There is a nice part of Yes, Prime Minister regarding nuclear deterrent that outlines my position quite nicely. http://youtu.be/IX_d_vMKswE

See, your government isn't going to sell you to slavery overnight. More likely they'll strip your rights away bit by bit. How do you protect yourself against that with a firearm. At what point do you organise a militia to overthrow the tyrants, and tbh...why hasnt it happened yet? I didn't see many gun owners defending themselves from say, the patriot act or demanding that money be out of politics while waving a 9mm around.I like the spirit of the 2nd ammendment, I think europeans are perhaps too complacent, I just don't think its really practical. Its a law from another era.

As for school shootings etc. Well, correlation doesn't equal causation. Other countries might have less firefarms and less shootings, but we also don't lock up 1/7 of black men. Some shootings you can definitely see that gun control would probably have prevented it, but you can see that if somebody really wants to kill, and spends time planning it then they're probably going to find a gun somehow.

I do think that guns raise the stakes on a lot of non-violent crimes that can turn fatal though. Neither the homeowner or the burgler want to kill the other, but both fear that the other might pull the trigger first. Its a sort of prisoners dilemna where really the only winning option is to shoot first and ask questions later. Maybe with less guns swimming around you'd get less twitchy fucks shooting black kids carryin nothing more than a bag of skittles. I don't think it does anything as a way of deterrent either, desperate people do tend to somewhat ignore all risk.

I like both Chris and Sam, but after reading the passage I think Sam was irresponsible in his writing - though I see it as more glib than malicious. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who disagrees, but the way I interpret the passage is...

"If Muslim Jihadists - who fear not death and want nothing more than to nuke us for religious reasons - ever came to power in a state that possessed nuclear weapons, our only option would be to nuke them first. It would be horrible, absurd, unthinkable and would result in millions of deaths and would likely lead to retaliation.... BUT IT WOULD BE THE FAULT OF RELIGION."

I think the problem is three-fold, a) that he mounts an argument that justifies preemptive global nuclear war, b) that, sadly, he paints our conflict as one of religion and not one of foreign policy and c) that he sees Muslims as crazy people who would sacrifice the lives of their children in exchange for dead Americans and heavenly virgins. This is indefensible.

Let me respectfully remind my good sift libs that Middle Eastern rage against the US has to do with foreign policy, not religion. It's blowback. It was Bush that said they hate us for our freedom, and Chomsky (on the left) and Ron Paul (on the right) that said they want us to stop bombing them, building bases in their countries and installing puppet dictators. Are we really going to side with the Bush doctrine instead of having to concede something to a person of faith?

Again, I like both these guys and would rather they didn't fight, but Hedges makes a fair point. We atheists aren't used to being criticized from the left and it puts us in a weird position. I don't think Sam is a hater, I think he just wrote an irresponsible couple of paragraphs in haste.

Anyway, the full passage is below. Judge for yourself. Tell me where I'm wrong.

SAM HARRIS: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

I'm not that familiar with USA insider politics/political circles etc. but I found this interesting


Obama the Interventionist by Robert Kagan



some samples:

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

and

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?
Ask Noam Chomsky the next time you see him.

I just spent half an hour trying to find this thing again. There you are, little video.

EDIT: Much as I like this vid, it is a skosh over-simplistic and I want to quote from another comment I made on another video:

"Nukes are terrible things, but they may be responsible for the fact that we never had a world war in the second half of the 20th century. If both superpowers hadn't had a nuclear deterrent, who's to say the Cold War wouldn't have turned into WW3?

"It's weird not to be able to unequivocally say "I wish we could disinvent nuclear weapons"; occasionally I do say it, but then stop and wonder whether their threat of tremendous harm has persuaded humans not to engage in other great harm."

*dark *fear

Sure, Russia only had 15 times as many troops as the USA, and single-handedly "liberated" more territory from Nazi Germany than all the other allied powers combined. They turned the tide of the eastern front at the Battle of Stalingrad a year and a half before D-Day, and several months before the beginning of the Italian campaign. If nuclear deterrance did not exist, the USSR could easily have captured all of continental Europe, and probably would have done so before Stalin's death in 1953. They couldn't have actually invaded the USA, but so what?

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
The Cold War was merely a political charade employed as a means of taking control of media operations, consolidating political power in the hands of the Right Wing , enriching the military-industrial complex, and basically generating a climate of fear with which to control mass behavior. From the sounds of your regurgitation, they've gotten to you too. The military spending that accounts for the thousands of nuclear weapons and make up the arsenal absorbed an enormous percentage of the nation's wealth without conferring any concomitant security -- indeed, it did just the opposite. Nibiyabi, it's time to stop drinking the Kool Aid. Russia is not and never was the threat they said it was. You've got to think for yourself, else others will do the thinking for you.

I didn't know about the whole "obliterate" quote. It is worth noting that she was responding to a question asking what she would do if Iran nuked Israel during her presidency. I don't personally think that's a helpful or wise comment to make. But put bluntly that has always been the nature of nuclear deterrents, to make the use of nuclear weapons unthinkable because the ensuing retaliation would be completely devastating. I find the whole idea of mutually assured destruction terrifying, but I also think Iranians know that is the deal they enter into by building a nuclear arsenal.

Here's a clip of the quote you mentioned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08n4bj1Mz4A

allow me to translate, from the original choggish:

madam senator:
i find your sabre-rattling to be disingenuous, and transparently aimed at bolstering your 'diplomatic' credentials, while in fact revealing your lack thereof.

you know perfectly well that iran is currently a theocratic republic, and who currently serves as its heads of state, and of government. being coy with such matters does little to endear you to a public already suspicious of your motives, for attaining our nation's highest office, at a troubled time.

which is why i will refrain from the familiar sophomoric jeers, regarding his name,
as it is surprisingly easy to pronounce: omma dinna jod

however, if i may end with a personal observation?
i am concerned with the quality of your sex life, madam senator.

and with all due sincerity, this has recently driven me to despair...
lying awake, at night... despairing, for you...

with rhetoric like this who needs McCain?

BRM: I think you mean 62 years.

Nukes are terrible things, but they may be responsible for the fact that we never had a world war in the second half of the 20th century. If both superpowers hadn't had a nuclear deterrent, who's to say the Cold War wouldn't have turned into WW3?

It's weird not to be able to unequivocally say "I wish we could disinvent nuclear weapons"; occasionally I do say it, but then stop and wonder whether their threat of tremendous harm has persuaded humans not to engage in other great harm.

Under LeMay's command, SAC became the cornerstone of American national strategic policy during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. This policy was based primarily on nuclear deterrence. [...] SAC's motto became "Peace is Our Profession", symbolizing the intention to maintain peace through the threat of overwhelming force.

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Air_Command#History