Weapons of mass . . . something

Craven de Kere wrote:

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.

I don't mind discussing pre-emption with you separately, or discussing it later. I actually wrote an article on substantially that subject for a Web magazine a couple of years ago, but I don't want to abandon this line of discussion while it seems to be accomplishing something.

Let me try to explain my reasoning more clearly. To my way of thinking the situation is this:

1. There are, and in the future will be, people who would use WMD against the US and/or the West if they could.
2. The weapons are somewhat accessible to them and are becoming more so, particularly bioweapons.
3. It is impossible to be 100% effective in keeping such people from smuggling the weapons into the target country, and, frankly, we aren't close to 100%.
4. If some group obtains a WMD and smuggles it in, there is some reasonable chance that they may use it effectively.

Therefore, given enough time, there must eventually be someone who succeeds. There are only two sound counterarguments that could be made and they are:

a. That one of my 4 statements above is wrong.
b. That the combined probability of the 4 events above is low enough that the mean time between such effective WMD uses is very large.

I'm sure that item "a" above is wrong, and I strongly suspect that item "b" is also wrong. Therefore, I believe that unless there is some massive social upheaval to stop the spread of WMD, and especially to stop their spread to terrorists and dictators, the use of a WMD in a western city in the nearish future is inevitable. The only question is the mean time between such events.

As a corollary, as WMD proliferate to more and more countries, the likelihood of their use in some border war somewhere is also high.

0 Replies

Your title should have been "Weapons of mass.....distraction" hehe.

-Hans

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't mind discussing pre-emption with you separately, or discussing it later. I actually wrote an article on substantially that subject for a Web magazine a couple of years ago, but I don't want to abandon this line of discussion while it seems to be accomplishing something.

I don't understand your separateion of pre-emption. They are inherently related.

This is a topic about a pre-emptive war, one you defend with the reasoning you outline.

The separation is like saying the arguments for a court evrdict should be separated from the verdict given.

If your only point is that the danger is increasing I agree. If your only conclusion is that we should try to mitigate against the danger I agree.

If you then segue into justification for pre-emptive invasions I disagree and consider such thinking more dangerous to the world.

Quote:

Let me try to explain my reasoning more clearly. To my way of thinking the situation is this:

1. There are, and in the future will be, people who would use WMD against the US and/or the West if they could.
2. The weapons are somewhat accessible to them and are becoming more so, particularly bioweapons.
3. It is impossible to be 100% effective in keeping such people from smuggling the weapons into the target country, and, frankly, we aren't close to 100%.
4. If some group obtains a WMD and smuggles it in, there is some reasonable chance that they may use it effectively.

Agreed, where we disagree is where this should be sufficient cause for pre-emptive war.

Simply put, there are just as many reasons for non-western nations to argue for pre-emptive war against us.

We have killed many times more people with WMD than the total sum of all other uses and have pre-emptively invaded.

Other nations have just as much cause to pre-emptively invade us (if they could) for our WMDs and propensity to wage war.

Quote:

Therefore, given enough time, there must eventually be someone who succeeds. There are only two sound counterarguments that could be made and they are:

a. That one of my 4 statements above is wrong.
b. That the combined probability of the 4 events above is low enough that the mean time between such effective WMD uses is very large.

Or.. that all of the above is still no sound argument to wage pre-emptive war on flimsy suspicions.

0 Replies

The only thing that has kept me from outright condemnation of pre-emption was the spectre of Saddam Hussein holding nukes, bioweapons and having the option of terrorist delivery.

I know most here poo-poo Saddam's availability of a nuke program--but I do think we should look at some facts and reasonable assumptions or beliefs, based on the global intelligence given.

We recently closed shop on the Khan guy, who was trotting around the world, trying to sell nuclear blueprints. The items were for sale.

Saddam had unlimited funds to buy the blueprints. He MADE money on OFF, rather than losing it. His people starved, but he made off like a bandit.

The intel at the time--which EVERYONE BOUGHT--surely created a grave and gathering danger--re Saddam's purposes, possessions and capability.

What of Dr, Anthrax, Mrs. Germ, Chemical Ali and the other assorted nutbar monikers on Saddam's cabinet? What of the cousin, Camel, who reported that cuz Saddam did have all that the intel community reported? And was beheaded soon after...?

Why did Saddam's officials block entry to some facilities, as inspectors were waiting outside the gates?

Whatever happened to the Iraqi scientist, who begged UNMOVIC officials to save him, as he was being dragged off by Saddam's henchmen?

It has been forwarded, dismissed and reasserted that Saddam provided training grounds for all types of terrorists. He was in the loop with them--despite people who rush in to say--there is no proof he had part in planning or carrying out 911--this is not the litmus test that must be passed to prove he had a friendly working relationship with active terrorists, and assisted them financially and/or developmentally.

I think it is completely false for anyone to scoff at the assumption that Saddam had WMDs, or was working on them. You may not believe it--but acting as though it wasn't a legitimate assumption is really sticking your head in a hole.

And, how would things be if instead of sitting in jail, Saddam was in Baghdad, holding a press , and had decided to cover Israel with Mustard gas, his planes were airborn, and Just the hell what would the world do about it? Because he is now the proud owner of nuclear weapons...

I was watching interviews with the scientists from the Manhatten Project last night. Many of them had reservations about their part in the bomb, and how they factor into the bomb's legacy. But, a few of them said--It was going to be done. Someone would've found it. Due to this, they were thankful the US had it first.

Do you think Saddam would have consulted 'his government', his people in deciding whether or not he would use the bomb? He had no checks and balances, and has proved his lack of value for human life. A bloodthirsty dictator with the Bomb. Would you scoff at this, too?

0 Replies

Sofia

In case that you missed what was (and still is) going on in the UK, you can HERE read the main points of the Butler report (there's a link for the complete text as well).

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I know most here poo-poo Saddam's availability of a nuke program--but I do think we should look at some facts and reasonable assumptions or beliefs, based on the global intelligence given.

Sofia, even the people who advocated the war say it would have taken him years (around 5).

That does not constitute the type of immediate threat that the precedent of pre-emption demands.

Do you know what standards for pre-emption exist in modern history?

To put it simply addressing something years away is an affront to the principle of legal pre-emption.

0 Replies

Thanks, Walter.

It looks very good for Blair, and has much more positive news for people of my opinion.

Many accusations against Blair were proven wrong in the Butler report.

Again, like our Commissions found, Bush nor Blair are neither legitimately accused, nor found culpable of any wrong doing.

Looks like the intel needs tweaking. I think they should have a group of people actively trying to disprove what others uncover--as a double check to authenticate intel.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I don't understand your separateion of pre-emption. They are inherently related.....If your only point is that the danger is increasing I agree. If your only conclusion is that we should try to mitigate against the danger I agree....Or.. that all of the above is still no sound argument to wage pre-emptive war on flimsy suspicions.

That the danger is increasing is not my only point. I am saying that the effective use of a WMD in a western city in the near future (between tomorrow and 15 years or so) and periodically thereafter is inevitable. I am also saying that the consequences of an effective WMD strike against the US would be nearly incalculable. How many would die if a fission bomb with several times the yield of the bomb used at Hiroshima were to be detonated in the heart of Los Angeles, or Washington, or worse yet several locations at once? How many would die if a reasonably effective plague were to be started at several points in the US simultaneously? It really could run to the hundreds of thousands or millions. My point is that a huge tragedy is coming unless the civilized world undergoes a massive reorganization to prevent it, and maybe even if it does. I have outlined my reasoning above.

I separate the issues of determining the magnitude of the threat and the proper response to the threat both because I want to establish the magnitude of the threat without the distraction of a different argument, and because the appropriate response to the threat depends on the magnitude of the threat.

0 Replies

While I think it an epitomal example of pulling probabilities out of the air, putting them in strings and reaching a conclusion that is contingient on them all being right (thereby neglecting the exponential probability of failure) I don't wish to go there and let's just assume you are right and that mushroom clouds (or similarly apocalyptic attacks) are coming.

We then inevitably agree that this would be a very bad thing.

We also agree that measures should be taken to prevent such events.

Now what measures do you have in mind?

Is not invading Iraq the caliber of measure you justify in this, your conclusion?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

While I think it an epitomal example of pulling probabilities out of the air, putting them in strings and reaching a conclusion that is contingient on them all being right (thereby neglecting the exponential probability of failure)....

The problem, dear Craven, is that what you've just said is, "Although you're wrong, let's assume you were right," which I can't accept, since I am entirely right. But since you disagree, please tell me which of these is either false or not very probable:

Quote:

1. There are, and in the future will be, people who would use WMD against the US and/or the West if they could.
2. The weapons are somewhat accessible to them and are becoming more so, particularly bioweapons.
3. It is impossible to be 100% effective in keeping such people from smuggling the weapons into the target country, and, frankly, we aren't close to 100%.
4. If some group obtains a WMD and smuggles it in, there is some reasonable chance that they may use it effectively.

I am honestly not trying to tease you about pre-emption, Craven. We'll get to it, I assure you. However, I think that the line of debate that I am concerned with here is very important.

0 Replies

Whats the big deal here. The possibility that someone will detonate a necular device in the US someday is a sure thing. Almost everyone who knows anything about science would know how to make a bomb. One only needs the material. We have already had a US citizen make a bomb out of fertilizer and fuel oil. The question is how to try to stop it from happening. If you think attacking Iraq is the answer than you dont know much about the world around you. While Bush has been screwing around in Iraq the Al Queda organization has grown stronger by the day ensureing that the very event you claim to want to stop is more sure to happen as time goes by.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The problem, dear Craven, is that what you've just said is, "Although you're wrong, let's assume you were right," which I can't accept, since I am entirely right. But since you disagree, please tell me which of these is either false or not very probable:

Quote:
1. There are, and in the future will be, people who would use WMD against the US and/or the West if they could.
2. The weapons are somewhat accessible to them and are becoming more so, particularly bioweapons.
3. It is impossible to be 100% effective in keeping such people from smuggling the weapons into the target country, and, frankly, we aren't close to 100%.
4. If some group obtains a WMD and smuggles it in, there is some reasonable chance that they may use it effectively.

I've been in a debate with Craven like that ... and I think that what he might be trying to say is that there is a problem, not even so much with saying something is probable, but in stringing together probabilities that sequentially depend on each other and treating the end conclusion as if it were as probable as any of the individual assertions.

I.e., lets say that each of your assumptions is 50% likely to be borne out (I don't know whether they are, at all - just using a number). Then the conclusion you would draw at the end of the four assumptions is a 50%x50%x50%x50% probable one to be borne out, since it depends on all four assumptions turning out to be true. That's 6,25%.

So that must be part of the problem, even merely as a question of principle, when you then want to use the end conclusion as the basis of another argument (say, an argument in favour of pre-emptive war in general or the war in Iraq in particular) - unless you're straightforward about it and say that even such a resulting 6,25% (or whatever number you end up with depending the degree of probability you accord each of the assumptions) is reason enough to ... etc.

An additional problem is that the end conclusion you are reaching for on the basis of these assumptions (i.e., there might any moment be - and will be, if we dont do what I'll next suggest doing - a mushroom cloud or the like over LA or NYC), furthermore depends on all kinds of considerations turning out to be true that you have not listed, whose degree of (un)likeliness would further impact the likeliness of the scenario you sketch.

Now personally I have no trouble acknowledging that there is some risk of some terrorists obtaining some WMD (in parts, probably) and smuggling them in somehow, then assembling them somehow, and using them at some target in some country in the West.

However, considering the complete nebulousness of the sketched danger, I would fully focus the defense against it at intelligence-gathering, border controls and, whenever a specific attempt is identified, clamping down on it here or abroad. Oh, and ensuring we won't export any more of these WMD (parts) to any volatile country anymore, that should be one main lesson from the past. The danger, in all its nebulousness, stems from countries around the world, or around the region anyway, from that Pakistani scientist, Mr Khan, to the home of all those 9/11 terrorists, Saudi-Arabia, to the warlord-ruled chaos in Afghanistan, to the newly minted anarchy in post-war Iraq. Anarchy and corruption seem to be as major a causal players here as enemy dictatorships, though they all combine. Its probably clear from the above what I think about the purported "solution" of sending one's army into any one of those countries, bombing the place and leaving a war-torn state with a shaky government, porous borders and myriad kinds of violent guerrilla and terrorist groups active around the country in the wake of one's "victory".

0 Replies

nimh summed it up pretty well Brandon and quite frankly I'm going to flatly reject your separation of the pre-emption argument from this.

Let me explain:

With your statements I can pretty much agree.

Thing is, you do not quantify your probabilities. "Reasonable chance" and ilk can mean different things to different people.

Furthermore you have, as nimh, mentioned greatly reduced the reality to 4 talking points, this renders the accessment of probability, well, pretty much to a crap shoot.

So the measures you are willing to take are the greatest indication of the probabilities you must have in mind.

When you argue for pre-emption, you do so without anything remotely close to what the established precedent for pre-emption must be, and what that says to me is that you either do not care about the dangers of pre-emption (as long as it's your side doing the pre-empting) or that you are using a hyperbolic probablility in your calculations.

I can't separate the measures you justify from your arguments, as they are the only indication of the degree of probability you are trying to get me to agree with before we move to the measures you advocate.

Basically, this has the feel of you insisting that I answer "will you do be a favor?" and refusing to answer "what is it?" until I agree.

0 Replies

Many events that occur in the world can be regarded as the product of sequential probabilities. So the mere fact that this one is also the product of sequential probabilities does not make it improbable. 9/11 could be decomposed into several factors that had to be satisfied too. Furthermore, what we are really dealing with here is a probability per unit time, so that the longer the future time period we consider, the higher the total probability of a WMD event within that period, barring a major change in the situation. No attempt to decompose the factors that would lead to such an event will be the only one possible. The proper question is, is it a reasonable model, and if it isn't, what would be?

With the more powerful variants of WMD, even one single use in the US (or anywhere) could be a critical disaster. Think about it. We are successful in stopping attempts to use a WMD in the US a couple of dozen times in a row, and never fail to stop one, but finally we fail just once. Someone infects himself with a very serious disease, perhaps a new man-made one, boards a plane to America, rents a car here and travels across the US until he dies, starting hundreds of epicenters of the disease. Whether this is or is not a good example of a WMD attack, you see what I mean. Even one single WMD attack that gets through might be a critical disaster. That is what is unique about these weapons. Some of them are so destructive that one single successful use can strike a crippling blow to us. In the past, it was hard to kill a few hundred thousand or a million people. Now it could be done with one event.

Closely monitoring the borders is a good idea, but it will never be effective enough to stop determined and continuing efforts to smuggle something in, and just one single success ever could be a disaster.

Because there are and will be people who want to harm the US with WMD, because the weapons are not out of reach and will continue to become more accesible as time passes, and because we cannot really stop an endless series of attempts to smuggle something in, it is unrealistic to believe that no one will ever succeed. The more countries that possess WMD technology, and the number is always growing, the greater the chance that a group planning such an attack could obtain a WMD. And frankly, I don't think that it is realistic to believe that we could foil all attempts for decades before one succeeds. What makes the difference here, is that if we are 99% successful in stopping such attempts, we still lose eventually.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Many events that occur in the world can be regarded as the product of sequential probabilities. So the mere fact that this one is also the product of sequential probabilities does not make it improbable.

True, only one critical step would need to be improbably for it to be improbable. The sum of the improbability at each critical step would simply need to be more than 50% for it to be improbable.

That the probability is daisy chained isn't a guarantee that it's improbable. This is true.

That it is in a daisy chain simply amplifies the improbability at every critical level.

Lastly, please note that the mere fact that something occurs does not mean it was probable. So even if a occurance at the end of a sequential probability is realized it does not mean that the sum of the sequential probability was probable either.

Quote:

Furthermore, what we are really dealing with here is a probability per unit time, so that the longer the future time period we consider, the higher the total probability of a WMD event within that period, barring a major change in the situation.

Agreed and this is yet another qualm I have as this introduces an element to your conclusions wherein you seek to project even further into the future for the conclusions you have for the present.

Again going back to pre-emption, a conclusion of yours from the present, the precedent does not allow for such distance (coupled with incertainty) in the threat it is responding to.

Quote:

With the more powerful variants of WMD, even one single use in the US (or anywhere) could be a critical disaster. Think about it.

We have, over and over and over at your request. I'm going to skip over the part where you repeat again, the maevolence of certain weapons.

You've never met disagreement on that point but invoke it ad nauseum.

Quote:

Closely monitoring the borders is a good idea, but it will never be effective enough to stop determined and continuing efforts to smuggle something in, and just one single success ever could be a disaster.

Funny that you should mention borders, watch:

WMD are becoming increasingly accessible.
People within the US have shown a desire to attck within the US and in the future there will be more.
WMD use just once, would be a disaster.

Conclusion:

We should invade ourselves pre-emptively?

Really Brandon, get to the conclusions as that is where the differences lie.

The rest was just another repetition of what you have said across dozens of threads for months now.

Again, can we get to the conclusions? Because, again, that is where the differences lie and we've heard the spiel at least a dozen times already (I am not exagerrating, I can bring you 12 or more links on A2K where you do this).

So please, let's get to the conclusions, we agree that WMD's are nasty and dangerous already (and any other stuff missing from this sentence that might motivate you to repeat it again).

So, what conclusions do you draw?

0 Replies

Can't kill a mosquito by bombing the balcony on which it's sitting - not even if it's a killer mosquito. If you try to, all you're left with is a big heap of debris - and the killer mosquito still freely buzzing over it.

Thats why I, in any case, dont believe that invasions are the answer to the problem Brandon sketches ...

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

You've never met disagreement on that point but invoke it ad nauseum.

Quote:
Closely monitoring the borders is a good idea, but it will never be effective enough to stop determined and continuing efforts to smuggle something in, and just one single success ever could be a disaster.

Funny that you should mention borders, watch:

WMD are becoming increasingly accessible.
People within the US have shown a desire to attck within the US and in the future there will be more.
WMD use just once, would be a disaster.

Conclusion:

We should invade ourselves pre-emptively?......The rest was just another repetition of what you have said across dozens of threads for months now.

Again, can we get to the conclusions? Because, again, that is where the differences lie and we've heard the spiel at least a dozen times already (I am not exagerrating, I can bring you 12 or more links on A2K where you do this)....So, what conclusions do you draw?

You are perfectly correct in your conclusion that there is and will increasingly be a danger of an American obtaining and using a WMD within America, or a Briton in Britain, etc. I do not recommend self-invasion as a solution, but that is not the same as saying there isn't a serious problem.

However, in addition to our own bad citizens, we have external enemies, who have shown an absolute predisposition to kill civilians, even if they, themselves, die in the attack, who have said over and over that we are the enemy and they will destroy us, and some of whom wish to destroy our culture utterly.

I have repeated this argument over and over, because (a) it is correct, and (b) when I state it, I am always told that I am incorrect. Sometimes I am told that I am incorrect in some particular factor, and other times merely that my conclusion is incorrect. You, yourself continue to dispute my final conclusion that I will repeat now at your request:

The use of a WMD in the US or ally in the relatively near future, and periodically thereafter, is inevitable unless the factors I have enumerated are fundamentally changed.

If, every time I post this correct logic, people tell me that I am wrong, I will continue to post and argue it. I can't provide a lot of entertaining variety in my analysis of the situation, since the situation remains the same. If you feel that I am in violation of the TOS, then you should revoke my membership.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Can't kill a mosquito by bombing the balcony on which it's sitting - not even if it's a killer mosquito. If you try to, all you're left with is a big heap of debris - and the killer mosquito still freely buzzing over it.

Thats why I, in any case, dont believe that invasions are the answer to the problem Brandon sketches ...

I have not in this argument mentioned invasions. I am arguing that the periodic use of WMD in western cities, together with a mammoth loss of life, is very likely. I note that your post neither refutes nor accepts my conclusion, but merely changes the subject.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

nimh wrote:
Can't kill a mosquito by bombing the balcony on which it's sitting - not even if it's a killer mosquito. If you try to, all you're left with is a big heap of debris - and the killer mosquito still freely buzzing over it.

Thats why I, in any case, dont believe that invasions are the answer to the problem Brandon sketches ...

I have not in this argument mentioned invasions. I am arguing that the periodic use of WMD in western cities, together with a mammoth loss of life, is very likely. I note that your post neither refutes nor accepts my conclusion, but merely changes the subject.

Err, yeah ... cause I already responded in detail to the case you made as you described it here. You made it, we responded, you repeated it, we responded, you repeat it again ... fine. I was skipping to the next part of the conversation: which purported solutions are or are not applicable?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Err, yeah ... cause I already responded in detail to the case you made as you described it here. You made it, we responded, you repeated it, we responded, you repeat it again ... fine. I was skipping to the next part of the conversation: which purported solutions are or are not applicable?

I thought that going back and forth with arguments and counter arguments regarding a logical point was how debate worked. I believe myself to be advancing a correct argument that we are in serious, terrible trouble because of the inevitability of WMD events in western cities. I believe that it is very important that the truth of this be recognized. I think that we are living in a fool's paradise, and that when the first incontrovertible proof arrives, many, many will lie dead, and, in a real sense, it will be too late. If true, this is an overwhelmingly important point and an issue that deserves discussion. I believe that because you cannot really debate my allegation successfully, you wish to change the subject.

0 Replies

Weapons of mass . . . something

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know