History has proven we don't need a centralized standing army.

[Ackmed]

I'd just like to say that I work about a mile from where the bombs that were dropped on Japan to end WWII were made.

Carry on.

 

[Zebo]

Standing army makes you use it far too often making lots of enemies, erodes the sanctity of the individual for the state, costs lots of cash maintaining.

At same time makes world safe for commerce, thugs and dictators think twice before massacres when 800lb USA gorilla is around , and protects our interests with force if need be.

I call it a wash.

 

[ElFenix]

A decentralized militia defeated the greatest military in the world to gain independence.

when was that?

Countries collapse when their standing army gets too strong.

countries collapse all the time. please give an example of the military being too strong being the but-for cause of one.

Sure, it may be hard to occupy countries with armed populations. It's still easy to ruin their economies. The US needs a reasonable standing military (smaller than it is now), very little infantry, large navy and air force and significant unconventional weaponry.

that's basically about what our posture was in 1940. not much in the way of army but we'd built a fairly decent sized navy, iirc the WWII museum exhibit.

air force i'd prefer super-precision weapons to unconventional weaponry.

 

[CycloWizard]

No, my argument is that it is extremely difficult for these groups to assemble the materials they need. I never once said that the engineering required to construct the mechanism through which to detonate it was outside of the technical ability of people. You started with that point because you either didn't know about or didn't understand the fissile material problem. This has nothing to do with me not understanding the engineering details, this has to do with you not understanding the reality details.

Your argument states that significant numbers of people have both the will and capability to produce nuclear weapons. When asked why not a single one of them has, you state "They're crazy and haven't for inexplicable reasons". By your own words in order for you to be correct, these groups must be afflicted by mass insanity that prevents them from accomplishing this task that you consider to be relatively simple.

When you are relying upon mass insanity to show why the logical conclusions of your argument haven't happened, that should be a really simple sign to you that your argument is bad. But hey, you just KNOW that there's tons of highly enriched uranium out there just waiting to be made into a bomb. Al-Qaeda can't get its hands on it because, like in a Saturday morning cartoon, wacky mixups just keep happening!

Maybe you can tell me why they waited decades before crashing a plane into a building after planes were readily available and easily hijacked. Or you can try to rationalize why sane people would want to kill tens of thousands of civilians. My theory explains both of these easily, yet you've not addressed either of them. Keep dodging.

 

[Craig234]

I also addressed the materials aspect. You simply ignored that part of my post. Shocker.

No, you didn't.

I told you to get informed and stop posting ignorant assumptions.

You responded by posting an ignorant assumption.

How tight a leash do you really think we can keep on the world uranium market that someone can't score a pound or two?

A very tight leash, it turns out, once we get existing warheads destroyed.

As I said, I'm wasting time time to explain more. You are not listening.

 

[CycloWizard]

No, you didn't.

I told you to get informed and stop posting ignorant assumptions.

You responded by posting an ignorant assumption.



A very tight leash, it turns out, once we get existing warheads destroyed.

As I said, I'm wasting time time to explain more. You are not listening.

Ah, now I see: you assume that you're right and I'm wrong. You can't prove anything either way, but since you make the broader assumption, there's no argument and anyone contradicting your fundamental assumption could only do so out of ignorance. I'm no psychologist, but I think the diagnosis is simple here: you're an egomaniac.

 

[werepossum]

All of the wars we've been through have been due to the U.S. militarily invening, or having our military off of U.S. soil.

The Emperor of Japan said he would never have his forces invade the continental U.S. because there were too many armed civilians.

Shay's rebellion was surpressed because MA was able to sufficiently raise an army.

A decentralized militia defeated the greatest military in the world to gain independence.

Countries collapse when their standing army gets too strong.

Standing armies usually do what the commander-in-chief wants, not what's in the best interest of individual security.

One may make the argument that China could come and kill us overnight, but first we need to examine the facts:
They would have to pay to do so.
They don't have much of a reason to if we don't mess with them.
The citizens are armed enough, and if they aren't, then ambassadors and a well-maintained and well-guarded federal underground armoury would suffice until an army could be raised.

So you're okay with Japan (and presumably others) flying over and dropping bombs on us just as long as they say they aren't going to invade? M'kay . . .

I wonder what all those dead and maimed soldiers in World War II would think, thrown into battle half trained and poorly equipped and utterly without modern doctrine let alone training as we struggled to go from 39th most powerful military to something that could oppose two of the most powerful militaries, of your idea. I imagine not a lot. Much better to have and not need than to need and not have, especially when lives and freedom are at stake.

 

[Anarchist420]

when was that?
countries collapse all the time. please give an example of the military being too strong being the but-for cause of one.

Rome. Athens. Germany. USSR. Empires always collapse.

So you're okay with Japan (and presumably others) flying over and dropping bombs on us just as long as they say they aren't going to invade? M'kay . . .

I wonder what all those dead and maimed soldiers in World War II would think, thrown into battle half trained and poorly equipped and utterly without modern doctrine let alone training as we struggled to go from 39th most powerful military to something that could oppose two of the most powerful militaries, of your idea. I imagine not a lot. Much better to have and not need than to need and not have, especially when lives and freedom are at stake.

Once again, a standing military doesn't prevent countries from dropping bombs on us. It's the reason why they have. Why did we need to occupy Hawaii Pearl Harbor? That's what I want to know. We never needed new territory.

 

[ElFenix]

Rome. Athens. Germany. USSR. Empires always collapse.

how was the size of the military the but-for cause of the collapse of any of those?

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe you can tell me why they waited decades before crashing a plane into a building after planes were readily available and easily hijacked. Or you can try to rationalize why sane people would want to kill tens of thousands of civilians. My theory explains both of these easily, yet you've not addressed either of them. Keep dodging.

Sane people have been responsible for way more dead civilians than that. Any intelligence officer will tell you the fundamental components of intel are intent and capability. There is no evidence that terrorist groups had the intent to use hijacked planes in that manner for all those years (hijacked planes having many other uses) and there is no evidence they had the capability in the form of pilot trained suicidal hijackers. Both good reasons it didn't happen.

in your case they have both intent and capability and have had this for decades. Instead, a mass insanity has gripped them that makes them want nukes but decide not to make them.

"they are nuts" is the intel equivalent of "god did it". The last refuge of someone who knows they can't support their argument.

 

[pcgeek11]

All of the wars we've been through have been due to the U.S. militarily invening, or having our military off of U.S. soil.

The Emperor of Japan said he would never have his forces invade the continental U.S. because there were too many armed civilians.

Shay's rebellion was surpressed because MA was able to sufficiently raise an army.

A decentralized militia defeated the greatest military in the world to gain independence.

Countries collapse when their standing army gets too strong.

Standing armies usually do what the commander-in-chief wants, not what's in the best interest of individual security.

One may make the argument that China could come and kill us overnight, but first we need to examine the facts:
They would have to pay to do so.
They don't have much of a reason to if we don't mess with them.
The citizens are armed enough, and if they aren't, then ambassadors and a well-maintained and well-guarded federal underground armoury would suffice until an army could be raised.

Moron Alert! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[pcgeek11]

Rome. Athens. Germany. USSR. Empires always collapse.


Once again, a standing military doesn't prevent countries from dropping bombs on us. It's the reason why they have. Why did we need to occupy Hawaii Pearl Harbor? That's what I want to know. We never needed new territory.

We didn't "Occupy" Pearl Harbor Hawaii.

 

[hal2kilo]

Ah, now I see: you assume that you're right and I'm wrong. You can't prove anything either way, but since you make the broader assumption, there's no argument and anyone contradicting your fundamental assumption could only do so out of ignorance. I'm no psychologist, but I think the diagnosis is simple here: you're an egomaniac.

This is painful, but when it comes to ole Craigy, you might be on to something there. I'll repeat this again. The genie is out of the bottle. I might agree with Craig under the following conditions. We know that all the fissionable material is secured. The world has come to a consensus about security and non-hegemony (as if).

Otherwise, keep looking at your navel. I would love the world to be as you think it should be, but it's not.

 

[Howard]

Since when has history proven to always be a reliable crystal ball of the future?

 

[Craig234]

This is painful, but when it comes to ole Craigy, you might be on to something there. I'll repeat this again. The genie is out of the bottle. I might agree with Craig under the following conditions. We know that all the fissionable material is secured. The world has come to a consensus about security and non-hegemony (as if).

Otherwise, keep looking at your navel. I would love the world to be as you think it should be, but it's not.

I didn't read your whole post, but detail for me a couple things: where the fissionable material is, how collectible it is, what the experts say, and your review of the IAEA etc.

In the meantime, here's an op-ed from 2007 from a few naive people who think it can be done - like Kissinger, Schultz, (Sec. of Defense) Perry, and Sam Nunn.

Oh by the way, how does your navel look as you get your info on nukes from it?

"A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," Wall Street Journal

Updated: 1/17/2008 Posted: 1/4/2007
By George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn.
The Wall Street Journal
January 4, 2007; Page A15

Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.

Nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War because they were a means of deterrence. The end of the Cold War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.

North Korea's recent nuclear test and Iran's refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium -- potentially to weapons grade -- highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today's war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation. And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the bounds of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new security challenges.

Apart from the terrorist threat, unless urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far from certain that we can successfully replicate the old Soviet-American "mutually assured destruction" with an increasing number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide without dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New nuclear states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches. The United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were during the Cold War?

* * *
Leaders addressed this issue in earlier times. In his "Atoms for Peace" address to the United Nations in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower pledged America's "determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma -- to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life." John F. Kennedy, seeking to break the logjam on nuclear disarmament, said, "The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution."

Rajiv Gandhi, addressing the U.N. General Assembly on June 9, 1988, appealed, "Nuclear war will not mean the death of a hundred million people. Or even a thousand million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million: the end of life as we know it on our planet earth. We come to the United Nations to seek your support. We seek your support to put a stop to this madness."

Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of "all nuclear weapons," which he considered to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization." Mikhail Gorbachev shared this vision, which had also been expressed by previous American presidents.

Although Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev failed at Reykjavik to achieve the goal of an agreement to get rid of all nuclear weapons, they did succeed in turning the arms race on its head. They initiated steps leading to significant reductions in deployed long- and intermediate-range nuclear forces, including the elimination of an entire class of threatening missiles.

What will it take to rekindle the vision shared by Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev? Can a world-wide consensus be forged that defines a series of practical steps leading to major reductions in the nuclear danger? There is an urgent need to address the challenge posed by these two questions.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) envisioned the end of all nuclear weapons. It provides (a) that states that did not possess nuclear weapons as of 1967 agree not to obtain them, and (b) that states that do possess them agree to divest themselves of these weapons over time. Every president of both parties since Richard Nixon has reaffirmed these treaty obligations, but non-nuclear weapon states have grown increasingly skeptical of the sincerity of the nuclear powers.

Strong non-proliferation efforts are under way. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Additional Protocols are innovative approaches that provide powerful new tools for detecting activities that violate the NPT and endanger world security. They deserve full implementation. The negotiations on proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea and Iran, involving all the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany and Japan, are crucially important. They must be energetically pursued.

But by themselves, none of these steps are adequate to the danger. Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev aspired to accomplish more at their meeting in Reykjavik 20 years ago -- the elimination of nuclear weapons altogether. Their vision shocked experts in the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, but galvanized the hopes of people around the world. The leaders of the two countries with the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons discussed the abolition of their most powerful weapons.

* * *
What should be done? Can the promise of the NPT and the possibilities envisioned at Reykjavik be brought to fruition? We believe that a major effort should be launched by the United States to produce a positive answer through concrete stages.

First and foremost is intensive work with leaders of the countries in possession of nuclear weapons to turn the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a joint enterprise. Such a joint enterprise, by involving changes in the disposition of the states possessing nuclear weapons, would lend additional weight to efforts already under way to avoid the emergence of a nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran.

The program on which agreements should be sought would constitute a series of agreed and urgent steps that would lay the groundwork for a world free of the nuclear threat. Steps would include:


* Changing the Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons to increase warning time and thereby reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon.

* Continuing to reduce substantially the size of nuclear forces in all states that possess them.

* Eliminating short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward-deployed.

* Initiating a bipartisan process with the Senate, including understandings to increase confidence and provide for periodic review, to achieve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking advantage of recent technical advances, and working to secure ratification by other key states.

* Providing the highest possible standards of security for all stocks of weapons, weapons-usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in the world.

* Getting control of the uranium enrichment process, combined with the guarantee that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained at a reasonable price, first from the Nuclear Suppliers Group and then from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other controlled international reserves. It will also be necessary to deal with proliferation issues presented by spent fuel from reactors producing electricity.

* Halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and removing weapons-usable uranium from research facilities around the world and rendering the materials safe.

* Redoubling our efforts to resolve regional confrontations and conflicts that give rise to new nuclear powers.



Achieving the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons will also require effective measures to impede or counter any nuclear-related conduct that is potentially threatening to the security of any state or peoples.

Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage. The effort could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible.

We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal, beginning with the measures outlined above.

Mr. Shultz, a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. Mr. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997. Mr. Kissinger, chairman of Kissinger Associates, was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977. Mr. Nunn is former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

A conference organized by Mr. Shultz and Sidney D. Drell was held at Hoover to reconsider the vision that Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev brought to Reykjavik. In addition to Messrs. Shultz and Drell, the following participants also endorse the view in this statement: Martin Anderson, Steve Andreasen, Michael Armacost, William Crowe, James Goodby, Thomas Graham Jr., Thomas Henriksen, David Holloway, Max Kampelman, Jack Matlock, John McLaughlin, Don Oberdorfer, Rozanne Ridgway, Henry Rowen, Roald Sagdeev and Abraham Sofaer.

 

[pcgeek11]

The Impenetrable "Wall-O-Text.

 

[CycloWizard]

I didn't read your whole post, but detail for me a couple things: where the fissionable material is, how collectible it is, what the experts say, and your review of the IAEA etc.

In the meantime, here's an op-ed from 2007 from a few naive people who think it can be done - like Kissinger, Schultz, (Sec. of Defense) Perry, and Sam Nunn.

Oh by the way, how does your navel look as you get your info on nukes from it?

Your article says hat these people would like to collect all of the weapons-grade uranium around the world, not that they have already done so. I would think since that is one of the enumerated goals in your article, that would seem to indicate that it has not yet been done. I could be wrong though.

 

[CycloWizard]

Sane people have been responsible for way more dead civilians than that. Any intelligence officer will tell you the fundamental components of intel are intent and capability. There is no evidence that terrorist groups had the intent to use hijacked planes in that manner for all those years (hijacked planes having many other uses) and there is no evidence they had the capability in the form of pilot trained suicidal hijackers. Both good reasons it didn't happen.

in your case they have both intent and capability and have had this for decades. Instead, a mass insanity has gripped them that makes them want nukes but decide not to make them.

"they are nuts" is the intel equivalent of "god did it". The last refuge of someone who knows they can't support their argument.

There is evidence that crazy assholes have been trying to find fun ways to kill civilians in the US for decades. You're really in the camp that suggests they had a eureka moment when a small, single-engine plane flew into the side of a building and started work on this the next day? You're a bigger idiot than I thought.

 

[Jadow]

War of 1812

 

[fskimospy]

There is evidence that crazy assholes have been trying to find fun ways to kill civilians in the US for decades. You're really in the camp that suggests they had a eureka moment when a small, single-engine plane flew into the side of a building and started work on this the next day? You're a bigger idiot than I thought.

No. I'm trying to be respectful, but you're making it hard. Hijacked planes have a lot of different uses besides ramming them into things as has been proved by...well... every other hijacking that has taken place before or since. Therefore it is not at all clear that they thought using them in that way was the best way to dispose of their highly valuable asset. Ie: there is considerable doubt as to their intent up to that point.

There is also no evidence that Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization had trained terrorists who had been to flight school and were willing to commit suicide in a position to be able to participate in a plan to hijack airplanes up until that date. Ie: there is considerable doubt as to their capabilities up to that point.

See, since all action requires intent and ability, I have raised a counter explanation as to why 9/11 didn't happen sooner. If you have evidence that shows Al Qaeda DID in fact have both intent and capability for years but neglected to act, please share it. When it comes to nuclear weapons, you clearly state that not only Al Qaeda, but basically any similarly well funded organization have both intent and capability, but then are too busy being crazy to do anything with it. Interesting how they have a crazy blind spot that only prevents them from making probably the most effective terrorist tool of all time, btw.

'They are nuts' doesn't cut it. It relies upon A.) a crap cop out to begin with, and B.) that disparate groups all over the globe are all simultaneously afflicted with the same selective mental illness. Please provide a real, credible explanation instead of that bullshit as to why not a single one of these groups has undertaken this task.

 

[Craig234]

nm. My previous posts already say what is needed, and should be re-read instead of repeated.