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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (69105)	5/29/2008 12:50:54 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542154

Why not us. Because it would be dangerous to assume that others think like us. why would anyone not agree. I am talking about who goes first, and you are talking about others agreeing. No-one else needs to agree, if you want to go first. You go first, QED. It would be a win/win for everyone. It would be a major win if the world sat down one day and decided to eliminate nuclear armaments entirely, boom, gone, no doubt about that. A meeting of the minds is all that’s required, obviously your point about others agreeing. Assuming that this is going to happen though is a mistake because in the case of nuclear terrorists in particular, and others in general, they do not think like you. Thinking that they do, when they don’t, invites or at the least encourages, blunder. Predicting the behaviour and divining the intention others is a tricky business, especially when it has no solid basis, such as a mind emptied of it’s own personal bias and expectations, something for which I find little evidence, amongst the players involved. If we can’t do this for ourselves how can we expect to know what others are going to do. Witness Iraq. Strategic military decision making is a collective process, see your reference to a win/win, this sounds like a chicken/egg. We have an issue under development, nuclear terrorism, one end of the deal doesn’t solve the problem. The process has to “start” somewhere, at the least that’s how we’ve been taught to “look” at it, but at the same time, it all has to work together for something mutually beneficial to arise. Seems like a no brainer to me. Nuclear deterrence is a psychological weapon and problem, we have thousands of other methods to create massive destruction. That's why we call it MAD, surely one of the best acronyms ever invented.