|Re: Tehran Threatens to use Nuclear weapons on itself...|
- Saturday, November 19 2011, 17:21:37 (UTC)|
from 188.8.131.52 - V32-03.opera-mini.net Network - Linux - Opera
Sorry for prolonging this thread. I just wish to clarify what I previously said.
>>Past behavior is a poor indicator of the future. We cannot, statistically speaking, say that a world in which 20 countries have nuclear arsenals will equal to or less likely have a nuclear warfare than a world in which only 2 out of 20 countries have them.
>...past behavior will have to do...we have nothing else to go on except what people Think might happen.
That is the premise upon which my entire argument rests. It has been academically proven that the past is an unreliable factor in predicting the future. This is true especially in social sciences (business, economics, history...).
In the case of nuclear proliferation, I am relying on the law of probability: the more nuclear powers there are and the further we project into the future, the more likely the event of a nuclear warfare will become.
But people don;t like to be threatened by irrational people and right now Muslims feel threatened by the United States..
No all Muslims nations; only those whose interests and policies conflict with that of the United States and Israel.
But I understand. I am willing to acknowledge that the developing world (using this terminology to include non-Muslim countries as well) is under the mercy of the US.
which irrationally concluded that because 19 Saudis flew planes into building, they would declare war on Iraq, not Saudi Arabia....
I don't think it's true that they declared on war on Iraq BECAUSE of the 19 Saudis. They had been planning to do so long before 9/11.
maybe that will scare people into getting rid of all of them...but if not, then better every country has them and we take our chances
That's exactly what I'm talking about: chances. The question is: should “we take our chances”? Should we place that bet? Should we throw that ball and spin the roulette of fate?
And what if we lose? No matter how many conventional wars we will have in the future, they will not be as catastrophic, in terms of human losses and environmental damage, as a nuclear warfare (as you have previously pointed out).
This is somehow similar to the moral dilemma I previously posted and that was mentioned in the Harvard lecture. However, the choices for this one are:
1. Give bombs to everyone to stop those wars that are being waged against the weak countries and cross our fingers, hoping that hundreds of millions (or maybe few billions) will not die the future.
2. Prevent proliferation and allow conventional wars to continue, and remain content that it is better for few to die than to risk a global catastrophe.
...the alternative is raging bullies declaring wars for fun and profit...that could lead to greater disasters or the same anyway.
Is that the inevitable alternative?
Maybe, but that could be avoided though. Painful sacrifices has to be made: compromise with the US; recognize the state of Israel; privatize the oil, allow foreign investments...etc
The full topic:|
Accept: text/html, application/xml;q=0.9, application/xhtml+xml, image/png, image/webp, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, ...
User-agent: Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.9.168 Version/11.51