The records continue.
Tony Bryant
At the Australian Short Course Championships currently under way in
Melbourne two world records have been set with one day to go.
Matt Welsh broke the 50 m backstroke record on day one with his time
of 0:23.31
http://swimming.org.au/meets_and_results/results_details.cfm?ObjectID=874&RaceDay=1&RaceID=4289
On day three a time trial for the Australian 4 x 100 m medley relay
resulted in another world record, slicing about 0.8 seconds from the
previous mark held by the United States.
http://swimming.org.au/meets_and_results/news.cfm?ObjectID=874
Tsunami
It's too bad the U.S. doesn't have an equivalent "short course
championships."
Welsh is a great swimmer, but we're talking short course. Neil
Walker, the former record holder in the 50, is not a threat to medal
at any event at world champs or olympics. Actually, I'm quite
surprised the US holds any relay records at all for short course. If
the olympics, world champs, Euros, and Pan-Pacs were short course,
every single WR that stands now would likely be obliterated. I hardly
consider anything that happens at this event to be a warning shot
across the bow, or anything like that. The Pan-Pacs were just a week
ago. I'm sure Australia will come out with some great long course
efforts next year to signal that they "haven't gone away." Assuming
that the Americans would be thinking that, which is unlikely.
Colin Priest
backstroke turning rule (kicking into the wall on his stomach) than for
anything else.
50m world form stroke records are still relatively weak in both short and
long course because they weren't recognised in long course until recent
years, and because they aren't included in the Olympics.
"Tsunami" <kmi...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
news:dad9c237.02090...@posting.google.com...
Tony Bryant
aside is that the next World Short Course Championships are scheduled
for Indianapolis in 2004. Will this make any difference to the
seriousness with which the USA takes these events?
"Colin Priest" <dont_...@I.hate.spam> wrote in message news:<taHd9.18075$Dr5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Michael Edey
GL
Mike
RunnSwim
>>I'm would think that it'd make sense to run NCAA's scm again.<<
2nd the motion. Does anyone have a cogent argument why they should ever be
held in yards? Was there a problem the last time they ran them in meters
(2000)?
- Larry
Martin W. Smith
They used to be held in yards because the pools were 25 yards.
Someday the rest of the world will catch up with the US and use
Fahrenheit instead of Celsius, and 8.5" X 11" paper instead of A4, and
miles instead of kilometers, and ounces instead of grams, and gallons
instead of litres, so I don't know why the US gave up building swimming
pools in yards. It must have been those anarchist liberals.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: m...@metis.no
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
Donal Fagan
wrote:
> ... I don't know why the US gave up building swimming
>pools in yards.
If you build them in streets, the cars fall in.
Donal Fagan
Do...@DonalGraetzFagan.com
remove the author's name to reply
Ars honeste petandi in societate
Rick Osterberg
> held in yards? Was there a problem the last time they ran them in meters
> (2000)?
Because it's a college championship meet, and colleges compete in yards.
-Rick
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rick Osterberg oste...@fas.harvard.edu |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Ross Bogue
>
> Because it's a college championship meet, and colleges compete in
> yards.
College teams have become quite adaptable in recent years. They compete
in SCY, SCM, LCM, or whatever's available at the facility.
It's a bad time to be standardizing on one venue, except maybe for large
meets like the NCAAs. Many colleges are looking for excuses to drop all
the minor sports. Asking them to replace a 30-year-old but still
functional SCY pool would probably be fatal.
My college dropped men's swimming long ago, and keeps women's swimming
on a shoestring budget. Another school just a few miles from here
dropped women's swimming this year, supposedly because they didn't have
a modern facility.
What baffles me is why they always drop the sport completely, instead of
continuing it as a non-scholarship club sport.
Ross
Paul Gormley
requisite UN motion of course.
"Martin W. Smith" <m...@metis.no> wrote in message
news:3D857479...@metis.no...
Michael Edey
GL
Mike
Olivier
"Martin W. Smith" <m...@metis.no> a écrit dans le message news:
3D857479...@metis.no...
> They used to be held in yards because the pools were 25 yards.
>
> ...Someday the rest of the world will catch up with the US and use
> Fahrenheit instead of Celsius, and 8.5" X 11" paper instead of A4, and
> miles instead of kilometers, and ounces instead of grams, and gallons
> instead of litres...
Hey, martin, you forgot the smiley ;-)
LOL
-- Olivier
Martin W. Smith
>
> I'm sure Bush will sort it out once he's finished with Saddam, after the
> requisite UN motion of course.
President Bush? I imagine he thinks Celsius is a green, leafy
vegetable, and A4 is the name of a close air support jet fighter.
There isn't supposed to be a smiley face here.
RunnSwim
>>President Bush? I imagine he thinks Celsius is a green, leafy
vegetable, and A4 is the name of a close air support jet fighter. <<
While I voted for Gore, I'll also suggest an interesting topic for a thread on
a political newsgroup.
Comprise a list of the greatest/most influential leaders in world history (they
will be two separate lists, the first more subjective than the second).
Then categorize each as "intellectual" versus "non-intellectual."
- Larry Weisenthal
Tsunami
So, if you understand that Celsius is not a vegetable it qualifies you
as an intellectual? Tough standard. I think Martin may have been
referring to competence. Being competent and being an intellectual
are not quite the same thing. Although in order to be an
intellectual--generally speaking--you need to be competent. Or do
you?
Would there be anyone on the list of the greatest/most influential
leaders in world history that you would characterise as incompetent?
It changes things doesn't it? Although, you don't necessarily need to
be generally competent to be influential.
Speaking of presidents...to navigate our way back to swimming...if not
the thread...have any past US presidents been avid swimmers? Jacko
swam a fair amount. We can rule out Taft. Other than that I haven't
a clue. We're constantly reminded of their golf handicaps, it'd be
nice to know if there have been any swimming enthusiasts.
Martin W. Smith
>
> From: "Martin W. Smith" m...@metis.no
>
> >>President Bush? I imagine he thinks Celsius is a green, leafy
> vegetable, and A4 is the name of a close air support jet fighter. <<
>
> While I voted for Gore, I'll also suggest an interesting topic for a thread on
> a political newsgroup.
>
> Comprise a list of the greatest/most influential leaders in world history (they
> will be two separate lists, the first more subjective than the second).
Do you mean positive leaders only, because my ESP tells me that most of
the greatest/most influential leaders in history have instigated a lot
of suffering, if they weren't downright evil - Hitler, Pol Pot, Ronald
Reagan, all the Popes, Ariel Sharon, Yasar Arafat...
Also, I think that "most influential" is not a good measure of
leadership *without* adding the intellectual qualification. That which
is most influential (without also requiring strong intellect), quite
often, if not always, reduces to some single event, which may be
complex, but is still just an event. Hitler had an enormous influence
on the world simply because he started a major war and actually tried to
kill all the Jews. If he hadn't started WWII and tried the "final
solution," he would have been just another despot.
Sharon and Arafat have instigated enormous suffering and for decades
have forced the world to either try to deal with or to avoid dealing
with the middle east, all because of their mutual refusal to put a
solution on the table and make it work.
> Then categorize each as "intellectual" versus "non-intellectual."
I think you have to require the intellectual guality, if you want to
find real greatness. I would include Siddhartha Gotama (Buddha), Jesus,
Mohammed, Ghandi, Mandella, Noam Chomsky, Lincoln, Jefferson, Einstein,
and physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians too numerous to
mention. These people lead by showing the way, rather than by
manipulating people and events to achieve an end.
Ross Bogue
>
> Speaking of presidents...to navigate our way back to swimming...if not
> the thread...have any past US presidents been avid swimmers?
FDR and LBJ come to mind. I think Nixon had the White House pool
covered over to make a meeting room. I forget whether Carter or Reagan
had the pool restored.
Ross
"Jacko"? Was that another nickname for "Jack" Kennedy?
Donal Fagan
<rbo...@phy.ilstu.edu> wrote:
>FDR and LBJ come to mind. I think Nixon had the White House pool
>covered over to make a meeting room. I forget whether Carter or Reagan
>had the pool restored.
President Theodore Roosevelt's "love for swimming in the freezing
waters of Oyster Bay and the Potomac River during winter months left
him with painful inflammatory rheumatism and an ear infection that
ruined his hearing in one ear."
The first swimming pool built at the White House was completed in 1933
by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt, who suffered from
polio, built the pool in the West Wing so he could use it to help
strengthen his upper body.
The New York Daily News newspaper helped him raise money from American
citizens to pay for construction of the pool.
In 1969, President Richard Nixon had the pool filled in to turn it
into an area for the press to gather.
In 1975, an outdoor pool was built during the presidency of Gerald
Ford.
Donal Fagan AIA
Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com
(Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)
RunnSwim
Richard Nixon had the White House pool paved over, or whatever. Gerald Ford
had it re-installed...group of his friends contributed the money, if memory
serves.
John F. Kennedy was a varsity swimmer for Harvard. I once heard from a more
contemporary Harvard swimmer that records of Kennedy's college races still
exist.
Kennedy went on to save the life of a PT boat crewmember by pulling him
(wearing a life vest) through the water, using the life vest strap clenched in
his teeth, through the water to the shore of an island, after the PT boat was
sunk. Depicted in the old Cliff Robertson film...PT 109...at least as good of
a flick as the contemporary "Swim Fan" , now in theatres (though probably not
for long...bad reviews).
- Larry Weisenthal
RunnSwim
the greatest/most influential leaders in history have instigated a lot
of suffering, if they weren't downright evil - Hitler, Pol Pot, Ronald
Reagan <<
Common, Martin. I voted for Carter and Mondale, but the above statement
requires no rebuttal, it is so completely inaccurate.
Moving beyond his lack of "evil" as a purveyor of "suffering," the magnitude of
Reagan's role in the collapse of the Soviet "[truly] evil empire" will be
debated for decades to come, but he certainly did play a role.
Probably the two most intellectual American presidents in history were John
Adams and Woodrow Wilson, both of which have been judged by history to have
been very ineffectual leaders.
Harry Truman was one of the most non-intellectual Presidents, but history has
viewed him very kindly.
Vaclav Havel is a great intellectual, but not such a great leader.
Left to the devices of their intellectual leaders, Europeans would still be
watching the Balkans implode in the belly of Europe, as they did previously in
1914.
- Larry
RunnSwim
(Tsunami) writes:
>So, if you understand that Celsius is not a vegetable it qualifies you
>as an intellectual? Tough standard. I think Martin may have been
>referring to competence. Being competent and being an intellectual
>are not quite the same thing. Although in order to be an
>intellectual--generally speaking--you need to be competent. Or do
>you?
Well, let's get back to "Shrub" (Bush, "Jr"):
How many of Europe's leaders thought that it was a good idea/a moral idea/or
even an expedient idea to declare war on the Taliban? Most of Europe's timid,
appeasement-oriented intellectuals raised the spectre of the "quagmire" of the
Soviet Union's war against the Taliban. Save for good old Tony Blair.
Although I voted for Gore (and Clinton, twice), I am not convinced that either
would have moved so resolutely as Bush. They would have suffered the same
intellectual paralysis as suffered by those "competent" European heads of
state, agonizing over all the things which might go wrong. Sometimes, it does
pay to have a mind which clearly sees the big, overall issues and does not get
so confused with the nuances of all the side issues.
Bush, for all his intellectual limitations, has also surrounded himself with
what is, hands down, the most competent, capable, and experienced
administrative team in the world, more so than that appointed by his vastly
more intellectually commanding predecessor (save in the Health and Human
Services and Treasury Departments, unfortunately for the US economy...the tax
cut was quite unfortunate, as it will bring back deficits, and repeal of the
estate tax will create a British-style social class system).
On balance, however, Bush has made a decent start toward securing a decent
historical verdict. I'm hoping, however, that the Dems retain the Senate and
gain the House in November's mid-terms.
- Larry Weisenthal
Chief Squawtendrawpet
> Probably the two most intellectual American presidents in history were John
> Adams and Woodrow Wilson, both of which have been judged by history to have
> been very ineffectual leaders.
Wilson an ineffectual leader? It's such a vague concept that I hate
to enter such a debate at all, but how would you square his extremely
influential legislative enactments with such a characterization? I'm
speaking here of the body of legislation often lumped under the label
of the New Freedom: Underwood-Simmons Tariff (big shift in tariff
policy, and the same piece of legislation included the graduated
income tax); Federal Reserve Act (this is big stuff); Federal Trade
Commission Act (ditto); and the Clayton Antitrust Act (less so). This
was Wilson's legislative program in the campaign and he more or less
got it enacted. Oh, and then he led the nation into what was at the
time a controversial war. His defeat on the League of Nations issue
surely doesn't negate all of this other stuff.
Chief S.
RunnSwim
Presents a strong challenge to my characterization of Woodrow Wilson as an
ineffectual leader.
Response:
Yeah, I got it wrong. Apologies to all you Wilsons out there.
http://ragz-international.com/pres.pdf
This is one of those interesting polls, where they took 78 noted historians and
had them rank US Presidents, through Clinton.
What was surprising was the Truman, Reagan (aka the "evil" one), and Eisenhower
(really surprised about this one) ranked 7,8, and 9. Wilson placed well,
finishing 11th.
Of contemporary Presidents, only Nixon ranked in the bottom 10.
- Larry
Chief Squawtendrawpet
> From: Chief Squawtendrawpet c...@edu.edu
>
> Presents a strong challenge to my characterization of Woodrow Wilson as an
> ineffectual leader.
>
> Response:
>
> Yeah, I got it wrong. Apologies to all you Wilsons out there.
>
> http://ragz-international.com/pres.pdf
Thanks, Larry, for posting the link to this interesting piece. The
ranking that caught my eye was "most overrated presidents":
1. Kennedy - Probably true.
2. Reagan - Indeed. Don't get me started on this one.
3. Wilson - Doh!!
Chief S.
Brian D
On 19 Sep,
Ross Bogue <rbo...@phy.ilstu.edu> wrote:
> In <dad9c237.02091...@posting.google.com> Tsunami wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of presidents...to navigate our way back to swimming...if not
> > the thread...have any past US presidents been avid swimmers?
>
>
> FDR and LBJ come to mind. I think Nixon had the White House pool
> covered over to make a meeting room. I forget whether Carter or Reagan
> had the pool restored.
Didn't your last president Bill Clinton, (in between affairs??) swim?
--
Brian D | RiscPC600 | StrongARM 233Mhz RISC OS 4 66Mb
Linux PCs on RISC OS network | <ne...@duffellb.freeserve.co.uk>
Darlington Dolphin Masters ASC | <www.darlington-masters.org>
Brian D
On 19 Sep,
runn...@aol.com (RunnSwim) wrote:
> >>have any past US presidents been avid swimmers? <<
>
> Richard Nixon had the White House pool paved over, or whatever. Gerald
> Ford had it re-installed...group of his friends contributed the money, if
> memory serves.
>
> John F. Kennedy was a varsity swimmer for Harvard. I once heard from a
> more contemporary Harvard swimmer that records of Kennedy's college races
> still exist.
>
Couldn't his brother? swim? (Chappaquidick(sp))
Brian D
runn...@aol.com (RunnSwim) wrote:
[snip]
> Save for good old Tony Blair. Although I voted for Gore (and Clinton,
> twice), I am not convinced that either would have moved so resolutely as
> Bush. They would have suffered the same intellectual paralysis as suffered
> by those "competent" European heads of state, agonizing over all the things
> which might go wrong. Sometimes, it does pay to have a mind which clearly
> sees the big, overall issues and does not get so confused with the nuances
> of all the side issues.
I voted for TB's party at the last election, and have done most of my life.
On current form I won't vote for his party (unless they dispose of him)
because of the support of your war mongering president. As soon as he was
elected? (I'm not convinced of it's democracy,) I was convinced that the
world (including his own country) was a less safe place. IMHO last September
proved that. I'm convinced that if he hadn't been elected that event wouldn't
have happened.
[snip]
RunnSwim
On current form I won't vote for his party (unless they dispose of him)
because of the support of your war mongering president.<<
I was in the UK last week...10 hr flight from LAX to Heathrow and then 10 hours
to near Bristol, usually little more than 2 hr trip. Horrific accident on M4
motorway kept me at a dead stop for 90 min, then an hour to exit, then many hrs
sawtoothing my way through congested, narrow roads following paths laid out in
the middle ages, if not before. Gave me a lot of opportunity, however, to
listen to British talk radio (love the British term "techno-munchkin" to refer
to people without good IT skills). They said that 90% of Labor opposed Tony's
support for the US, while nominally opposition Tories supported it. My British
friends also formerly supported Tony, but don't now, feeling that "he's just
another politician who says whatever it takes to get elected, then breaks his
promises."
I think that there is no doubt, however, that the UK has never since WWII been
so-well-thought of by the American public.
Lucky you.
- Larry
Martin W. Smith
> I think that there is no doubt, however, that the UK has never since WWII been
> so-well-thought of by the American public.
That's because of Diana, who is dead, and Mary Robinson, who is not. I
don't think it is because of Beau Blair.
Brian D
runn...@aol.com (RunnSwim) wrote:
[snip]
>
> I was in the UK last week...10 hr flight from LAX to Heathrow and then 10
> hours to near Bristol, usually little more than 2 hr trip. Horrific
> accident on M4 motorway kept me at a dead stop for 90 min, then an hour to
> exit, then many hrs sawtoothing my way through congested, narrow roads
> following paths laid out in the middle ages, if not before.
It can get very bad around Bristol. 8-(
> Gave me a lot of opportunity, however, to listen to British talk radio
> (love the British term "techno-munchkin" to refer to people without good IT
> skills). They said that 90% of Labor opposed Tony's support for the US,
> while nominally opposition Tories supported it. My British friends also
> formerly supported Tony, but don't now, feeling that "he's just another
> politician who says whatever it takes to get elected, then breaks his
> promises."
>
I had opportunity to vote for him as party leader, he wasn't my choice,
though. He now seems to be out of touch with his party. As you said elsewhere
I think GWB has /some/ good advisors, but I don't fully support your
government's about turn on terrorism, having lived at one time in a part of
this country which suffered from terrorism, largely funded with (private)
donations from the US. Political expediency in collecting votes from groups
of overseas origin seems to be the main deciding factor in foreign policy,
rather than doing the right thing for the world. (I could also mention global
warming!)
> I think that there is no doubt, however, that the UK has never since WWII
> been so-well-thought of by the American public.
And less so by numerous other peoples.
We're getting mor and more off topic!
RunnSwim
From: Brian D brian...@lycos.co.uk
>>Political expediency in collecting votes from groups
of overseas origin seems to be the main deciding factor in foreign policy,
rather than doing the right thing for the world. (I could also mention global
warming!) <<
Re: Global Warming and the US vs Europe:
5 days ago, I sent the following letter to the editor of our local (politically
liberterian) paper, the Orange County Register (which I may as well "publish"
here, since the paper is unlikely to publish it):
Subj: Hurt No One; Then Do as You Like
Date: 9/15/02 5:27:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: RunnSwim
To: ab...@ocregister.com
CC: sgre...@ocregister.com
Dear Mr. Bock,
I very much enjoyed your essay on liberty in today's paper. Particularly the
quote which titles the present e-mail. As a registered Democrat who finds your
thoughtful columns to be some of the most worthwhile reading I do, I found
myself in agreement with everything you wrote.
My brother-in-law is a computer programmer for Indiana/Kentucky Blue Cross. He
has made a wise observation, which applies to nearly everything in life,
including your column of 15 September. "Nothing is simple, and the details
kill you."
In your column, you acknowledge that my freedoms end at your nose.
I just returned from a trip to near Bristol, England. It was an interesting
trip -- among other things, it included a 10 hour flight from LAX to Heathrow,
followed by a 10 hour drive (more usually a 2 hour drive) from Heathrow to
Bath, because of the worst traffic jam I've ever encountered in my life, owing
to a 10 hour closure of the M4 motorway by a horrific accident, in a country
where the M4 motorway is the only sane and relatively safe route to drive from
Heathrow to Bristol).
It did, however, provide me with a lot of time to listen to British talk radio.
In a recent letter to Mr. Greenhut, I cited the familiar quotation that "your
right to smoke ends at my nose." The Brits and other Europeans very much
resent the insularity of the United States. This ranges from trampling on
their national pride (as when Hollywood depicts the heroes of the Second World
War as being primarily American) to our willingness to wreak global
eco-terrorism to avoid the distasteful necessity of paying more of our money
for energy.
As I wrote to Mr. Greenhut, one quite possible consequence of global warming is
that melting northern hemisphere glaciers are pouring fresh water into the
North Atlantic, which threatens the "global conveyer" currents which drive the
Gulf Stream, without which Europe would have the climate of Hudson Bay, Canada
(which is colder than the climate of International Falls, MN, often the coldest
locale in the continental US). This abrupt climate change is said to have the
potential to occur very rapidly, in a few as one or two decades. As the rest
of the earth gently warms (George W. Bush says that we will "learn to live with
it"), England and the rest of Europe go into a deep freeze.
Now, there are many who do not accept that the case for global warming has been
proven. These skeptics, however, do not include the Republican Bush
administration; so the evidence is far from weak.
But the issue is this: Our "economic freedom" ends at the nose of the other
inhabitants of the planet. What is the level of certainty which must be met by
scientific evidence before the noses of non-Americans must be considered?
99.9% certainty? 90% certainty? 75%? 50%? 25%? 10%?
Is the answer different for an American vs a European? What would the answer
be to an American, if the average human life span were 1,000 years, instead of
only 80 years? Would we be concerned that we were consuming virtually the
entire petroleum reserves of the planet in only 150 years? Would we want to
save some petroleum for future applications (e.g. petrochemicals) instead of
burning all of it now for cheap fuel? Is someone who is concerned about such
issues simply a "mushy headed liberal," or is it morally justifiable to think
in such terms?
I don't think that all liberties are of equal value, despite your well stated
arguments to make the case for equality of liberties. The rights to free
speech, press, assembly, and privacy must be sacrosanct. But so should the
right not to be harmed by another, even in the name of preserving the other's
own liberties. On a global basis. Which sometimes requires imperfect rules,
democratically put into place by imperfect governments. On the basis of less
than perfect scientific evidence.
Larry Weisenthal
Huntington Beach, CA
Paul Gormley
"RunnSwim" <runn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020919124342...@mb-fj.aol.com...
Paul Gormley
administration are driving us towards war in the middle east with the
horrific social, political and economic chaos that is likely to result.news:20020919151117...@mb-ct.aol.com...
Martin W. Smith
>
> So how come the americans didn't notice until 1917?
> "RunnSwim" <runn...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020919124342...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> > >>most of
> > the greatest/most influential leaders in history have instigated a lot
> > of suffering, if they weren't downright evil - Hitler, Pol Pot, Ronald
> > Reagan <<
> >
> > Common, Martin. I voted for Carter and Mondale, but the above statement
> > requires no rebuttal, it is so completely inaccurate.
It requires a rebuttal if you claim it is inaccurate. Where is it
inaacurate?
> > Moving beyond his lack of "evil" as a purveyor of "suffering," the
> magnitude of
> > Reagan's role in the collapse of the Soviet "[truly] evil empire" will be
> > debated for decades to come, but he certainly did play a role.
First, I didn't say Reagan was evil. I said he instigated a lot of
suffering, if they [he] WEREN'T downright evil. Reagan instigated the
war in Nicaragua. He supported it and assisted with its conduct, and
also with fighting in El Salvador and other places. He assisted
materially. His assistance was illegal and immoral. Thousands of
civilians died. That represents a lot of suffering instigated by Ronald
Reagan.
Yes, Reagan played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. So
what? So did everybody else. The main role was played by the people of
the Soviet Union. The fall of the Soviet Union was inevitable from the
moment it became a totalitarian state oppressing its own people.
Oppressed people will always fight back. Evil empires always fall. Why
would the Soviet Union be any different? Ronald Reagan hurried the
process by spending billions of dollars on military programs, forcing
the Soviet Union to do the same, although it couldn't afford the cost.
He early broke us in the process, with his deregulation program and
trickle down, supply side mumbo jumbo. Meanwhile, increasing media
access across the iron curtain (which Reagan had nothing to do with)
allowed the people there to get more and more information about the rest
of the world. What did you think would happen?
> > Probably the two most intellectual American presidents in history were
> > John Adams and Woodrow Wilson, both of which have been judged by history
> > to have been very ineffectual leaders.
No, they were judged to be ineffectual PRESIDENTS. If you'll look again
at the list I gave, most of the leaders listed there weren't presidents
at all. And the ones that were probably would have been great leaders
whether they had been presidents or not.
> > Harry Truman was one of the most non-intellectual Presidents, but history
> has viewed him very kindly.
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by intellectual? It sounds like you
don't know what intellectual means. The definition I use is from the
Cambridge International Dictionary. Intellect: "the ability to think
intelligently and understand, or the ability to do these things to a
high level." Intellectual is the adjective form of that word. Are you
saying Harry Truman didn't have the ability to think intelligently and
understand world affairs at a high level? I think he certainly did. I
think President Bush certainly doesn't.
> > Vaclav Havel is a great intellectual, but not such a great leader.
Why does he keep getting elected? Why do you say he isn't a great
leader? How has he screwed up?
> > Left to the devices of their intellectual leaders, Europeans would still
> > be watching the Balkans implode in the belly of Europe, as they did
> > previously in 1914.
At least we agree that President Bush is not intellectual.
RunnSwim
<Paulg...@btinternet.com> writes:
>So how come the americans didn't notice until 1917?
In 1914, Europe was a long, long, long way away. No television. Not all that
relevant to the average American, most of which still lived on farms (including
both of my maternal grandparents). But, America eventually did notice. And
did the right thing.
- Larry
RunnSwim
> > >>most of
> > the greatest/most influential leaders in history have instigated a lot
> > of suffering, if they weren't downright evil - Hitler, Pol Pot, Ronald
> > Reagan <<
> >
> > Common, Martin. I voted for Carter and Mondale, but the above statement
> > requires no rebuttal, it is so completely inaccurate.
>>It requires a rebuttal if you claim it is inaccurate. Where is it
inaacurate?<< etc.
I voted twice for Reagan's opponents, but the following scholarly review makes
the case for why Reagan is now ranked in the top echelon of American
presidents:
http://www.thepresidency.org/pubs/dmaConstructingessay.htm
- Larry Weisenthal
Tsunami
That's the opinion of one review. You keep citing your history of
voting for democrats as if it's supposed to lend credence to your
opinions and boost your credentials as a moderate, resonable minded
person. I'll take your word for it.
Still it's very hard to believe someone who voted for Mondale would be
extolling the Gipper. So Larry do you advocate supply side economics?
I cannot fathom anyone who dislikes these theories approving of his
tenure in office.
Fortunately for us who do not think so highly of the man, it depends
on who's writing the history. The majority of university History
Departments throughout the U.S. are liberal. Most secondary
publications try to be balanced with their pro and con tradition. In
any case High Schools rarely interrogate recent history. However,
post-secondary education is decidedly liberal and positive opinions of
Reagan are scarce. The Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation, two
conservative think tanks are very upset about this. Too bad.
Under Reagan this country had credit card disease. Have our cake and
eat it too domestic policy. He ushered in huge tax cuts without
cutting spending accordingly. Popular but Dumb. No president who
wins popular favor with these kind of policies deserves plaudits. The
current guy in the oval office seems to be following this example.
Didn't hurt Reagan why should it hurt me? Of course, eventually it
bit his pappy.
His war on drugs was misguided, particulary the media campaign. His
policies/statements regarding HIV/AIDS are absolutely unforgivable.
He also came into office with his backers in the CIA and Defense
Department playing dirty even though he personally didn't orchestrate
the misdeeds. Delaying the clandestine deal for the release of
hostages in Iran until after he waltzed into the White House increases
the sour taste in my mouth when I look back.
Reagan has been marketed and portrayed as some sort of inspirational
tough as nails old coot who represented the best of Americana. It is
important to advance the Reagan legacy for conservatives so that they
can promote their agendas. There are many things I love and take
pride in about my country, however this man represents many of the
things about my country which I do not like. The fact that he is
serving as an example for conservatives present and future disgusts
me.
Martin W. Smith
>
> From: "Martin W. Smith" <m...@metis.no>
>
> > > >>most of
> > > the greatest/most influential leaders in history have instigated a lot
> > > of suffering, if they weren't downright evil - Hitler, Pol Pot, Ronald
> > > Reagan <<
> > >
> > > Common, Martin. I voted for Carter and Mondale, but the above statement
> > > requires no rebuttal, it is so completely inaccurate.
>
> >>It requires a rebuttal if you claim it is inaccurate. Where is it
> inaacurate?<< etc.
>
> I voted twice for Reagan's opponents, but the following scholarly review makes
> the case for why Reagan is now ranked in the top echelon of American
> presidents:
But that wasn't the issue. The issue I raised above was that Ronald
Reagan instigated a lot of suffering. He did it in Central America; he
did it illegally, immorally, and on a grand scale.
By the way, the link you provided:
http://www.thepresidency.org/pubs/dmaConstructingessay.htm
...is not a scholarly review, as you claim. It's a lecture, with no
references or bibliography at all to substantiate anything the author
says. A scholarly review would have references and bibliography.
Regarding Ronald Reagan being in the top echelon of American Presidents,
there are three points to be made. First, I suppose most of the people
of Nicaragua and El Salvador would disagree. But we can't see this from
the lecture you provided, because it doesn't even mention Nicaragua, or
even Central America. I would say Central America was an important
component of the Reagan Presidency. No analysis of Reagan's Presidency
would be complete without it. There were those Congressional hearings,
you see. Some people went to jail. Some people think Ronald Reagan
should have been one of them. But he could deliver a speech, I'll give
him that.
Second, how big is the upper echelon of Presidents? Is it the top five,
for example, or is it like the NBA playoffs, where everybody but the
last place in each division gets in? I suspect the latter, because
Ronald Reagan gets about as close to the top five Presidents as I can
get to a basketball rim.
Third, I agree that, compared to our current President, Ronald Reagan
was a great President.
Paul Gormley
their own best interest and the same principle applies now. The moral
crusade reeks of hypocrisy - infant mortality rates in US, child poverty,
access to health care etc. How much of the money spent on waging a war
against Saddam could be better spent? There might even be enough left over
for a few swimming pools. As a thank you to Tony Blair, maybe the US could
build a few 50 metre pools over here because our government sure don't see
that as a priority.
"RunnSwim" <runn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020921123638...@mb-mi.aol.com...
RunnSwim
Great, heartfelt, well-stated arguments. Stimulating; moving;
thought-provoking. And I thought that everyone on the US side of the internet
had their number 1 radio button set to Rush Limbaugh.
I think that the greatest threat to the survival of the human race in the
history of this world was the Cold War. We will never know how it would have
ended, absent Reagan coming on the scene when he did, but I don't think that
the dismantling of the "evil empire" would have been nearly so neat, clean, and
bloodless as it was had Reagan not been where he was; when he was, and who he
was.
Future historians will debate this issue without reaching a provable
conclusion. I won't debate it any longer. I don't know what sort of President
Lincoln would have been, absent the Civil War. I don't know what kind of PM
Churchill would have been, absent WWII. I can guess that, absent the Cold War,
I'd have as much contempt for Reagan as that felt by my other three soulmates
in political liberalism on this thread.
But the Cold War is something I lived with since my earliest consciousness in
the 1950s. I remember how freaked out we all were when Sputnik went up, when
tanks rolled into Hungary in 1956. Then Czechslovakia. Then Yuri Gargarin.
How my father, a lifelong automotive, heavy truck (and in WWII) combat tank
designer/engineer became, in the late 50s, a "certified fallout shelter
analyst" about the same time they started putting all those fallout shelter
signs on my public school and library and everyone else's, as well. I read my
Dad's fallout shelter design manuals, and once purchased a book telling people
how to build serviceable backyard and basement fallout shelters.
I remember the day in October, 1962, when I went down to the corner of Borgman
and Wyoming in Huntington Woods, Michigan, to pick up my stack of Detroit Free
Press newspapers to deliver on my morning paper route. The headlines screamed
"Cuba Quarantine!" That day, in my 10th grade class, we all made nervous black
humor jokes, but I remember being, for real, scared, for real. And we only
found out decades later how bad it really was. How much closer to war we came
than anyone imagined.
I personally think that Ronald Reagan had a great deal to do with the peaceful,
bloodless, sudden end to the cold war. Others may disagree. But, believing
this, as I do, explains how someone who voted for Humphrey, McGovern, McCarthy
(in '76, to repay him for being the first mainstream politician to come out
against the Vietnam War), Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, and Gore
could feel that Ronald Reagan richly deserves his place as one of the 10
greatest Presidents in American History.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/
This very nice Wall Street Journal web page shows details of a survey by 78
American History scholars of US presidents. Overall, Democrats came out
slightly ahead of Republicans; the survey does not appear to be grossly biased.
Ronald Reagan came in 8th.
I think that he was the right person at the right time, in the right place.
Others obviously disagree.
I do want to quarrel some more with Gormley, however, who ever so subtly shifts
from an attack on George W Bush to a more general attack on the USA:
>>The moral
crusade reeks of hypocrisy - infant mortality rates in US, child poverty,
access to health care etc. <<
In point of fact, adjusted for the demographics of the dramatically more
culturally/ethnically diverse, and much larger USA, the above stats for the USA
are by no means as bad as implied.
But the more central issue...which Europeans just can't get through their thick
heads is this:
The USA is, by choice, a socially Darwinistic society. It is, bar none, the
1st world country with the most individual liberties and opportunities. I was
in the UK earlier this month, staying at the home of friends, listening to
stories of government microregulation of individual human endeavors, and this
is at a time of unparalleled prosperity in the UK, which has now passed Germany
in per capita income (Maggie Thatcher had more to do with this happy state of
affairs than Gormley will doubtless acknowledge).
I think it great that the people in Europe enjoy 6 week vacations and great
"access" to healthcare (though I'm not sure what good "access" is to someone
who has to wait a year to get a needed total hip replacement...but I digress).
And cradle to grave social welfare. Wonderful. Good for you.
But we just have a different system. We require people to take care of
themselves. Sometimes they don't, and they go down. Much more often, they
suceed, at much higher frequencies and to much higher levels than anywhere
else. And its people don't really want to change this system all that much;
despite how much Europeans feel that the US should be as enlightened as the
Europeans are enlightened.
- Larry Weisenthal
Martin W. Smith
> I think that the greatest threat to the survival of the human race in the
> history of this world was the Cold War.
Why do you believe that? I would have said the great threat was, and
is, a combination of things, including nuclear war, loss of the ozone
layer, increasing greenhouse gasses, population growth, insufficient
fresh water, fundamentalist religious factions, diminishing
effectiveness of antibiotics, spread of HIV, and others. At least the
cold war deterred total nuclear war (in theory) and certainly did
prevent what we have now, one side or the other becoming an unchallenged
military machine, managed by religious fundamentalists whose new,
official foreign policy is to shoot first and don't ask questions at
all. If you disagree with President Bush, you are a terrorist. He said
so, and he didn't even win the election. That's the world we live in
now. It is better for the Russians, on average, of course, because
their liberty has increased. Ours has diminished, unnecessarily, a
process which continues.
> We will never know how it would have
> ended, absent Reagan coming on the scene when he did, but I don't think that
> the dismantling of the "evil empire" would have been nearly so neat, clean, and
> bloodless as it was had Reagan not been where he was; when he was, and who he
> was.
Do you understand that much, if not most, of the rest of the world is
coming to see the US as the "evil empire"? Where do you get your news,
Larry? Fox? CNN? Charles Krauthammer? Or was your Rush Limbaugh
remark a serious one?
> Future historians will debate this issue without reaching a provable
> conclusion. I won't debate it any longer. I don't know what sort of President
> Lincoln would have been, absent the Civil War. I don't know what kind of PM
> Churchill would have been, absent WWII. I can guess that, absent the Cold War,
> I'd have as much contempt for Reagan as that felt by my other three soulmates
> in political liberalism on this thread.
I think President Reagan was a nice guy. I think he, like the current
President, meant well. I think his policy on the Soviet Union was a
good one. But it was the end game of a process that started long before
he took office. Ronald Reagan didn't force the USSR to dump spent
nuclear reactors into the see off Murmansk for decades. The fish up
there are dying. Have a look at the wreck of the Murmansk naval base.
Look at the design plans for the nuclear reactors at Chernobyl. Ronald
Reagan had nothing to do with these elements. The implosion of the USSR
was inevitable because it was a closed, oppressive society that created
only the facade of success. Oppressed people will always resist their
oppressors. Ronald Reagan sped up the process by playing the same cold
war game you think was such a threat. He increased military spending
inducing the USSR to do the same. The Carter administration and the
Reagan administration also increased the stress on the USSR by tricking
it into a Vietnam-like war in Afghanistan, financing, training, and
supplying the guerrila forces that became the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the
current crop of war lords. Then after the USSR withdrew because it was
imploding, Presidents Reagan and Bush deserted and ignored Afghanistan
altogether, with the predicable results.
Why do you only remember what you want to remember about Ronald Reagan?
You list all your memories of your moments of panic, when you thought
the world might end, and you credit Ronald Reagan with saving the day,
but you don't mention the Iran-Contra hearings. I remember commentators
referring to that period as "a crisis for democracy," which it surely
was. I think democracy lost. But you don't even mention it. The Sons
of Reagan never existed. What is it you think Ronald Reagan actually
did to dismantle the Soviet Union? What specific steps did Ronald
Reagan take? Are you just referring to all the speeches he made? Do
you actually credit the speeches of Ronald Reagan with dismantling the
Soviety Union?
Martin W. Smith
> I personally think that Ronald Reagan had a great deal to do with the peaceful,
> bloodless, sudden end to the cold war.
I think Gorbachev had a lot more to do with it than Reagan did. What,
specifically, do you claim that Reagan did? Are you claiming that
Ronald Reagan's speeches dismantled the Soviet Union? What did he do
besides make speeches and increase military spending? Do you also hold
him responsible for the tens of thousands of murders in Central America
that he instigated? Or do you only assign responsibility for the good
things that happened on his watch?
> >>The moral
> crusade reeks of hypocrisy - infant mortality rates in US, child poverty,
> access to health care etc. <<
>
> In point of fact, adjusted for the demographics of the dramatically more
> culturally/ethnically diverse, and much larger USA, the above stats for the USA
> are by no means as bad as implied.
>
> But the more central issue...which Europeans just can't get through their thick
> heads is this:
Are you actually claiming that the US is more ethnically diverse than
Europe, and that ethnic diversity is an excuse for higher infant
mortality, higher child poverty, and no universal health care?
> The USA is, by choice, a socially Darwinistic society. It is, bar none, the
> 1st world country with the most individual liberties and opportunities.
These are astonishing claims. I've lived in three different countries,
on three different continents - the US, Australia (7 years), and Norway
(7 years) - and I've seen *no* evidence that individual liberties and
opportunities are greater in the US. It's easier to own a gun in the
US; there are more brands of toothpaste in the US; petrol (sorry)
gasoline costs a lot less in the US (artifically so), but I hope these
are not what you mean by individual liberties and opportunities. Will
you list the liberties and opportunities the US has that Norway and
Australia don't have?
Here is one: The freedom not to be covered by a health care system. I
admit that's an important one. In the US, you can choose not to be
covered by health care. You can't do that in Australia or Norway.
You're covered whether you like it or not. Here is another one. In
Norway, I think all males must serve in the national guard. And, of
course, in the US, you have the opportunity to be executed, even for a
crime you didn't commit. In Norway and Australia, you can't be executed
at all, and the longest sentence you can get for any crime in Norway is
21 years.
> I was
> in the UK earlier this month, staying at the home of friends, listening to
> stories of government microregulation of individual human endeavors, and this
> is at a time of unparalleled prosperity in the UK, which has now passed Germany
> in per capita income (Maggie Thatcher had more to do with this happy state of
> affairs than Gormley will doubtless acknowledge).
What did Maggie Thatcher have to do with it? Specifically. One thing
was the privatization of the railroads, which resulted in degraded
maintenance of the railroad system, which led, in turn, to the
predictable increase in horrific train "accidents" of recent years. The
discussions now are about re-nationalizing railroads, power systems,
etc. Up here in the socialized hell of the north, these systems didn't
get privatized. We had a bad train accident a couple of years ago.
Somehow we manage to muddle through, although sometimes the trains get
delayed a few minutes.
Do you think your trip to the UK "earlier this month" gave you a clear
and complete view of life in Europe? I've been here for seven years
now, and my view is certainly nothing like yours. I hope your swimming
research is based on sterner stuff.
And, Larry, recall that in a Darwinist system, many participants *must*
die out. You are making the astonishing claim that Americans *want* to
live in a system in which it is statistically certain that a lot of them
will fail and die out. You don't really believe that, do you?
> I think it great that the people in Europe enjoy 6 week vacations and great
> "access" to healthcare (though I'm not sure what good "access" is to someone
> who has to wait a year to get a needed total hip replacement...
In this case "good" means you actually get the operation, which you
wouldn't get in the US if you didn't have health care insurance. And
you don't have to wait a year, if you can afford to have the operation
done in a private hospital, or, in some countries, if you have
supplemental private medical insurance. See Australia's system, for
example.
> but I digress).
> And cradle to grave social welfare. Wonderful. Good for you.
>
> But we just have a different system. We require people to take care of
> themselves. Sometimes they don't, and they go down. Much more often, they
> suceed, at much higher frequencies and to much higher levels than anywhere
> else. And its people don't really want to change this system all that much;
> despite how much Europeans feel that the US should be as enlightened as the
> Europeans are enlightened.
That's horeshit, Larry. Politicians don't want to change the system.
I'm sure almost all Americans would like to have 6 weeks vacation. And
70% of them want tighter gun control.
RunnSwim
nowhere near as bad as Smith implies. And, yes, the US is much larger and much
more racially diverse than any of the European countries.
Let's also consider "elder mortality." Presuming that one makes it to age 70,
what country then has the longest life expectancy in the world? This is as
valid a measure of the effectiveness of the health care system as is infant
mortality.
B. Reagan said that the US would spend whatever it would take to ensure its
defense and then went out and did it. The Soviets tried to compete and
imploded. Absent Reagan and the USA, the Soviets would still be in power. In
my opinion.
C. I could never have done what I have been able to do with my personal
biomedical business anywhere in the world (and certainly not in Europe or
Australia) besides the US. It's one business; but it's a microcosm. It
partially explains why the USA has won more per capita Nobel Prizes than any of
the European and Asian countries and why the USA continues to lead the world in
entrepreneurial innovation.
D. The US as "evil empire?" What would happen to the world, Martin, if the USA
were suddenly wiped off the globe...didn't exist anymore? What other country
in the history of the world ever had such a monopoly on military and economic
power and was less threatening to the rest of the world?
E. You paint such a bleak picture of the USA. According to you, we must be
dispirited, demoralized, and pessimistic. People vote with their feet. You
did so and ended up in Norway. You are very unusual. The USA leads the world
in productivity, satisfaction with way of life, and optimism for the future
among its people.
Let's move on to talk of Iraq now, shall we?
What is the probability that Saddam Hussein is trying to develop weapons of
mass destruction? What would be the impact of putting a nuclear device on a 25
foot sailboat and tieing it to a mooring in the East River and then detonating
it? What would be the impact of releasing aerolized anthrax in the NY subway
system?
What IS the probability? 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 1% 0.1%?
At what probability level is pre-emptive use of force justified?
Answer the question, then we can proceed.
- Larry Weisenthal
Paul Gormley
>
> I do want to quarrel some more with Gormley, however, who ever so subtly
shifts
> from an attack on George W Bush to a more general attack on the USA:
>
> >>The moral
> crusade reeks of hypocrisy - infant mortality rates in US, child poverty,
> access to health care etc. <<
>
> In point of fact, adjusted for the demographics of the dramatically more
> culturally/ethnically diverse, and much larger USA, the above stats for
the USA
> are by no means as bad as implied.
>
> But the more central issue...which Europeans just can't get through their
thick
> heads is this:
>
> The USA is, by choice, a socially Darwinistic society. (snip)
> But we just have a different system. We require people to take care of
> themselves. Sometimes they don't, and they go down. Much more often,
they
> suceed, at much higher frequencies and to much higher levels than anywhere
> else. And its people don't really want to change this system all that
much;
> despite how much Europeans feel that the US should be as enlightened as
the
> Europeans are enlightened.
>
> - Larry Weisenthal
Fine, if that's the way you want to live and you can shut your eyes to the
poverty and misery in the US (and don't think for a moment that I don't see
in the UK the same signs of deprivation despite the buoyancy of the
economy). In both cases, the rich are getting richer and the poor are
getting poorer. Bush and those around him want to extend their view of
society beyond the boundaries of the US and that's what people around the
world object to. As Martin says, if you don't agree with Bush et al, you're
a terrorist. How do you reconcile that with the cherished ideals of the land
of the free.
But the issue which Americans just can't get through their thick heads is
this: you're not right all of the time, listen to what other people have to
say, exchange opinions but don't feel you have the moral right to impose
your opinion on other people and other countries.
And by the way, what's with the Gormley/Smith thing. I've got a first name
and so does Martin.
Paul
Martin W. Smith
>
> A. The stats on infant mortality, poverty, or any of the other things are
> nowhere near as bad as Smith implies. And, yes, the US is much larger and much
> more racially diverse than any of the European countries.
You're moving the goal posts again, Larry. Bad form. I said Europe,
not "any of the European countries." You said the US is more ethnically
diverse than Europe. Maybe, I don't know, but not significantly so, in
my experience. Ethnic diversity is usually one of the main points of
the argument for why the EU shouldn't try to strengthen the EU
federation. But since the US federation works, and if your claim that
the US is *more* ethnically diverse than the EU is true, then I guess
you have refuted that argument. But then you've also refuted your own
point that ethnic diversity is an excuse for not having universal health
care. Universal health care is pretty much SOP in the EU. And despite
the grumblings you hear everywhere about its problems, I doubt you'll
find any country where the population wants to eliminate it.
> Let's also consider "elder mortality." Presuming that one makes it to age 70,
> what country then has the longest life expectancy in the world? This is as
> valid a measure of the effectiveness of the health care system as is infant
> mortality.
Regarding infant mortality and life expectancy, according to the CIA
fact book, infant mortality in the US is 6.76 deaths per 1000 live
births. In Norway, it is 3.94. Life expectancy in the US is 77.26
years. In Norway, 78.79 years. Netherlands: 4.37 deaths, 78.43 years.
UK, where you spent several years earlier this month: 5.54 deaths, 77.82
years. That's as bad as I implied, and that's as bad as they are.
Regarding ethnic groups (also from the CIA Fact Book):
US - white 83.5%, black 12.4%, Asian 3.3%, Amerindian 0.8% (1992)
UK - English 81.5%, Scottish 9.6%, Irish 2.4%, Welsh 1.9%, Ulster 1.8%,
West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other 2.8%
I think it is remarkable that the CIA defines white and black to be
ethnic groups.
> B. Reagan said that the US would spend whatever it would take to ensure its
> defense and then went out and did it. The Soviets tried to compete and
> imploded. Absent Reagan and the USA, the Soviets would still be in power. In
> my opinion.
Absent the USA? When you decide where you want the goal posts, let me
know. I've got a book on Feng Shui. I don't think you can just
eliminate the USA from the argument and expect it to make sense.
> C. I could never have done what I have been able to do with my personal
> biomedical business anywhere in the world (and certainly not in Europe or
> Australia) besides the US.
Why? You probably would have won the Order of Lenin and gotten your own
apartment in the USSR. They did quite a lot of biomedical research as I
recall, which resulted in a lot of gold medals. And East Germany. Your
work might well have saved a lot of girls from the chronic health
problems they are having now due to prolonged, unwitting use of
steroids. Or did you just mean you wouldn't make as much money in
Europe or Australia? Probably correct, but money is not the only
measure of success. Not even a reliable one anymore, considering the
major corporate management scandals in the US recently, which continue.
> It's one business; but it's a microcosm. It
> partially explains why the USA has won more per capita Nobel Prizes than any of
> the European and Asian countries and why the USA continues to lead the world in
> entrepreneurial innovation.
I think what you are saying is, follow the money. Otherwise you are
embarrassing us expatriots. At least this one.
> D. The US as "evil empire?" What would happen to the world, Martin, if the USA
> were suddenly wiped off the globe...didn't exist anymore? What other country
> in the history of the world ever had such a monopoly on military and economic
> power and was less threatening to the rest of the world?
I don't know what would happen if the USA were wiped off the globe.
Let's set the context, though, first. How does it get wiped off the
globe? Who or what wipes the USA off the globe? What is the state of
the globe immediately after the USA gets wiped off? Otherwise your
question is meaningless.
No country has ever had such a monopoly on military and economic power.
No country has ever been *more* threatening to the rest of the world.
The reason is that the USA is *not* accountable to the rest of the
world. There are no international crime institutions to which the USA
is subject. The USA refuses to even allow the creation of an
international criminal court. The USA now abrogates its treaties when
it wants to, so treaties with the US are no longer worth the paper they
are written on (the ABM treaty). The US continues to talk democracy but
support brutal dictatorships (Saudi Arabia, even Iraq until 1990). The
US continues to use 25% of the world's resources, though it has only
about 5% of the world's population. And the US no longer even obeys the
Geneva Conventions. It doesn't even follow its own constitution and the
words of the Declaration of Independence. Why else would it take
international criminals to Cuba? They are either soldiers, in which
case they are subject to the Geneva Conventions, or they are to be
charged with international crimes, in which case they must have the
rights of citizens of some country somewhere.
> E. You paint such a bleak picture of the USA. According to you, we must be
> dispirited, demoralized, and pessimistic. People vote with their feet. You
> did so and ended up in Norway. You are very unusual. The USA leads the world
> in productivity, satisfaction with way of life, and optimism for the future
> among its people.
Actually, Norway was this year's most livable country, I think,
according to a UN appraisal (probably another example of UN
incomptence?). But, no, I don't paint a bleak picture of the US. The
picture I paint is basically a picture that includes all the bits and
pieces you leave out. It isn't surprising that you leave them out,
because you live *in* the US and you only see the news and history that
the media and the system produce for you. The rest of the world sees a
different picture. Nicaragua saw the Sons of Reagan. The Arab
countries see the US supporting every dictatorship in the Arab world,
except Iraq and Iran. They see that the US used to support even the
dictatorships of Iraq and Iran, and they see that the US even made
Saddam Hussain, and they see the USA even installed the Shah of Iran.
And they see that the US financed and trained and equipped the
terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What did the Vietnamese see in
the 60s and 70s? What did Chile see in the 70s? How many examples do
you need to see before you figure out why the rest of the world doesn't
see the US the way you do?
> Let's move on to talk of Iraq now, shall we?
>
> What is the probability that Saddam Hussein is trying to develop weapons of
> mass destruction? What would be the impact of putting a nuclear device on a 25
> foot sailboat and tieing it to a mooring in the East River and then detonating
> it? What would be the impact of releasing aerolized anthrax in the NY subway
> system?
I agree, Larry. It would be a disaster. So let's make it impossible.
Let's destroy *all* nuclear weapons right now. Let's start with our
own. Lead by example, as President Bush has said he wants to do. Let's
be a shining example for the whole world. Since we aren't going to use
nuclear weapons anyway, let's get rid of them. Then Israel will get rid
of them, too. We will demand it. Very dangerous to have nuclear
weapons stored right there in the middle east where most of the
terrorists are. And then the UK and France will disarm, and Russia.
And finally India and Pakistan. Let's get rid of them all.
> What IS the probability? 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 1% 0.1%?
>
> At what probability level is pre-emptive use of force justified?
It isn't justified at all. High probability of developing weapons of
mass destruction justifies nothing, except inspections to find out the
truth.
> Answer the question, then we can proceed.
It is good that you found your life's work in biomedical research.
Everyone should be so fortunate.
Jason O'Rourke
>Regarding infant mortality and life expectancy, according to the CIA
>fact book, infant mortality in the US is 6.76 deaths per 1000 live
>births. In Norway, it is 3.94. Life expectancy in the US is 77.26
>years. In Norway, 78.79 years. Netherlands: 4.37 deaths, 78.43 years.
>UK, where you spent several years earlier this month: 5.54 deaths, 77.82
>years. That's as bad as I implied, and that's as bad as they are.
Infant mortality rates are mediocre in the US, but you're cherry picking
your data for Europe.
>Regarding ethnic groups (also from the CIA Fact Book):
>US - white 83.5%, black 12.4%, Asian 3.3%, Amerindian 0.8% (1992)
>
>UK - English 81.5%, Scottish 9.6%, Irish 2.4%, Welsh 1.9%, Ulster 1.8%,
>West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other 2.8%
This would also be misleading, as the source is old, and white is not separated
into caucasian and hispanic. And yes, to us, English Scottish Irish Welsh
and Ulster is all whites.
>I agree, Larry. It would be a disaster. So let's make it impossible.
>Let's destroy *all* nuclear weapons right now. Let's start with our
>own. Lead by example, as President Bush has said he wants to do. Let's
Only a fool would disarm himself. MAD has kept the peace for 50 years.
Giving it up would only encourage war, or the rise to power of the
first person to violate such an agreement. Any industrial power can join
the nuclear family - Japan could do it in a heartbeat. There's no need
for thousands of warheads, but the US would never do well to be without
a couple of subs, a couple ICBM sites, and a wing of cruise missile platforms.
>be a shining example for the whole world. Since we aren't going to use
>nuclear weapons anyway, let's get rid of them. Then Israel will get rid
>of them, too. We will demand it. Very dangerous to have nuclear
>weapons stored right there in the middle east where most of the
>terrorists are. And then the UK and France will disarm, and Russia.
Even more dangerous to not have them there. They would have been overrun
in 1973. And totally killed, like we saw tried in Yugoslavia. Why do you
think no Arab power has attacked Israel since that time - when they armed
their warheads?
ObSwimming - dragonboat paddling is good alternative to freestyle until the
end of the racing season - this weekend.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
Martin W. Smith
> Infant mortality rates are mediocre in the US, but you're cherry picking
> your data for Europe.
What countries do you want me to pick? The comparison makes sense when
you compare the infant mortality rates of first world countries.
> >Regarding ethnic groups (also from the CIA Fact Book):
> >US - white 83.5%, black 12.4%, Asian 3.3%, Amerindian 0.8% (1992)
> >
> >UK - English 81.5%, Scottish 9.6%, Irish 2.4%, Welsh 1.9%, Ulster 1.8%,
> >West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other 2.8%
>
> This would also be misleading, as the source is old, and white is not separated
> into caucasian and hispanic.
The infant moratlity rates are *not* misleading, so your use of "also
misleading" is misleading. The CIA source for the ethnic group
measurements was 1992. That's old? There are hispanic people in
Europe, too, remember. Europe consists of a lot of countries, which
makes for a lot of ethnic groups, and Europe has a lot o9f immigrants
from other countries not in Europe, more ethnic groups.
> And yes, to us, English Scottish Irish Welsh and Ulster is all whites.
Yes, but they are different ethnic groups.
> >I agree, Larry. It would be a disaster. So let's make it impossible.
> >Let's destroy *all* nuclear weapons right now. Let's start with our
> >own. Lead by example, as President Bush has said he wants to do. Let's
>
> Only a fool would disarm himself.
We're not talking about disarming, so this comment is a non sequitur. We
are talking about destroying all *nuclear* weapons.
> MAD has kept the peace for 50 years.
Are you claiming that both the US and USSR would have used nuclear
weapons on the other during the last 50 years if the other had not had
them? I think that is an extremely cynical speculation. It says a lot
about you and not very much about the US and USSR.
> Giving it up would only encourage war, or the rise to power of the
> first person to violate such an agreement.
You mean like Saddam Hussein, for example. I thought the idea was to
prevent these people from having nuclear wepaons, which is supposedly
why we must invade Iraq. Are you disagreeing with the Bush
administration by saying this is not so? And, apparently the threat
here is that Saddam Hussein intends to use nuclear weapons *despite*
MAD. Are you again saying President Bush is wrong, that Saddam Hussein
will *not* use nuclear weapons because of the MAD threat of a nuclear
response against him?
> Any industrial power can join
> the nuclear family - Japan could do it in a heartbeat. There's no need
> for thousands of warheads, but the US would never do well to be without
> a couple of subs, a couple ICBM sites, and a wing of cruise missile platforms.
You certainly haven't argued that case well. And you have argued the
case for every country to do the same, and to be allowed to do so, if
the US is allowed to do so. Better to eliminate all the nuclear
weapons, pass an international law prohibiting them, and then enforce
that law. We can have surprise weapons inspections just like surprise
drug tests in sport. Everybody will subscribe to these laws because, in
the first instance, the military and economic power of the US an its
allies will enforce them, just it will do in Iraq. Or are you claiming
it won't work because it won't work in Iraq. You're not clearing things
up at all.
> >be a shining example for the whole world. Since we aren't going to use
> >nuclear weapons anyway, let's get rid of them. Then Israel will get rid
> >of them, too. We will demand it. Very dangerous to have nuclear
> >weapons stored right there in the middle east where most of the
> >terrorists are. And then the UK and France will disarm, and Russia.
>
> Even more dangerous to not have them there. They would have been overrun
> in 1973. And totally killed, like we saw tried in Yugoslavia. Why do you
> think no Arab power has attacked Israel since that time - when they armed
> their warheads?
Whoa, what happened to MAD? No MAD there. Not much mention of Israeli
nuclear weapons either, since Israel never needed them. Israel won
because its conventional forces were better than the Arabs' and because
US provided massive assistance, which is what the world would now expect
from the one superpower in any situation like that. Plus, the IDF is a
lot better equiped now than it was then, and US and world diplomacy and
intelligence info would surely detect, if not prevent, another surprise
attack by a coalition of Arab states, as was the case in the 1973 war.
But I can't find any reference that indicates Israel's nuclear weapons
had anything to do with the outcome of the war, and you are claiming, if
I understand you correctly, that the Arabs actually gave up because
Israel armed its warheads. Here is the reference I found: "It is widely
reported that Israel had two bombs in 1967, and that Prime Minister
Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear alert during the
Six-Day War. It is also reported that, fearing defeat in the October
1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic
bombs." That's from a site on weapons of mass destruction:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
But I don't see anything indicating that the Arab countries would have
overrun Israel if Israel hadn't had nuclear bombs, let alone threatening
to use them. In fact, knowing that Israel did have nuclear bombs (if
indeed they knew, as you imply), Arab countries made multiple attempts
to overrun Israel. It is pretty clear now they wouldn't try it again,
given that the US would stop it immediately, with NATO's help.
Your argument doesn't hold water. It's a sieve.
Jeff
"Martin W. Smith" <m...@metis.no> wrote in message
news:3D9027A7...@metis.no...
> RunnSwim wrote:
> > What is the probability that Saddam Hussein is trying to develop weapons
of
> > mass destruction? What would be the impact of putting a nuclear device
on a 25
> > foot sailboat and tieing it to a mooring in the East River and then
detonating
> > it? What would be the impact of releasing aerolized anthrax in the NY
subway
> > system?
>
> I agree, Larry. It would be a disaster. So let's make it impossible.
> Let's destroy *all* nuclear weapons right now. Let's start with our
> own. Lead by example, as President Bush has said he wants to do. Let's
> be a shining example for the whole world. Since we aren't going to use
> nuclear weapons anyway, let's get rid of them. Then Israel will get rid
> of them, too. We will demand it. Very dangerous to have nuclear
> weapons stored right there in the middle east where most of the
> terrorists are. And then the UK and France will disarm, and Russia.
> And finally India and Pakistan. Let's get rid of them all.
Are you kidding? This isn't candyland, or whatever you'd like to call your
idealistic world. The more countries that destroy their nuclear weapons,
the more valuable the existing nukes become. All it takes is one rogue
nation to keep a couple of nukes in secret, and the rest of the world is
screwed. There is absolutely no way to guarantee that all nukes will be
destroyed, and that no more will be built. Until that can happen, no one
will disarm.
No, I am afraid that nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented. They are here
forever (or at least until they are obsololeted by even more effective
weapons).
People, we don't live in a civilized world! Your little neck of the woods
might be civilized, but overall we are still in the jungle, and the laws of
the jungle still apply. All this talk about "let's everyone live in peace"
is a joke. We're nowhere near advanced enough for that to happen. It's
still us versus them, and will be for centuries to come, if not forever.
So that is why I laugh at Europeans and whoever else, that try to guilt trip
the US into voluntarily giving up power. Every other nation has equally
evil intentions (if not more so) than the US's. They act as if they are
somehow enlightened, but the truth is that they only appear better-behaved
because they lack the power to do anything else. With that power in their
hands, they would do exactly what the US does, if not worse.
Jeff
Martin W. Smith
> > Let's destroy *all* nuclear weapons right now. Let's start with our
> > own. Lead by example, as President Bush has said he wants to do. Let's
> > be a shining example for the whole world. Since we aren't going to use
> > nuclear weapons anyway, let's get rid of them. Then Israel will get rid
> > of them, too. We will demand it. Very dangerous to have nuclear
> > weapons stored right there in the middle east where most of the
> > terrorists are. And then the UK and France will disarm, and Russia.
> > And finally India and Pakistan. Let's get rid of them all.
>
> Are you kidding? This isn't candyland, or whatever you'd like to call your
> idealistic world. The more countries that destroy their nuclear weapons,
> the more valuable the existing nukes become. All it takes is one rogue
> nation to keep a couple of nukes in secret, and the rest of the world is
> screwed.
That's true now, Jeff. And a rogue nation won't be deterred from using
a nuclear weapon by your MAD hypothesis. That's even part of the
argument for this preemptive strike. It doesn't matter to the argument
that a rogue nation might "keep a couple of nukes in secret" because as
soon as it made a threat, it would be invaded. Maintaining nuclear
arsenals is no longer a deterrent. That's the point.
> There is absolutely no way to guarantee that all nukes will be
> destroyed, and that no more will be built. Until that can happen, no one
> will disarm.
Again that's false. There is no guarantee that the a nation that has
nuclear weapons won't use them, but even so no nations are using them.
The inability to gaurantee there are no nuclear weapons is a red
herring. It doesn't matter. It is still true that all nations will be
safer if all nuclear weapons are destroyed. It is no longer a matter of
trusting the others or not.
> No, I am afraid that nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented. They are here
> forever (or at least until they are obsololeted by even more effective
> weapons).
>
> People, we don't live in a civilized world! Your little neck of the woods
> might be civilized, but overall we are still in the jungle, and the laws of
> the jungle still apply. All this talk about "let's everyone live in peace"
> is a joke. We're nowhere near advanced enough for that to happen. It's
> still us versus them, and will be for centuries to come, if not forever.
Do you know how much you sound like you *want* it to be that way. "Aw,
gee, do we really have to grow up now? I don't want to grow up. I want
to play in the sand pile with my nuclear bombs." That's what you sound
like. We don't need to uninvent anything. Or do you mean that since we
can't uninvent heroin and crack and marijuana, we should just legalize
them. And steroids, of course. We can't univent those either, so we
might as well legalize them. I agree, of course, but stretching the
we-can't-uninvent argument to nuclear weapons is being childish.
Nuclear weapons aren't exactly a mass market item. The elements who
would actually use nuclear weapons are not nation states but terrorist
cells. They will not be deterred by any threat of retaliation, nuclear
or otherwise.
> So that is why I laugh at Europeans and whoever else, that try to guilt trip
> the US into voluntarily giving up power. Every other nation has equally
> evil intentions (if not more so) than the US's. They act as if they are
> somehow enlightened, but the truth is that they only appear better-behaved
> because they lack the power to do anything else. With that power in their
> hands, they would do exactly what the US does, if not worse.
Keep laughing, Jeff. The rest of the world will keep working.
Jeff
"Martin W. Smith" <m...@metis.no> wrote in message
news:3D904188...@metis.no...
> Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> > >I agree, Larry. It would be a disaster. So let's make it impossible.
> > >Let's destroy *all* nuclear weapons right now. Let's start with our
> > >own. Lead by example, as President Bush has said he wants to do.
Let's
> >
> > Only a fool would disarm himself.
>
> We're not talking about disarming, so this comment is a non sequitur. We
> are talking about destroying all *nuclear* weapons.
disarm, v:
1.. To divest of a weapon or weapons.
You use the word "disarm" to mean divest of *all* weapons, which is not
correct.
> > MAD has kept the peace for 50 years.
>
> Are you claiming that both the US and USSR would have used nuclear
> weapons on the other during the last 50 years if the other had not had
> them? I think that is an extremely cynical speculation. It says a lot
> about you and not very much about the US and USSR.
There might have been other reasons we would not have attacked each other,
but the one staring us right in the face was MAD.
It's pure speculation whether each country would really have attacked the
other. The point is that both countries believed MAD was the only thing
preventing the other from attacking. In that sense, it *did* keep the
peace.
> > Giving it up would only encourage war, or the rise to power of the
> > first person to violate such an agreement.
>
> You mean like Saddam Hussein, for example. I thought the idea was to
> prevent these people from having nuclear wepaons, which is supposedly
> why we must invade Iraq. Are you disagreeing with the Bush
> administration by saying this is not so? And, apparently the threat
> here is that Saddam Hussein intends to use nuclear weapons *despite*
> MAD. Are you again saying President Bush is wrong, that Saddam Hussein
> will *not* use nuclear weapons because of the MAD threat of a nuclear
> response against him?
MAD only works with *rational* people at the controls. When a single
nutcase, (ie, Hussein) is calling the shots, anything's possible.
> > Any industrial power can join
> > the nuclear family - Japan could do it in a heartbeat. There's no need
> > for thousands of warheads, but the US would never do well to be without
> > a couple of subs, a couple ICBM sites, and a wing of cruise missile
platforms.
>
> You certainly haven't argued that case well. And you have argued the
> case for every country to do the same, and to be allowed to do so, if
> the US is allowed to do so. Better to eliminate all the nuclear
> weapons, pass an international law prohibiting them, and then enforce
> that law. We can have surprise weapons inspections just like surprise
> drug tests in sport. Everybody will subscribe to these laws because, in
> the first instance, the military and economic power of the US an its
> allies will enforce them, just it will do in Iraq. Or are you claiming
> it won't work because it won't work in Iraq. You're not clearing things
> up at all.
It might not work in Iraq - despite our best efforts, they might be able to
keep some big weapons in hiding. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to
find them. Iraq's not very big. It's harder for them to hide things, than
say, China or Russia. There's no way to police the world on nuclear
weapons. There's just too much at stake, the process would be easily
corrupted.
Martin W. Smith
>
> "Martin W. Smith" <m...@metis.no> wrote in message
> news:3D904188...@metis.no...
> > Jason O'Rourke wrote:
>
> > > >I agree, Larry. It would be a disaster. So let's make it impossible.
> > > >Let's destroy *all* nuclear weapons right now. Let's start with our
> > > >own. Lead by example, as President Bush has said he wants to do.
> Let's
> > >
> > > Only a fool would disarm himself.
> >
> > We're not talking about disarming, so this comment is a non sequitur. We
> > are talking about destroying all *nuclear* weapons.
>
> disarm, v:
> 1.. To divest of a weapon or weapons.
> You use the word "disarm" to mean divest of *all* weapons, which is not
> correct.
Yes, it was. You said "Only a fool would disarm himself." Your
statement clearly implies disarming in the sense of not having any arms
at all. The dictionary won't help you there. But, ok, then we agree
that even intelligent people, let alone fools, would be willing to drop
their nuclear weapons if they can keep their trusty sixshooters.
> > > MAD has kept the peace for 50 years.
> >
> > Are you claiming that both the US and USSR would have used nuclear
> > weapons on the other during the last 50 years if the other had not had
> > them? I think that is an extremely cynical speculation. It says a lot
> > about you and not very much about the US and USSR.
>
> There might have been other reasons we would not have attacked each other,
> but the one staring us right in the face was MAD.
And, thankfully, we'll never know if your Tom Clancy hypothesis was
true.
> It's pure speculation whether each country would really have attacked the
> other. The point is that both countries believed MAD was the only thing
> preventing the other from attacking. In that sense, it *did* keep the
> peace.
No, it didn't. We invaded Vietname, Cambodia, and Laos. The Soviet
Uninion invaded Afghanistan. India and Pakistan fought more than once.
Iraq and Iran fought. We overthrew the governments of multiple
countries. There was no nuclear war, but your definition of peace
sounds like: peace in the US.
> > > Giving it up would only encourage war, or the rise to power of the
> > > first person to violate such an agreement.
> >
> > You mean like Saddam Hussein, for example. I thought the idea was to
> > prevent these people from having nuclear wepaons, which is supposedly
> > why we must invade Iraq. Are you disagreeing with the Bush
> > administration by saying this is not so? And, apparently the threat
> > here is that Saddam Hussein intends to use nuclear weapons *despite*
> > MAD. Are you again saying President Bush is wrong, that Saddam Hussein
> > will *not* use nuclear weapons because of the MAD threat of a nuclear
> > response against him?
>
> MAD only works with *rational* people at the controls. When a single
> nutcase, (ie, Hussein) is calling the shots, anything's possible.
That's right. MAD, if it works depends on rational people at the
controls. That disproves your rogue state argument.
> > > Any industrial power can join
> > > the nuclear family - Japan could do it in a heartbeat. There's no need
> > > for thousands of warheads, but the US would never do well to be without
> > > a couple of subs, a couple ICBM sites, and a wing of cruise missile
> platforms.
> >
> > You certainly haven't argued that case well. And you have argued the
> > case for every country to do the same, and to be allowed to do so, if
> > the US is allowed to do so. Better to eliminate all the nuclear
> > weapons, pass an international law prohibiting them, and then enforce
> > that law. We can have surprise weapons inspections just like surprise
> > drug tests in sport. Everybody will subscribe to these laws because, in
> > the first instance, the military and economic power of the US an its
> > allies will enforce them, just it will do in Iraq. Or are you claiming
> > it won't work because it won't work in Iraq. You're not clearing things
> > up at all.
>
> It might not work in Iraq - despite our best efforts, they might be able to
> keep some big weapons in hiding. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to
> find them. Iraq's not very big. It's harder for them to hide things, than
> say, China or Russia. There's no way to police the world on nuclear
> weapons. There's just too much at stake, the process would be easily
> corrupted.
I'm in complete agreement that we should try to find them. Iraq has
agreed to allow "unfettered inspection." We should take the deal and
start looking. Adding a new UN resolution to underscore the
consequences is fine. That doesn't detract from the nuclear disarmament
proposal.
The world can police the the world. Review the history of the US in the
first half of the century. State laws were found to be inadequate for
dealing with kidnapping, bank roberry, alcohol and guns, drugs, etc. So
we created federal laws, federal courts, and federal police to deal with
them. We created federal institutions to deal with federal crimes. We
have the same need now at the international level. We need
international laws, international courts, and international police to
deal with international crimes. We need corresponding international
institutions. You can't argue against their creation without arguing
against the US federal laws, federal courts, and federal police.
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" <m...@metis.no> wrote in message
> > > I agree, Larry. It would be a disaster. So let's make it impossible.
> > > Let's destroy *all* nuclear weapons right now. Let's start with our
> > > own. Lead by example, as President Bush has said he wants to do.
Let's
> > > be a shining example for the whole world. Since we aren't going to
use
> > > nuclear weapons anyway, let's get rid of them. Then Israel will get
rid
> > > of them, too. We will demand it. Very dangerous to have nuclear
> > > weapons stored right there in the middle east where most of the
> > > terrorists are. And then the UK and France will disarm, and Russia.
> > > And finally India and Pakistan. Let's get rid of them all.
> >
> > Are you kidding? This isn't candyland, or whatever you'd like to call
your
> > idealistic world. The more countries that destroy their nuclear
weapons,
> > the more valuable the existing nukes become. All it takes is one rogue
> > nation to keep a couple of nukes in secret, and the rest of the world is
> > screwed.
>
> That's true now, Jeff. And a rogue nation won't be deterred from using
> a nuclear weapon by your MAD hypothesis.
Why not? While it's possible that a rogue nation would strike despite
knowing they'd be destroyed.... how does taking away MAD make things
*better*? I think it only makes them more likely to strike, when they know
they are more likely to survive the retaliation.
> That's even part of the
> argument for this preemptive strike. It doesn't matter to the argument
> that a rogue nation might "keep a couple of nukes in secret" because as
> soon as it made a threat, it would be invaded. Maintaining nuclear
> arsenals is no longer a deterrent. That's the point.
By the time the threat is detected, an invasion is too late. The time
needed between making a threat, and detonating a nuke on foreign soil, is
measured in minutes. How fast can an invasion be prepared and carried out?
Certainly not fast enough. How will an invasion prevent the launch of an
ICBM? How will it prevent a terrorist from carrying a suitcase nuke into a
foreign city? It can't. MAD is the best assurance against the use of
nukes.
> > There is absolutely no way to guarantee that all nukes will be
> > destroyed, and that no more will be built. Until that can happen, no
one
> > will disarm.
>
> Again that's false. There is no guarantee that the a nation that has
> nuclear weapons won't use them, but even so no nations are using them.
At the end of the day, it's because of MAD. When was the only time nukes
were used? In 1945 when the US had the only two bombs, and MAD did not
exist. If the Japanese had the bomb also, do you still think we would have
nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Hell no!
> The inability to gaurantee there are no nuclear weapons is a red
> herring. It doesn't matter. It is still true that all nations will be
> safer if all nuclear weapons are destroyed. It is no longer a matter of
> trusting the others or not.
Sorry, I don't believe that. If nukes could be uninvented, I'd be all for
it. But they cannot, it's too late. They are too valuable, and too many
people know how to make them.
> > No, I am afraid that nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented. They are
here
> > forever (or at least until they are obsololeted by even more effective
> > weapons).
> >
> > People, we don't live in a civilized world! Your little neck of the
woods
> > might be civilized, but overall we are still in the jungle, and the laws
of
> > the jungle still apply. All this talk about "let's everyone live in
peace"
> > is a joke. We're nowhere near advanced enough for that to happen. It's
> > still us versus them, and will be for centuries to come, if not forever.
>
> Do you know how much you sound like you *want* it to be that way. "Aw,
> gee, do we really have to grow up now? I don't want to grow up. I want
> to play in the sand pile with my nuclear bombs." That's what you sound
> like.
I can't believe you accuse me of being childish, and say "this is what you
sound like", in the same breath!
> We don't need to uninvent anything. Or do you mean that since we
> can't uninvent heroin and crack and marijuana, we should just legalize
> them. And steroids, of course. We can't univent those either, so we
> might as well legalize them.
YES!!!! For once we agree.
> I agree, of course, but stretching the
> we-can't-uninvent argument to nuclear weapons is being childish.
> Nuclear weapons aren't exactly a mass market item. The elements who
> would actually use nuclear weapons are not nation states but terrorist
> cells. They will not be deterred by any threat of retaliation, nuclear
> or otherwise.
No? I think *most* of them would. Terrorists believe strongly in their
cause. While they are not themselves afraid of death, they are sacrificing
their own life so that their countrymen's lives might be improved. Wouldn't
they have died in vain, if the retaliation destroyed everything they are
trying to save? Aren't most of them smart enough to realize that?
> > So that is why I laugh at Europeans and whoever else, that try to guilt
trip
> > the US into voluntarily giving up power. Every other nation has
equally
> > evil intentions (if not more so) than the US's. They act as if they are
> > somehow enlightened, but the truth is that they only appear
better-behaved
> > because they lack the power to do anything else. With that power in
their
> > hands, they would do exactly what the US does, if not worse.
>
> Keep laughing, Jeff. The rest of the world will keep working.
Yes, working to sieze power from the US and do their own bidding. Good luck
with that.
Jeff
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" <m...@metis.no> wrote in message
> > news:3D904188...@metis.no...
> > > Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> > > > Only a fool would disarm himself.
> > >
> > > We're not talking about disarming, so this comment is a non sequitur.
We
> > > are talking about destroying all *nuclear* weapons.
> >
> > disarm, v:
> > 1.. To divest of a weapon or weapons.
> > You use the word "disarm" to mean divest of *all* weapons, which is not
> > correct.
>
> Yes, it was. You said "Only a fool would disarm himself." Your
> statement clearly implies disarming in the sense of not having any arms
> at all. The dictionary won't help you there. But, ok, then we agree
> that even intelligent people, let alone fools, would be willing to drop
> their nuclear weapons if they can keep their trusty sixshooters.
Actually it was Jason who said that, not me. Ask him what he meant, I can
only assume he meant "disarm" the way it's defined.
> > > > MAD has kept the peace for 50 years.
> > It's pure speculation whether each country would really have attacked
the
> > other. The point is that both countries believed MAD was the only thing
> > preventing the other from attacking. In that sense, it *did* keep the
> > peace.
>
> No, it didn't. We invaded Vietname, Cambodia, and Laos. The Soviet
> Uninion invaded Afghanistan. India and Pakistan fought more than once.
> Iraq and Iran fought. We overthrew the governments of multiple
> countries. There was no nuclear war, but your definition of peace
> sounds like: peace in the US.
The original statement was peace between USSR and the USA.
> > > > Giving it up would only encourage war, or the rise to power of the
> > > > first person to violate such an agreement.
> > >
> > > You mean like Saddam Hussein, for example. I thought the idea was to
> > > prevent these people from having nuclear wepaons, which is supposedly
> > > why we must invade Iraq. Are you disagreeing with the Bush
> > > administration by saying this is not so? And, apparently the threat
> > > here is that Saddam Hussein intends to use nuclear weapons *despite*
> > > MAD. Are you again saying President Bush is wrong, that Saddam
Hussein
> > > will *not* use nuclear weapons because of the MAD threat of a nuclear
> > > response against him?
> >
> > MAD only works with *rational* people at the controls. When a single
> > nutcase, (ie, Hussein) is calling the shots, anything's possible.
>
> That's right. MAD, if it works depends on rational people at the
> controls. That disproves your rogue state argument.
What rogue state argument? You are ascribing words to me that came from
someone else!
My point is that while it true that even with MAD, it's possible to have a
nuclear attack, it's less likely than when you attempt to divest the world
of nuclear arms, thereby creating a huge imbalance. That why I find the US
remarkably well behaved, considering how heavily the scales lean in their
favor, when it comes to conventional weapons.
> > It might not work in Iraq - despite our best efforts, they might be able
to
> > keep some big weapons in hiding. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try
to
> > find them. Iraq's not very big. It's harder for them to hide things,
than
> > say, China or Russia. There's no way to police the world on nuclear
> > weapons. There's just too much at stake, the process would be easily
> > corrupted.
>
> I'm in complete agreement that we should try to find them. Iraq has
> agreed to allow "unfettered inspection." We should take the deal and
> start looking. Adding a new UN resolution to underscore the
> consequences is fine. That doesn't detract from the nuclear disarmament
> proposal.
>
> The world can police the the world. Review the history of the US in the
> first half of the century. State laws were found to be inadequate for
> dealing with kidnapping, bank roberry, alcohol and guns, drugs, etc. So
> we created federal laws, federal courts, and federal police to deal with
> them. We created federal institutions to deal with federal crimes. We
> have the same need now at the international level. We need
> international laws, international courts, and international police to
> deal with international crimes. We need corresponding international
> institutions. You can't argue against their creation without arguing
> against the US federal laws, federal courts, and federal police.
I believe I can! There is a difference between a government for people,
and a government for governments. I don't believe the same principles
necessarily apply.
Martin W. Smith
> > a nuclear weapon by your MAD hypothesis.
>
> Why not?
Because, as you yourself have said in another message, the MAD strategy
depends on rational people being in power. Rogue state means the
leaders are irrational.
> While it's possible that a rogue nation would strike despite
> knowing they'd be destroyed.... how does taking away MAD make things
> *better*?
Because it takes away all of the verifiable nuclear weapons.
> I think it only makes them more likely to strike, when they know
> they are more likely to survive the retaliation.
That would be irrational, because they wouldn't survive athe
retaliation. The world would retaliate. The retaliation doesn't have
to be nuclear just because the original attack was nuclear.
> > That's even part of the
> > argument for this preemptive strike. It doesn't matter to the argument
> > that a rogue nation might "keep a couple of nukes in secret" because as
> > soon as it made a threat, it would be invaded. Maintaining nuclear
> > arsenals is no longer a deterrent. That's the point.
>
> By the time the threat is detected, an invasion is too late. The time
> needed between making a threat, and detonating a nuke on foreign soil, is
> measured in minutes.
Again, that can happen *now*. Nobody's nuclear weapons are doing
anything to deter it. That game is over. We won.
> How fast can an invasion be prepared and carried out?
> Certainly not fast enough. How will an invasion prevent the launch of an
> ICBM? How will it prevent a terrorist from carrying a suitcase nuke into a
> foreign city? It can't. MAD is the best assurance against the use of
> nukes.
ICBMs are irrelevant. If a rogue state detonates a nuclear device, it
will be in the hold of a ship coming into port, or in the back of UPS
truck. And President Bush is building his new Star Wars defense
anyway. It will be much cheaper for all of us to just agree to nuclear
disarmament and continually inspect everybody to ensure compliance. We
do it for drugs in sport; it will be easier to do for nuclear bombs,
especially bombs mounted on ICBMs. You can't just do an Inky with an
ICBM. They're even bigger than she is.
> At the end of the day, it's because of MAD. When was the only time nukes
> were used? In 1945 when the US had the only two bombs, and MAD did not
> exist. If the Japanese had the bomb also, do you still think we would have
> nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Hell no!
The logical extension of your argument is that the more MAD
relationships we have, the safer the world will be. so we should
welcome more members into the nuclear family instead of trying to keep
them out. Get off the MAD thing. You sound like, I don't know, Charles
Krauthammer, or Richard Perl.
> > I agree, of course, but stretching the
> > we-can't-uninvent argument to nuclear weapons is being childish.
> > Nuclear weapons aren't exactly a mass market item. The elements who
> > would actually use nuclear weapons are not nation states but terrorist
> > cells. They will not be deterred by any threat of retaliation, nuclear
> > or otherwise.
>
> No? I think *most* of them would. Terrorists believe strongly in their
> cause. While they are not themselves afraid of death, they are sacrificing
> their own life so that their countrymen's lives might be improved. Wouldn't
> they have died in vain, if the retaliation destroyed everything they are
> trying to save? Aren't most of them smart enough to realize that?
No. Look at all the fundamentalists in the US, for example, who believe
the Bible is literally true. That's got nothing to do with smart. Like
the physicist would say, "It isn't even wrong."
> > Keep laughing, Jeff. The rest of the world will keep working.
>
> Yes, working to sieze power from the US and do their own bidding. Good luck
> with that.
There you go. Paranoia. I thought it would come down to either that or
religious fanaticism.
Martin W. Smith
> I believe I can! There is a difference between a government for people,
> and a government for governments. I don't believe the same principles
> necessarily apply.
Who said anything about a government for governments. We're talking
about democratic institutions, eventually (probably) necessitating a
structure similar to the US government, where there are representatives
based on population (House) and representatives based on nation states
(Senate). The long term effect would probably be to induce large
countries, like China, India, Russia, and the US to break up like the
USSR to gain more representation in the senate. As this happened, the
whole thing would become more and more democratic.
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" <m...@metis.no> wrote in message
> > > That's true now, Jeff. And a rogue nation won't be deterred from
using
> > > a nuclear weapon by your MAD hypothesis.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because, as you yourself have said in another message, the MAD strategy
> depends on rational people being in power. Rogue state means the
> leaders are irrational.
I have no idea where you get this definition of rogue state.
> > While it's possible that a rogue nation would strike despite
> > knowing they'd be destroyed.... how does taking away MAD make things
> > *better*?
>
> Because it takes away all of the verifiable nuclear weapons.
No! Taking away MAD only means taking the nukes away from ONE side, not
both!
> > I think it only makes them more likely to strike, when they know
> > they are more likely to survive the retaliation.
>
> That would be irrational, because they wouldn't survive athe
> retaliation. The world would retaliate. The retaliation doesn't have
> to be nuclear just because the original attack was nuclear.
You cannot achieve anywhere near the same level of destruction with
conventional weapons. If you could, nukes would be completely irrelevant.
And you would not be so vehement in your call to rid the world of them.
> > > That's even part of the
> > > argument for this preemptive strike. It doesn't matter to the
argument
> > > that a rogue nation might "keep a couple of nukes in secret" because
as
> > > soon as it made a threat, it would be invaded. Maintaining nuclear
> > > arsenals is no longer a deterrent. That's the point.
> >
> > By the time the threat is detected, an invasion is too late. The time
> > needed between making a threat, and detonating a nuke on foreign soil,
is
> > measured in minutes.
>
> Again, that can happen *now*. Nobody's nuclear weapons are doing
> anything to deter it. That game is over. We won.
The game's not over, just stalemated. No one is getting blown up. Why not
leave well-enough alone?
> > At the end of the day, it's because of MAD. When was the only time
nukes
> > were used? In 1945 when the US had the only two bombs, and MAD did not
> > exist. If the Japanese had the bomb also, do you still think we would
have
> > nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Hell no!
>
> The logical extension of your argument is that the more MAD
> relationships we have, the safer the world will be. so we should
> welcome more members into the nuclear family instead of trying to keep
> them out. Get off the MAD thing. You sound like, I don't know, Charles
> Krauthammer, or Richard Perl.
Well, let's see here. How many times have nuclear weapons been used since
1945? ZERO! Why do you think that is?
> > No? I think *most* of them would. Terrorists believe strongly in their
> > cause. While they are not themselves afraid of death, they are
sacrificing
> > their own life so that their countrymen's lives might be improved.
Wouldn't
> > they have died in vain, if the retaliation destroyed everything they are
> > trying to save? Aren't most of them smart enough to realize that?
>
> No. Look at all the fundamentalists in the US, for example, who believe
> the Bible is literally true. That's got nothing to do with smart. Like
> the physicist would say, "It isn't even wrong."
This doesn't address my point at all. So what if people are religious
fanatics? That doesn't mean they can't put two and two together. Again,
note that nuclear weapons have never been used, except for when only one
country had them. What does that tell you?
> > > Keep laughing, Jeff. The rest of the world will keep working.
> >
> > Yes, working to sieze power from the US and do their own bidding. Good
luck
> > with that.
>
> There you go. Paranoia. I thought it would come down to either that or
> religious fanaticism.
You are funny. "Don't be paranoid, USA. We Europeans are so much more
peaceful and smart than you are. Give us your army. We'll do the right
thing. That whole Germans-trying-to-take-over-the-world thing was soooo
long ago, that will never happen again. Trust us." A regular laugh riot.
Jeff
Paul Gormley
"Jeff" <wei...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3d908385$1...@nntp2.nac.net...
in the internal affairs of any country it sees fit (Chile, Nicaragua, Korea,
Vietnam, Iran etc) without being held to account for their actions. It
sounds like the Bush administration is against an international court of
justice because the only country allowed to police the world is the US,
wielding its big military stick at anyone in disagreement.
Robert H. Diday, Jr.
leader, ad nauseam. Does this sound like the voice of reason? Is this
the way to win friends and influence people around the world? Sheezh.
And his unbridled support (excepting his condemnation of the
destruction of Arafat's compound) for that butcher Sharon is
unbelievable. Sharon is responsible for more Israeli deaths than the
impotent Arafat ever will be. More war is not the answer in the
Middle East. Sharon and Arafat should both be exiled to Elba. :),
-Robert
Robert H. Diday, Jr.
this, but you must know by now that Larry just loves to tease the
monkeys. Sometimes it's hard to tell which Larry is which. "Will the
real Larry please stand up?" :), Getting well outside the dialectic
and traditional "box" is his style. He's a wonderful fellow
regardless, or perhaps because of, his quirks.
-Robert
Robert H. Diday, Jr.
scholars are heaping praise on Reagan? This guy worked for Reagan.
Sheezh. He spends half his time tooting his own horn.
I may have voted for a Republican dog catcher once, but I NEVER voted
for a Republican presidential candidate and at this rate-with the
Supremes making the calls-I doubt I ever will.
Reagan was an honest idiot. Granted.
On the other hand, didn't we see him swim in one of his early flicks?
(this thread is now relevant).
-Robert
Donald Graft
>You sound like, I don't know, Charles
> Krauthammer, or Richard Perl.
And that's a bad thing??? :-)
Don
Donald Graft
incapable of rational thinking. IMHO.
Don
"Robert H. Diday, Jr." <rdi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:sap1pusjv644ojo5e...@4ax.com...
Jason O'Rourke
>> Infant mortality rates are mediocre in the US, but you're cherry picking
>> your data for Europe.
>What countries do you want me to pick? The comparison makes sense when
>you compare the infant mortality rates of first world countries.
UK (5.63), Spain (4.99), Italy (5.92), Portugal (6.05) Hungary (9.15)
Greece (6.51), Russia (20.33), Turkey (48.90).
The lower threshold seems to be a tad under 4, lead by Japan and with a few
of the Scandinavians. Many are in the 4s, most of the rest in the 5s, and 6s
bring up the rear for the wealthy nations. But even at that, they're still
well ahead of the rest of the world.
>> Only a fool would disarm himself.
>
>We're not talking about disarming, so this comment is a non sequitur. We
>are talking about destroying all *nuclear* weapons.
That is unilateral disarmament. No weapon (not even Star Wars) can stop a nuke
and you can never ensure that your adversaries have kept up their end of the
bargain.
>> MAD has kept the peace for 50 years.
>
>Are you claiming that both the US and USSR would have used nuclear
>weapons on the other during the last 50 years if the other had not had
>them? I think that is an extremely cynical speculation. It says a lot
>about you and not very much about the US and USSR.
It's not speculation - it is FACT that nuclear enemies are peaceful ones.
In the 50 years before Hiroshima, world power fought constantly for domination,
killing hundreds of millions. Since then, there has not been a single direct
conflict between major powers, only proxy fights like Afghanistan and Vietnam.
If the Soviets did not have nukes, Castro and Cuba would not have survived.
>You mean like Saddam Hussein, for example. I thought the idea was to
>prevent these people from having nuclear wepaons, which is supposedly
>why we must invade Iraq. Are you disagreeing with the Bush
>administration by saying this is not so? And, apparently the threat
>here is that Saddam Hussein intends to use nuclear weapons *despite*
>MAD. Are you again saying President Bush is wrong, that Saddam Hussein
>will *not* use nuclear weapons because of the MAD threat of a nuclear
>response against him?
Too many questions to bother with one by one. In short, Hussein cannot use
nuclear weapons. He couldn't even launch chemical weapons at Israel using
the Scuds. Why? Because we and the Israelis can nuke Bagdad. It's that
simple. The Bush Administration wants to send a message, similar to the one
sent to the Taliban. Fuck with this country and you will be finished.
The PR line is about weapons, but Hussein has shown himself to be anything
but suicidal. He likes to walk on the edge, but he'll back down if Bush
lets him. (He might not)
>You certainly haven't argued that case well. And you have argued the
>case for every country to do the same, and to be allowed to do so, if
>the US is allowed to do so. Better to eliminate all the nuclear
>weapons, pass an international law prohibiting them, and then enforce
>that law. We can have surprise weapons inspections just like surprise
No country would agree to do so. The French won't - they're tired of
surrendering. The Chinese won't - they don't trust the international
committee after years of getting screwed on the Olympics. Israel won't
even admit having nukes, let alone a 1000 of them. Pakistan is still too
much in love with having them, and besides, India has em. Russia still
wants to feel important, and the same applies to the UK. And then we come
to the Americans who like the current state of affairs as the single superpower
and won't do anything to give that up.
Even if we accept your assumption that ANYone would agree to it, we're then
faced with a scenario where the reward for cheating is huge. Anyone with
nuclear power continues to generate more nuclear material, and we can't exactly
get rid off all the current fissionable material. China could use the threat
of them to sieze Taiwan, and the rest of Asia. Iraq could reannex Kuwait and
grab Iran.
Or say everyone does behave. Then the US becomes an even bigger badass than
before, since the nuke is the only weapon that diminishes America's tech
superiority on the battlefield.
>But I can't find any reference that indicates Israel's nuclear weapons
>had anything to do with the outcome of the war, and you are claiming, if
And where are you looking?
And why has no Arab state launched an attack in the past 30 years, even though
the rhetoric has remained? Now they're reduced to whining to the UN.
Jason O'Rourke
>Because, as you yourself have said in another message, the MAD strategy
>depends on rational people being in power. Rogue state means the
>leaders are irrational.
MAD relies on both sides having a credible counterstrike capability.
Nothing more. And no, leaders are not irrational.
>That would be irrational, because they wouldn't survive athe
>retaliation. The world would retaliate. The retaliation doesn't have
>to be nuclear just because the original attack was nuclear.
What would you use instead? The US dropped more ordinance on Vietnam than used
in WWII, and despite being far less land mass, did not succeed. More recently,
the US has bombed Iraq left and right numerous times and still has not done
the job. Non nuclear destruction can be repaired. And it takes too many
conventional bombs to match a single 200Kt warhead.
>ICBMs are irrelevant. If a rogue state detonates a nuclear device, it
>will be in the hold of a ship coming into port, or in the back of UPS
>truck. And President Bush is building his new Star Wars defense
Exactly correct. This is why you can never verify that the world is nuclear free.
>anyway. It will be much cheaper for all of us to just agree to nuclear
>disarmament and continually inspect everybody to ensure compliance. We
>do it for drugs in sport; it will be easier to do for nuclear bombs,
Yes, sports are remarkably clean of drugs. I hope you didn't think this
analogy would be comforting.
>especially bombs mounted on ICBMs. You can't just do an Inky with an
>ICBM. They're even bigger than she is.
So long as we launch satellites into space, they can be used to lob nukes.
How would you verify otherwise?
>The logical extension of your argument is that the more MAD
>relationships we have, the safer the world will be. so we should
>welcome more members into the nuclear family instead of trying to keep
>them out. Get off the MAD thing. You sound like, I don't know, Charles
the world would be safer, but the US would become weaker.
Martin W. Smith
>
> Euroweenies and liberals -- totally disconnected from reality and
> incapable of rational thinking. IMHO.
To give us an idea of the quality of your humility in this case, can you
share with us one of your opinions that is *not* humble? I think you're
using a definition of humble opinion that I've never heard before.
Martin W. Smith
>
> >Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> >> Infant mortality rates are mediocre in the US, but you're cherry picking
> >> your data for Europe.
> >What countries do you want me to pick? The comparison makes sense when
> >you compare the infant mortality rates of first world countries.
>
> UK (5.63), Spain (4.99), Italy (5.92), Portugal (6.05)
I think those are first world countries. Maybe not Portugal. These are
*not* first world countries:
> Hungary (9.15) Greece (6.51), Russia (20.33), Turkey (48.90).
Well, Greece might be a first world country, but the point is still made
that the US is the richest most powerful country in the history of the
human race, but it's infant mortality rate is high compared to other,
less economically powerful first world countries.
> The lower threshold seems to be a tad under 4, lead by Japan and with a few
> of the Scandinavians. Many are in the 4s, most of the rest in the 5s, and 6s
> bring up the rear for the wealthy nations. But even at that, they're still
> well ahead of the rest of the world.
I assume you mean the US, when you say "they're still ahead of the rest
of the world." Are you really proud that the US infant mortality is
less than Russia's and Turkey's? What a grand achievment for the
richest, most powerful nation, which could have the lowest infant
mortality of all, but chooses not to.
> >> Only a fool would disarm himself.
> >
> >We're not talking about disarming, so this comment is a non sequitur. We
> >are talking about destroying all *nuclear* weapons.
>
> That is unilateral disarmament. No weapon (not even Star Wars) can stop a nuke
> and you can never ensure that your adversaries have kept up their end of the
> bargain.
Yes, you can. You can keep inspecting, and, more important, you can
keep working to make a better life for everyone, thereby minimizing
support for terrorism. The fact that you can never prove there are no
nuclear weapons doesn't justify creating nuclear weapons. That would be
silly. We can never prove there is no one out there who can destroy the
world. Therefore we must ensure that we always have the best capability
to destroy the world.
And we don't have to do this unilaterally. We can pair off with
Russia. India can pair off with Pakistan. Israel can wait until all
the Arab countries are irrevocably committed to becoming democracies.
France and England can disarm unilaterally.
> >> MAD has kept the peace for 50 years.
> >
> >Are you claiming that both the US and USSR would have used nuclear
> >weapons on the other during the last 50 years if the other had not had
> >them? I think that is an extremely cynical speculation. It says a lot
> >about you and not very much about the US and USSR.
>
> It's not speculation - it is FACT that nuclear enemies are peaceful ones.
But that alleged fact is irrelevent to the point on which you
speculated. Look up "ignoratio elenchi" for an explanation of your
logical error.
And, then the US's position that nuclear arms should not proliferate is
faulty, which is nonsense. That refutes your argument. And it is false
on the face of it, as I already pointed out. The US fought in Vietnam,
Cambodia, and Laos, and instigated and supported wars in Nicaragua,
Chile, Indonesia, and others. The Soviet Union fought in Afghanistan
(instigated by the US) and several places behind the Iron curtain.
India and Pakistan have fought numerous times and are fighting now. So
nuclear enemies are *not* peaceful ones. And, if nuclear enemies don't
use nuclear weapons against each other when they have them, they won't
use them against each other when they don't have them. Your position is
based on the belief that the holder of a nuclear weapon will use it
simply because nobody else has one, and that it will not use a nuclear
weapon if someone else has one. There is no proof of this. On the other
hand, Israel has nuclear weapons. It could use them against Iraq, and
it knows that neither the US nor Russia would retaliate against Israel
with a nuclear attack.
Are you going to admit that nuclear weapons prevented the west from
helping Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia, Poland?
It's also a fact that non-nuclear enemies are peaceful ones. It's also
a fact that there have been numerous enemy situations in the last fifty
years in which one of the enemies was a nuclear power and the other
wasn't, and no nuclear weapons were used.
> In the 50 years before Hiroshima, world power fought constantly for domination,
> killing hundreds of millions. Since then, there has not been a single direct
> conflict between major powers, only proxy fights like Afghanistan and Vietnam.
And that's much better. Proxy wars are not wars? and wars between minor
powers are not important? Good argument for wepons of mass
destruction. The more we have the safer we are.
> If the Soviets did not have nukes, Castro and Cuba would not have survived.
Of course not, and people from other stars travel all the way across the
galaxy and communicate with us by tramping down stocks of corn.
> >You mean like Saddam Hussein, for example. I thought the idea was to
> >prevent these people from having nuclear wepaons, which is supposedly
> >why we must invade Iraq. Are you disagreeing with the Bush
> >administration by saying this is not so? And, apparently the threat
> >here is that Saddam Hussein intends to use nuclear weapons *despite*
> >MAD. Are you again saying President Bush is wrong, that Saddam Hussein
> >will *not* use nuclear weapons because of the MAD threat of a nuclear
> >response against him?
>
> Too many questions to bother with one by one. In short, Hussein cannot use
> nuclear weapons. He couldn't even launch chemical weapons at Israel using
> the Scuds. Why? Because we and the Israelis can nuke Bagdad. It's that
> simple.
He used chemical weapons. Nobody even lifted a finger, let alone use it
to press the button. Then he invaded Kuwait. And then he launched
scuds. You're not scoring a lot of points here.
> The Bush Administration wants to send a message, similar to the one
> sent to the Taliban. Fuck with this country and you will be finished.
Suppose California wanted to send a message along those lines to a mafia
don in New York. Sell drugs in this state, and you will be finished.
Should California use your method, or should it use the federal court
system, the FBI, the DEA? You want to start a war to send a message.
> The PR line is about weapons, but Hussein has shown himself to be anything
> but suicidal. He likes to walk on the edge, but he'll back down if Bush
> lets him. (He might not)
Let's take him up on his stated offer to allow "unfettered"
inspections. We'll send inspectors in backed by a UN resolution that if
they are denied entry to any building, that building is destroyed after
enough time for it and the surrounding area to be evacuated of all
personnel. Does that work for you?
> >You certainly haven't argued that case well. And you have argued the
> >case for every country to do the same, and to be allowed to do so, if
> >the US is allowed to do so. Better to eliminate all the nuclear
> >weapons, pass an international law prohibiting them, and then enforce
> >that law. We can have surprise weapons inspections just like surprise
>
> No country would agree to do so...
Then we have nothing to lose by asking the world to set up such a
system.
> >But I can't find any reference that indicates Israel's nuclear weapons
> >had anything to do with the outcome of the war, and you are claiming, if
>
> And where are you looking?
I searched using "Yom Kipur" + nuclear.
> And why has no Arab state launched an attack in the past 30 years, even though
> the rhetoric has remained?
Because they saw that it was self-defeating, and that there is no need
to invade Israel. The Arab governments saw that they could easily
control their own populations, thereby protecting their power and
privilege, by maintaining Israel as the enemy.
> Now they're reduced to whining to the UN.
I think you'll find that the US and Israel are by far the biggest
whiners in the UN. Most of the rest of the world is pretty much in
agreement most of the time.
Jeff
"Martin W. Smith" <m...@metis.no> wrote in message
news:3D917A56...@metis.no...
> Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> >
> > >Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> > It's not speculation - it is FACT that nuclear enemies are peaceful
ones.
>
> But that alleged fact is irrelevent to the point on which you
> speculated. Look up "ignoratio elenchi" for an explanation of your
> logical error.
>
> use nuclear weapons against each other when they have them, they won't
> use them against each other when they don't have them.
You mean, if *neither* one has them.
> Your position is
> based on the belief that the holder of a nuclear weapon will use it
> simply because nobody else has one, and that it will not use a nuclear
> weapon if someone else has one. There is no proof of this.
Not proof, just 50 years of history to support it. The only time nuclear
weapons have been used was when only one country had them.
Martin W. Smith
>
> "Martin W. Smith" <m...@metis.no> wrote in message
> news:3D917A56...@metis.no...
> > Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> > >
> > > >Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> > > It's not speculation - it is FACT that nuclear enemies are peaceful
> ones.
> >
> > But that alleged fact is irrelevent to the point on which you
> > speculated. Look up "ignoratio elenchi" for an explanation of your
> > logical error.
> >
> > <snip> And, if nuclear enemies don't
> > use nuclear weapons against each other when they have them, they won't
> > use them against each other when they don't have them.
>
> You mean, if *neither* one has them.
Well, yes, but note that there is no reason to think that a nation will
use a nuclear weapon just because its opponent doesn't have one.
> > Your position is
> > based on the belief that the holder of a nuclear weapon will use it
> > simply because nobody else has one, and that it will not use a nuclear
> > weapon if someone else has one. There is no proof of this.
>
> Not proof, just 50 years of history to support it. The only time nuclear
> weapons have been used was when only one country had them.
But why do you cling to the belief that this is of such great moment?
It certainly proves nothing. Only one country had nuclear weapons for
several more years, and the Soviet Union was perceived to be a great
enemy, but we didn't use them against the Soviet Union. And France
knows that if it used nuclear weapons against Iraq, none of the nuclear
powers would respond against it with nuclear weapons. India knows that
Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would kill only a fraction of its 1 billion
people, but still it does not use nuclear weapons against Pakistan. No
one else would respond against it with nuclear weapons if it did use
them.
And lots of people have guns. They use them against each other.
Jeff
I think this is a strawman argument. Of course countries don't attack each
other JUST because they can. They have to have the ability AND the need.
Nuclear weapons only affect the ability.
> And lots of people have guns. They use them against each other.
I think if you compare the number of gun-attacks on unarmed victims, to
attacks on armed victims, you would find a very large ratio.
Martin W. Smith
>
> In article <3D90857B...@metis.no>, Martin W. Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
> >Because, as you yourself have said in another message, the MAD strategy
> >depends on rational people being in power. Rogue state means the
> >leaders are irrational.
>
> MAD relies on both sides having a credible counterstrike capability.
> Nothing more. And no, leaders are not irrational.
That's actually wrong. MAD relies on (a) both sides having massive
offensive nuclear capability and (b) that each side's nuclear capability
be submarine based and ICBM based, and (c) that the attacked side can
reliably detect an incoming all-out nuclear attack, and (d) that the
attacked side can launch its own massive nuclear retaliation before its
own nuclear capability is destroyed, and (e) that there are no false
positives in either side's detection system, and (f) that each side has
faith that the other side will not act irrationally, and (g) that
neither side can become a rogue state, and (h) that neither side can be
taken over by terrorists, even temporarily.
Sorry, rogue state means the state's leaders are behaving irrational
with respect to the agreed rules. If the USSR became a rogue state, it
could make the assumption that it could win a nuclear war. That wouyld
be irrational, since it can't.
> >That would be irrational, because they wouldn't survive athe
> >retaliation. The world would retaliate. The retaliation doesn't have
> >to be nuclear just because the original attack was nuclear.
>
> What would you use instead?
Well, we're certainly not planning to use nuclear weapons against Iraq,
are we?
> The US dropped more ordinance on Vietnam than used
> in WWII,
It's ok to say bombs and weapons of mass destruction. And an ocean of
chemical weapons.
> and despite being far less land mass, did not succeed. More recently,
> the US has bombed Iraq left and right numerous times and still has not done
> the job. Non nuclear destruction can be repaired. And it takes too many
> conventional bombs to match a single 200Kt warhead.
Now you are arguing for using nuclear weapons. And you believe your
argument is rational. You're adding weight to the nuclear disarmament
path.
> >ICBMs are irrelevant. If a rogue state detonates a nuclear device, it
> >will be in the hold of a ship coming into port, or in the back of UPS
> >truck. And President Bush is building his new Star Wars defense
That's right! And our nuclear power will *not* deter such an attack.
It will have no deterrent effect whatsoever. And nuclear retaliation
would be pointless. MAD is seen to be useless.
> Exactly correct. This is why you can never verify that the world is nuclear free.
You don't have to. You just have to keep verifying. I can't verify
that I won't die in an accident tomorrow either, but somehow I'll manage
to get out of bed tomorrow and face the day. We don't have to prove we
can guarantee that the world is nuclear free to justify dismantling all
nuclear weapons. It's silly. We don't have to prove a system is
perfect before we build it. If we did, we would never build anything.
Noi system is perfect. MAD least of all.
> >anyway. It will be much cheaper for all of us to just agree to nuclear
> >disarmament and continually inspect everybody to ensure compliance. We
> >do it for drugs in sport; it will be easier to do for nuclear bombs,
>
> Yes, sports are remarkably clean of drugs. I hope you didn't think this
> analogy would be comforting.
Of course it wasn't meant to be. What did you think I meant?
> >especially bombs mounted on ICBMs. You can't just do an Inky with an
> >ICBM. They're even bigger than she is.
>
> So long as we launch satellites into space, they can be used to lob nukes.
> How would you verify otherwise?
What are you saying now? Of course all orbital launches would be
inspected. Who has the capability of launching a nuclear warhead into
orbit that wouldn't subscribe to verification *and* could prevent the
rest of the world from taking the necessary action? Why, the USA, of
course. And no one else. Increasingly, it will be seen, that even the
USA cannot survive as the rogue state that the Bush administration wants
it to be.
> >The logical extension of your argument is that the more MAD
> >relationships we have, the safer the world will be. so we should
> >welcome more members into the nuclear family instead of trying to keep
> >them out. Get off the MAD thing. You sound like, I don't know, Charles
>
> the world would be safer, but the US would become weaker.
You're irrational.
Martin W. Smith
> > It certainly proves nothing. Only one country had nuclear weapons for
> > several more years, and the Soviet Union was perceived to be a great
> > enemy, but we didn't use them against the Soviet Union. And France
> > knows that if it used nuclear weapons against Iraq, none of the nuclear
> > powers would respond against it with nuclear weapons. India knows that
> > Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would kill only a fraction of its 1 billion
> > people, but still it does not use nuclear weapons against Pakistan. No
> > one else would respond against it with nuclear weapons if it did use
> > them.
>
> I think this is a strawman argument. Of course countries don't attack each
> other JUST because they can. They have to have the ability AND the need.
> Nuclear weapons only affect the ability.
So it is possible, quite likely, in fact, that the reason there have
been no nuclear attacks in the last 50 years has nothing at all to do
with MAD, but has simply been due to the facts that (a) there has been
no need, and (b) the world would see the attacker as being even more
evil that than hitler.
So, we really ought to focus on (a) making life better for everyone,
thus minimizing the need for a nuclear attack, and (b) establish a
system of international laws, courts, and police (military) to ensure
that even the threat of nuclear attack is dealt with swiftly and surely.
> > And lots of people have guns. They use them against each other.
>
> I think if you compare the number of gun-attacks on unarmed victims, to
> attacks on armed victims, you would find a very large ratio.
And if you compare the US, where there is a death penalty (MAD) with
Norway where there is no death penalty and where the maximum sentence is
21 years, you will find that Norway's murder rate compared to the US is
vanishingly small. ie MAD doesn't work.
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
> >
> > I think this is a strawman argument. Of course countries don't attack
each
> > other JUST because they can. They have to have the ability AND the
need.
> > Nuclear weapons only affect the ability.
>
> So it is possible, quite likely, in fact, that the reason there have
> been no nuclear attacks in the last 50 years has nothing at all to do
> with MAD, but has simply been due to the facts that (a) there has been
> no need, and (b) the world would see the attacker as being even more
> evil that than hitler.
(a) is obviously false. If it were true, there would have been no wars at
all. But clearly there have been plenty. (b) by itself is not a deterrent.
Destruction is the deterrent, which could result from (b).
> > > And lots of people have guns. They use them against each other.
> >
> > I think if you compare the number of gun-attacks on unarmed victims, to
> > attacks on armed victims, you would find a very large ratio.
>
> And if you compare the US, where there is a death penalty (MAD) with
> Norway where there is no death penalty and where the maximum sentence is
> 21 years, you will find that Norway's murder rate compared to the US is
> vanishingly small. ie MAD doesn't work.
Although it should be, the death penalty is not equivalent to MAD - not even
close. The "A" stands for "assured". The death penalty is not assured.
The criminal could get away, flee the country, hide out, get off on a
technicality, etc. Not to mention, that even if the DP is carried out,
it's usually many years later.
What's more like MAD, is if criminals would be shot at the scene of the
crime. The closest thing we can have to that is armed "victims".
Jeff
Paul Gormley
"Jason O'Rourke" <j...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:amrglf$2rsq$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >relationships we have, the safer the world will be. so we should
> >welcome more members into the nuclear family instead of trying to keep
> >them out. Get off the MAD thing. You sound like, I don't know, Charles
>
> the world would be safer, but the US would become weaker.
And that statement brings us very close to the crux of the matter: the US
will do nothing that might reduce its political/economic/military control
even to make the world a safer place.
Paul, proud to be a Euroweenie liberal
Jason O'Rourke
>> >The logical extension of your argument is that the more MAD
>> >relationships we have, the safer the world will be. so we should
>> >welcome more members into the nuclear family instead of trying to keep
>> >them out. Get off the MAD thing. You sound like, I don't know, Charles
>>
>> the world would be safer, but the US would become weaker.
>
>And that statement brings us very close to the crux of the matter: the US
>will do nothing that might reduce its political/economic/military control
>even to make the world a safer place.
>Paul, proud to be a Euroweenie liberal
Well, duh. It's called self interest - the primary reason why
communism always fails. Go back prior to WWII and you'll find your
Euroweenie nation states behaved in exactly the same manner. None
of them gave up their power to make the world a safer place. The
sacrifice of the Sudetenland would be a nice example of their greatness.
The US too would be more than happy to let all you little guys disarm
and extend the protective value of their nuclear umbrella to extend.
Jason O'Rourke
>Well, Greece might be a first world country, but the point is still made
>that the US is the richest most powerful country in the history of the
>human race, but it's infant mortality rate is high compared to other,
>less economically powerful first world countries.
My own words were for describing the US was 'mediocre.' It's a consequence
of have both more poor people, and more rich people. The former have
inadequete health care, the latter don't enjoy all things (food, drugs) in
moderation. In the end, the moderately high rate doesn't concern me. It
targets mostly those who bring it on themselves.
>> That is unilateral disarmament. No weapon (not even Star Wars) can stop a nuke
>> and you can never ensure that your adversaries have kept up their end of the
>> bargain.
>
>Yes, you can. You can keep inspecting, and, more important, you can
>keep working to make a better life for everyone, thereby minimizing
>support for terrorism. The fact that you can never prove there are no
>nuclear weapons doesn't justify creating nuclear weapons. That would be
Who said anything about creating? You talked about removing them all.
It doesn't work. It is the cheapest, most effective innovation in
weapons ever. A nation could spend billions every year to maintain a
full armed forces, or spend it once on a small nuclear arsenal.
>France and England can disarm unilaterally.
Tell that to them.
>> >> MAD has kept the peace for 50 years.
>> >
>> >Are you claiming that both the US and USSR would have used nuclear
>> >weapons on the other during the last 50 years if the other had not had
>> >them? I think that is an extremely cynical speculation. It says a lot
>> >about you and not very much about the US and USSR.
>>
>> It's not speculation - it is FACT that nuclear enemies are peaceful ones.
>
>But that alleged fact is irrelevent to the point on which you
>speculated. Look up "ignoratio elenchi" for an explanation of your
>logical error.
err, look up the fact that I never made the claim you suggest.
I said that there were no wars between nuclear powers. And that the death
count for all war was substantially lower. It's no accident. The
cost of war got too great.
>And, then the US's position that nuclear arms should not proliferate is
>faulty, which is nonsense. That refutes your argument. And it is false
The US opposes poliferation because it weakens their ability to impose
their will. Don't get confused by different issues and interests. As
soon as Iraq becomes a nuclear force we lose the ability to pound it
whenever we feel so inclined, and we lose any ability to impose UN regulations.
>nuclear enemies are *not* peaceful ones. And, if nuclear enemies don't
>use nuclear weapons against each other when they have them, they won't
>use them against each other when they don't have them. Your position is
>based on the belief that the holder of a nuclear weapon will use it
>simply because nobody else has one, and that it will not use a nuclear
>weapon if someone else has one. There is no proof of this. On the other
You really have no comprehension of what I believe. Really your fault
is that you can't view it objectively, both from the point of view of
the state, and yourself as a peacenik. Nukes are weapons of deterrence.
But having one means that you can do a lot more with a non nuclear enemy.
You don't have to use it, in fact it's very unlikely you ever could
really use them. Israel is the prime exception because it believes
a loss in conflict means extinction. They will invoke the Sampson option
rather than surrender.
>> Too many questions to bother with one by one. In short, Hussein cannot use
>> nuclear weapons. He couldn't even launch chemical weapons at Israel using
>> the Scuds. Why? Because we and the Israelis can nuke Bagdad. It's that
>> simple.
>
>He used chemical weapons. Nobody even lifted a finger, let alone use it
>to press the button. Then he invaded Kuwait. And then he launched
>scuds. You're not scoring a lot of points here.
There were no chemical weapons in the Scuds he fired at Israel. This was
not accidental. Had he fired them, the response would have been in kind.
>> The Bush Administration wants to send a message, similar to the one
>> sent to the Taliban. Fuck with this country and you will be finished.
>
>Suppose California wanted to send a message along those lines to a mafia
>don in New York. Sell drugs in this state, and you will be finished.
>Should California use your method, or should it use the federal court
>system, the FBI, the DEA? You want to start a war to send a message.
you seem to misunderstand something substantial about US politics. But
what you're saying here, I have no idea.
>> The PR line is about weapons, but Hussein has shown himself to be anything
>> but suicidal. He likes to walk on the edge, but he'll back down if Bush
>> lets him. (He might not)
>
>Let's take him up on his stated offer to allow "unfettered"
>inspections. We'll send inspectors in backed by a UN resolution that if
>they are denied entry to any building, that building is destroyed after
>enough time for it and the surrounding area to be evacuated of all
>personnel. Does that work for you?
that should have been done 10 years ago. The problem with it is that he
has promised unfettered access many times, and really isn't in any position
to change the arrangement.
>> >But I can't find any reference that indicates Israel's nuclear weapons
>> >had anything to do with the outcome of the war, and you are claiming, if
>> And where are you looking?
>
>I searched using "Yom Kipur" + nuclear.
perhaps you could visit the library and start reading real books? The web
is a terrible resource for serious thought - it's much better with current
news and topics of popular interest, or materials written within the past 5
years.
You might start with Kenneth Waltz, political scientist on the use of force.
I took a course from him entitled "Theory and Doctrine of Nuclear Warfare."
For Israel, a book titled "The Sampson Option" describing their years of
building up a nuclear program under our noses. If we couldn't stop them
or Pakistan from joining the family, how could we ever ensure to any
degree that nations abided by a disarmament?
Martin W. Smith
> > been no nuclear attacks in the last 50 years has nothing at all to do
> > with MAD, but has simply been due to the facts that (a) there has been
> > no need, and (b) the world would see the attacker as being even more
> > evil that than hitler.
>
> (a) is obviously false. If it were true, there would have been no wars at
> all. But clearly there have been plenty.
No, "need" referred to need to use nuclear weapons, not need for
violence. There was violence; there were wars; they've all been settled
without nuclear weapons.
> (b) by itself is not a deterrent.
> Destruction is the deterrent, which could result from (b).
Who cares if b is a deterrent by itself? The threat of becoming a world
pariah is a deterrent. The threat of destruction (nuclear or
conventional) is a deterrent. We don't have to set up situations that
are purely one or the other, or purely something else.
> > > > And lots of people have guns. They use them against each other.
> > >
> > > I think if you compare the number of gun-attacks on unarmed victims, to
> > > attacks on armed victims, you would find a very large ratio.
> >
> > And if you compare the US, where there is a death penalty (MAD) with
> > Norway where there is no death penalty and where the maximum sentence is
> > 21 years, you will find that Norway's murder rate compared to the US is
> > vanishingly small. ie MAD doesn't work.
>
> Although it should be, the death penalty is not equivalent to MAD - not even
> close.
Stop trying to set up these equations. We don't have to be able to say
that x and y are equal before we can get meaning from comparing them.
There are many levels of abstraction. MAD and the death penalty share
some qualities. The threat of anihilation is one of them. Sometimes
people act despite that threat. Otherwise we would remember a lot of
New York fire and police officers as fools instead of heros.
It goes without saying that the world would truly be a better place
without the threat of nuclear weapons hanging in the air. Yet people
continue to argue, as you do, that we should keep the threat of nuclear
weapons hanging in the air, that we should not take *all* actions
possible to minimize that threat, that we should continue to act,
astonishingly, against our own self-interest.
> The "A" stands for "assured". The death penalty is not assured.
> The criminal could get away, flee the country, hide out, get off on a
> technicality, etc. Not to mention, that even if the DP is carried out,
> it's usually many years later.
And neither is nuclear destruction assured. In the case of India, it
certainly is not. Pakistan's nuclear arms could not destroy all of
India, yes? And if Israel used nuclear weapons against Iraq, who among
the nuclear family would retaliate against it with nuclear weapons. If
the US used nuclear weapons against Iraq, who would retaliate against it
with nuclear weapons? The only power who could is Russia or Ukraine.
> What's more like MAD, is if criminals would be shot at the scene of the
> crime. The closest thing we can have to that is armed "victims".
And then your argument *must* be that if we arm everybody, everybody
will be safer. That's nonsense.
Martin W. Smith
> My own words were for describing the US [infant mortality rate] was
> of have both more poor people, and more rich people. The former have
> inadequete health care, the latter don't enjoy all things (food, drugs) in
> moderation. In the end, the moderately high rate doesn't concern me. It
> targets mostly those who bring it on themselves.
I'm sorry, how do infants bring mortality on themselves?
I see where you are coming from, and I thought that's where you were
coming from.
> >> It's not speculation - it is FACT that nuclear enemies are peaceful ones.
> >
> >But that alleged fact is irrelevent to the point on which you
> >speculated. Look up "ignoratio elenchi" for an explanation of your
> >logical error.
>
> err, look up the fact that I never made the claim you suggest.
Here is the claim: "it is FACT that nuclear enemies are peaceful ones."
You made that claim. Regardless of whether that claim is true or false,
it does prove the speculation that MAD prevented nuclear war between the
US anbd the USSR.
> I said that there were no wars between nuclear powers. And that the death
> count for all war was substantially lower. It's no accident. The
> cost of war got too great.
Substantially lower than what? Nuclear war. You are claiming that MAD
prevented nuclear war. You are also claiming that the fact that there
have been no nuclear wars proves that MAD prevented nuclear war. It
doesn't.
> >And, then the US's position that nuclear arms should not proliferate is
> >faulty, which is nonsense. That refutes your argument. And it is false
>
> The US opposes poliferation because it weakens their ability to impose
> their will.
Now we're getting somewhere. The US opposes nuclear proliferation, not
for the reasons it states, which are about peace and security, but
because it wants to preserve its own power. Thank you for deciding to
be honest about the problem the world faces.
Martin W. Smith
> My own words were for describing the US [infant mortality rate] was
> of have both more poor people, and more rich people. The former have
> inadequete health care, the latter don't enjoy all things (food, drugs) in
> moderation. In the end, the moderately high rate doesn't concern me. It
> targets mostly those who bring it on themselves.
I'm sorry, how do infants bring mortality on themselves?
I see where you are coming from, and I thought that's where you were
coming from.
> >> It's not speculation - it is FACT that nuclear enemies are peaceful ones.
> >
> >But that alleged fact is irrelevent to the point on which you
> >speculated. Look up "ignoratio elenchi" for an explanation of your
> >logical error.
>
> err, look up the fact that I never made the claim you suggest.
Here is the claim: "it is FACT that nuclear enemies are peaceful ones."
You made that claim. Regardless of whether that claim is true or false,
it does prove the speculation that MAD prevented nuclear war between the
US anbd the USSR.
> I said that there were no wars between nuclear powers. And that the death
> count for all war was substantially lower. It's no accident. The
> cost of war got too great.
Substantially lower than what? Nuclear war. You are claiming that MAD
prevented nuclear war. You are also claiming that the fact that there
have been no nuclear wars proves that MAD prevented nuclear war. It
doesn't.
> >And, then the US's position that nuclear arms should not proliferate is
> >faulty, which is nonsense. That refutes your argument. And it is false
>
> The US opposes poliferation because it weakens their ability to impose
> their will.
Now we're getting somewhere. The US opposes nuclear proliferation, not
for the reasons it states, which are about peace and security, but
because it wants to preserve its own power. Thank you for deciding to
be honest about the problem the world faces.
martin
Martin W. Smith
>
> Well, duh. It's called self interest - the primary reason why
> communism always fails.
First, actual communism has not failed. You're talking about Stalinism
and strict central planning. The kibbutz movement in Israel is closer
to real communism, and it hasn't failed. And when you talk about
self-interest, you must keep in mind that there are multiple selfs
here. There is the self you are talking about, which is the US state,
not a conscious entity; there is the self that is the world, which is
also not a conscious entity, but which certainly has whatever rights the
US state self has, and there are the 6 billion human selfs, whyo have
human rights which shall not be alienated by the US state self.
Jason O'Rourke
>Here is the claim: "it is FACT that nuclear enemies are peaceful ones."
>You made that claim. Regardless of whether that claim is true or false,
>it does prove the speculation that MAD prevented nuclear war between the
>US anbd the USSR.
You're welcome to find another reason why the constant trend of major
wars every 10-20 years came to a halt. And to be precise, MAD doesn't
prevent anything. It is a concept. The presence of a viable nuclear force
owned by each of the major powers did it.
>> I said that there were no wars between nuclear powers. And that the death
>> count for all war was substantially lower. It's no accident. The
>> cost of war got too great.
>
>Substantially lower than what? Nuclear war. You are claiming that MAD
WWII killed at least 30M Chinese, 30M Russians, 6M Jews, and no small
number of Germans, Japanese, and then other Europeans and Americans. WWI
wasn't as total an effort, but still took a toll. And then there were the
constant conflicts between two rival imperialists at the close of the 19th
century. All of the conflicts since 1945 don't come close in bloodshed.
>> The US opposes poliferation because it weakens their ability to impose
>> their will.
>
>Now we're getting somewhere. The US opposes nuclear proliferation, not
>for the reasons it states, which are about peace and security, but
>because it wants to preserve its own power. Thank you for deciding to
>be honest about the problem the world faces.
I have no problem accepting the obvious. Perhaps you'll go on to do the
same for matters where it doesn't not mesh with your ax grinding on the
US. You'd like to assert, and perhaps even believe, that they're the evil
overlords and everyone else is more enlightened. But that wouldn't be reality.
Martin W. Smith
>
> In article <3D92CC64...@metis.no>, Martin W. Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
> >Here is the claim: "it is FACT that nuclear enemies are peaceful ones."
> >You made that claim. Regardless of whether that claim is true or false,
> >it does prove the speculation that MAD prevented nuclear war between the
> >US anbd the USSR.
>
> You're welcome to find another reason why the constant trend of major
> wars every 10-20 years came to a halt.
I should think the obvious ones should suffice. Economic
interdependence among all nations has increased far beyond what it was
10-20 years ago. Communication channels have increased dramatically.
The reach of the major media sources has increased dramatically.
Knowledge about the world has increased dramatically. The ability to
travel internationally has increased dramatically. Ignorance and
illiteracy have declined; economic well-being has increased. Democracy
has increased. The number dictatorships has declined.
> And to be precise, MAD doesn't prevent anything.
I agree.
> It is a concept. The presence of a viable nuclear force
> owned by each of the major powers did it.
Did what?
Jason O'Rourke
>Jason O'Rourke wrote:
>> Well, duh. It's called self interest - the primary reason why
>> communism always fails.
>
>First, actual communism has not failed. You're talking about Stalinism
>and strict central planning. The kibbutz movement in Israel is closer
Ha - I remember a similar poster at the Revolutionary Bookstore in Berkeley
when the Soviets fell. "Love live real communism." Sad to say for them,
China is being taken over by capitalism as we sit. It works better when
people are rewarded for greater effort - lets the vice of greed work to a more
positive end than seen in Red Square.
Israel is not an example I'd point to - it relies too heavily on foreign
aid to be deemed self sustaining. Its citizens also have the spectre of
hostile nations all around to keep them united.
Martin W. Smith
>
> In article <3D92D7AB...@metis.no>, Martin W. Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
> >Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> >> Well, duh. It's called self interest - the primary reason why
> >> communism always fails.
> >
> >First, actual communism has not failed. You're talking about Stalinism
> >and strict central planning. The kibbutz movement in Israel is closer
>
> Ha - I remember a similar poster at the Revolutionary Bookstore in Berkeley
> when the Soviets fell. "Love live real communism." Sad to say for them,
> China is being taken over by capitalism as we sit.
Why is it sad to say for them? China's government is nothing like the
kibbutz movement. The kibbutz movement is more like real communism than
the government of China.
> It works better when
> people are rewarded for greater effort - lets the vice of greed work to a more
> positive end than seen in Red Square.
Not all people want lots of money. There are, for lack of better terms,
money-motivated people, and socially motivated people. There are other
motivations. Not all people have the motivation to make money as their
highest motivation.
> Israel is not an example I'd point to - it relies too heavily on foreign
> aid to be deemed self sustaining. Its citizens also have the spectre of
> hostile nations all around to keep them united.
When you talk about communism, if you really mean communism, then don't
talk about the state's government. When you talk about capitalism, you
aren't talking about the government, are you? No, certainly not.
Either talk about governmental systems, or talk about economic systems.
Don't confuse the two. The United States is not a capitalist
government. It's a democracy. The Soviet Union failed because it was
not a democracy. Democracy works because most people want democracy.
Kibbutzism works for groups of people who want a communal economy.
Don't worry. No one is going to force you to live on a kibbutz.
Jeff
> > > Norway where there is no death penalty and where the maximum sentence
is
> > > 21 years, you will find that Norway's murder rate compared to the US
is
> > > vanishingly small. ie MAD doesn't work.
> >
> > Although it should be, the death penalty is not equivalent to MAD - not
even
> > close.
>
> Stop trying to set up these equations. We don't have to be able to say
> that x and y are equal before we can get meaning from comparing them.
Whatever. Your argument was: MAD and DP are equivalent. DP doesn't work,
therefore MAD doesn't work.
That argument is fatally flawed, because MAD and DP aren't equivalent, not
even for your purposes. The flaw doesn't mean your conclusion is
necessarily false. Why not present a different argument, rather than accuse
me of nitpicking.
> There are many levels of abstraction. MAD and the death penalty share
> some qualities. The threat of anihilation is one of them. Sometimes
> people act despite that threat. Otherwise we would remember a lot of
> New York fire and police officers as fools instead of heros.
I've never claimed MAD was 100% effective. I've only argued that divesting
of nuclear arms will severely weaken the positive effects of MAD. Let's
try to stick with that topic.
> What's more like MAD, is if criminals would be shot at the scene of the
> > crime. The closest thing we can have to that is armed "victims".
>
> And then your argument *must* be that if we arm everybody, everybody
> will be safer. That's nonsense.
Is it? Clearly, the safest "option" is to have *nobody* armed. I've
never disagreed with you there. My argument is that it's impossible to
reach this state. The value of being armed will increase exponentially, as
the number of armed parties decreases. Someone will arm themselves, because
the motivation and rewards for doing so will increase exponentially also.
That's the worst possible scenario - to have the minority armed, forcing
their will upon the unarmed. Having *everyone* armed is FAR safer. I
think we should be realistic, and not push for the utopian ideal of complete
disarmament. It's currently impossible to reach this ideal, and failure to
reach it will have catastrophic consequences. I don't see what's so
nonsensical about that.
jeff
Jeff
Jason,
Generally i'm on your side, but you are wrong about this. Martin isn't
referring to the nation of israel, he's referring to the little kibbutz
communities inside israel. They are run according to communist ideals (not
soviet socialist ideals - what communism was *supposed* to be). And the
kibbutzes are largely successful that way. They aren't totally
self-reliant, but they support themselves economically. No capitalist
nation is totally self-reliant either, the US has plenty of imports.
Martin W. Smith
> > that x and y are equal before we can get meaning from comparing them.
>
> Whatever. Your argument was: MAD and DP are equivalent. DP doesn't work,
> therefore MAD doesn't work.
No, my point here was that the threat of destruction doesn't work with
everyone, and it doesn't work with any particular one every time. It
isn't reliable.
> That argument is fatally flawed, because MAD and DP aren't equivalent, not
> even for your purposes. The flaw doesn't mean your conclusion is
> necessarily false. Why not present a different argument, rather than accuse
> me of nitpicking.
Because you are nitpicking, and my argument isn't flawed.
> > There are many levels of abstraction. MAD and the death penalty share
> > some qualities. The threat of anihilation is one of them. Sometimes
> > people act despite that threat. Otherwise we would remember a lot of
> > New York fire and police officers as fools instead of heros.
>
> I've never claimed MAD was 100% effective. I've only argued that divesting
> of nuclear arms will severely weaken the positive effects of MAD. Let's
> try to stick with that topic.
Obviously, when the US and Russia/Ukraine destroy all their nuclear
weapons, MAD goes to zero. That's a side effect of the desirable state
of not having nuclear weapons. Are you now arguing that the world
should preserve nuclear weapons to preserve MAD? I hope not. If you
are worried that I mean the US should unilaterally disarm without
Russia/Ukraine, put your mind at rest. I'm not. I'm sure that the US
can convince Russia/Ukraine to disarm *with* the US. One less nit for
you to pick, and you don't have to agree to US disarming without
Russia/Ukraine disarming at the same time. Verified by both sides, of
course.
> > What's more like MAD, is if criminals would be shot at the scene of the
> > > crime. The closest thing we can have to that is armed "victims".
> >
> > And then your argument *must* be that if we arm everybody, everybody
> > will be safer. That's nonsense.
>
> Is it? Clearly, the safest "option" is to have *nobody* armed. I've
> never disagreed with you there. My argument is that it's impossible to
> reach this state.
No, it is impossible to *know* whether the state is reached or not.
Assume all the nuclear powers agree to destroy all their nuclear
weapons. Assume we all verify the destructions - unfettered
inspections. There is a finite probability that one or more governments
will try to cheat. There is a finite probability that any cheaters will
be caught. I'm arguing that resulting equilibrium, with continual
policing, will be safewr than the current situation. Terrorists are not
included, because they don't follow any rules anyway, and they are not
deterred by the threat of destruction of themselves or their state,
since they don't even represent a state. There is no state to retaliate
against, if a terrorist detonates a bomb in the hold of a ship entering
a US port.
It doesn't matter whether we *know* that the state of being nuclear
weapon free is reached or not. We don't know now that we have achieved
a safe nuclear weapon state.
> The value of being armed will increase exponentially, as
> the number of armed parties decreases.
How? Why? Now you are saying that after disarmament, the possessor of
the single nuclear bomb will possess infinite value. That's what
"increase exponentially" means. It's nonsense. You still couldn't use
your bomb. Make the problem worse. Assume that instead of destroying
the nuclear weapons, France somehow got all of them. You are claiming
that France would possess infinite value. It's ludicrous. They would
be invaded immediately.
> Someone will arm themselves, because
> the motivation and rewards for doing so will increase exponentially also.
What motivation? What rewards?
I'm sure some despot will try it. Despots try it now. President Bush
thinks Saddam Hussein has succeeded. We're about to go in and find out,
one way or the other.
> That's the worst possible scenario - to have the minority armed, forcing
> their will upon the unarmed. Having *everyone* armed is FAR safer. I
> think we should be realistic, and not push for the utopian ideal of complete
> disarmament. It's currently impossible to reach this ideal, and failure to
> reach it will have catastrophic consequences. I don't see what's so
> nonsensical about that.
ok, chicken little.
Jason O'Rourke
>since they don't even represent a state. There is no state to retaliate
>against, if a terrorist detonates a bomb in the hold of a ship entering
>a US port.
So thought the Taliban.
Jason O'Rourke
>Generally i'm on your side, but you are wrong about this. Martin isn't
>referring to the nation of israel, he's referring to the little kibbutz
>communities inside israel. They are run according to communist ideals (not
>soviet socialist ideals - what communism was *supposed* to be). And the
>kibbutzes are largely successful that way. They aren't totally
>self-reliant, but they support themselves economically. No capitalist
>nation is totally self-reliant either, the US has plenty of imports.
No one gives those imports to the US - it earns them. So I ask you - if
the gravy train of US and Jewish aid to Israel stopped, could they sustain
themselves, both at the national level and at the kibbutz level? And
have these communities existed long enough to show long term viability,
or is it just that they're a much better alternative than being a
Russian Jew in 1985?
Paul Gormley
>>
> My own words were for describing the US [infant mortality rate] was
'mediocre.' It's a consequence of have both more poor people, and more rich
people. The former have
> inadequete health care, the latter don't enjoy all things (food, drugs) in
> moderation. In the end, the moderately high rate doesn't concern me. It
> targets mostly those who bring it on themselves.
Duh, so babies deserve to die because their parents can't afford to buy
adequate food and medical care! Your attitude makes me sick. Thank goodness
Martin is out there so I don't have to think that all americans are so
self-centred and oblivious to poverty as you appear to be. And so ignorant
of the possible consequences of war in the middle east.
Paul Gormley
> No one gives those imports to the US - it earns them. So I ask you - if
> the gravy train of US and Jewish aid to Israel stopped, could they sustain
> themselves, both at the national level and at the kibbutz level? And
> have these communities existed long enough to show long term viability,
> or is it just that they're a much better alternative than being a
> Russian Jew in 1985?
>
As I understand it the US currently runs a trade deficit with the rest of
the world.
Jason O'Rourke
>Duh, so babies deserve to die because their parents can't afford to buy
>adequate food and medical care! Your attitude makes me sick. Thank goodness
>Martin is out there so I don't have to think that all americans are so
>self-centred and oblivious to poverty as you appear to be. And so ignorant
>of the possible consequences of war in the middle east.
It's a shame you don't understand what's being said. But it sounds like
you wish to offer a solution to the problems of drug abuse seen here.
Please step on up.
As to the middle east, you need to consider the consequences of no war.
Last year's attack was one of them.
RunnSwim
<Paulg...@btinternet.com> writes:
>Duh, so babies deserve to die because their parents can't afford to buy
>adequate food and medical care! Your attitude makes me sick. Thank goodness
>Martin is out there so I don't have to think that all americans are so
>self-centred and oblivious to poverty as you appear to be.
Martin Smith adds:
>>I'm sorry, how do infants bring mortality on themselves?
Since infant mortality seems to have emerged as exhibit A in the
indictment of the American system, perhaps we should make the
effort to understand what it is that the data really do show:
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2002 Jan;16(1):16-22
Registration artifacts in international comparisons of
infant mortality.
Kramer MS, Platt RW, Yang H, Haglund B, Cnattingius S,
Bergsjo P.
Department of Pediatrics, McGill University Faculty of
Medicine, Montreal, Canada. michael...@mcgill.ca
Large differences in infant mortality are reported
among and within industrialised countries. We
hypothesised that these differences are at least partly
the result of intercountry differences in registration
of infants near the borderline of viability (<750 g
birthweight) and/or their classification as stillbirths
vs. live births. We used the database of the
International Collaborative Effort (ICE) on Perinatal
and Infant Mortality to compare infant mortality rates
and registration practices in Norway (n = 112484),
Sweden (n = 215 908), Israeli Jews (n = 148123),
Israeli non-Jews (n = 52 606), US Whites (n = 6 074
222) and US Blacks (n = 1328332). To avoid confounding
by strong secular trends in these outcomes, we
restricted our analysis to 1987-88, the most recent
years for which data are available in the ICE database
for all six groups. Compared with Norway (with an
infant mortality rate of 8.5 per 1000), the crude
relative risks [95% confidence intervals] were 0.75
[0.69,0.81] in Sweden, 0.97 [0.90,1.06] in Israeli
Jews, 1.98 [1.81,2.17] in Israeli non-Jews, 0.95
[0.89,1.01] in US Whites and 2.05 [1.95,2.19] in US
Blacks. For borderline-viable infants, fetal deaths
varied twofold as a proportion of perinatal deaths,
with Norway reporting the highest (83.9% for births
<500 g and 61.8% for births 500-749 g) and US Blacks
the lowest (40.3% and 37.6% respectively) proportions.
Reported proportions of live births <500 g varied
50-fold from 0.6 and 0.7 per 10000 in Sweden and
Israeli Jews and non-Jews to 9.1 and 33.8 per 10000 in
US Whites and Blacks respectively. Reported proportions
500-749 g varied sevenfold from 7.5 per 10000 in Sweden
to 16.2 and 55.4 in US Whites and Blacks respectively.
After eliminating births <750 g, the relative risks
(again with Norway as the reference) of infant
mortality changed drastically for US Whites and Blacks:
0.82 [0.76,0.87] and 1.42 [1.33,1.53] respectively. The
huge disparities in the ratio of fetal to infant deaths
<750 g and in the proportion of live births <750 g
among these developed countries probably result from
differences in birth and death registration practices.
International comparisons and rankings of infant
mortality should be interpreted with caution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Now, several points (besides the obvious) must be made:
Firstly, infant mortality among US whites is significantly
less than among Norwegians (overwhelmingly white, in
a health care system overwhelmingly socialized). Secondly,
the relatively high infant mortality among blacks has been
attributable to higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse among
pregnant women. This may be an indictment of something,
but it is not an indictment of health care. Thirdly, infant
mortality is hardly the "gold standard" yardstick of a healthcare
system which it has been assumed to be. Fourthly, infant
mortality rates are affected by additional social and factors, such
as frequency of abortions.
We now move to another study which sheds light on these
issues:
Br Med J 1992 Sep 19;305(6855):687-91
Social class differences in infant mortality in Sweden:
comparison with England and Wales.
Leon DA, Vagero D, Otterblad Olausson P.
Social class differences in infant mortality in Sweden
are analyzed using official data for all live births in
1985-1986 and are compared with corresponding data for
England and Wales for 1983-1985. The results show that
the existence of an equitable health care system and a
strong social welfare policy in Sweden has not
eliminated inequalities in postneonatal mortality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
The conclusions are, that, considering differences in
reporting methodology and other factors, differences
between infant mortality among industrialized nations
are largely attributable to individual lifestyle choices
of the parents, over which the state has little control.
Certainly, there is nothing at all in the infant mortality
data which can in any way be used to condemn the
the US health care system or to support the alleged
superiority of the European welfare state as far as
providing for the health needs of its most vulnerable
citizens.
- Larry Weisenthal
Martin W. Smith
>
> In article <3D9315C8...@metis.no>, Martin W. Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
> >since they don't even represent a state. There is no state to retaliate
> >against, if a terrorist detonates a bomb in the hold of a ship entering
> >a US port.
>
> So thought the Taliban.
Gosh, you're right. You're saying the US was justified in killing as
many civilians in Afghanistan as the terrorists killed in NY. And this
rule applies generally. If terrorists generate a nuclear bomb in a US
city, perhaps killing millions of civilians, the US should immediately
destroy other cities with nuclear weapons, killing even more millions of
civilians as punishment. This destroys my whole argument against
nuclear weapons. How could I have forgotten how decimation was used by
the Romans? And they're still around. How could I have been so blind?
Martin W. Smith
> Since infant mortality seems to have emerged as exhibit A in the
> indictment of the American system,
No, it hasn't, Larry. You have consistently refused to address *every*
political issue put to you. You started the political issue thread by
asking us to discuss our choices for the great leaders, which we did.
But it wasn't the discussion you expected, of course, and you avoided
answering every question put to you. This is the questiont Paul Gormely
put to you concerning the current moral crusade of America against Iraq
in relation to the amount of money America spends on that war:
"The moral crusade reeks of hypocrisy - infant mortality rates in US,
child poverty, access to health care etc. How much of the money spent on
waging a war against Saddam could be better spent?"
You didn't answer the question. Instead you diverted the discussion to
what you believe was "the greatest threat to the survival of the human
race in the history of this world"... the "Cold War" ominously
capitalized. And when I refuted your Reagan-saved-us, cold war
argument, instead of responding to that issue that you yourself raised,
you diverted the discussion again, back to infant mortality, even though
my message said nothing about it by saying: "The stats on infant
mortality, poverty, or any of the other things are nowhere near as bad
as Smith implies." I hadn't implied anything about infant mortality. I
had discussed your claim that Ronald Reagan saved us from the evil
empire and all out nuclear war. You had tried to misrepresent what I
said; you changed what I said from being a reference to Europe to being
a reference to any European country. I objected saying: "You're moving
the goal posts again, Larry," and I again refuted your moved goalpost
argument. You didn't respond at all.
Now in your Beware-of-Europeans thread, which you claim was meant as a
joke, you refer to me as "people like you" What am I then, Larry? Am I
a gypsy, or a nigger, or a liberal? Gee, and to think you once proudly
voted for Carter and Mondale, as if that gives you unimpeachable
credentials. Recall that President Carter, who is an outstanding
humanitarian IMO, presided over massive arms sales to Indonesia during a
period when Indonesia slaughtered hundreds of thousands of its own
citizens. He even increased those arms shipments, while the slaughter
continued. I can only assume you didn't even know that, and that you
had somehow forgotten that our beloved leader, President Reagan, really
did preside over the slaughter of thousands of civilians in Nicaragua, a
process which involved clear violations of US law and for which he was
very nearly impeached, and probably should have been. The Sons of
Reagan, which his secret army proudly called itself, were terrorists.
But instead of accounting for these points in your neo-conservative
rose-colored view, you simply refuse to acknowledge them at all, every
time the issues you raise push you into a corner. You just change the
subject.
Now you're changing Jason's astonishing blame-the-victim argument back
to a discussion of infant mortality statistics. I wish I could comment
on the statistics you quoted from the study, but I can't understand
them. That isn't surprising, however, since, as Congressman Dick Armey,
House Majority Leader R-Texas, has so astutely pointed out, liberals
have shallow intellects and low comprehesion skills. I'll leve it for
you to explain the statistics, but you'll probably just divert the
discussion again. Nevertheless, I will respond to your rejoinder to
those statistics:
> Now, several points (besides the obvious) must be made:
> Firstly, infant mortality among US whites is significantly
> less than among Norwegians (overwhelmingly white, in
> a health care system overwhelmingly socialized).
You'll have to argue with the CIA about that. My statistics are the
ones reported by the CIA, all based on live births for the same year. I
didn't hide that. If you dispute what the CIA has reported, then it
sounds to me like your beef is with them. Doesn't the CIA know how to
normalize data?
> Secondly,
> the relatively high infant mortality among blacks has been
> attributable to higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse among
> pregnant women. This may be an indictment of something,
> but it is not an indictment of health care.
But I didn't indict the quality of the US health care system. I
indicted the US for having the resources to solve this problem but
choosing not to solve it. Your argument is that the US is a Darwinist
society, as if infants can deal with the problems that raises? Do you
think that black, pregnant women in America might get just a wee bit
less pre-natal care than they would if they had health insurance?
> Thirdly, infant
> mortality is hardly the "gold standard" yardstick of a healthcare
> system which it has been assumed to be.
Who assumed it to be that? Not me. The discussion of infant mortality
made no reference to health care systems, only that the US's infant
mortality is a lot higher than it should be for the riches nation in the
history of the human race. Your response was: It's not so bad.
> Fourthly, infant
> mortality rates are affected by additional social and factors, such
> as frequency of abortions.
No, Larry, the CIA statistics were for live births. Abortions are not
live births. The infant mortaility we were talking about was for
infants, not foetuses.
> Certainly, there is nothing at all in the infant mortality
> data which can in any way be used to condemn the
> the US health care system or to support the alleged
> superiority of the European welfare state as far as
> providing for the health needs of its most vulnerable
> citizens.
Stop moving the goalposts, Larry. You are the only one discussing
whether European health care is better than US health care. Why is that
issue bothering you?
RunnSwim
accuses me of dodging issues and changing goalposts.
Can someone please remind me how it was that this thread took a political turn?
Was it me? I honestly don't remember. If I started it, let me please
apologize to everyone. Henceforth, I promise that I will never knowingly make
a political statement on this newsgroup again (unless it relates to the
politics of USA Swimming governance or FINA or the IOC or something at least
peripherally relevant).
With respect to this thread, I wasn't dodging anything. I like to discuss
politics. If you do a Google on alt.politics.usa.republican (or democrat) or
alt.impeach.clinton, and look for "runnswim" I'll certainly pop up.
But what happened here was this: somehow, at some point, I made the mistake of
either casting the first political stone or responding to a political stone
tossed out by someone else. As I said, I really don't remember.
And then, the next thing I knew, the next time I logged back on the newsgroup -
Gormley does recall me announcing that I was taking a (needed) sabbatical (to
focus on other matters), and I related how my addictive, dependent personality
disorder made me furtively log on in the guise of checking for my
professionally-related correspondence when my wife wasn't looking), there were
something like 57 messages about this. And I just said to myself...sheesh...no
way can I afford the time its going to take to get into this...but then,
yesterday, just out of curiosity, I looked at the very last message and it was
about infant mortality statistics, which is something which I do know something
about, so I made the mistake of responding (by the way, abortions do influence
infant mortality statistics, if aborted fetuses would be at greater risk of
infant death, had they been allowed to go to term; so differences in abortion
rates do affect infant mortality statistics).
Anyway, it was a mistake to turn this into a political thread. If I was the
one who did it, I apologize to everyone, and I'll do my best to see that I
don't do it again. If I wasn't the one who started it, then I apologize for
jumping in and not having the commitment to stay in it and to repond to all the
(I'm certain excellent) challenges to the statements I made.
- Larry Weisenthal
Jason O'Rourke
>Gosh, you're right. You're saying the US was justified in killing as
>many civilians in Afghanistan as the terrorists killed in NY. And this
2 notes: First, I reject your claim about civilian casualties. I've
seen enough of those claims about the US causing 500,000 in deaths in
Iraq, even though that responsibility belongs to its leader.
>rule applies generally. If terrorists generate a nuclear bomb in a US
>city, perhaps killing millions of civilians, the US should immediately
>destroy other cities with nuclear weapons, killing even more millions of
>civilians as punishment. This destroys my whole argument against
Yes, it would be good for the US to announce its intention to obliterate
the 'axis of terror' in the event of a surprise nuclear attack on US soil.
Leave no doubt that deterrence is in play, and give these nations pause
when they consider harboring these terrorist sects.
Paul Gormley
I worry about those who will defend everything that happens in their own
country and are not prepared to cast a critical eye. The "Darwinian" system
espoused by a number of correspondents (only the strong survive, the weakest
go to the wall) seems a denial of what makes us human-in fact, the social
cohesion of some animal groups would put us to shame. I can't accept your
view of the US and by extension the world. To label the weakest in society
as deserving of their fate is a blinkered view. Do you really think all poor
people are on drugs? and if they are, why do you think they started on drugs
in the first place? OK don't tell me, because they're weak.
This is my last thought on the subject (probably): I came across an article
discussing the works of Charles Dickens (the English writer and Euroweenie
liberal of his day) -
"What Dickens condemns is selfishness, the heartless individualism of a
society that encourages people to better themselves by disowning others."
That sums up the "socially Darwinistic society" blindly defended in this
thread.
Robert H. Diday, Jr.
gave a very good speech today at Johns Hopkins-to comment that Darwin
would be turning over in his grave if he could hear such terms as
Social Darwinism. Evolution is nothing more than the change in allele
frequency over time. It is not about the strong taking advantage of
the weak. The term "Social Darwinism" or the "Darwinian System" (what
system?) are a sub-genre of a solecism. With the Cobb County School
Board voting-like good lemming Republicans-to allow creation science
(WTF is that?) to be taught in the schools contrary to the opinion of
the U.S. Supreme Court, I think we need more understanding of Darwin,
not less.
Just my $.02, other than to say: "Martin, you DA MAN!".
Why don't we get back to swimming?
-Robert
Martin W. Smith
>
> >Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> >Gosh, you're right. You're saying the US was justified in killing as
> >many civilians in Afghanistan as the terrorists killed in NY. And this
>
> 2 notes: First, I reject your claim about civilian casualties. I've
> seen enough of those claims about the US causing 500,000 in deaths in
> Iraq, even though that responsibility belongs to its leader.
The moral principle applicable to responsibility is this: We are
responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions.
If you run down a person who is standing in the middle of the road and
your defense is based on your claim that responsibility lies with the
victim's leader for forcing him to stand in the middle of the road, you
will go to jail for voluntary manslaughter. You don't get to kill
people just because someone else is a bad guy.
Likewise, if you drop bombs on a tank parked next to a mosque in a
civilian area, knowing you will kill civilians, you are responsible for
those civilian deaths. You don't have to drop bombs on the tank. You
can leave it there. They'll have to move it eventually. You can't drop
bombs on Red Cross buildings either. That is a specific war crime under
the Geneve Conventions. You have to warn both the Red Cross and the
enemy of your intent to destroy those buildings before you do it.
A conservative estimate was made of civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
I can probably still find the reference if you want to read it. The
count was about the same as the count of people killed in the WTC. Most
of those deaths were predictable and avoidable. Apply the principle.
When you apply principles, you have to apply them to yourself the same
way you apply them to everyone else.
> >rule applies generally. If terrorists generate a nuclear bomb in a US
> >city, perhaps killing millions of civilians, the US should immediately
> >destroy other cities with nuclear weapons, killing even more millions of
> >civilians as punishment. This destroys my whole argument against
>
> Yes, it would be good for the US to announce its intention to obliterate
> the 'axis of terror' in the event of a surprise nuclear attack on US soil.
> Leave no doubt that deterrence is in play, and give these nations pause
> when they consider harboring these terrorist sects.
2 notes: First, what good would it do for a nation to pause before
continuing to harbor a terrorist sect? (sect? sect of what?) Second,
most of the terrorists in question are spread all around the world, in
60 countries according to what I read, and terrorist organizations are
based on the concept of leaderless resistance, so murdering millions of
people in one country and destroying the health of tens of millions more
for generations to come won't do any good.