Tuesday, August 02, 2005
The Bomb & Dialogue
here are some of my thoughts continued based on questions asked..........per the Next Bloodbaths post......
semantics are not needed when we are discussing nuclear bombs or the potential of them.
is the world a safer place with a nuclear arsenal in the hands of iran?
imo, no.
i have no problem with dialogue provided it is between two parties/ + that are able to speak with one another logically. in a utopian world it would be easy to say that no bombs in anyones hands would be best.
however, since we live in the real world with real differences on philosophy and the meaning of life and its values, suffice it for me to say that i prefer if NO nuclear bombs are within the grasp of any fanatics. why would anyone think that a dialogue between a logical party and a fanatic would have a good result? as for judging who is the logical party and who is the fanatic, that is up to the individual - and i trust there will be large disagreements about who is right and who is wrong.
it is too easy a (defense) lawyers ploy to simply play devil's advocate and suggest that if everyone had the bomb there would be no more war because everybody would have mutual respect for each other's pond.
weapons are made to be used, for the most part nuclear weapons have not been used because the only countries having them have been a limited number. that is changing, the more bombs, the greater the risk of one going off, and if one goes off the greater the risk of many exploding.
nuclear war is no longer the domain of the desk & chair military chief who wonders about MAD. it is within the realm of making sure maniacs and radical govts dont have the capability of igniting the world on fire using every means necessary to keep the fanatics from gaining nuclear capabilities.
and yes i am very much afraid of the fire and i dont believe the maniacs who make up a large segment of the fanatics - who the west is battling have the same belief system on the meaning of life. perhaps that is not politically correct, but i would rather make an enemy and be alive, then make a friend and be dead.
for those of us who believe in this life only, it seems an important task to make sure we create as good a place as possible here for our well being, sometimes that means that ugly things are done to achieve our tranquility.
as for dialogue and my objection to it sometimes, sanity, logic is a good place to start when trying to have a conversation but how do you talk to maniacs coherently?
case in point, north korea. just how are things going with that utopian based country as of today? how is china, the states, russia, and south korea doing in terms of handling 'the dialogue'?
seems to me every time i turn around the north koreans have the other 'dialogue' participants offering a little bit more.......this week south korea offered electricity to their 'great' northern brethren.
imo, the participants should tell north korea the following, "get rid of your bombs or be completely isolated,"
since no one can agree on what this means we have this 'logical' dialogue going between all participants except for the one who the talks are aimed at - a brutal utopian nightmare communist regime.
lets see where these dialogues go, perhaps to hades.
dialogues are fantasy based tools of diplomats and other foreign dept/ ministry/ formats and are typically destined to fail unless there is a cohesive plan by all attending and a common goal among the leaders.
nuclear game theory doesnt work this way, because countries without want their bombs
and countries with bombs dont want those without to have them.
participants know kings ransoms are at stake and that they can win big.
i said before i cannot blame the iranians for wanting a bomb. it makes perfect sense for them to try and achieve this.
thing is i live on the other side of their 'neighborly fence' and sometimes we have been known to have an argument with the iranians because our trees are blocking out their sun or vica-versa.
the iranians really dont scare me much more than anyone else having the bomb. one for all and all for one and then we all die.
as i have pointed out a long time ago, iran was an ally of israel's at one time and if the iranians ever get past their islamic 'revolution' i suspect that we will be allies again.........a fine example is turkey and israel. imo iran would know better than to drop a bomb on israel because if she destroys us she surely knows she will be destroyed too.
the iranian bomb isnt meant solely against the 'zionists pigs', it is meant to be a warning (if it comes to pass) against the saudis, the sunnis in iraq, india.......and a few others.
we live in a fine world with large toys helping build a 'better' tmrw.
semantics are not needed when we are discussing nuclear bombs or the potential of them.
is the world a safer place with a nuclear arsenal in the hands of iran?
imo, no.
i have no problem with dialogue provided it is between two parties/ + that are able to speak with one another logically. in a utopian world it would be easy to say that no bombs in anyones hands would be best.
however, since we live in the real world with real differences on philosophy and the meaning of life and its values, suffice it for me to say that i prefer if NO nuclear bombs are within the grasp of any fanatics. why would anyone think that a dialogue between a logical party and a fanatic would have a good result? as for judging who is the logical party and who is the fanatic, that is up to the individual - and i trust there will be large disagreements about who is right and who is wrong.
it is too easy a (defense) lawyers ploy to simply play devil's advocate and suggest that if everyone had the bomb there would be no more war because everybody would have mutual respect for each other's pond.
weapons are made to be used, for the most part nuclear weapons have not been used because the only countries having them have been a limited number. that is changing, the more bombs, the greater the risk of one going off, and if one goes off the greater the risk of many exploding.
nuclear war is no longer the domain of the desk & chair military chief who wonders about MAD. it is within the realm of making sure maniacs and radical govts dont have the capability of igniting the world on fire using every means necessary to keep the fanatics from gaining nuclear capabilities.
and yes i am very much afraid of the fire and i dont believe the maniacs who make up a large segment of the fanatics - who the west is battling have the same belief system on the meaning of life. perhaps that is not politically correct, but i would rather make an enemy and be alive, then make a friend and be dead.
for those of us who believe in this life only, it seems an important task to make sure we create as good a place as possible here for our well being, sometimes that means that ugly things are done to achieve our tranquility.
as for dialogue and my objection to it sometimes, sanity, logic is a good place to start when trying to have a conversation but how do you talk to maniacs coherently?
case in point, north korea. just how are things going with that utopian based country as of today? how is china, the states, russia, and south korea doing in terms of handling 'the dialogue'?
seems to me every time i turn around the north koreans have the other 'dialogue' participants offering a little bit more.......this week south korea offered electricity to their 'great' northern brethren.
imo, the participants should tell north korea the following, "get rid of your bombs or be completely isolated,"
since no one can agree on what this means we have this 'logical' dialogue going between all participants except for the one who the talks are aimed at - a brutal utopian nightmare communist regime.
lets see where these dialogues go, perhaps to hades.
dialogues are fantasy based tools of diplomats and other foreign dept/ ministry/ formats and are typically destined to fail unless there is a cohesive plan by all attending and a common goal among the leaders.
nuclear game theory doesnt work this way, because countries without want their bombs
and countries with bombs dont want those without to have them.
participants know kings ransoms are at stake and that they can win big.
i said before i cannot blame the iranians for wanting a bomb. it makes perfect sense for them to try and achieve this.
thing is i live on the other side of their 'neighborly fence' and sometimes we have been known to have an argument with the iranians because our trees are blocking out their sun or vica-versa.
the iranians really dont scare me much more than anyone else having the bomb. one for all and all for one and then we all die.
as i have pointed out a long time ago, iran was an ally of israel's at one time and if the iranians ever get past their islamic 'revolution' i suspect that we will be allies again.........a fine example is turkey and israel. imo iran would know better than to drop a bomb on israel because if she destroys us she surely knows she will be destroyed too.
the iranian bomb isnt meant solely against the 'zionists pigs', it is meant to be a warning (if it comes to pass) against the saudis, the sunnis in iraq, india.......and a few others.
we live in a fine world with large toys helping build a 'better' tmrw.
// posted by Zevchi @ 8:16 PM 
