Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Enough war

Expand Messages
  • Herman B. Triplegood
    Yeah Bill, maybe it has all been just a matter of sheer luck so far. The MAD idea sounds plausible enough at face value. If you know I can blow you away with a
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Yeah Bill, maybe it has all been just a matter of sheer luck so far.

      The MAD idea sounds plausible enough at face value. If you know I can
      blow you away with a shot gun you will not try to rob my house while
      I am sleeping there at night.

      But, you could wait until I am at work and go in while I am not
      there. Any deterrent has its limits. Some actions, by some people,
      can never be deterred if they are determined enough to get what they
      want.

      Ideas like MAD assume that everybody is always going to act
      reasonably. This is a huge assumption. It is also a huge assumption
      to think that, into the foreseeable future, only the reasonable
      people will have access to these unreasonable means of destruction.

      The pessimism within me says that it is really only a matter of time
      before somebody knocks over the first domino and the whole thing
      sparks into a huge holocaust.

      If anybody does survive, they will be back in the stone age, and
      there will be a whole lot fewer humans around to do harm to one
      another. So, in the end, perpetual peace and depopulation might very
      well amount to pretty much the same thing.

      Hb3g

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Herman, Mutual Assured Destruction ,MAD, has always puzzled me.
      Many
      > think it has worked to reduce conventional war. It is a great risk
      to
      > take, building the bomb. Oppenheimer had serious doubts and Teller
      > later rejected the H bomb as too great a risk . It seems new
      weapons
      > are usually used not just flexed in threat. Take the incendary
      raids on
      > japanese cities as LeMays strategic attacks killed more than the
      > nuclear strikes. The competative impetus of our genetic make up
      seems
      > to cause man to invent more and more powerful weapons. I think it
      > remarkable that we have not used nuclear bombs in better than
      half a
      > century. Some relatively threatened countries have nuclear
      capability,
      > ie, Pakistan and India. I am suprised they have not used their
      > abilities. There seems to be something unnamed that restrains us
      from
      > pushing the button. I cannot think it is any philosophical
      principles
      > that have dissuaded further use . It would seem possible that some
      set
      > of nuclear age rules should limit further blasts but who has the
      power
      > of enforcement? I know some strategists do not think of nukes as
      > weapons, just devices. Weapons should not destroy their users,
      only
      > the enemy should suffer annihilation. If our world has become too
      small
      > for our devices why have we restrained ourselves. Who or what is
      > governing our better angels? Bill
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.