If that is the only way to deliver an EMP, then I would consider it.Should America use a preemptive Nuclear strike? — Andrew4Handel
Should America use a pre-emptive Nuclear strike? — Andrew4Handel
Is non intervention in other peoples misery and death a good thing? — Andrew4Handel
I think there might be some small space between the two, a middle ground. Perhaps preemptive food parcels, or a task force of electricians and plumbers to improve the sanitation and power supply. If we did these things in the places that would welcome them first, and then tried to impose them on paranoid and violent states later, our kindness would be more believable, and our leadership more acceptable. — unenlightened
a lot of aid — Andrew4Handel
we the USA have been doing all that you speak of, for those in South Korea and our own soldiers there on the 38th parallel since 1953. How much longer should we try to convince North Korea to try letting us help their nation? — ArguingWAristotleTiff
The West provides a lot of aid to poor countries. — Andrew4Handel
But the Aid can be exploited and misdirected. — Andrew4Handel
Imagine there was a genuine, immediate threat that North Korea were going to send a bomb into America.
Should America use a pre-emptive Nuclear strike? — Andrew4Handel
Someone said Jewish scientists helped create them because of their fear of the anihilation of theJews. — Andrew4Handel
What is "a lot of aid"? — Bitter Crank
Someone said Jewish scientists helped create them because of their fear of the anihilation of theJews. But I pointed out that they were actually used on the Japanese and not the Germans. — Andrew4Handel
we have created a means of instant mass destruction of humans and does that immediately devalue life? — Andrew4Handel
Do note that this nuclear arms race isn't about just a few nukes. Pakistan is building them with a rapid pace (and likely India too). It's estimated that Pakistan is building about 15 to 20 nuclear bombs a year and has about 200 of them already.A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan of 10 or 20 bombs each (both have a good many more than that) could result in many millions of deaths. — Bitter Crank
I think the reason is that ANY country pursues nuclear weapons is that it makes it difficult for ANY other country to think that they can take them down with conventional forces and weapons without having to worry about said country retaliating with a nuke or nukes. That may not seem like a logical reason but when you think about how much some countries are willing to spend on their military budget while at the same time letting their own people starve, it may not be as crazy as you think. Like my brother (who use to be a military analysts who had to deal with certain issues involving countries that we are..nervous about) use to say "It is better to rule in hell, that to serve in heaven" or at least for some people.Nations seek to maximize their interests and advantages. As we have seen, pursuing security, dominance, favorable trade agreements, access to resources, and so on have resulted in "killing lots of other people in another country" on a number of occasions. Because the winners are well rewarded, it has been worth the risk.
We may or may not use atomic weapons in the future. But atomic weapons are only the most powerful-per-pound weapons. Conventional weapons and good organization coupled with determination can reek enormous havoc on any country that is in somebody else's way. The firebombing of Tokyo, for instance, was about as bad as a nuclear explosion. The Nazis managed to mount an enormously successful war effort without nuclear weapons.
It's unreasonable to expect that in the future we will all be nice to one another, and war, of some sort, won't happen. If we are lucky, we will establish the means to conduct wars without using the nuclear option. (How likely is that? I wouldn't bank everything on it.) — Bitter Crank
I don't know if it is crazy to think that since history shows nearly an endless list of psychos ending up in power — dclements
You probably object to my characterisation, but that is surely how it looks from the other side, it and goes a long way to explain the level of paranoia. I wonder what would happen if all troops were withdrawn from the border, and N. Korea was allowed to invade the south. It would be messy, but it would totally destroy the propaganda that the North has been using to control its own people. I don't think the regime would survive its own success — unenlightened
Having said that, is it vain for me to be concerned about the shock waves of insecurity, it would send through every military partner the USA has in the world? — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.