VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

Quote:

blatham wrote:
The point is proximity to a point of influence. Normally we can influence the state where we live more effectively than other states, but if I was in Belgium and could stop a robbery, I would attempt it at least so much as my personal cowardice would permit.
This is where our core philosophical differences become irreconcilable, I suspect. Between the awesome destructive power of WMD, the lightning pace that the Internet shares information and the cultural diversity enjoyed in my country; I consider the world a pretty small place. Add to this the fact that the United States is the financial backbone of much of the planet and I just can't view us as a separate entity. It just seems like everyone is my next door neighbor. Everywhere is Belgium (per your example) in my book.

Bill
It's unclear where you see irreconcilability...which, come to think of it, sounds like a word from a Julie Andrews musical...perhaps, from 'Mary Poppins McCoy'

My brothers say I shouldn't play
with Occam's little willity
he's Hatfield and not properly
an instance of hillbillity
but jeepers when he jumps on me
he does it with agility
that sort of date can mitigate
irreconcilability

Sure, communications and travel technologies 'shrink' the world. But what is the consequence you suggest? That you (the US) have licence to be senior policeman/judge to the world?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

My brothers say I shouldn't play
with Occam's little willity
he's Hatfield and not properly
an instance of hillbillity
but jeepers when he jumps on me
he does it with agility
that sort of date can mitigate
irreconcilability

LMAO

blatham wrote:

Sure, communications and travel technologies 'shrink' the world. But what is the consequence you suggest? That you (the US) have licence to be senior policeman/judge to the world?

Only until we've achieved a level playing field for all of it's citizens.
Yes Blatham... I'm one of those wackos that believes world peace is possible.

0 Replies

America usually does the right thing but only after trying every other option--W Churchill
We will bring peace to Iraq even if we have to kill every damn muslim over there--Dyslexia

0 Replies

Quote:

Mr. Moore, is that you? Surely you are not that ignorant. A single WMD could kill 1,000 Times more people that 4 airplanes did on September 11th. I'll grant you that there is some excess fear-mongering going around, but doubting the potential of advanced WMD is the epitome of foolishness. It is you who needs to do some research.

It's not that I don't think that WMD are deadly. Of course they can be. We can all envision a device that could spread a biological or chemical agent over a large area quickly, with devastating consequences to the populace inside.

But, the question remains, apart from nuclear devices, are WMD really more deadly than conventional bombs? A single MOAB dropped in the middle of a city could easily lead to thousands and thousands of civilian deaths, and two or three of them could be devastating.

I would think that the MOST advanced WMD would probably strip out conventional weapons in terms of killing power, but the average probably is not that deadly overall. Just look at McG's WMD, the sarin shell - that one didn't kill anyone. The militarized anthrax that was such a scare ended up affecting a very small amount of people in total.

WMD are not new; chemical weapons have been used for at least a century, nuclear about 75. Biological weapons are what we should be afraid of, but noone talks about them much. The WORD WMD, though... is scary concept for people to get their minds wrapped around. This fear is used as a tool to manipulate the public. I hate that...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Again, I agree that the line between promoting awareness and fear is too frequently crossed, but not when it comes to WMD. A single 50-megaton nuclear device, detonated in time square, doesn't destroy buildings and kill thousands It vaporizes the entire island along with everything on it (including millions of people, btw). The island itself would cease to exist. Vapor Idea

The amount of potential death caused by biological WMD is limited practically only by the number of inhabitants on the planet. Hopefully, even if technology allows, no one ever wants to go there. Idea

Chemical WMDs present a danger all there own. While not as potent as the two above, massive quantities can be manufactured with very little technology out of readily available ingredients. Only a couple of months ago; Jordanian authorities reported that the Chemical WMD attack they thwarted could have killed upwards of 80,000 people. That, my friend, is no paper tiger. Idea

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

WMD are not new; chemical weapons have been used for at least a century, nuclear about 75.

But in the past, only a few of the largest countries could reasonably expect to possess them. First of all, the sheer number of countries that possess them has been increasing, and can be expected to continue to increase. This alone increases the chance that one will be used, or that a terrorist will somehow get his hands on them.

Secondly, as science and technology advance in the world, WMD come withing the reach of smaller and less sophisticated groups. The Soviets were not suicidal madman. Generally, they pursued a reasonably risk averse policy. One cannot say the same of terrorist organizations.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... chemical weapons have been used for at least a century ...

Sparta (about 400 BC) used sulfur fumes against enemy soldiers. :wink:

0 Replies

Prior to the past few decades, the odds of a terrorist organization making or buying a WMD would have been low. Now they really have a shot at it, and these weapons can be expected to become more accessible to terrorists in the future, both because more and smaller countries will possess them, and because of the advance of technology in the world.

0 Replies

Which has what to do with invading Iraq?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Which has what to do with invading Iraq?

My two posts are a response to a post by Cycloptichorn, in which he tried to argue that the danger posed by WMD is overblown. One of his arguments, the one I quote, was that WMD have been around for awhile. Presumably, what he is saying is that they have been around for awhile and yet have not been used against the west. My posts are a response to this.

0 Replies

well Set you missed the point, more and smaller countries are getting advanced technology, Iraq is/was a small country getting advanced technology ergo we had to invade. Remember progress is our most feared product. If you let them develop electric lights next thing you know they will have the hydrogen bomb and the stealth bomber to deliver it. Not only that but if we let them develop fertilizers they could turn them into bombs as well. I say we ban fertilizer sales to all 3rd world countries(and Canada). Terrorists aren't stupid you know!

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

well Set you missed the point

This much is true. This thread has hardly been focused on "invading Iraq".

dyslexia wrote:

more and smaller countries are getting advanced technology, Iraq is/was a small country getting advanced technology ergo we had to invade. Remember progress is our most feared product. If you let them develop electric lights next thing you know they will have the hydrogen bomb and the stealth bomber to deliver it. Not only that but if we let them develop fertilizers they could turn them into bombs as well. I say we ban fertilizer sales to all 3rd world countries (and Canada). Terrorists aren't stupid you know!

Precisely what this bit of dribble is supposed to mean or contribute, I have no idea. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Surely you are not that ignorant. A single WMD could kill 1,000 Times more people that 4 airplanes did on September 11th. I'll grant you that there is some excess fear-mongering going around, but doubting the potential of advanced WMD is the epitome of foolishness. It is you who needs to do some research.

It's not that I don't think that WMD are deadly. Of course they can be. We can all envision a device that could spread a biological or chemical agent over a large area quickly, with devastating consequences to the populace inside.

But, the question remains, apart from nuclear devices, are WMD really more deadly than conventional bombs? A single MOAB dropped in the middle of a city could easily lead to thousands and thousands of civilian deaths, and two or three of them could be devastating.

Bioweapons are just as deadly as nukes.

However, other WMDs like chemical and radiological weapons are more in line with ordinary high explosives in their deadliness.

0 Replies

VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know