SV: Re: Lighthouse story

mepbmlist
#1

I like nuclear weapons, they have proven far more benign than AK-47's in my
lifetime: -- weapons which averted war, preserved freedom, and contributed
to the utter defeat of the main antagonist -- without ever being used. I
think Sun Tzu would love them.

What I fail to understand is the need for the US government to stockpile
enough Nuclear weapons to destroy this planet several times over. Surely
having enough just to destroy it the once in enough?

The presence of nuclear weapons has not averted war or preserved freedom,
they have made the war between those who have them a secret war as opposed
to an open one, they have also encouraged terrorist tactics over open warfare.

The entire principle of the Nuclear Deterrent, is that noone can win a
neclear war, and therefore noone will start one. The flaw in this thinking
is a simple lesson of history. How many wars have been started (and lost)
by someone who had no hope of winning? It's only a matter of time.
Every age has had it's deterrants until advances rendered them obsolete.
Even in the mid to late 19th century Britain could still force any nation
to back down for fear of military action.

This is my final comment on this particular part of the thread. I will not
be entering into any debate over the morality of nuclear weapons.

Nick.

#2

What I fail to understand is the need for the US
government to stockpile
enough Nuclear weapons to destroy this planet
several times over. Surely
having enough just to destroy it the once in enough?

A) just in case they get attacked first. They need to
be able to counter-attack with whatever is left.
b) just in case someone doesn't fire
c) maybe its hard to get rid of the old stuff ?

The presence of nuclear weapons has not averted war
or preserved freedom,

I think it has. I think it stopped a direct USA versus
USSR war. The wars that have occurred were minor
countries going to war.

they have made the war between those who have them a
secret war as opposed
to an open one, they have also encouraged terrorist
tactics over open warfare.

Terrorism is common since its their only hope to win
their fight. They have no hope if they did a direct
war, so they engage in other tactics to achieve their
aims against their opponents.

The entire principle of the Nuclear Deterrent, is
that noone can win a
neclear war, and therefore noone will start one.

yeap. MAD - mutually assured destruction.

The
flaw in this thinking
is a simple lesson of history. How many wars have
been started (and lost)
by someone who had no hope of winning?

Actually that's not the fault I can see. It knowing
who to fire at when the missiles come in, ie if a sub
sneaks into USA waters and fired a dozen nukes at the
USA, who would the USA blame ??? They would need to
take the hits, and then try to backtrack where the
nuclear stuff came from.

And a true military machine doesn't go to war if they
can't win. Its would be a waste of lives. The military
is there to use force to carry out orders. They are
not there to die.

An individual might say 'stuff it, lets try to take a
few bastards down with me' (a common motto for one
well known lovecraft RPG). But a large military
doesn't operate like that (thank god).

It's only a
matter of time.

its only a matter of time since the sun goes nova. But
that's not a good reason to panic now.

This is my final comment on this particular part of
the thread. I will not
be entering into any debate over the morality of
nuclear weapons.

so its back to middle earth ?

thanks
din

p.s I'm happy the USA didn't enter into a direct
fighting war with the USSR.

···

Nick.

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://invites.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Invites
- Creating invitations could never be easier!

#3

Nick,
That's always a good ploy, taking a parting shot and then disappearing over
the horizon... But that's OK, you don't need to answer this.

Fact: the U.S. government has been dismantling nuclear weapons as fast as
the industrial plant allows for over ten years now, and the number is
shrinking daily. The pace of retirements has outstripped all treaty
commitments we made with a country which no longer exists. So ease up on
the "bouncing the rubble" argument. Especially since there's not a whole
lot of moral high ground held by a nation that has only enough nukes to
destroy half the world.

Fact: the (theoretical) military application of nuclear weapons can seem
pretty surreal, but it was never about destroying the world. I think the US
and USSR both figured, probably quite rightly, that most of those weapons
would be either targeted and destroyed by the other side, or would never be
fired because the command and control system would go down, or would go
thunk on a mountainside when the missile or bomber failed, or would misfire
at ground zero -- and the number of actual detonations would have only
'destroyed the world' about one and a half times at most. :slight_smile: But all
that's irrelevant, because since 1945 they've never been used to destroy
anything or anyone, and that is a damn fine destiny for any weapon.

How can you suggest that open warfare a la 1914-1945 would have been a
better thing than the nuclear-imposed Cold War of 1945-1990, even with all
the smaller conflicts and terrorism that occured?? There would be a few
hundred million souls, victims of the earlier 'open warfare', that would
surely disagree with you.

And while nuclear deterrence was admirably successful in preventing a third
world war for a very long time, I agree that deterrence sooner or later
fails. That's why we Americans will soon be opting for defense over
deterrence, and the rest of you, if you're smart, will do the same.

I'm ducking now.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Barnes <mearth@nidome.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:53 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: SV: Re: Lighthouse story

>I like nuclear weapons, they have proven far more benign than AK-47's in

my

>lifetime: -- weapons which averted war, preserved freedom, and

contributed

>to the utter defeat of the main antagonist -- without ever being used. I
>think Sun Tzu would love them.

What I fail to understand is the need for the US government to stockpile
enough Nuclear weapons to destroy this planet several times over. Surely
having enough just to destroy it the once in enough?

The presence of nuclear weapons has not averted war or preserved freedom,
they have made the war between those who have them a secret war as opposed
to an open one, they have also encouraged terrorist tactics over open

warfare.

The entire principle of the Nuclear Deterrent, is that noone can win a
neclear war, and therefore noone will start one. The flaw in this thinking
is a simple lesson of history. How many wars have been started (and lost)
by someone who had no hope of winning? It's only a matter of time.
Every age has had it's deterrants until advances rendered them obsolete.
Even in the mid to late 19th century Britain could still force any nation
to back down for fear of military action.

This is my final comment on this particular part of the thread. I will not
be entering into any debate over the morality of nuclear weapons.

Nick.

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#4

That's why we Americans will soon be opting

for defense over
deterrence,

I'm a fan for spaceguard (ok, ok, I saw deep impact on
TV a few weeks ago). I hope the new USA defense system
can be used for incoming space crap.

And I take no responsibility for our crap aussie
goverment who won't spend the money to join
spaceguard.

but I wonder how the USA can stop a terrorist walking
a nuke into the country, standing a few kilometres
away from somewhere important, and then going 'boom'.

thanks
din

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://invites.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Invites
- Creating invitations could never be easier!

#5

Din wrote:

I think it has. I think it stopped a direct USA versus
USSR war. The wars that have occurred were minor
countries going to war.

Two points:

Those two countries fought their war by proxy.

There have been more wars since 1945 than at any time prior to that.

Are these two statements connected?

Gavin

#6

>I like nuclear weapons, they have proven far more benign than AK-47's in

my

>lifetime: -- weapons which averted war, preserved freedom, and

contributed

>to the utter defeat of the main antagonist -- without ever being used. I
>think Sun Tzu would love them.

What I fail to understand is the need for the US government to stockpile
enough Nuclear weapons to destroy this planet several times over. Surely
having enough just to destroy it the once in enough?

RD: You obviously haven't seen Armaggedon or Deep Impact. Our US friends
are only building extra nukes to blow up asteroids and meteors.

The presence of nuclear weapons has not averted war or preserved freedom,
they have made the war between those who have them a secret war as opposed
to an open one, they have also encouraged terrorist tactics over open

warfare.

The entire principle of the Nuclear Deterrent, is that noone can win a
neclear war, and therefore noone will start one. The flaw in this thinking
is a simple lesson of history. How many wars have been started (and lost)
by someone who had no hope of winning? It's only a matter of time.
Every age has had it's deterrants until advances rendered them obsolete.
Even in the mid to late 19th century Britain could still force any nation
to back down for fear of military action.

RD: I can't recall anyone starting a war if they thought they had no chance
of winning (except that very tiny European state which featured in 'The
Mouse That Roared'). I can recall various peoples being sucked into
hopeless wars when their pride would not let them submit to constant
provocation: various native American tribes, Maoris in New Zealand, the
Boers in South Africa to name just a few.

I'm re-reading British history from the 16thc on, to try to find out where
we went wrong from when we started the Empire. I mean, to lose one empire
is careless, to lose a second is, well, very careless. Britain must be the
only nation on this planet to get a second chance at empire, and we blew it.
No wonder God gave up on us and gave world dominion to the yanks.

This is my final comment on this particular part of the thread. I will not
be entering into any debate over the morality of nuclear weapons.

RD: what about chemical or biological ones?

Nick.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Barnes" <mearth@nidome.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 2:53 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: SV: Re: Lighthouse story

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#7

Din wrote:

> I think it has. I think it stopped a direct USA versus
> USSR war. The wars that have occurred were minor
> countries going to war.

Two points:

Those two countries fought their war by proxy.

There have been more wars since 1945 than at any time prior to that.

Are these two statements connected?

Gavin

RD: Not WORLD wars, with several countries having literally millions of
people killed. I look at the cenotaphs in our towns and villages and see
huge lists for the 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wars, then only the odd one or
two names from campaigns in Korea, Malaysia or the Falklands. Give me the
Cold War rather than real ones any time.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavinwj" <gavinwj@compuserve.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: SV: Re: Lighthouse story

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

#8

Richard John Devereux wrote:

RD: Not WORLD wars, with several countries having literally millions of
people killed. I look at the cenotaphs in our towns and villages and see
huge lists for the 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wars, then only the odd one or
two names from campaigns in Korea, Malaysia or the Falklands. Give me the
Cold War rather than real ones any time.

You might be very surprised (or maybe not, given you seem widely read) to
find out just how many people have been killed in conflicts since 1945. Most
of those conflicts occurred as a direct result of the USA/USSR "cold war".
Then there are the refugees and those who simply "went missing".

It's actually easier to count how many countries have *not* fired weapons in
anger since 1945 than it is to count those that have.

Gavin

#9

Good point, we probably can't stop the determined, professional, well-funded
nuclear terrorist. Fortunately, most of them are fanatic amateurs whose
funding is uncertain or inadequate for such an operation. The only
realistic hope of stopping the real professional is that the degree of
effort to actually procure and enable such a weapon, and move it to its
target actually involves a fair number of people, alot of money, and a
fairly complex effort, all of which increases the chances of discovery by
our FBI, which has informers.... Everywhere, we are told. We also have to
consider the psychology of the perpetrator -- if the terrorist can't take
credit, he gains little by his action. If he takes credit for an act like
that, we turn his hopes into glass and ashes. Might look like a no-win
situation...

Meantime, I think it's smart to have a means of discouraging madmen and
idiots who figure out how to build and deliver a more conventional weapon by
more conventional means. And far more moral as a way of deterring attack
than the old MAD approach. And prudent insurance against tumbling space
junk.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Din <din_ohtar@yahoo.com.au>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: SV: Re: Lighthouse story

  That's why we Americans will soon be opting
> for defense over
> deterrence,

I'm a fan for spaceguard (ok, ok, I saw deep impact on
TV a few weeks ago). I hope the new USA defense system
can be used for incoming space crap.

And I take no responsibility for our crap aussie
goverment who won't spend the money to join
spaceguard.

but I wonder how the USA can stop a terrorist walking
a nuke into the country, standing a few kilometres
away from somewhere important, and then going 'boom'.

thanks
din

____________________________________________________________________________
_

http://invites.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Invites
- Creating invitations could never be easier!

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com