Weapons of mass . . . something

I'm not sure you understood me Brandon.

If probability is contradicted by an unprobable occurence the probability was not necessarily wrong.

But that says nothing about whether or not the initial accessment of probability was accurate.

For example, let's say Bush evaluated the probability as x.

x is not necessarily true regardless of result, maybe y (what naysayers were estimating) is closer to the real probability, making x wrong all along.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

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.

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?

I think it is very realistic to believe that a terrorist group could eventually acquire a nuclear weapon several times as powerful as that used at Hiroshima and successfully use it within the US. If people keep trying to do this, I think it's likely that eventually someone will succeed.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

Which is altogether possible, if not probable, if we are talking about a "home made" one which will probably not be able to be tested prior to live deployment.

You assumed the would when there is a could (could not detonate properly or even chain-react properly) to consider.

Quote:

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.

Yes, they "could" and because it also "could not" you really shouldn't use "would".

Every single use of biological weapons in history has not come close to approaching the death toll you tout.

Every single use of WMD in history has not come close to the death toll you tout.

Every single terrorist use (ok, really small dataset caveat here) of WMD in history has not come close to approaching the death toll you tout.

Yet you consistently leap to the apocalyptic scenarios and use language that belies the conflation of probability and possibility in the underlying ratiocination.

Yes, it's certainly possible, but remember that possibility and probability are not the same and that because of the vast difference it would be helpful if you deleniated which you use in your arguments.

Otherwise you might be alluding to probability on the mere basis of possibility.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I think it is very realistic to believe that a terrorist group could eventually acquire a nuclear weapon several times as powerful as that used at Hiroshima and successfully use it within the US.

Yes, they "could". They "could" also decide they suddenly like America and were wrong all along.

While I believe there is a discrepancy in probability there I highlight the power of "could" that you are frequently translating into "would" and subsequently into "we are justified to attack".

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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.

I believe I am showing you the courtesy of allowing you to come to a different conclusion, but this is a debate on a politics message board, and I am trying to argue my own position. I would like to convince people. This is not to say that you don't have the ability or right to come to a different conclusion, but I presume that one possible purpose of this board is political debate.

That was an interesting post. Here is my response. Hussein appeared to be very interested in acquiring WMD and not very interested in cooperating with efforts to disarm him. Once he possessed WMD, particularly nuclear or biological, he would have then had the ability to harm us. Once he possessed the capacity to harm us, the question would be whether he did or would later possess the intention to do so. I certainly don't believe that he would have been dissuaded from attacking our civilian populations by ethics. He didn't seem to be the sort of person whose ambitions were mediated much by ethical considerations. Once he had the means, he might have decided to obtain plausible deniability by giving the weapons to terrorists. We would be greatly hurt by the attack and he could express sympathy and offer to help us. I do not believe that a man like Hussein should be allowed to develop the capacity to strike a crippling blow against us.

0 Replies

Well, Craven, what I am saying is that as the accessability of WMD grows over time, and as various dictators and terrorists attempt to acquire them and use them against us, it is actually likely that someone will eventually succeed in acquiring a fairly lethal one and using it with sufficient competence and luck.

I am saying that the actual likelihood that this will happen down the road makes the present very different from the past. Prior to the 1940s, such weapons didn't exist, and until recently, the chance that anyone other than a moderately responsible major nation would acquire them was negligible.

0 Replies

Do you actually have cause to believe that the chance today is MORE than negligible Brandon?

Or is it just a hunch?

0 Replies

I can appreciate those differences Brandon, and Adrian asked the question I'd have asked.

0 Replies

You seemed to have missed the point of this thread altogether, Brandon. Your constant harping on probability is exactly what Joe refers to. Neither the United States Congress nor the Parliament of the United Kingdom authorized war powers because they were told Hussein probably had WoMD; or that he probably represented a threat to us. In fact, Jack Straw was retailing the notion that Iraq could deploy WoMD within 45 minutes and that targets as distant as Cyprus could be in the line of fire. The modifications of the Al-Samoud rockets which violated UN resolutions, and which were uncovered by inspections prior to the war, gave them about 10 more miles range. Had the Iraqis been able to set up launchers on the beaches of the Grotte aux Pigeons in Beirut, he couldn't have hit Cyprus.

The distinction between fact and probability goes directly to the heart of this discussion. You seem willing to ignore that, so you might well understand why i am inclined to ignore your further discursus.

For the record, i never advanced ethics as a motivation for Hussein to avoid threatening us. My specific case is that as a canny politician and tribal leader, he was never so stupid as to give us a pretext, and that includes consorting with terrorists.

0 Replies

Well, there were also scuds still in Iraq that had the range to hit cyprus.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You seemed to have missed the point of this thread altogether, Brandon. Your constant harping on probability is exactly what Joe refers to. Neither the United States Congress nor the Parliament of the United Kingdom authorized war powers because they were told Hussein probably had WoMD; or that he probably represented a threat to us. In fact, Jack Straw was retailing the notion that Iraq could deploy WoMD within 45 minutes and that targets as distant as Cyprus could be in the line of fire. The modifications of the Al-Samoud rockets which violated UN resolutions, and which were uncovered by inspections prior to the war, gave them about 10 more miles range. Had the Iraqis been able to set up launchers on the beaches of the Grotte aux Pigeons in Beirut, he couldn't have hit Cyprus.

The distinction between fact and probability goes directly to the heart of this discussion. You seem willing to ignore that, so you might well understand why i am inclined to ignore your further discursus.

For the record, i never advanced ethics as a motivation for Hussein to avoid threatening us. My specific case is that as a canny politician and tribal leader, he was never so stupid as to give us a pretext, and that includes consorting with terrorists.

You may ignore the posts of people you disagree with if you wish. I am talking about the way the Iraq WMD situation ought to have been analyzed based on what was known then, and much less about what Bush or one of his subordinates said. There was a real situation in the real world apart from how the president chose to characterize it. I am saying that in the situation which prevailed at the time of invasion, with the information that was known at the time of invasion, including the entire history of trying to disarm Hussein for a dozen years, a reasonable person in America or the West should have concluded that the probability that Hussein had WMD and/or WMD programs was high enough to pose a risk that had to be acted on, given the power of the weapons involved.

Now, as far as Bush et al. go, since the danger did appear to be serious based on the actual facts then known, apart from anything the administration may have said, I would rather have a president who errs on the side of too enthusiastic a presentation of the case than one who errs on the side of too little concern. If a WMD is used within the United States, (and, for Craven's sake, I'll add if used competently), the consequences will make us wish we had been much more agressive in preventing their proliferation.

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

Do you actually have cause to believe that the chance today is MORE than negligible Brandon?

Or is it just a hunch?

I believe that it is inevitable that a WMD will be used in the US or in the country of an ally in the near future, unless the civilized nations act much more aggressively on the issue, and possibly even if they do. It could be today or it could be 15 years from now. Here is my reasoning:

1. WMD are becoming more accessible to smaller and less sophisticated groups such as terrorists or unstable, minor dictators. This is occurring for two reasons. The first is that the number of countries that possess WMD has always grown historically and will continue to grow. The more countries that have them, the greater the chance that any given group can obtain one or more. Secondly, as the world's technology advances, less wealthy and sophisticated entities have a chance of manufacturing them. This is analagous to the way that more powerful PCs are available for less money as time passes.

2. There are people who exist now, and people who will exist in the future, e.g. terrorists and dictators, who would like to use a WMD against the US or the West.

3. If an enemy of the US or the West did possess one and did want to use it against us, I think that one could be smuggled into the country in pieces, re-assembled, and used. It would be ludicrous to suggest that the country could have 100% success against a sustained effort to smuggle something in.

4. Terrorists and other people will continue to try to obtain WMD, bring them into the US or the country of an ally, and use them. We cannot succeed forever in foiling every such plot. Eventually someone will succeed. Even if our success rate in stopping such plots is 99%, we still lose as soon as someone succeeds.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

If a WMD is used within the United States, (and, for Craven's sake, I'll add if used competently), the consequences will make us wish we had been much more agressive in preventing their proliferation.

Conversely whether or not the fears have any basis there is refuge for the pre-emptive argument.

What do you do to mitigate against abuse of this argument or reckless use of it?

0 Replies

Karzak wrote:

Well, there were also scuds still in Iraq that had the range to hit cyprus.

Yet another reason that Cyprus should have invaded Iraq.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Karzak wrote:
Well, there were also scuds still in Iraq that had the range to hit cyprus.

Yet another reason that Cyprus should have invaded Iraq.

At least sent a god from mount olympus.

Bush, the greek god of freedom!

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Karzak wrote:
Well, there were also scuds still in Iraq that had the range to hit cyprus.

Yet another reason that Cyprus should have invaded Iraq.

The posessors of a WMD wouldn't need a missile delivery system. They could smuggle the components of the weapon into the target country. The idea that there's no danger from any country or group that doesn't possess powerful ICBMs is incorrect. Even if they did have a sufficiently powerful ICBM, it would seem to me to be foolish to use it, since it would make it very clear who the perpetrator was.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
If a WMD is used within the United States, (and, for Craven's sake, I'll add if used competently), the consequences will make us wish we had been much more agressive in preventing their proliferation.

Conversely whether or not the fears have any basis there is refuge for the pre-emptive argument.

What do you do to mitigate against abuse of this argument or reckless use of it?

Hi, Craven. If you wish to make the case that the fears have no basis, please respond directly to the post of mine which preceded your post.

Since, in my opinion, the danger actually is grave, my primary concern is not how to avoid having politicians manipulate the emotion, but how to deal with the danger. I believe that we were debating the magnitude of the danger.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Hi, Craven. If you wish to make the case that the fears have no basis, please respond directly to the post of mine which preceded your post.

No, I do not wish to make that case.

And my wording is sloppy, as all fears have a basis of some sort.

But I think my question is clear, do you not see inherent dangers in the philosophy of pre-emption?

And if you recognize an inherent danger to pre-emption have you given it much thought in order to mitigate against the dangers of the positions you hold?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Hi, Craven. If you wish to make the case that the fears have no basis, please respond directly to the post of mine which preceded your post.

No, I do not wish to make that case.

And my wording is sloppy, as all fears have a basis of some sort.

But I think my question is clear, do you not see inherent dangers in the philosophy of pre-emption?

And if you recognize an inherent danger to pre-emption have you given it much thought in order to mitigate against the dangers of the positions you hold?

I don't mean to be disrespectful of your question, but I would really prefer to resolve one point before changing to another. I am talking about the danger presented to us by WMD.

My argument is not that the fear of the use of WMD against us has a basis of some sort, but that there it is actually probable that a WMD will be used in the US or the country of an ally in the next decade or so, for the reasons I outlined above. Eventually, someone will succeed in obtaining a WMD, bringing it in to the target country, and using it effectively. And when that happens, the death toll could easily be immense.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't mean to be disrespectful of your question, but I would really prefer to resolve one point before changing to another. I am talking about the danger presented to us by WMD.

Understood.

Quote:

My argument is not that the fear of the use of WMD against us has a basis of some sort, but that there it is actually probable that a WMD will be used in the US or the country of an ally in the next decade or so, for the reasons I outlined above.

I have no qualm with many of your points on the way to asserting probabilty but the nature of probability is such that I do not believe I have enough information to assert a probablity of a catastrophic use.

I don't think you have enough information to assert probablity either, though I do agree that you have made a sound argument toward arguing an increasing degree of likelihood.

WMD has already been used on an ally in a terrorist attack so that is something I would not dispute at all.

Quote:

Eventually, someone will succeed in obtaining a WMD, bringing it in to the target country, and using it effectively.

Upon what do you base this claim? Please note that I am not antagonizing you and asking you to repeat yourself.

I am saying that the sound arguments you have used is not substantiation for this certainty at all. So to assert certainty as anything other than your guess would need further basis.

And the legal criteria for pre-emption is big on clear and unambiguous cases for a reason. The reason is the inherent slipperly slopes in pre-emption and the great potential for abuse of pre-emptive philosophy means that the nature of the accessment on probability needs to be audited closely.

A related question is how aware you are of the legal precedents of valid pre-emption in International Law.

If not, please see my thread Pre-emption and international law. The legal basis.

0 Replies

Weapons of mass . . . something

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know