Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elsewhere who wrote (124866)	2/20/2004 1:14:22 PM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 281500

"Enforcement should begin with political and economic sanctions for recalcitrant states but should also include threats and the use of military force if necessary, whether covert or overt" for a Harvard professor he sure writes a lot before he gets to the bottom line. Like anyone will support military force if necessary.. where do we start back at the United nations.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (124866)	2/21/2004 2:07:13 AM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Respond to of 281500

>>>How to Stop Nuclear Terror By Graham Allison These are the kinds of concrete proposals that need to be debated, and not the bullsh*t political mudslinging that so many people waste time on. Thanks for posting a hard headed article that makes sense and that is not overly simplistic. I am far less interested in political finger pointing and CYA than I am with what really needs to be done on this score in the near future, while there is still time. These are things that are far, far more important than short term feel good tweaking of the economy for example.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (124866)	2/21/2004 5:28:20 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I gather there may be a response to the Allison piece in the May/June issue, fyi. Pieces from the new FA are up on the web now, btw: foreignaffairs.org and see what kind of fun stuff you miss in Germany? washingtonsquarenews.com tb@heehee.hee

To: Elsewhere who wrote (124866)	2/21/2004 7:09:35 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<President George W. Bush has singled out terrorist nuclear attacks on the United States as the defining threat the nation will face in the foreseeable future.> George is so last-century. He's still wanting to race to Mars. There's nothing there but cold rocks. He's still fighting WWI type wars of coalition instead of pushing the only sensible way forward politically which is a multilateral NUN. The real action is in the nano world, quantum world, cyberspace world, DNA world. The big dangers are: 1....Influenza epidemic [which could kill 10% of the population first time around]. 2....Meteor-caused tsunamis from the pacific [Tunguska over the water would have made quite a wave - those happen more like every 100 years rather than the dinosaur-killing million year biggies. Mqurice

To: Elsewhere who wrote (124866)	2/23/2004 7:45:58 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

re: How to Stop Nuclear Terror: There is an iron law of technology: it spreads. All technologies, all nations, all eras, it's the same consistent pattern: anybody who wants any technology, can eventually get it. All attempts to stop the spread of a technology, even by the most autocratic governments, have failed. This will be as true for nuclear weapons technology, as for any other. It simply isn't possible to find an example of a useful technology that didn't eventually proliferate to anybody and everybody who wanted it. So, at best, non-proliferation was a stop-gap, a temporary solution. And the window of opportunity for non-proliferation is now past. It was probably already too late in the 1960s, and it's far too late now. And we never really tried very hard to stop proliferation. What did we do to stop Israel or S. Africa or Pakistan from getting nukes? Our "Atoms for Peace" program spread nuclear know-how and materials all over the planet. The solution proposed in the article, is the same old Control Freak Solution: the Have nations will bribe or bully everyone else, and maintain their monopoly. If it can be done with diplomacy and economic means, fine. But, if that doesn't work (and it manifestly hasn't worked, in N. Korea and Iran) then the Control Freak solution is this: the Have nations will hold a gun to everyone else's heads (as well as each other's heads), and force submission. The analogy I've used, is that the world is becoming like a spacecraft, where all the astronauts are holding grenades. Imagine the likely result, if the biggest meanest astronaut (that's the U.S.) tries to take away everyone else's grenade, or even just tries to stop those who are acquiring grenades. Is it likely that this method is going to result in a peaceful and safe world? No. What's most likely, is that something goes Boom, and living conditions get suddenly worse for all the astronauts. Perhaps terminally worse. The solution to nuclear weapons, is to live (individually, and as nations), so that no one wants to nuke you. Because, whether you like it or not, no matter what you do, the time is rapidly approaching, when literally anybody who wants to nuke you, can. Technology spreads.