|
myrkul
|
 |
July 23, 2011, 10:52:06 PM |
|
In this sense nuclear weapons discourage warfare generally and their spread is actually a good thing. The problem is the possibility of accidental or irrational use of nuclear weapons, which could quickly kill more people than all wars of the 20th century combined. In my estimation the probability of unplanned disaster rises sharply if there are 1000 different groups with nukes.
I find it interesting that you spend two entire paragraphs making my case, and then flippantly toss off 'but I'm afraid some kook's going to get a hold of one', and then use that as the basis of your argument. Do you honestly think that 'accidental or irrational' things can't happen now? How many nukes did Russia have when it collapsed? How many of those were in border states? I'm pretty sure anyone who wants a nuke bad enough, can get one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin software, network, and concept is called "Bitcoin" with a capitalized "B". Bitcoin currency units are called "bitcoins" with a lowercase "b" -- this is often abbreviated BTC.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ansible adams
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
July 23, 2011, 11:17:51 PM |
|
It's true, civilization could be smashed even now by foolish use of nukes. It almost happened before in 1983 and in 1962. More groups with nukes means more opportunities for disaster, though since the Cold War no nation has stockpiled ridiculous thousands of weapons.
Please cite a credible source for your idea that "anyone who wants a nuke bad enough" can get a former-Soviet warhead. Your gut feeling isn't very convincing.
Sort-of-on-topic for the thread: Ken MacLeod wrote a series of SF novels in the 1990s about about competing anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-socialist human factions colonizing space after many nation-states collapsed. One of the story strands was about an ex-Soviet republic that retained its nuclear arsenal and sold outsourced nuclear deterrence on the open market to groups who wanted to live under a nuclear umbrella without building their own weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
BBanzai
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
July 23, 2011, 11:28:54 PM |
|
If you would be safe from armed men behaving irrationally, carry a weapon. If you would allow all to be equally equipped, anticipate that 1 in 25 will behave irrationally. That is the most current statistic I have found for sociopathy. The other 24 of us can not defend ourselves and each other if we are unarmed. We can only be shot down by the minority. If we allow that disarmament in the name of peace, we will eventually find ourselves voting the minority into office, seeing as how they are the only ones left with weapon training. Somehow, this sounds familiar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 23, 2011, 11:31:25 PM |
|
It's true, civilization could be smashed even now by foolish use of nukes. It almost happened before in 1983 and in 1962. More groups with nukes means more opportunities for disaster, though since the Cold War no nation has stockpiled ridiculous thousands of weapons.
Please cite a credible source for your idea that "anyone who wants a nuke bad enough" can get a former-Soviet warhead. Your gut feeling isn't very convincing.
Sort-of-on-topic for the thread: Ken MacLeod wrote a series of SF novels in the 1990s about about competing anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-socialist human factions colonizing space after many nation-states collapsed. One of the story strands was about an ex-Soviet republic that retained its nuclear arsenal and sold outsourced nuclear deterrence on the open market to groups who wanted to live under a nuclear umbrella without building their own weapons.
More groups means more opportunities, but more people with guns means more opportunities to get shot, too. Doesn't mean it happens. Eh. My gut feeling doesn't convince me that Russian nukes are on the black market, either. And since I'm not a black-market arms dealer, I can't prove they are, or aren't. But tell me: Do you know where all those Nukes got to? 'Cause the Russians don't. What books are these? I'm interested. |
|
|
|
|
indio007
|
|
July 24, 2011, 04:07:29 AM |
|
Some people are real foolhardy. They want an group of strangers to have powers they won't allow themselves to have.
|
|
|
|
|
ansible adams
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
July 24, 2011, 06:39:44 AM |
|
I think everyone having nukes is more like all my neighbors having truck bombs parked in their driveways. Even if they're just for deterrence against other people who might use truck bombs, I'm screwed if one of them goes off for any reason. Guns don't really compare.
The series of novels I talked about is the Fall Revolution series. I think the story of nuclear deterrence for sale is in the first book, The Star Fraction, and again in the last, The Sky Road. The first two books tell a certain future history and the next two books tell what happened after, with very different outcomes, based on the people who run the nuclear deterrence program making different choices at a crucial point in history. The third book is the most exciting, about a future where a hard technological singularity took off and humans left behind in the solar system almost went extinct. The fourth, the alternative scenario, is almost boring, about a "soft" technological singularity (and the history that led up to it) that left Earth like a libertarian paradise, with only voluntary cooperatives and long lives of abundance for almost everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 24, 2011, 07:28:08 AM
Last edit: July 24, 2011, 09:54:21 AM by myrkul |
|
I think everyone having nukes is more like all my neighbors having truck bombs parked in their driveways. Even if they're just for deterrence against other people who might use truck bombs, I'm screwed if one of them goes off for any reason. Guns don't really compare.
Well, this is true. Of course, The owners of those bombs would be screwed, too. And they know it. That's why, if they have half a brain, they've hired people to keep those bombs safe. And those people know that keeping those bombs from going off accidentally is a very important part of that job. Edit: Fuck! I can only find 3 and 4! is 4 stand-alone, or would I be completely confused? |
|
|
|
ascent
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
July 24, 2011, 03:08:18 PM |
|
The owners of those bombs would be screwed, too. And they know it. That's why, if they have half a brain, they've hired people to keep those bombs safe. And those people know that keeping those bombs from going off accidentally is a very important part of that job.
That's not how it works. |
|
|
|
|
lemonginger
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
firstbits: 121vnq
|
|
July 24, 2011, 04:30:54 PM
Last edit: July 24, 2011, 05:53:52 PM by lemonginger |
|
Size is becoming less and less relevant as warfare become more and more asymmetric.
That being said, I'm banking on moving towards are world where there are no standing armies, not 2,000 separate ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 24, 2011, 05:33:23 PM |
|
The owners of those bombs would be screwed, too. And they know it. That's why, if they have half a brain, they've hired people to keep those bombs safe. And those people know that keeping those bombs from going off accidentally is a very important part of that job.
That's not how it works. Sorry, my crystal ball must be on the fritz. Yours is working better, then? Care to enlighten us poor plebes on how it DOES work? Or are you just going to make vague proclamations of impending doom, like usual? |
|
|
|
ascent
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
July 24, 2011, 05:53:19 PM |
|
Sorry, my crystal ball must be on the fritz. Yours is working better, then?
Care to enlighten us poor plebes on how it DOES work? Or are you just going to make vague proclamations of impending doom, like usual?
My crystal ball works no better than yours. I'm just not blinded by the wonderfulness of your ideology, and thus I'm motivated to think things through - a motivation you lack since it's counter to your ideas. As for my proclamations, it's not my duty or responsibility to engage in lengthy explanations all the time. However, I do honestly feel that I'm justified in making statements from time to time to try and get you to think beyond your ideology. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 24, 2011, 06:06:55 PM |
|
Sorry, my crystal ball must be on the fritz. Yours is working better, then?
Care to enlighten us poor plebes on how it DOES work? Or are you just going to make vague proclamations of impending doom, like usual?
My crystal ball works no better than yours. I'm just not blinded by the wonderfulness of your ideology, and thus I'm motivated to think things through - a motivation you lack since it's counter to your ideas. As for my proclamations, it's not my duty or responsibility to engage in lengthy explanations all the time. However, I do honestly feel that I'm justified in making statements from time to time to try and get you to think beyond your ideology. So, No, then. Just gonna keep up the "you're wrong, but I can't say what's right", then? 'k. |
|
|
|
ascent
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
July 24, 2011, 06:12:34 PM |
|
So, No, then. Just gonna keep up the "you're wrong, but I can't say what's right", then? 'k.
I've discovered it's futile to present arguments to you. You never listen. I might actually bother if it were otherwise. Your choice: listen to what I have to say thoughtfully, without the blinders on. Or keep on like you are, and get the short one liner every now and then from me. I used to bother engaging in lengthy explanations, but you made it clear you weren't interested. |
|
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr (OP)
|
|
July 24, 2011, 06:20:55 PM |
|
So, No, then. Just gonna keep up the "you're wrong, but I can't say what's right", then? 'k.
I've discovered it's futile to present arguments to you. You never listen. I might actually bother if it were otherwise. Your choice: listen to what I have to say thoughtfully, without the blinders on. Or keep on like you are, and get the short one liner every now and then from me. I used to bother engaging in lengthy explanations, but you made it clear you weren't interested. Keep blaming others for your own failings. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 24, 2011, 06:24:02 PM |
|
So, No, then. Just gonna keep up the "you're wrong, but I can't say what's right", then? 'k.
I've discovered it's futile to present arguments to you. You never listen. I might actually bother if it were otherwise. Quote one post where you suggested anything, rather than tearing down someone else's ideas? |
|
|
|
KBundy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 47
Merit: 0
|
|
July 24, 2011, 06:51:43 PM |
|
Hello all,
Your idea of many small armies forming an alliance to defend themselves collectively against the larger armies or the rich and powerful is very intriguing.
In your original description of the scenario, you described one army of 1000 trained and well funded soldiers, against 500 armies of about 100 militiamen. So we have 1000 on the private army side, and 50,000 on the fighting for their own freedom side.
Do you not think it would be incredibly possible if not probable for the 1000 men of the private army to still win this fight? Given the difference is quality of fortification, weaponry, and combat training the private army could easily take out 50 or more of the resistance's combatants as they attempt to siege the "castles" of the rich and powerful.
Numbers are important, but more importantly in today's wars are training, efficiency in communication, and sophisticated weaponry that could literally mow down an entire field of incoming crazed, hungry, poorly organized militia men.
Just something to think about...
-KBundy
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 24, 2011, 07:00:11 PM |
|
Do you not think it would be incredibly possible if not probable for the 1000 men of the private army to still win this fight? Given the difference is quality of fortification, weaponry, and combat training the private army could easily take out 50 or more of the resistance's combatants as they attempt to siege the "castles" of the rich and powerful.
See, that's the thing... In our scenario, and, in fact, the one that the other side is worried about, the rich and powerful are on the attack. The Defense, as you point out, has an incredible advantage, especially when you factor the numbers, and add in that they will have access to the same technologies (there being no laws restricting who can own what). |
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr (OP)
|
|
July 24, 2011, 07:02:24 PM |
|
The small armies are private armies too. They are funded by revenue from people paying for private defense. Think of it like the current security companies, Brinks, ADT, et. al., that have armed guards, armored trucks, etc. I'm assuming that the small armies are equally well equipped with AR-15's, night vision, whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
KBundy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 47
Merit: 0
|
|
July 24, 2011, 08:33:36 PM |
|
Interesting concept to say the least, I agree that if the small armies worked as guerrilla attack teams from a defensive position they may be able to get the upper hand. On any given day though anything could happen...
A real moral quandary I have come across in thinking about these scenarios is the temptation of going with the security of the larger dominant group. Not only is the group think a structural component of society, in times of dire circumstances, such as we have been describing, one will be much more willing to take the least risky path.
So what would you do?
The war is upon us, many have chosen the side of security and numbers with the wealthy armies. A larger number still bands together in small unorganized armies across the country. However, even with the greater numbers, it is known that the only way for the rebellion to succeed is an massive loss of human life.
Do you side with the security of wealth and power? Or go almost certainly to your death in hopes of freedom for the people as a whole?
-KBundy
|
|
|
|
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
July 24, 2011, 08:43:22 PM |
|
On the whole, it would seem likely that if a society were to come about organically, then the environment under which you lived with it's varying degrees of liberty and freedom would probably not be any better than the belief of the average man.
What I mean by organically is, if land and things were uninhabited and unowned, and then order to whatever extent were to come into existence thru the decisions of men, and also there was an initial condition of anarchy, what would arise?
I'm not sure we'd be too far different than what we have now. That's not to say what we have is correct, just that you probably have varying degrees of absolute despotism and absolute anarchy (on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being despotism, 10 being anarchy) that have a variance about a norm which is about what the average man understands and believes to be right and wrong.
This being the case, a unencumbered market of private armies vs. one which is conscripted might not provide you any greater peace, tranquility, or freedom, than the one you already live under. Any system of justice is going to have to grapple with the possibility that their choices, when under duress, may not have the outcome they expect nor the consequences they seek.
Competition for justice, liberty, right and wrong are difficult things to negotiate because they consist of principles and concepts that are incorporeal. They aren't physical things, but rather the result of the actions we apply to those physical things.
Just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
