weapons of mass destruction and mutually assured destruction

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

if weapons of mass destruction and by extension mutually assured destruction would protects you from other governments wouldnt it be a logical extension that you need an armed population would protect you from your own government?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 709 • Replies: 9

No top replies

Not necessarily. I think it would be more correct to say an armed population is a deterrent to government corruption and crime, not neccesarily related, just a deterrent.

0 Replies

Re: weapons of mass destruction and mutually assured destruc

flakker wrote:

if weapons of mass destruction and by extension mutually assured destruction would protects you from other governments wouldnt it be a logical extension that you need an armed population would protect you from your own government?

No. The logic is so flawed here that one not even need get into the pros/cons of WMDs, MAD, guns and gun control...

0 Replies

Quote:

No. The logic is so flawed here that one not even need get into the pros/cons of WMDs, MAD, guns and gun control...

is that really useful?

you see my chain of thought here to believe the two concepts are similar, im pretty sure you understand it.

nuclear weapons avoid war; great: protect the people from other countries via fear of repurcussions
the right to bear arms deters any military coup; protect the country from government via fear of repurcussions

now this analogy isnt any tougher to understand than alot of the ones you can read on this forum.

0 Replies

Anytime now cjhsa will be along and say something like, "Kill them all! Let God sort them out."

0 Replies

throw around this concept if you will, contrary to popular belief, america will not last forever, now the wmd's will keep america around LONGER.

believe it or not we would sooner have a world war 3 without the wmd's than a nuclear holocaust triggered by a false alarm:

1: I believe in human nature that when push comes to shove and the russians or the chinese launch their missiles, we wont launch ours believeing it is a false alarm to the end, the nuclear warheads were still a deterrent, it is the same human psyche in play on the other side as well.

2. so a nuclear holocaust will never happen

3: if im wrong on point 2, come over here and sue me

0 Replies

Quote:

2. so a nuclear holocaust will never happen

Do you believe that a couple of psychopaths or madmen will never in a thousand years be in charge of the red button?

Or perhaps that some Islamic Fundamentalists will never take over the army facilities in some nuclear country?

Or some armageddon cult won't gain control?

0 Replies

flakker wrote:

Quote:
No. The logic is so flawed here that one not even need get into the pros/cons of WMDs, MAD, guns and gun control...

is that really useful?

you see my chain of thought here to believe the two concepts are similar, im pretty sure you understand it.

nuclear weapons avoid war; great: protect the people from other countries via fear of repurcussions
the right to bear arms deters any military coup; protect the country from government via fear of repurcussions

now this analogy isnt any tougher to understand than alot of the ones you can read on this forum.

Whether or not you logic is or isn't any tougher to understand than that of others doesn't really matter.

The question you asked was "...wouldnt it be a logical extension ...?". The answer (IMO) is No.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do you believe that a couple of psychopaths or madmen will never in a thousand years be in charge of the red button?

Or perhaps that some Islamic Fundamentalists will never take over the army facilities in some nuclear country?

Or some armageddon cult won't gain control?

i believe so.

but i dont believe the odds will ever be higher that nuclear armageddon will bring death to america before it will come via conventional wars without the warheads.

0 Replies

Quote:

Whether or not you logic is or isn't any tougher to understand than that of others doesn't really matter.

The question you asked was "...wouldnt it be a logical extension ...?". The answer (IMO) is No.

why dont you take a couple of minutes to explain why you believe so instead of masturabting your ego.

you spend time to put up a picture of a cat on you profile to satisfy your vanity.

think past yourself and consider your posts are not needed, have no points and add nothing of use, dont post them in the first place, get your exposure elsewhere where you have enough apathy to add valid points.

because you are pretty useless in any other state.

0 Replies

weapons of mass destruction and mutually assured destruction

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know