|Re: Tehran Threatens to use Nuclear weapons on itself...|
- Saturday, November 19 2011, 21:05:29 (UTC)|
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
>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...).
...no prediction is certain...what is certain is that Christian nations began this push for nuclear weapons and they have since visited all sorts of horrors on those nations with no such weapons while leaving each other alone...you can safely predict that weaker nations will learn from history and seek these weapons for protection...it wasn't their idea.
>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.
...now all of a sudden you ARE predicting? Seems you don't mind it when it proves your point.
> 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.
...the rest know they could be next.
>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.
..of course...but the rationale was 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?
...those without nuclear weapons have to take their chances..why not the rest of us?
>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).
...if we lose, we lose...why should only Darkies lose? We either all survive or all die...seems fair to me...the world is a boat floating in the galaxy...some passengers want all the food and water, others think all should share equally...since we can't throw anyone overboard we have to get along...or die.
>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.
...not up to us...it was, but not any more. We have shown, by our behavior, that we will attack weaker people...we told THEM they had better get nuclear weapons...it was never their desire as you can see...Muslim nations build no aircraft carriers, no battleships, no jet planes, no missles and very few guns....right now Iraqis are improvising bombs...obviously they never wanted, or intended, to manufacture any weapons at all, because they never meant to attack anybody...we've made them cut to the chase and go for the Big One...we did it and we can't control it.
> ...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?
....can't predict from past behavior....
>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
...Muslims agreed long ago to recognize Israel...the problem is Israel ,not Palestinians.
The full topic:|