Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Tanny on 04/11/2017 15:00:38
-
As I'm sure members know, the Manhattan Project was a huge effort by the U.S. government to develop nuclear weapons during WWII. The project brought together huge resources, the most brilliant minds, and army discipline to keep the ball rolling forward as quickly as possible. And of course, the project succeeded in accomplishing something unprecedented.
So the question of this thread is....
Should we have another Manhattan Project? The new project would be just like the last one, but this time in reverse. Should we apply huge resources, the most brilliant minds, and rigorous impatient breakneck speed discipline to the goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons?
How is the situation now really any different than what was faced in the 1940s, except that the threat today is even more pressing and urgent?
Suggested Rules For Discussion: It's perfectly legit to challenge this proposal if the goal is to make it better. It's also perfectly legit to seek to defeat this proposal if a member can replace it with something better. Saying what's wrong and then walking away, not as interesting.
-
Being the only country that has nukes was a tremendous advantage.
Being the only country that does not have nukes is not.
If you mean we should set up a system for the control and reduction of nuclear weapons internationally than that's a fine idea.
So good we did it ages ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
-
Thanks, but not at all what I'm referring to.
I'm referring to what we did in creating the bomb, an all out, no holds barred, every available resource brought to the table, all the brightest minds scooped up and put some place out in the desert where there's nothing to do but focus on the challenge until they overcome it. A crisis, an emergency, highest priority etc, just like the original Manhattan Project.
-
Thanks, but not at all what I'm referring to.
I'm referring to what we did in creating the bomb, an all out, no holds barred, every available resource brought to the table, all the brightest minds scooped up and put some place out in the desert where there's nothing to do but focus on the challenge until they overcome it. A crisis, an emergency, highest priority etc, just like the original Manhattan Project.
You are saying make a new sort of bomb that isn't nuclear? Why not just use chemical warfare and be done .
-
Anyway the best attack is really the best defence. Anything using electronics can not fly through an E.M.P
Thank me later.
-
You are saying make a new sort of bomb that isn't nuclear?
Read the thread before slamming down on the reply button please. Thank you!
-
... getting rid of nuclear weapons
Do you understand that getting rid of nuclear weapons isn't a scientific problem?
(Or, at least, it's a much easier problem than getting rid of nuclear waste).
-
Do you understand that getting rid of nuclear weapons isn't a scientific problem?
Do you understand that I'm going to stop reading your posts if you decline to put more meat on the bone? This isn't Facebook, I'm not that interested in one liner gotchas.
If you can thoughtfully explain in some detail why scientists, some of the smartest people available, can not be put to work on this problem, please do so and I will listen. I suggest thoughtfully so as to avoid any embarrassment to you, as I can already think of quite a few ways scientists might be productively put to use. If you post them first, then you'll be out in front.
-
" can not be put to work on this problem"
Because they are busy doing science.
The problem isn't a scientific one.
Your suggestion makes as much sense as putting all the musicians to work on the idea of writing a tune that will stop nuclear weapons.
Do you understand that the issue of nuclear weapons is a political one?
If you suggested putting all the politicians in a room until they worked out how to disarm, that would be reasonable.
Trying to get the scientists to do it is daft.
I don't feel I'm at risk of embarrassment here.
-
I don't feel I'm at risk of embarrassment here.
Last chance to avoid that fate. Trying to be civil and cooperative here. Perhaps this will help....
Pretend that I made the case that scientists could NEVER!! help us get rid of nuclear weapons because they are too stupid etc, and I made that case in a loud boorish arrogant Trump-like voice. You come along and read such a boastful ego saturated post from me, and get the itch to rip it to shreds. How would you go about that?
-
Should we apply huge resources, the most brilliant minds, and rigorous impatient breakneck speed discipline to the goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons?
The problem is not breakneck speed.
We could solve the problem tomorrow if we just had the guy with the suitcase and the proverbial Big Red Button not following the president around everywhere he goes. But that's not going to happen unless the US president is sure that the Russian president has fired his equivalent guy with the Big Red Button.
It would take a week to shut down the command and control centers,
- a month to bring back bring the back the people from the remote radar installations, recall the submarines and the remotely-sited nuclear bombers.
- Maybe a year to safely remove the warheads ready for recycling into fuel for nuclear reactors. And recycle some of the missile launchers into civilian launchers (or blow them up).
We know how to do all that. But it won't happen until you know that everyone else has already done it.
The problem is verification: How do you know that the other side has done it, if they won't let inspection teams from your side into their most sensitive and secret military installations - or even tell you where these installations are located?
That's why arms reduction must be done slowly, slowly - and why the most recent few rounds of nuclear arms reduction talks totally stalled - because of the lack of verification.
One news report I saw said that Trump feels that the existing nuclear weapons reduction treaty gives Russia an unfair advantage - possibly because it allowed Russia more tactical nuclear warheads - not a new argument.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START#U.S._public_debate
-
"Pretend that I made the case that scientists could NEVER!! help us get rid of nuclear weapons because they are too stupid etc, and I made that case in a loud boorish arrogant Trump-like voice. You come along and read such a boastful ego saturated post from me, and get the itch to rip it to shreds. How would you go about that?"
OK
I will pretend that's what you did.
You say"scientists could NEVER!! help us get rid of nuclear weapons because they are too stupid etc,"
Well, no Scientists won't do that because it's a political problem.
Once the people and the leaders decide to get rid of them it's a fairly straightforward process from a scientific point of view.
first you separate the explosives from the nuclear material.
You might be able to re-purpose the explosives for demolition- otherwise it's just a matter of burning them.
The nuclear material can be used as fuel in a suitable built power station.
But, until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.
-
The manhatten project was proven technology taken up by the us government on behalf of the allies to win the war, others had nuke knowhow too, they just lacked the recources. Hitler had vast ammounts of recources doing wacky things and not such pleasant things, whilst his troops froze in russia, but this is besides the point. It has to be a proven technology.
What technology do you propose ?
There is the space propulsion, but its not going to get us anywhere (boboom tish!)
Green energy im sure much could be thought of and its quite pressing, fossil fules are already half gone i think, and were only speeding up.
Diseases and medicine if this where done militarily i bet it would speed up
It is true though if you implement it through government it will get the job done and it will happen! As for nukes, stop worrying and love the bomb !
-
The problem is verification: How do you know that the other side has done it, if they won't let inspection teams from your side into their most sensitive and secret military installations - or even tell you where these installations are located?
There you go, you've done it. You've outlined the first challenge the New Manhattan Project should aim at. There just might be a purely technical solution the brightest minds could apply themselves to, how to detect all nuclear material from space.
I remind all of us that the first Manhattan Project also faced many large obstacles, and a very real risk of failure. They didn't let that slow them down. They didn't content themselves with listing all the many reasons it might not work. They rolled up their sleeves, tackled the problem, and conquered it. We could probably do the same, but first we need to get off our ass and recapture some of that "can do" spirit.
We spent at least a couple trillion dollars invading Iraq and Afghanistan. The proposed Republican tax cut is projected to cost at least a trillion and a half. The money is there, the expertise is there, it's only will and focus that we lack.
-
But, until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.
Keep reading and learn.
-
how to detect all nuclear material from space
We do have satellites that can detect nuclear explosions from space - from gamma rays, the burst of light, or by photographing areas that have had suspicious seismic activity, looking for the telltale crater.
However, a passive nuclear warhead sitting in an underground silo, warehouse or underwater submarine emits very little radiation, and this is effectively shielded by the warhead packaging and thick layers of steel/rock/concrete/water. 150km of atmosphere adds considerably more shielding.
I agree that this is a worthy challenge - and one which all nations are spending a lot of money on, as we write.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_technical_means_of_verification
the first challenge
Now lets talk about the even bigger challenges.
Arms Race
If A increases (or improves) its arsenal, then B will increase (or improve) its arsenal.
If B increases (or improves) its arsenal, then A will increase (or improve) its arsenal.
This results in a ratcheting-up of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
This positive feedback loop produced the cold war, and today's excessive stockpile of nuclear weapons.
We have seen similar arms races in previous centuries, and they usually ended in tears.
Perhaps the only thing that has held it back in this case is:
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones
Deadlock
A won't eliminate it's nuclear weapons until B has eliminated it's nuclear weapons.
B won't eliminate it's nuclear weapons until A has eliminated it's nuclear weapons.
This creates a "stickiness" that discourages any party from reducing its nuclear weapons.
Military Secrecy
A won't agree to any treaty where it can't verify B's actions (by means which it has publicly announced).
B won't agree to any treaty where it can't verify A's actions (by means which it has publicly announced).
A won't publicly announce it's verification capabilities in case B works out how to do it too (or, worse, block it).
B won't publicly announce it's verification capabilities in case A works out how to do it too (or, worse, block it).
B won't publicly announce that it knows about A's verification capabilities X, Y & Z (and is ready to block them), as A will cease relying on X, Y and Z, and will invent new methods (plus it will uncover B's spy assets).
A won't publicly announce that it knows about B's verification capabilities X, Y & Z (and is ready to block them), as B will cease relying on X, Y and Z, and will invent new methods (plus it will uncover A's spy assets).
So even when you do invent improved methods of verification, noone will admit to them, or write treaties invoking them, or actually use them to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles.
You actually need an international body (eg the UN CTBTO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty#Monitoring)) which has responsibility for monitoring nuclear weapons tests - but be aware that it will never have support from any of the major powers, as anything their citizens invent will be immediately classified, withheld and used secretly. And the major powers will not approve deployment of any method which will reveal anything about their own capabilities.
Trust
It all comes back to the element of trust.
Intelligence agencies inherently don't trust anyone, because they expect that the other side is doing exactly what they are doing (and they probably are).
It is not helped if their politicians are xenophobic chauvinists who fear that everyone else is out to get them.
It really takes someone who is very trusting to make a unilateral offer of arms reduction (in a verifiable way), which will increase mutual trust, and allow for further nuclear reductions. And that won't happen under the current US presidency.
Organisations like the UN and EU are an opportunity for nations to cooperate and build trust, reducing the tensions that lead to an arms race.
Human Nature
This all brings it back to human nature.
While humans are aggressive to outsiders and sometimes over-tolerant to insiders, gross inequities will remain.
Would you like to bring the clerics in on this?
-
Thanks for your ongoing engagement evan_au. A few responses....
1) A New Manhattan Project must have the same mindset as the first one, there must be that same relentless determination to get the job done. As example, listing obstacles is good if the purpose of that process is to identify the problems which must be solved, and then set about solving them. If the purpose of listing obstacles is to convince ourselves that nothing can be done, then we are not honoring the winning spirit of the first Manhattan Project.
2) None of the great powers benefit from nuclear stockpiles. As example, nobody is going to launch a land invasion of the U.S., Russia or China. The U.S. is too strong conventionally and too far away from any potential invaders, and the other countries are simply too large. But what could happen to each of those countries is that they be bombed in to dust within a few minutes.
3) We've already reduced stockpiles considerably, so apparently the great powers are satisfied with verification to some degree. There's no good reason why that process shouldn't continue. There's no meaningful difference between dropping 500 nukes on a country vs. 1500.
4) Even if a New Manhattan Project failed miserably for all the reasons you list and more, it would still be a useful exercise. Such an effort would further illustrate that it's a lot easier to create things than un-create them, which should give rational people a great deal of pause about rushing forward in an unrestrained manner based on the outdated "more knowledge is better" paradigm.
To me, that's the heart of it. The simplistic "more is better" relationship with knowledge which served us well for so long has been made obsolete by the success of the knowledge explosion. A new environment has been created and we need to adapt to it, like it or not, do or die.
If the accelerating nature of the knowledge explosion is allowed to continue unedited we're going to have to keep on adapting, faster and faster and faster. The Trump election serves as a pretty good example of what's likely to happen as more and more people fail to keep up with the accelerating pace of change.
-
Would you like to bring the clerics in on this?
Sure, especially if you're willing to discuss the "science clergy" too. We used to have a kind of blind faith relationship with the religious clergy, and now many of us have shifted that over to the scientific community. The target of our authority worship may be different, but the process is essentially the same. We don't want to think things through ourselves, so we outsource the job to somebody else who claims to have The Answer.
This might be ok, if the authority we chose to follow had the right answer. Sadly, this appears not to be the case with the science clergy. Most of the science clergy have devoted themselves to the "more is better" relationship with knowledge paradigm, a form of racing blindly towards a cliff.
If we are to discuss clergy, it might be most productive to aim the lens at those parts of ourselves which create clergies, whether religious or scientific.
-
But, until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.
Keep reading and learn.
OK, I learned.
Specifically, I learned that you don't recognise what is easy, and has already been technically "solved".
There you go, you've done it. You've outlined the first challenge the New Manhattan Project should aim at. There just might be a purely technical solution the brightest minds could apply themselves to, how to detect all nuclear material from space.
That's a trivial problem. The solution is to just allow anyone who wants to, to go and have a look.
The issue is that some politicians are not going to accept it.
Also, any technology that could be used for nuclear verification could be used for other things- like industrial espionage, or even just traditional espionage.
Even allowing for the political "awkwardness" of this approach; it is already done to a degree.
There are people working on it
http://www.nti.org/about/projects/international-partnership-nuclear-disarmament-verification/
And yet- even though the "technology" is simple- the mark 1 eyeball- we are unable to do it properly because of politics.
So, once again. until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.
(Incidentally science tells me that nuclear radiation will not penetrate the atmosphere well enough for me "to detect all nuclear material from space. " and it would be a forlorn target anyway. Uranium and thorium are widely distributed in nature. Any sensible country could simply move their stock to somewhere that is naturally radioactive.
The only way to truly verify is to get close.
That's technically very easy- get a helicopter.
However it's politically impossible- the Russians won't allow the Americans to fly round Russia in choppers and vice versa.
So, once again. until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.
-
So, once again. until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.
Scientists are powerless, useless, unable to contribute much of anything to the most important issue facing humanity today. We should just forget about the scientists being any help, there's no point in even talking about them, or to them either. What can they do? Nothing. Nothing at all. They can get us in to lots of trouble, but they can't get us out.
It's all the politicians fault that Einstein and others learned about the atom. It's all the politicians fault that scientists keep selling the "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and look down their snooty noses at anyone who dares challenge that status quo. It's all the politicians fault that scientists keep opening more and more sections of Pandora's box, with little idea what might pop out, or what dangers that might entail.
It's all the politicians fault. No, wait, not all politicians, just Trump. Yes, that's right, just Trump. Wait, not all of Trump, just his butt, which he has confused with his brain. Yes, we've got it now, it's all Trump's butt fault. Here's photographic proof!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvVvem9LgNGg0S1WaUViK-ywnlk56iIJGQV0Rtgqpf-J6OU-A0xg)
-
Scientists are powerless, useless, unable to contribute much of anything to the most important issue facing humanity today. We should just forget about the scientists being any help, there's no point in even talking about them, or to them either. What can they do? Nothing. Nothing at all. They can get us in to lots of trouble, but they can't get us out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
-
Wait! I figured it out. Here's what we'll do.
First, you guys will invent a time machine. Should only take a few minutes because as soon as you're done we can wind the clock back and pretend all those decades of work never happened.
Next, once we have the time machine, we'll take all this negative defeatist talk and apply it to the original Manhattan Project.
Finally, here's a new official document which just suddenly appeared in the Library Of Congress.
=================
Oppenheimer: Well, we're gonna have to cancel the project.
Groves: What??? Why???
Oppenheimer: Problems and obstacles, we found some.
Groves: Oh no! Really?
Oppenheimer: Yup, we found three actually.
Groves: And things were going so well.
Oppenheimer: I told you science is tricky.
Groves: I had no idea it could get this bad though....
Oppenheimer: Well, these things happen. You'll just have to tell the President this can't be done.
Groves: Problems and obstacles. Who knew that could happen!
Oppenheimer: I didn't sign up for problems and obstacles.
Groves: Me neither, the President said we would just build this and then go home.
Oppenheimer: I'm going home now.
Groves: Ok, me too, we'll just have to live without the A-bomb.
-
You are saying make a new sort of bomb that isn't nuclear?
Read the thread before slamming down on the reply button please. Thank you!
Quite clearly you are arrogant and a bit narcissistic and really thinks highly of themselves. I would be sure you was a politician .
Like a typical politician you didn't answer the question. Do you know what a question is? It is generally for confirmation.
-
First, you guys will invent a time machine.
No such thing as time travel. Try again.
-
The overriding problem is a total unwillingness of politicians to do anything about it. Doctors need disease, farmers need hunger, politicians need fear. Without these horsemen of the apocalypse, these worthy and unworthy people would be unemployed.
When I was but a wee target for the V2, the development and testing grounds for this remarkable weapon were discovered by a combination of human intelligence, signals intercept, and photoreconnaisance from slow, low-flying aeroplanes. Said facilities were then destroyed by slow, higher-flying bombers, but the rockets had already gone into production and could be launched from relatively simple mobile units.
Delivering a nuclear weapon from suborbital flight requires the development, production and construction of a launch facility for something rather bigger, easily spotted from space (if a satellite can read a car number plate, it can surely locate a rocket launch pad) and destroyed at no risk by a cruise missile.
The fact that no nation with the capability of doing so has done so, suggests that it is not in the interests of the major military powers to prevent anyone else acquiring intercontinental nuclear capability.
-
First, you guys will invent a time machine.
Thanks for explaining your level of understanding of the issues.
Perhaps you should go away and learn something, rather than pontificating here.
-
To hear some practical experience with the technology and politics of nuclear monitoring, listen to this podcast (1 hour, 53 minutes):
http://omegataupodcast.net/185-nuclear-test-monitoring-and-the-ctbt/
-
The overriding problem is a total unwillingness of politicians to do anything about it.
I'm uncomfortable with this passing of the buck, it's too easy of a dodge. Having some experience as an activist I've grown weary of these victim poses. They're so common, and so wrong.
Our current president here in the U.S. is a good example. He has no fixed opinion, no principles, he blows in the wind. All politicians are like this to some degree or another, because typically their highest priority is keeping their jobs. This is a good thing, because it makes them susceptible to influence. Want to change Trump's mind? Change the mind of his base. He'll be on Twitter the next day claiming he invented whatever his base has decided it wants.
There's no reason why scientists can't apply their data analyzing skills to the art of shaping public opinion. Political hacks do it, salesmen do it, scientists could too. What's lacking is the will, not the means.
As example, direct response copy writers endlessly test their headlines and sale pitches using real world data to determine what presentation best serves their goals. They keep tweaking their pitch, and testing each version of it against hard data, until they boost their conversion rate to the highest level possible. One doesn't need to be a genius to do this, one just needs to be serious.
The advertising industry spends billions every year determining what messages people will respond to. If ad men, copywriters and political hacks can master data driven arts of persuasion, why not scientists?
Why can't scientists use data to figure out what hooks will engage broad swaths of the public on the nuclear issue? Why can't scientists use data to figure out what messages will persuade people to act? Why can't scientists partner with some billionaire who wants his life to matter? Why can't scientists partner with some charismatic Bobby Kennedy type figure who knows how to close the deal with millions of us?
Why can't they? Because they don't want to, that's why. Scientists enjoy the comfy cozy status of being cultural leaders, but they so often don't want to actually lead on the issues that matter most, because it's too risky to their careers. It's so much easier and safer to be a follower instead of a leader, and blame it all on the politicians.
We don't need scientists who invent nuclear weapons, and then throw their hands up in the air in pathetic negativist defeatism when it comes to fixing the problems they themselves have created. If that's all you've got, then in the words of our most esteemed Moron-In-Chief, "YOU'RE FIRED!!"
Fair Warning: I'm pretty much clueless about most things in life, but I was born to dance this dance. Before any member slams down the reply button to share a thousand defeatist reasons why none of this could ever possibly work, be forewarned, I'm going to systematically rip all of that in to tiny little shreds without mercy. As Michael Corleone might say, it's not personal, it's just business. So if you don't want that to happen to your post, apply your intelligence to solving the problem, not to trying to make a case for why you can't solve it.
If it's true that politicians are a bunch of clueless bums, a not unreasonable theory, then it's up to you, scientists, to step up and meet the biggest challenge of our time.
-
Here's an example of the kind of alliance that serious scientists might be able to assemble.
1) Scientists
2) Bill Gates
3) Country Music Stars
Scientists contribute technical expertise and cultural authority. Bill Gates brings tons of cash. Country music stars bring their access to segments of the population most in need of persuasion.
Funded by Gates, scientists use data driven analysis to determine what kinds of messages are the most effective in engaging the public in this topic, and inspiring them to action. Country music stars and scientists working together deliver the finely crafted message to the broader public.
Country music stars have access to right leaning segments of the population, but generally speaking they aren't seen to be polarizing political figures. Scientists have less access, but more credibility, and are also seen to be largely above the right vs. left cultural divide which is paralyzing effective action. Bill Gates has earned a reputation as someone sincerely concerned with the fate of humanity, and is also not closely identified with either right or left.
Note how this proposal ignores politicians entirely, by going over their heads to their bosses, the voting public.
This is just one example of the form a New Manhattan Project might take. I came up with this about as fast as I can type, so I'm sure it can be improved on by others. So get to it please.
-
The pitch to Gates...
=================
Dear Mr. Gates,
If we don't meet the nuclear weapons challenge, none of the other very noble projects you are working may matter at all.
Sincerely,
International Association Of Scientists Who Get It
-
The voting public has expressed its wish, many times. Like Hitler and George W Bush, Sphinctermouth Trumph has been elected by popular vote, and wherever there has been a choice, Joe Public has voted for the nuke party.
Nuclear weapons have been used twice in my lifetime. The result was that my father, and probably your grandfathers, did not have to invade Japan. This was undoubtedly a Good Thing.
Warfare has changed since then. The world's greatest military powers were defeated in Vietnam and Afghanistan by a ragbag of guys with sharp sticks and AK47s, and around the world more people are killed every month with conventional weapons than ever were by nukes. When ISIS kills people in the west, which city should we destroy with nuclear weapons? Isn't the Middle East a great place to live now that we have rid the world of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons? See how they have prevented genocide in the Balkans and Myanmar.
Fact is that they are irrelevant to modern politics.
-
The voting public has expressed its wish, many times. Like Hitler and George W Bush, Sphinctermouth Trumph has been elected by popular vote, and wherever there has been a choice, Joe Public has voted for the nuke party.
Let me guess, what interests you most is explaining how scientists are way too dumb to do anything about this. Right? Scientists are weak, they are powerless, they are inept, clueless, they have no ability to address the most pressing challenges of our time, all they can do is sit by helplessly and wait for the end. Is that the message, am I getting it?
I want to be cooperative so I will ask, do you prefer that I agree, or rip your posts to shreds? I can go either way, so just let me know.
Fact is that they (nukes) are irrelevant to modern politics.
Which would explain why more countries are trying to get them???
Why does North Korea want nukes? So they can hold the U.S. mainland hostage, and present future presidents with this choice.
1) Abandon South Korea, or...
2) Say goodbye to some of your cities, and your career.
The U.S. has been a loyal ally of South Korea primarily because doing so came at little risk to us. North Korean nukes are changing that equation. What U.S. president is going to be willing to put San Francisco and LA at risk to save South Korea, a small far away country few Americans could even find on a map?
Americans don't mind losing troops in battle so much because the troops are all volunteers and the average voter doesn't have to go, as was the case in Vietnam and earlier. So long as somebody else is doing the dying, not so bad. Nukes give the North Koreans the ability to bring the battle to the average American voter's doorstep. North Korean nukes are going to persuade the American people to wash their hands of South Korea and the whole problem, which will be the beginning of the end of our influence in Asia, increasingly the center of the world
Meanwhile, the ancient patient Chinese chess masters are quietly smiling up their sleeve in the background, pleased by the good work their North Korean proxy is doing for them. The North Koreans take all the risk, the Chinese reap most of the benefits, a smart move on the global chessboard.
Nukes are irrelevant to modern politics? Wanna try that one again?
Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass. Nor do I seek confrontation. But if members refuse to raise their game to what I know they are capable of, this might get messy.
-
Scientists are weak, they are powerless, they are inept, clueless, they have no ability to address the most pressing challenges of our time, all they can do is sit by helplessly and wait for the end. Is that the message, am I getting it?
No, that's the straw man you keep putting forward.
Why do you do that?
-
Nukes give the North Koreans the ability to bring the battle to the average American voter's doorstep. North Korean nukes are going to persuade the American people to wash their hands of South Korea and the whole problem, which will be the beginning of the end of our influence in Asia, increasingly the center of the world
1a What would be the reaction to a single nuke reaching US soil? 1b So why wait?
2.What influence does the US have in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, India, Pakistan? Asia? Other,that is, than as a customer for products that used to be made in the USA?
-
The big boys in the playground want the biggest clubs in order to keep the riff raff in line. The riff raff includes the under developed countries of the world as well as their own citizens. These guys ain't listening to you. You are an annoyance. That is the biggest hurdle for your project.
-
No, that's the straw man you keep putting forward.Why do you do that?
Here's the link to Facebook, a popular service designed to discourage intelligent in depth conversations, as it prefers to excel at publishing lazy one liner water cooler gotchas. You may find it the perfect writing environment for your interests. Good luck!
http://Facebook.com
-
'Smatterofact, mutual inspection already happens, despite BC's earlier statement. The "Open Skies Project" allows Russian aircraft to fly a few low level missions every year along any route they choose, and likewise for NATO to wander across Russian territory. It's sometimes amusing and occasionally a pain in the arse for everyone else (we get very short notice, and have to stay out of the way, whilst Ivan fills the airwaves with requests for clearance to his next objective), but it's all done in a most gentlemanly manner and I guess provides amusement for a few lucky crews to collect mission badges, beer mats, and photographs of each others' military installations.
Problem is that it doesn't cover any other states.
-
Dear Global Moderators,
Out of respect for the forum you have volunteered to serve, perhaps you would consider making intelligent thoughtful relevant comments instead of the slam down on the reply button male ego competition water cooler gotchas which are the death of all forums which had hoped to be useful.
You'd like to chat with interesting people, right? Me too. The reason you are currently stuck with me is that when interesting people read threads like this they almost immediately conclude it's not worth their time and they slam down on, not the reply button, but the back button.
As far as I'm concerned this thread is now officially dead. I'm bowing out, it's all yours to do with as you please, have fun.
-
'Smatterofact, mutual inspection already happens, despite BC's earlier statement.
My earlier statement was that it happens in spit of it being difficult.
Please read more carefully in future.
Even allowing for the political "awkwardness" of this approach; it is already done to a degree.
There are people working on it
http://www.nti.org/about/projects/international-partnership-nuclear-disarmament-verification/
And yet- even though the "technology" is simple- the mark 1 eyeball- we are unable to do it properly because of politics.
-
No, that's the straw man you keep putting forward.Why do you do that?
Here's the link to Facebook, a popular service designed to discourage intelligent in depth conversations, as it prefers to excel at publishing lazy one liner water cooler gotchas. You may find it the perfect writing environment for your interests. Good luck!
http://Facebook.com
You forgot to answer my question.
Perhaps you should try Facebook, rather than a discussion forum where the idea is to respond to points and questions people raise.