Mutually assured destruction I think is often woefully overlooked as a stabilising force in the world.

I don't think it's at all a co-incidence that since nuclear proliferation we have only seen wars vs non nuclear nations. You can never really win meaningfully vs a nation that has the thermo-nuclear trump card in their back pocket.

When superpowers come to blows now, proxy wars are the only realistic option. That may still suck for the poor bastards that get caught up with it, but it does mean a world war is somewhat off the table (even if they like to rattle the sabres from time to time).

Also Starship troopers is an oft misunderstood book I think. Some people get so hung up on the underlying idea of a Military dictatorship that they miss much of the nuance and wisdom woven into it.
I'm not even sure Heinlein was even necessarily advocating such a world, but rather using it as a narrative device to explore how our societies really work once you drop the wishful pretences (especially the stable ones).

It seems like there is perhaps some intrinsic relationship between peace and the capacity for effective and controlled violence. There are few people as calm and non aggressive as the ones who truly know they have nothing to fear from you in a fight.

By the way, a Tornado doesn't have the range to reach Russia, especially not with a B61-12 as payload. So it doesn't really come as a surprise that our Eastern European neighbours are not particularly pleased either, given how it would be either them or us who this shit would be dropped upon when zealots in uniforms get up on the wrong side of the bed.

Nuclear proliferation, the cornerstone of future Fallout LARPs.

As Max S. Power (an analyst who worked on nuclear cleanup issues for two decades ), points out, “...in the 1980s, (U.S.) Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment concluded ‘reprocessing’ which generates additional radioactive waste streams and involves operational risks of its own, does not offer advantages that are sufficient to justify its use for waste management reasons alone.’”

According to the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, “Reprocessing is the fundamental link between a nuclear reactor and a plutonium bomb.” The Union of Concerned Scientists has noted that “reprocessing would increase the ease of nuclear proliferation.”

Reprocessing is also responsible for considerable radioactive land and water pollution; for example from the British and French reprocessing operations at Sellafield and La Hague respectively. Originating from Sellafield sources, the Irish sea merits the dubious distinction of being called the most radioactive body of water in the world. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability says that “France's reprocessing plant at La Hague routinely discharges into the English Channel so-called low-level liquid radioactive waste which has contaminated seas as far away as the Arctic Circle.”

(source)

Looks like that whole "reprocessing" thing you talked about does nothing but create even more waste.

You're honest-to-god equating the "dangers" of solar cell production with nuclear waste.

Why am I not surprised?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Great post. I can't help but feel that the "against" stance is predicated on fear. Fear of nuclear proliferation, fear of terrorist attack on waste transport. Not a good foundation for a debate stance IMO.

Israel is a nuclear proliferation free zone, Free from the international justice of the ICC, and free to violate peoples human rights continuously. Saudi Arabia bothers me in that all women are treated like property. Israel treats an entire civilization like they're their property. Israel has shown over and over that human rights are discarded. No, this following statement is not anti-semitic...Fuck Israel.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^cindercone:
The point I was making is this: I propose that since our current society is Theologically based, the conversion to rational reasoning would be disastrous. Society would fail. If I proposed this, you might argue my proposal. You would argue that the new ascendant rationale could not be determined in advance, or you would argue that rational reasoning would ascend. So either an unknown reasoning would emerge, or we would be dependent upon a historically flawed human assumption of rational reasoning for anything short of total anarchy. THAT is the proof.

First of all, "society" has frequently changed the structure on which it is based throughout history, and though it has gone through some tough times as a result, it doesn't simply "fail". Furthermore, the fear of the outcome of such a change has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of religion in the first place.
Because of the nature of theological indoctrination, even in ideal circumstances it would take generations to remove religion from society. During that time, people will develop other moral codes, whether it is "enlightened self-interest" or something else. Those ethics will be hotly debated, but at least they won't be founded on irrational fairy tales, and therefor will not be available for use as justification for war.
>> ^cindercone:
Obviously, HE doesn’t spend the emotional energy arguing nuclear proliferation and abortion. For him to imply that gay marriage and abortion are issues that are only emotionally contested because of the presence of theology is ridiculous.
How can you say that? It is patently obvious that abortion and gay marriage are only contested on theological grounds. Even if you could find examples of non-religious people who are anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage (which I doubt), those would be so few in number as to be laughable.
The point is that these issues are stupid fights that are distracting people from the real threats to society. In order to move attention from a distraction to a real issue, you have to attack the distraction.


The fallacy here is that the smallness of the number of anti-abortion or anti-gay Atheists would be ridiculous while the smallness of the number of Atheists themselves wouldn't.
What is the percentage of Atheists that hold conservative such as anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion? I don't know. You don't either. In this context any counter proof for your feeling that there ain't no such people can't be simply dismissed on the grounds of being numerically insignificant.

All that said I'm an anti gay marriage Atheist. And in fact, the Soviet Union criminalized homosexuality from the 1930's up to it's dissolution. The law was only repealed in 1993. None of the 5 current communist states accept gay marriage either. Since communism is a generally Atheist ideology, there you have your share of anti gay marriage Atheists, historically and currently.

Just please let's not get on logical implication nonsense here. I know Atheism doesn't imply Communism. I'm not a Communist myself. But it's the other way around: Communism largely implies Atheism. Plus Communism provides you with the one instance of an Atheist society, so it's quite relevant to determine what kind of morals can exist in the absence of religious guidance.

A brief list I came across to jog your memory:
3/18/8 – Obama caught world-wide attention for his moving speech on race relations 7/24/8 - Obama lays the foundation for a new era of international relations and began inspiring renewed hope in American leadership during his campaign speech in Berlin 11/6/8 – Obama’s victory was hailed as a promise of hope for the world. 12/1/8 – Obama began plans to restore U.N. ambassador to cabinet rank. 1/22/9 - Appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East peace 1/22/9 – Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay 1/22/9 – Ordered comprehensive review of detention policies 1/22/9 – Prohibited use of torture 1/22/9 - Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons 1/23/9 – Lifted “Global Gag Rule” on international health groups 1/26/9 – Began to address climate change by increasing fuel standards for automobiles 1/26/9 – Appointed Special Envoy for Climate Change 1/27/9 - Signs Lily Ledbetter “Fair Pay” Act 2/1/9 – Expanded healthcare for children by signing SCHIP 2/5/9 - Again addressed energy conservation by increasing standards for appliances. 2/24/9 – Directed almost $1 billion for prevention and wellness to improve America’s health 2/25/9 - Initiated international efforts to reduce mercury emissions worldwide 2/27/9 – Committed to responsibly ending the war in Iraq 4/1/9 – Agreed to negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia. 4/1/9 – Enhanced U.S. – China relations 4/2/9 - Led global response to the economic crisis through the G20, obtaining commitments of $1.1 trillion to safeguard the world’s most vulnerable economies 4/4/9 - Renewed dialog with NATO and other key allies 4/5/9 – Announced new strategy to responsible address international nuclear proliferation 4/13/9 – Began easing tension with Cuba through new policy stance 4/17/9 - Secured $5 billion in aid commitments "to bolster Pakistan's economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism" 4/22/9 - Developed the renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents. 5/8/9 – Proposed International Affaires budget that included funds to create a civilian response corps -- teams of civilian experts in rule of law, policing, transitional governance, economics, engineering, and other areas critical to helping rebuild war-torn societies; Provide $40 million for a "stabilization bridge fund," which would provide rapid response funds for the State Department to help stabilize a crisis situation. 6/4/9 - Gave historic address to the Muslim World in Cairo - "American is not at war with Islam" Foreign affairs experts insist that Obama's engagement with the Muslim world has been remarkable. "He has been able to dramatically change America's image in that region" 8/4/9 - Used DIPLOMACY to free 2 American journalists from a North Korea prison 9/18/9 - De-escalation of nuclear tension through repurposing of missile defense prompting Russia to withdraw its missile plan.

This doesn't even address the recent nuclear de-escalation of Iran (they have revealed a heartofore hidden nuclear facility, and agreed to sell their weapons-grade nuclear material to Russia) due to DIPLOMACY. Neither does it address his wise actions in the Somali pirate situation, saving american lives.

>> ^cindercone:
The point I was making is this: I propose that since our current society is Theologically based, the conversion to rational reasoning would be disastrous. Society would fail. If I proposed this, you might argue my proposal. You would argue that the new ascendant rationale could not be determined in advance, or you would argue that rational reasoning would ascend. So either an unknown reasoning would emerge, or we would be dependent upon a historically flawed human assumption of rational reasoning for anything short of total anarchy. THAT is the proof.


First of all, "society" has frequently changed the structure on which it is based throughout history, and though it has gone through some tough times as a result, it doesn't simply "fail". Furthermore, the fear of the outcome of such a change has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of religion in the first place.

Because of the nature of theological indoctrination, even in ideal circumstances it would take generations to remove religion from society. During that time, people will develop other moral codes, whether it is "enlightened self-interest" or something else. Those ethics will be hotly debated, but at least they won't be founded on irrational fairy tales, and therefor will not be available for use as justification for war.

>> ^cindercone:
Obviously, HE doesn’t spend the emotional energy arguing nuclear proliferation and abortion. For him to imply that gay marriage and abortion are issues that are only emotionally contested because of the presence of theology is ridiculous.

How can you say that? It is patently obvious that abortion and gay marriage are only contested on theological grounds. Even if you could find examples of non-religious people who are anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage (which I doubt), those would be so few in number as to be laughable.

The point is that these issues are stupid fights that are distracting people from the real threats to society. In order to move attention from a distraction to a real issue, you have to attack the distraction.

MaxWilder should probably listen to some more things if that’s the dumbest thing you’ve heard. I’ve said dumber things than that since my last comment!

You’re arguing atheism. I’m arguing Sam Harris notion that he is compelled to fight against “ascendant ignorance”. That theological ignorance is hindering the better use of society’s energy to solve greater problems.

Harris:“It seems to be a moral and intellectual necessity for me to…argue against ascendant ignorance.”

Harris:“we don’t spend the same kind of emotional energy on nuclear proliferation that we spend on abortion and gay marriage.

Obviously, HE doesn’t spend the emotional energy arguing nuclear proliferation and abortion. For him to imply that gay marriage and abortion are issues that are only emotionally contested because of the presence of theology is ridiculous.

If society stopped using Theological reasoning to determine social issues and began using rational reasoning, there’s no guarantee that the world would be a better place. Historically, society has resisted rational reasoning. So giving up theology would not necessarily lead to an ascendance in rational reasoning. Arguing against theism and for rational reasoning is not the same thing. Sam Harris claims that the use of “emotional energy” could be better allocated, but doesn’t present how a loss of theism would produce this outcome.

>> ^cindercone:
And if you doubt the assumption I made just there, then your doubt proves its validity.


The point I was making is this: I propose that since our current society is Theologically based, the conversion to rational reasoning would be disastrous. Society would fail. If I proposed this, you might argue my proposal. You would argue that the new ascendant rationale could not be determined in advance, or you would argue that rational reasoning would ascend. So either an unknown reasoning would emerge, or we would be dependent upon a historically flawed human assumption of rational reasoning for anything short of total anarchy. THAT is the proof.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^imstellar28:

That is of course, the classic counter argument to what I (and everyone on the Hill) is proposing.
My view is that the picture you draw is too static. If the market is always better at providing prosperity, why are people losing jobs and having to spend less?
It's not crushing taxes levied to pay off the debt -- we've never really had anyone try to do that.
It's not crushing regulation stopping people from starting businesses, it's the bankers themselves cutting off investment capital because they're afraid they've already gambled and lost every penny they own.
Maybe it's because when the market is left to its own devices, it pushes empty ponzi schemes as the main engine of the economy, instead of the old-fashioned idea of actually producing goods and services that require work.
I'm not saying that incurring the debt is a good idea, I'm just saying that if we slash government "spending" to a level below our falling revenues, you'll only make the situation worse, and make revenues drop even further as the economy grinds to a halt.
I think we both agree that this whole thing will sort itself out, in the same way that we'd agree that life, in some form, would survive a nuclear war, the difference is, I want to fight the nuclear proliferation because I don't really want my survival skills tested that much, while you say "nukes for everybody!" because you have faith that the natural order of things will work out to the best possible result.
As for the thought that this is the result of 90 years of government meddling, I don't think there's evidence for that at all. Again, the issue isn't with our national debt or regulation, it's with what the private sector did when government "got out of the way".


I was being somewhat facetious in my earlier post, Imstellar's post is much closer to my line of thinking. I disagree with the Krugman/Summers/Geithner/Obama plan which is what you are advocating. My problem is I don't trust them. You seem to be hoping for a Cinncinnatus when history shows you always get a Caesar to some extent. I think things will get very bad no matter what we do. The Obama Administration's hope is to get the "economy going again." Obama's plan is skipping an important part of the process though. Savings and production need to be built back up again which will mean huge asset declines in the mean time. If this process is skipped (it will be largely) then we will have massive inflation. These bad investments need to be liquidated not propped up or we'll be stuck in this rut a lot longer than we would be otherwise. There will always be a buyer at the right price. The problem is that the banks are insolvent and instead of selling their deposits to smaller less politically connected and better capitalized banks they are threatening to take the whole system down. The government should let them fail but they won't because then JPM and GS won't be around to naked short gold to keep the dollar looking good for Obama's big spending plans. Well, I don't know how long they can keep that going we're 2 weeks in Obama's presidency and gold is skyrocketing. You want to know where that TARP money went? Covering short positions in gold.

>> ^imstellar28:


That is of course, the classic counter argument to what I (and everyone on the Hill) is proposing.

My view is that the picture you draw is too static. If the market is always better at providing prosperity, why are people losing jobs and having to spend less?

It's not crushing taxes levied to pay off the debt -- we've never really had anyone try to do that.

It's not crushing regulation stopping people from starting businesses, it's the bankers themselves cutting off investment capital because they're afraid they've already gambled and lost every penny they own.

Maybe it's because when the market is left to its own devices, it pushes empty ponzi schemes as the main engine of the economy, instead of the old-fashioned idea of actually producing goods and services that require work.

I'm not saying that incurring the debt is a good idea, I'm just saying that if we slash government "spending" to a level below our falling revenues, you'll only make the situation worse, and make revenues drop even further as the economy grinds to a halt.

I think we both agree that this whole thing will sort itself out, in the same way that we'd agree that life, in some form, would survive a nuclear war, the difference is, I want to fight the nuclear proliferation because I don't really want my survival skills tested that much, while you say "nukes for everybody!" because you have faith that the natural order of things will work out to the best possible result.

As for the thought that this is the result of 90 years of government meddling, I don't think there's evidence for that at all. Again, the issue isn't with our national debt or regulation, it's with what the private sector did when government "got out of the way".

Here's Lynn's biography:

"Lynn previously served as the director for Program Analysis and Evaluation in the office of the secretary of Defense, a position he had held since April 1993, and earlier as assistant to the secretary of Defense for Budget.

From 1987 until 1993, Lynn served on the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy as the legislative counsel for defense and arms control matters and his staff representative on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Prior to 1987, he was a senior fellow in the Strategic Concepts Development Center at National Defense University, where he specialized in strategic nuclear forces and arms control issues. He was also on the professional staff of the Institute of Defense Analyses. From 1982 to 1985, he served as the executive director of the Defense Organization Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Lynn is a graduate of Dartmouth College (1976). He has a juris doctorate from Cornell Law School and a master's in Public Affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University (1982). His publications include "Toward a More Effective Defense" (1985) as well as articles in various newspapers and professional journals."


Given this guy's CV, especially with nuclear proliferation on the verge of spinning out of control, I'd give this guy a big fucking waiver, too.

From YT: Barack outlines his policy positions on Iraq, Iran, the fight against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, expanding our armed forces and energy independence.

TRANSLATION: Barack speaks clearly and in a manner designed to appeal to the conscience of thoughtful and intelligent people everywhere in order to insure an electoral outcome which will place his keepers in position to do as they please with the world and her automatonatious, hypnotized , inhabitants; regardless of what he either promises, confabulates, or is actually capable of pulling off...(Skeletor does the same, though not as eloquently and with less appeal to meatbots east of Kansas, or north of Virginia.....)

cool. good q's, runner.

> Do we pursue bin Laden in any ongoing capacity?

fuck yes! and to a greater capacity than would appear to have been ongoing.
assuming he hasn't simply died of renal failure, i'd suppose that's best accomplished by a seal team or a cruise missile.

> Do we concern ourselves with nuclear proliferation? If so, what actions do we take to prevent it?

sure. but we don't have US troops in 130 other countries, to deter nuclear proliferation there.
personally, i'd start by reducing our own stockpile, down to merely enough to destroy the planet 17 times over. that oughta' make everyone a little less nervous about the need for their own.

> Do we honor treaties like NATO?

most libertarians advise against the idea of signing treaties at all. if i'm a reasonably friendly guy who minds my own business, you won't feel threatened by me. you won't need me to sign a piece of paper that promises it, and i won't need one from you.
and think about what it means to everyone else, if we do sign. all our neighbors, that we haven't promised not to attack...

> Do we continue to sell arms to other countries?

nope. DoD weapon contracts should be sealed bids, from US manufacturers, for exclusive manufacturing rights, that will not be extended to any other nation.

that's the quick versions. what would your answers be?

^ I'd love to hear a realistic appraisal of the effect withdrawing all of our troops from all foreign nations would have.

I like the idea, I'm just not convinced it's practical or safe.

Assuming we do it, what then?

Do we pursue bin Laden in any ongoing capacity?

Do we concern ourselves with nuclear proliferation? If so, what actions do we take to prevent it?

Do we honor treaties like NATO?

Do we continue to sell arms to other countries?