not be an excuse depending on whether the listener excuses the offense or not.

But to answer your question to some degree: Why nuke? Because nukes are efficient. If the geopolitical and socio-political restrictions on their use are removed there is no reason not to use them, especially if occupation is not an end-game. A Nuclear explosion is like a regular explosion except with an interesting side-effect. Once we are past the point of inducing fatalities, what does it matter how they are induced?

The best defense against nuclear war seems to be popular ignorance. Political pressure against nuclear war is the result. However, a looming future energy crisis and the long-shot possibility of an Orion Spacecraft Propulsion system will educate people on the truth about nuclear technology. The more people learn the less they will fear nuclear technology and weapons. They will realize that nukes are not doomsday weapons and that survival is not only possible but probable with proper expedient measures. They will learn that Nuclear Winter is a myth. If the populations of other nuclear powers learn the same then the political resistance to their use may diminish to a point that they will not fight someone else's fight, especially if it is in their best interests. This could create an atmosphere where a limited regional nuclear bombardment is politically feasible. That is the setup. The next step is to determine who is likely to be the first potential target...

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

It's an extremely complicated situation, with roots in history and economics. China is already a powerful military power, is the fastet growing economy and the oldest constant civilisation in the world. After centuries of isolation, it is starting to emerge as potentially the largest superpower on the planet.

The link below is to an essay which explores the China/US/Japan/Taiwan situation in considerable detail. I don't always agree with the points the author makes, and his slant on things is cleary attributable to his agenda, but the facts that he puts forward (about treaties, about the history of the second world war, etc..) are inarguable. It's a long read, but if anybody is seriously interested in this subject it's worth a look.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031505H.shtml

I'm really glad that in this case, the most irrational root for trouble - religion - is not involved. It's already complicated enough.
History has it's surprises. If you would have asked people at the beginning of the Eighties about German reunification and the USSR not longer existing within a dozen years, no one would have believed that this would happen so silently. The USSR was supposed to stay or going down in a big blaze, but not simply deflating. There is hope that the relations between China and Taiwan may develop to a point, where the issue becomes pointless.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

Did Yassar Araft not say "We're all killing each other over who has the best imaginary friend" ? I may have paraphrased that, but I'm pretty sure that's close to his quote. I very much agree about the religion thing - it's probably been the cause of more conflict in the history of human civilisation than anything else.

A Google search is telling me that it was Ricard Jeni.

I've seen the quote attributed to Yasser Araft, even on the search results you link to, but wikiquote doesn't list it among his quotes - and that's good enough for me.

China attempts to alter joint anti-terrorist military excerise with Russian to pratice invading Tiawan.

It's almost difficult to believe some of what is showing up here. That there is no reason not to use nuclear weapons once the political restrictions are lifted. How about the avoidance of death and destruction. I guess that would not matter once you have devalued human lives to being just another commodity, and the way they are taken as just another rule by which to play the game.

And why in the world would you ever want people to not be afraid of nuclear weapons? Someone made a comment about people's fears of nuclear weapons diminishing once they know more about them. The only way my fear of nuclear weapons diminishes is if they no longer exist.

These kinds of ideas, and the fact that many world leaders probably share them in common, are a very good reason the world's current problems will not end anytime soon. For too many people, it is a matter of winning (manifesting itself as greed), instead of a matter of peaceful resolution (manifesting itself as equitable distribution of resources).

Speaking of which: Why isn't each human on the planet entitled to an equal share of the planets resources? Why does being born in one place or another entitle or take-away a humans right to the resources needed to live a long and healthy life?

I can see the ad now, nuclear weapons proponents trying to convince us not to be afraid, or to be less afraid:

"No more dangerous than your average 4-slice toaster, and actually with a better safety record. That's right kids, did you know that more people were killed by faulty toasters in the last 50 years than by nuclear weapons? And how many homes have been stunk up by a faulty sensor on a nuclear weapon? That's right, NONE. Nuclear weapons - your friend, your neighbor, your future."

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

In very much the same way that most of us now consider it bad form to keep fellow humans as slaves; at some point in the future, humans will be aghast at the ancient attitude that nuclear weapons were once considered an acceptable method for killing large numbers of people as a means of establishing dominance in the fight to hoard resources.

It is most unfortunate that civility does not evolve at the same rate everywhere.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I haven't read all the posts but I think that comment may have been about nuclear power for electricity generation (I saw it on a different thread). Otherwise I would agree with you.

__________________
Earth First! We'll mine the rest later.

Man, if it weren't a taboo subject on this board, I'd love to have a thread on the balance of human rights to national sovreignty.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Is it really taboo? From reading many of the threads I'd never have guessed so. In fact, the ones that I find the most enlightening and interesting (and sometimes the most disagreeable), are the threads that touch on politics, ethics issues, and the like.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Given that a general thread would have to draw on politics as direct source material, I think it would be square in forbidden territory, plus considering what the subject would cover, it would be a VERY hotbutton issue that might trigger more heat than the BA would be comfortable with. Its possible it could stay clear, but speaking for myself, I'd be hard pressed to hit the submit button. Some lines you don't cross, some lines you don't let the dust in your wake get near, know what I mean? At least here, somewhere more appropriate for that kind of thing, I'd be game for it.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

I wrote earlier in my post, to which I think you are responding, that my analysis is not based on morality. I don't want to see megadeaths resulting from any type of bombardment. But as I said above, once the killing starts, it starts. Nuking a city or firebombing a city with conventional incendiaries will offer similar results. In fact, the bomber's costs in men and materiel may well be less with nuclear weapons, thus reducing the need for resources and the need to acquire them. But anyways, the bomber's issue at war may not be the acquisition of resources but the maintenance of them. If the target country is not greedy for the same resources then the bombing country may not feel the need to attack. Perhaps the onus is upon China to be happy with what it has.

BTW, life valued as a commodity is still valued and has little to do with the calculus of nuclear war. It may be the point where (enemy) life is meaningless as it may be an obstacle to the life of the attacker. Life might be considered a commodity if the attacker intends to subdue, conquer, occupy and enslave the enemy; but not if the attacker merely wants to exterminate or reduce them. For a better on the difference between life as commodity and life as worthless read what W.B. Yeats and others had to say about the state of Irish peasants v. antebellum slaves in the southern US. The jewish holocause may also illustrate the difference.

Do you fear nuclear weapons or do you fear their use? Nuclear technology including explosive devices can be used for many peaceful purposes. I fear not having nuclear weapons. What would we do to stop an inbound comet or asteroid? A nuclear device goes bang just like any other explosive. Are you afraid of all things that go bang? Nuclear fearmongering may surve a beneficial purpose by maintaining political and social pressure against military usage, however it also maintains pressure against positive (non-destructive) applications. Alfred Nobel had the same quandary.

What is an equitable distribution of resources? It's not the same as equal distribution. Equitable means fair, so it would be fair for me to take your money because I may do something more beneficial with it than you may, otherwise you are letting it go to waste. Do you want communal sharing of resources, that is equal. But capitalism is based on inequality, even if it is just a mom & pop shop.

You may be onto something. I don't have the numbers but I am willing to bet that more people died from toaster-related accidents than nuclear weapons-related accidents over the last 50 years.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

I don't know if the BA would consider the topic as forbidden, but I suspect it would quickly devolve into forbidden territory. The initial idea would be a debate regarding comparative theories of governance, but when practicle examples are applied it could easily become an issue of partisan politics. This is especially true if the thread attracts those can't tell the difference governance v politics and hypotheticals v pragmatics.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Thread bump.

I know this thread is old, but I wanted to post this here as it is related to the topic. a declaration of a chinese official warning they will use nukes if the US atacks China over taiwan:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4...00e2511c8.html

I hope a conflict does not occur.

__________________
"jiu-jitsu is perfect it's people who makes mistakes"

In a debunking mood? Check this site: http://www.sherdog.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=54

You will always find conspiracies there. Open an account and expose them. But careful, they may call you a 'government sheep".

Just sabre-rattling .. don't lose sleep over it collegeguy. This kind of rhetoric isn't exactly new.

Yeah, I know the rhetoric isn't new. I tend to get nervous when someone mentions nukes specially the possibility of cobalt bombs.

__________________
"jiu-jitsu is perfect it's people who makes mistakes"

In a debunking mood? Check this site: http://www.sherdog.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=54

You will always find conspiracies there. Open an account and expose them. But careful, they may call you a 'government sheep".

Just some ranting and hot air from old-school freaks in Mainland China, if there was anyone that wanted to attack Taiwan it would have been done under the kind of dicatorship that Mao had set, back then General Chiang kai shek was not a man Mao liked they were close mindest to do it.
Today China is more open and does lots of free Trade with Europe and America, such an attack would cause an embargo and maybe make the Chinese economy implode, it would also greatly affect the West worse than the Arab oil shock. The whole Taiwan Vs China is totally over-played and fuel is added to the propaganda fire from political extremists on both sides. An Asian conflict could come from anywhere but most likely where one least expects it, Taiwan versus the Japanese over terrorial dispute and fishermen only a few weeks ago they were sending warships to greet each other thorugh the barrel of a gun, India versus Pakistan can occur they have fought three major wars in the past, trouble from Religious nuts in Indonesia, Sri Lanka trouble going to other areas, former Soviet areas can be trouble, conflict in Burma/Myanmar spreading, or Japan versus Russia over history and island disputes....trouble in Asia could come from any place. Yes its true there's a lot of difference between leaders in China and Taiwan but if they wanted to fight each other, they would have done it back in the 70s when there were a lot more nutcases, dictators and generals around, China are doing some posturing today and Taiwan are still doing a little ranting.

collegeguy, I came across this while perusing the BBC world news which should reduce your anxiety level somewhat.

Thanks for the link, it is good to know those comments seem to be only his opinion.

__________________
"jiu-jitsu is perfect it's people who makes mistakes"

In a debunking mood? Check this site: http://www.sherdog.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=54

You will always find conspiracies there. Open an account and expose them. But careful, they may call you a 'government sheep".

Lou Dobbs, on CNN, has been playing up the chinese general's comments too. But Lou Dobbs is also playing up any news about China as a prelude to conflict. He thinks their play for Unocal is an attempt to conquer US strategic resources of oil and rare earth materials. He thinks that Boeing is selling contraband materials to China. He thinks that the US Congress chose money over security by not passing a resolution to sanction other countries that sell weapons tech to China. But his gripes almost always seem to come back to China's unwillingness to allow US investment or ownership in their media outlets. Perhaps he is biased in his views since he works for a media giant that could make lots of money in China if allowed access to chinese mass media markets.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

it could be just more hard talk from China-Taiwan, if you listened to the US admin's call for 'Regime Change' at Havana or Castro's rants, you'd think the USA and Cuba were about to declare war

I am going to look for some of that info in Lou Dobbs in CNN. :-k

__________________
"jiu-jitsu is perfect it's people who makes mistakes"

In a debunking mood? Check this site: http://www.sherdog.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=54

You will always find conspiracies there. Open an account and expose them. But careful, they may call you a 'government sheep".