Weapons of mass . . . something

nimh wrote:

Brandon,

I think the concept of preemptive war is as dangerous to global security as terrorism is. If countries start launching massive wars on the mere suspicion that the other country might one day attack them, all hell breaks loose.

In some past era in which we would most likely be attacked by a massive naval armada that would, upon arrival at our shores, threaten us with gunpowder, this may have been correct. In an era in which a handful of terrorists may sneak a manmade plague into the country and kill millions, we cannot afford to wait for certainty. We are now in an era in which one single use of one single weapon can kill more people than died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. If we keep out 99% of the people who try to do this to us, we still lose because if the 1% who get through. The certainty you wish for may come in the form of a mushroom cloud rising over what used to be Washington, DC. Remember, only one weapon has to be successfully smuggled in and used one time to accomplish this.

People on a par with Hitler and Stalin simply cannot be permitted to possess weapons of this terrible power.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Karzak wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, they haven't, not in quantities significant enough to pose a real threat to people

I'm sorry, but you are wrong, the amounts found could kill dozens.

Whooooooooooooo, dozens!

Well, those sure were Weapons of Mass Destruction that were well worth going to war over, then.

The point remains that, hoiwever sorry you are that we ousted saddams regime, saddam posed a very real danger to the US.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
To really err on the side of caution we might as well just kill everyone.

The two acts are not comparable:

They are comparable, they are not in any way equitable.

The comparison was sardonic and intended to highlight that if we give the "they could kill us" fears too much leeway that we end up in absurd territory.

Note: You and I may disagree that the lengths to which we have gone constitute said absurd territory.

Quote:

Your comment does nothing to detract from my argument that invasion was justified by the facts known at the time.

This too, is something we can disagree on. I'm not a big fan of letting people get too carried away with the "they could have killed us" arguments due to the complexities inherent to pre-emption.

Illustrating just how absurd it can go can highlight an underlying weakness in the argument for pre-emption.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Well, those sure were Weapons of Mass Destruction that were well worth going to war over, then. I mean, whats a coupla thousand war dead if you've just saved the world from the danger of WMD that could have wiped out DOZENS of people?

That's it. I'm convinced.

I came. I read. I laughed.

Good job, nimh.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What a nonsensical reply. Reality and probability are two very divergent concepst. I sympathize with your desire, your desparate desire, to justify that which i personally consider ludicrously unjustified and unjustifiable. That, however, does not authorize your individual authority to change the consentual meaning of language

If they aren't facts now, they weren't facts then.

Let the probability that some proposition p is true be x, and let x be greater than zero. Upon investigation, it then turns out that proposition p is, in fact, false. Now the probability that proposition p is true is zero. This, however, does not alter the fact that prior to investigation, the probability was x.

0 Replies

Karzak wrote:

The point remains that, hoiwever sorry you are that we ousted saddams regime, saddam posed a very real danger to the US.

Quite right. Of course Saddam didn't possess any actual weapons of mass destruction -- we now know that as a result of the Senate committee report. And he certainly didn't have any capability of attacking us -- we've known that since the Kay report. But it cannot be denied that Saddam posed a very real danger to the US. We're not sure exactly what that danger might have been, but when the administration figures it out I'm confident that the American public will be among the first to know.

0 Replies

LOL at you too, Joe ;-)

0 Replies

Once again, you hammer at probabilities. My reponse was to McG's post, which read, in full: "He didn't lie. The evidence shown that to be fact at the time. New evidence has since shown those facts to be wrong." This is an affront to both language and logic. Play your probability game at home, alone--i have no objection to masturbation, i simply don't wish to be a witness to it.

If they aren't facts now, they weren't facts then.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Karzak wrote:
The point remains that, hoiwever sorry you are that we ousted saddams regime, saddam posed a very real danger to the US.

Quite right. Of course Saddam didn't possess any actual weapons of mass destruction --

Yes he did.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Okay, then, a moderate sized fission weapon is detonated in the heart of Los Angeles. My estimate is that a million could easily die. You say no. very well. Estimate the death toll and consequences please.

I think your estimate is tantamount to pulling a number out of the air, arbitrarily conjuring the successful creation, aquisition, deployment and employment of a weapon then conjuring it's effect based on it's conjured size.

I'm not sure asking me to do the same will do anything except to put me into the wild-eyed guesses boat.

If you could specify the exact weapon I could make an educated guess at the possibilities for its detonation and the casualties it could cause but even that would be very inaccurate.

Ultimately, it's moot. You use a million rhetorically when 100,000 is unacceptable to nearly the exact same degree.

I point it out merely because I think you are too far into the realm of possibility and not grounding your argument in the realm of probablility to a sufficient degree.

Quote:

And, please don't buy time by asking me what I mean by "moderate." I can tie this down if you insist, but I think you know what I mean.

To be perfectly honest, I don't. Unless terrorists get a delivered fully functional nuke problems inherent to its creation can just as easily mitigate against the death toll you conjured.

Are you imagining that a fully functional nuke built by a nation in optimal conditions (i.e. not scrounging together the resources) or what the groups themselves could wrangle?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Karzak wrote:
The point remains that, hoiwever sorry you are that we ousted saddams regime, saddam posed a very real danger to the US.

Quite right. Of course Saddam didn't possess any actual weapons of mass destruction -- we now know that as a result of the Senate committee report. And he certainly didn't have any capability of attacking us -- we've known that since the Kay report. But it cannot be denied that Saddam posed a very real danger to the US. We're not sure exactly what that danger might have been, but when the administration figures it out I'm confident that the American public will be among the first to know.

Actually, we know now. Prior to invasion, the totality of the evidence and experience with Hussein made it reasonably likely that he had WMD or WMD programs, which might one day be used against us. He had possed them, he had used them, he had lied about them, he had sought to develop more lethal varieties.

If he had the weapons, they could have been smuggled into the US in components. A disease could possibly be smuggled in within the body of an infected terrorist armed only with a plane ticket. The consequences of a WMD being used in the heart of a major city would be terrible.

0 Replies

Karzak wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Karzak wrote:
The point remains that, hoiwever sorry you are that we ousted saddams regime, saddam posed a very real danger to the US.

Quite right. Of course Saddam didn't possess any actual weapons of mass destruction --

Yes he did.

'fraid not.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Let the probability that some proposition p is true be x, and let x be greater than zero. Upon investigation, it then turns out that proposition p is, in fact, false. Now the probability that proposition p is true is zero. This, however, does not alter the fact that prior to investigation, the probability was x.

This is far too simplified and neglects a significant portion of the logic.

If x was > 0 and the result was 0 x still was > 0.

IF x was 1 and was merely thought to be > 1 then no, the probability was not correct it was interpreted incurrectly.

So you are missing a whole variable.

x = probability
y = percieved probability (which you neglect to factor)

x might not change but y can be demonstrated to be false.

In this situation, we are dealing with a y and it turned out not to be the x.

0 Replies

Actually we don't know how many WMD saddam had when he was deposed, since we have only found a couple, this is especially true of the nerve gas device since it was not found in an armory, but rather rigged as a booby trap. There could be hundreds more sitting somewhere in Iraq still.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The consequences of a WMD being used in the heart of a major city would be terrible.

Would? Or Could? WMD have already been used in the heart of a major city in the optimal location for its deployment resulting in far fewer deaths than many conventional terrorist attacks.

This type of thing is indicative of conflating probablity with possibility and using the no-man's land in between to erect a series of assumptions.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Once again, you hammer at probabilities. My reponse was to McG's post, which read, in full: "He didn't lie. The evidence shown that to be fact at the time. New evidence has since shown those facts to be wrong." This is an affront to both language and logic. Play your probability game at home, alone--i have no objection to masturbation, i simply don't wish to be a witness to it.

If they aren't facts now, they weren't facts then.

1. I was unaware that you were replying to a specific statement posted by another person.
2. Mathematicians invented and use probability theory because it is a useful guide for making decisions. My argument is perfectly correct. Most militaries with any degree of sophistication uses probility theory to guide their tactics. You can call it a game if you like, but the fact is that if there is a significant probability that someone who has committed many bad acts in the past, is acquiring the means to harm you greatly, it is reasonable to take action.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Let the probability that some proposition p is true be x, and let x be greater than zero. Upon investigation, it then turns out that proposition p is, in fact, false. Now the probability that proposition p is true is zero. This, however, does not alter the fact that prior to investigation, the probability was x.

This is far too simplified and neglects a significant portion of the logic.

If x was > 0 and the result was 0 x still was > 0.

IF x was 1 and was merely thought to be > 1 then no, the probability was not correct it was interpreted incurrectly.

So you are missing a whole variable.

x = probability
y = percieved probability (which you neglect to factor)

x might not change but y can be demonstrated to be false.

In this situation, we are dealing with a y and it turned out not to be the x.

I think you are not correct.

A bag contains 30 red and black balls. The relative number of the red and black balls is completely unknown. They may be all red, all black, or anything in between. I perform an experiment - I draw 5 balls from the bag and all are black. I replace the 5 black balls in the bag. I then compute the probability that there are more black balls then red ones. I will arrive at a probability greater than one half. I'd have to check with my old statistics books to do the calculation, but the probability will be greater than one half. I then empty the bag and discover that the smaller probability has turned out to be true - there are actually more red balls. Nonetheless, after my initial experiment in drawing 5 balls, but before I emptied the bag and observed all of the balls, I was correct in calculating the probability that there were more black than red balls to be greater than one half.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The consequences of a WMD being used in the heart of a major city would be terrible.

Would? Or Could? WMD have already been used in the heart of a major city in the optimal location for its deployment resulting in far fewer deaths than many conventional terrorist attacks.

This type of thing is indicative of conflating probablity with possibility and using the no-man's land in between to erect a series of assumptions.

The consequences of a nuclear bomb being detonated in the heart of a major city would be terrible, unless the bomb were not detonated correctly. The consequences of a bioweapon being used in the heart of a major city would vary widely depending on the nature of the bioweapon, but they certainly could be terrible.

0 Replies

At no time in the past did Hussein attack, or plan to attack the United States. In the past, Hussein did attack the Persians--and we supported him in that. Hussein subsequently attacked Kuwait, in the mistaken assumption that we would not intervene. Strictly from a point of view of justice, Iraq had a case against Kuwait for their practice of diagonal drilling which allowed them to tap oil reserves in the fields of southern Iraq. That, at any event, was the basis for Hussein's claim. Our position would be that this was a case for international abitration and not pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war, it now appears, however, is to be allowed for those nations with sufficient military might to enforce their will on the weaker nation.

Having been a devoted war gamer since 1959, i venture to suggest to you that you know nothing more about the active application of probability tables in military gaming scenarios than do i. This does not alter the balance of forces in such a situation, however. Hussein had never attacked anyone without having first carefully assessed the political and military consequences. That he blundered in the example of Kuwait is not to be wondered at. We sent April Glasser to be ambassador to Hussein, a jumped-up tribal chieftan. To his mind--and literally hundreds of people in the American diplomatic and intelligence communities have long known this--this was evidence that we did not consider the mission to be serious, and that we intended to put no dilomatic or military pressure on him in regard to his policy decisions. Hussein began his military logistical operations well before the invasion of Kuwait, and, again we did not react. We left Miss Glasser holding the bag. It is not exageration to say the Hussein likely was taken completely by surprise by our reaction.

Hussein shares one similarity with Hitler--he is a first-class gutter politician. I don't doubt that our intelligence analysts in the 1980's and thereafter were well aware of this. Hussein would never have knowingly and willfully have taken any step which would have lead to war with the United States. As i wrote here before the war, he got where he was because of a fine ability to judge sons-of-bitches. Reagan's envoy to Baghdad was Donald Rumsfeld; who can blame Hussein for believing he was dealing with a set of sons-of-bitches of the same stripe as himself?

As it was in the winter of 2003, and as i wrote here in the winter of 2003, a contention that Hussein would ever pose a direct threat to the United States is laughably absurd (or would be, if some many people were not now dead because of such a specious contention). As i wrote then, Hussein was effectively contained, because he wasn't stupid enough to risk his position by providing the United States a causus belli, to include the contention that he would have provided WoMD to terrorists.

You just keep telling yourself that this war was justified. Allow the rest of us the courtesy of assuming that we are sufficiently intelligent and well-informed to come to a different conclusion.

If they aren't facts now, they weren't facts then.

0 Replies

Weapons of mass . . . something

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know