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: Sun Tzu who wrote (167099)	7/25/2005 9:25:55 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

As a side note to my previous post, is Israel prepared for neighboring nuclear Arab country? Is Turkey prepared for a nuclear Kurdistan? Is America prepared for a nuclear Cuba or Venezuela? If your answer is still MAD, then indeed you are insane. The only real solution is to treat everyone as equal and bring about conditions that will not promote creation of radical groups. What will you do when transporting a micro-nuke is as easy as targeting an airliner?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (167099)	7/25/2005 11:05:01 AM
From: el_gaviero	Respond to of 281500

Sun Tzu, you make a lot of sense.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (167099)	7/25/2005 11:15:40 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This is the mistake that so many make and is the illusion behind current NPT regime. Building nuclear bombs is a 60 year old technology. Anyone who puts his mind to it, even a private group, can do it, let alone governments. Why didn't Libya have the bomb? They had a U-235 reactor operating since 1983. They gave up. Iraq had been working on one for quite some time. They weren't even able to figure out how to extract weapons grade uranium. Iran got the plans for the intial design of US nukes during the 1980s through a FOIA request. That design information was declassified during the 80s. On the other hand, I think that what's more likely is a biological weapon. Designer viruses. Cheap [compared to nuclear devolopment, small labs, easily concealed, the only challenge is genetic manipulation of an existing virus. The research going on in that arena is largely publicly available and written in such detail that it is intended to be peer reviewed. NPT should not be based on the illusion that other can't/shouldn't/won't have nuclear weapons. It should promote diplomacy on the basis that everyone has a nuke at home. The difficult negotiations that will have to be made in such a world (coming to you in a near future) are better accomplished now before the fact than at the time. Perhaps some do. I've thought of it more as a waiting game. Will man evolve enough to not need nuclear weapons before one or more goes off? Just stalling for time. jttmab

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (167099)	7/25/2005 2:10:59 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

”True courage is not lack of fear, but the resolve to do the right thing no matter how painful the change may be.” This is a wonderful sentence. The phrase, ‘to do the right thing’ implies taking an active position to stand up for principle. You refer to the courage it takes regardless of your fears which is also noteworthy. The world is torn into particular stands that are founded on contradictory principles how does one 'do the right thing' without standing for 'what is right' and against 'what is wrong'. The goal of your declaration seems to be ‘peace’. However, there are various scenarios of world peace founded on contradictory principles of peace and of achieving that peace. Peace on earth is not merely the absence of material conflict. The condition of life on earth endemically involves competition over material resources. In addition it involves ideas about the purpose of life, authority over conflict, and systems of managing human affairs. The only way to achieve relative peaceful coexistence for a global society in the presence of this is to identify a system that is suitable to all participants. Most traditionally defined systems are fundamentally opposed to one another. Some can be combined, some can't Anarchism Authoritarian Autocracy Democracy Oligarchy Republic Theocracy ”I have come to conclude that most who promote war, hegemony, or violence are simply hiding their cowardice to deal with what changes are required for peace under a veneer or machismo or patriotism.” Do you agree that individuals should have the right to autonomy of lifestyle? Do you believe that individuals and groups should live in relative peaceful coexistence? For example, how do you fore see this being accomplished, without forceful opposition to those who would brutally oppress individuals under their tyrannous rule, ... what 'changes are required'?