More UN corruption

[emprworm]

"Development of technology can happen without the presence of war, or with it. Had the microwave not been developed because of war, it would have been developed for some other reason."

Thank you for admitting that war can bring about good for humanity.

[Dunenewt]

Emprworm, do you think France, Russia and the UK deserve permanent Security Council seats?

[emprworm]

i dont care who sits where.  The entire organization is debunk.  Giving Kadafi's Lybia  the chair of human rights is a debacle, and thats the kind of thing the UN does.

[Dante]

"Development of technology can happen without the presence of war, or with it. Had the microwave not been developed because of war, it would have been developed for some other reason."

Thank you for admitting that war can bring about good for humanity.  I'm glad we can now use logic to conclude that war does not necessitate bad, and that some wars (such as ousting Hitler) are beneficial, hence, logically sound.

Agree? Heh, I think not. War does necessitate bad, and it is only sometimes that this bad is justified by a greater menace. The war against Hitler was indeed logically sound, but don't think you've got me there...

And since ousting Hitler was logically sound, weapons were therefore necessary.  Since weapons were necessary to perform this logically sound action, therfore developing them was also logically sound.

Had Hitler not had bombs, we would not have needed them to defeat him. It works both ways, child.

"not due to any logical conclusion, but due to firey passion.

"Bit of both, actually."

As I said, your intense passion against Bush is a reality.

And I've never denied it. Get with the program already.

You hate Bush first, and find the logic second. What kind of redicious logic is it to hate Bush because of what his grandfather did?

I don't hate Bush because of what his grandfather did. I just pointed out a fact. I hate Bush because of what he is doing. Don't blame the child for the sins of the elders and all that. It doesn't matter that I find the logic second, I find the logic nevertheless.

if I find someone in your family tree that had a black slave, would that make you a wicked person?  Your passions blind your reason.

Well firstly, considering my family history and locality, it's incredibly unlikely that we ever owned slaves. Not that it matters, since I just said I don't blame people for the actions of their ancestors. I never have. I just pointed out a fact.

"Like I said, remember that emotions are not the same as morals. Spock had no emotions, but he definately had morals. I have no, or few, morals; but plenty of emotion."

morals are the premises of emotion. Learn the  psychology (I am majoring in it).

Psychology nothing, I took philosophy. Emotion can strengthen or weaken morals. Some moral concepts, such as hedonism, depend strongly on emotions. But to say that morals are necessary for emotions... Now that is ridiculous. I can be happy without being morally justified about it.

From moral conviction comes passion.

From illogical hate comes passion. Hence the absence of it in my arguments.

Passion does not derive itself from logic.

Yes.... and?

If you have proof that it does, I'm sure that the world of psychology and psychiatry would love to read your breaking research. Your large amount of emotion is a direct derivative of your moral convictions.

Or possibly of other convictions.

Your claim that you have very little moral conviction is just...simply...false.  You may fool others, but not me. (and I am willing to believe that you dont even fool yourself).

I have no delusions about myself; which isn't to say that I tell everyone the truth. The funny thing is that I'm making absolutely no effort to 'fool' you, I'm just giving honest opinion. And you, in your delusion, actually think that there is a feint within a feint within a feint... when there is just me. I may or may not be correct, after all there can never be certainty in logic, but I'm secure enough. Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand, but you seem to be content to discuss it.

Your moral convictions are real, and they are fierce.

Alright, so what are they? I'd love to know.

[emprworm]

"Had Hitler not had bombs, we would not have needed them to defeat him. It works both ways, child."

Another person's illogical actions are not do not necessitat that someone else's actions are illogical.

[Dante]

Another person's illogical actions are not do not necessitat that someone else's actions are illogical.  Even if Hitler's bomb-making was illogical for HIM, it was very logical for US.  Surely you are not going to start getting absolute on me!  I would at least THINK that you would agree to this statement of relativity.

"Are not do not?"

...

Anyway, what I meant was not that one country could decide to stop making bombs while another doesn't, but that no countries make bombs at all. Thus Hitler doesn't have them, and because he doesn't have them, we don't need them. Easy.

A child performs an illogical act:  trying to cross the street with cars.

Therefore, adult performs logical act:  grabbing child by the arm and yanking the child back just in the nick of time.

the adult action would normally be quite illogical, but becomes logical due to the childs illogic.

Not necessarily. Depends on the adult's relationship to the child, the likelihood of the adult's action succeeding, the likelihood of the child getting hurt, the various consequences of performing or not performing the action on the part of the adult... I see far more shades of grey than you do.

Ousting HItler= sound logic.

Yes.

Weapons = necessary

What level of weapons? If the Second World War had been fought with swords and bows rather than bombs and worse, nuclear weaponry, then yes, they would have been important. Not exactly necessary, but important. As it was, bombs were necessary. More on this below.

Therefore, to perform sound logic, developing weapons were logical

Not necessarily.

The way I see it, weapons development should have stopped with the cannon. But perfect worlds aside:

Defeating Hitler was a logical step. Realistically speaking, weapons were indeed needed to accomplish this goal. But, these do not need to be bombs. That's the point I'm making here. Weapons, though philosophically surplus to requirements, are realistically necessary. They just don't need to be very advanced. Far fewer people die that way. The 'weapons research' that has spawned so many useful inventions, could just as easily have been abandoned and these same inventions discovered via peaceful means.

This works logically as well, don't think I'm cheating. Lets say that A brandishes a sharp stick at B. B responds by picking up a sharp rock. A then ties a sharp rock to the stick to make a spear. B learns to forge metal and makes a crude sword. A designs a better sword. B invents the longbow. A discovers gunpowder and makes the musket. B redesigns the musket into a pistol. A makes a shotgun. B makes a bazooka. A makes and aeroplane and threatens to drop a brick. B designs a dropping bomb. A designs a small missile. B makes a better missile. A makes a nuclear warhead. B does better, A does better, B does better, A does better, B does better, A does better...

Sooner or later these two unfortunates are going to devote so much time and energy to this that they will not be able to do anything else. Sooner or later their weapons will become too powerful, and this will not stop them from using the weapons. Weapons development is neverending.

Now I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. It may or may not be true, but I like the idea. And pragmatically, I see no way to stop this ever-escalating development of weapons. I see no way to stop these dratted bomb makers (relation to other topic...). Having said that, however, it doesn't mean I have to like it.

[emprworm]

"Weapons development is neverending"

a logical conclusion since technology development is neverending.

[Dante]

My amorality considers the cost, the effort, the time, the resources, and other various bits and pieces needed to complete this goal, and opts instead for assassination as opposed to war. It's cheaper.

It is logical that since there will be people who would destroy a culture of people, if they had the means, therefore to continue to develop the means to adequately defend yourself against the weaponry used by them.

This process is expensive, neverending, harmful, etc etc.... Far cheaper to just amalgamate any hostilites into yourself. Advanced weapons are not a good thing.

I do not really believe in 'war.' It's messy, it's expensive, it's time-consuming, it's resources consuming, and of course it involves a varying risk to one's own person. Thus I do not believe in advanced weapons. Or at least, not bombs. I'm not too fond of guns, either, but they can be tolerated. I believe war should be conducted on the basis of

"Don't bother fighting. If you outlive your enemy, you've won. If he outlives you, it doesn't matter because you're dead."

...Now wouldn't that be preferable? Of course like I said before, I'm a pragmatist. I can't change anything. Not just now, anyway...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Dante said :

"Weapons development is neverending"

Yea genius ... but weapon countermeasures are also neverending.

[Dante]

Dante said :

"Weapons development is neverending"

Yea genius ... but weapon countermeasures are also neverending.  *Chuckle* i thought you said you saw in more shades of grey than emprworm?  Yet you let something so critical slip past your train of thought.

...And? This somehow excuses manufacturing more weaponry?

To counter the sword they made the shield.  To counter light vehicles they made tanks. To counter tanks they made the helicopters and planes.  For the helicopters and planes they made SAM sites.  For the SAM sites they made special radar seeking missiles.  To counter bullets they made kevlar.  To counter nukes they are developing missile defense.  To counter scuds they made patriot missles.  TO counter anthrax they give marines vaccinations.

To counter you there is me, yes, I get the point. Nevertheless, this does not really change anything. See below.

I like how you embrace one idea without considering all the others....

Well you would. You do it all the time.

that's hardly seeing in shades of grey.... that is more aptly defined as narrowmindedness. 

Or possibly believing that development of defences is only going to encourage greater weapons to be built to overcome them, which in turn encourages more defences and more weapons that would not have been necessary had it not been for the initial weaponry. Your argument changes nothing.

[GUNWOUNDS]

...And? This somehow excuses manufacturing more weaponry?

Well you would. You do it all the time.

Or possibly believing that development of defences is only going to encourage greater weapons to be built to overcome them, which in turn encourages more defences and more weapons that would not have been necessary had it not been for the initial weaponry. Your argument changes nothing.

Actually my argument does change something... however you are a bit too dull i suppose to recognize it so let me spell it out for you....

Regardless if weapon countermeasures encourages more weapons development.... the sum total will always be around zero.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Someone's watched too many films...

yes... and people thought landing on the moon was ridiculous and science fiction..... oh wait we did that didnt we? ... tool.

Guns are developed solely to bring death. ........Ballistic missiles are only capable of bringing the warheads high enough so that they can reach their targets as they fall. Destroying an asteroid before it reaches earth requires a huge amount of fuel and oxygen to take them far into space as well as a sophisticated guiding system. Needless to say that they're nothing like ICBM's.

By the way, not NASA or any other space agency uses much of their funds at all to develop like this.

........They're only useful for protecting one's life because they can terminate the threat, or because their potential acts as a deterrence- but that's a purpose derived from the main purpose, namely killing stuff.

you can say what you like.... but the fact is that many people do use their guns for recreational purposes....

sure they may have a "primary" function... but since when did that ever completely define what something is absolutely?

I mean sex is primarily for producing children right?

[Shiroko]

I don't see the asteroid thing working so easily. You must hit it when it's far away, it's moving in an immense speed, and you need to calculate energy disposed from nuke to see what kind of asteroid and speed can you divert, I believe the plain is due to fail but I can't be sure without hard numbers.

I'd comment of the rest of the discussion but it ain't so interesting since we're endlessly discussing these stuff anyway. The asteroid thingy on the other hand... now that's new to the board.

-Shiroko

[Anathema]

you can say what you like.... but the fact is that many people do use their guns for recreational purposes....

sure they may have a "primary" function... but since when did that ever completely define what something is absolutely?

I mean sex is primarily for producing children right?

[GUNWOUNDS]

1.) i see so lets ban bows and arrows right?

[Caid Ivik]

Nearly everything you have at hand can be used as a weapon. If you know Noir, you could see what Kirika did with just an ID card  ;D  Not talking that you are able to do with own hands, if you have skill and strength, of course. However, it's sure, that you would potentially make more damage with a grenade launcher.

Also Russians have cruise missiles, not so small as Tomahawk, which can be fired as a torpedo, but they have some...

[Megashrap]

For destroying bridges in enemy territories you might, but that's a necessary evil.

Anathema, do you not see the irony here...The one thing that many see as a "necessary evil" is the one thing that also is keeping the world from becoming a radiated moon for the most part.

It takes more fuel to bring a even a smallish sattelite (via a space shuttle) in high orbit then it takes to launch a nuclear missile from Moscow to Washington DC.

Dead wrong, small satellites are launched almost every other day here by several different types of small rockets such as the Titan, Delta, Atlas and several others.  All of which use far less fuel than an ICBM for example. Why? because an ICBM depending on it's course and target, has to be cabable of reaching sub-orbital flight as well as outer-orbital flight, use liquid fuel,due to the fact it is the prefered fuel for long periods of storage and or the need for sudden fueling....carry not 1 but more than likely several warheads each with it's own guidance system. 

Whereas a rocket sending a small sattelite itself is far smaller in size, usually uses solid fuel and simply has to put it in orbit.  As far as the space shuttle, NASA doesen't send a 1 billion dollar a liftoff shuttle for the deployment of a tiny satellite...But rather a much, much larger type of satellite if it ever were to do this type of mission.

I personally think that if they can fly a damn satellite to Neptune or land probes on Mars that they can make a specialty built missile. 

  As do I, because research is taking a path more towards space based types of defense and weaponry, and eventually will most likely phase out the need for missles in space altogether.  Lasers, fiber optics, Ionospheric harnessing (HAARP) etc, etc. And those are just a few of the things we DO know about. Reguardless of what Russia claims to posses, for every measure there will ALWAYS be a counter measure.

[Dante]

Actually my argument does change something... however you are a bit too dull i suppose to recognize it so let me spell it out for you....

Regardless if weapon countermeasures encourages more weapons development.... the sum total will always be around zero.  Assuming that weapon X has a value of 1.... and weapon countermeasure X has a value of -1.

Meaning that effective threats are therefore neutralized.

That

[GUNWOUNDS]

yea typing too fast... had two thoughts in my head... "Stop WW III from happening "

[Anathema]

1) No, I said nothing about banning bow and arrows. If you're inventive you can kill somebody with almost anything. But guns, particularily when concealable, make it far easier to kill even multiple persons. Do you think the Columbine tragedy would have happened if they only had bow and arrow? Rofl.

2) So what are you saying, people are not inherently equal to eachother? Most people in EU countries don't carry guns, but they're treated equally. I'll admit though, the only thing that keeps them safe is people with guns- we call these guys law enforcement.

3) Then again, that's still a military situation, wich you didn't mention in your original post.

4) I think it's unlikely that one of the most poverty infested countries who can't support a properly trained army developed revolutionary new missiles in secret before anyone else- especially the US. Plus why would they try to hide it anyway? Missiles only have a deterring effect if the other guy knows you have them. I'm not being naive, I'm being realistic.

5) No, neither of us are experts, but I know enough to say that ICBMs are useless to counter extra terrestial threats like asteroids.

I personally think that if they can fly a damn satellite to Neptune or land probes on Mars that they can make a specialty built missile.

That's right, a specially built missile. The ICBMs in the US arsenal are completely useless for this purpose.

Anathema, do you not see the irony here...The one thing that many see as a "necessary evil" is the one thing that also is keeping the world from becoming a radiated moon for the most part.

Dead wrong, small satellites are launched almost every other day here by several different types of small rockets such as the Titan, Delta, Atlas and several others. All of which use far less fuel than an ICBM for example. Why? because an ICBM depending on it's course and target, has to be cabable of reaching sub-orbital flight as well as outer-orbital flight, use liquid fuel,due to the fact it is the prefered fuel for long periods of storage and or the need for sudden fueling....carry not 1 but more than likely several warheads each with it's own guidance system.

Whereas a rocket sending a small sattelite itself is far smaller in size, usually uses solid fuel and simply has to put it in orbit. As far as the space shuttle, NASA doesen't send a 1 billion dollar a liftoff shuttle for the deployment of a tiny satellite...But rather a much, much larger type of satellite if it ever were to do this type of mission.

I wasn't even talking about nuclear weapons in that part of my post, but nevermind. For MAD to be a safeguard it's sufficient to posses enough weapons to destroy your opponent. That's why Russia and the US have agreed to reduce their arsenals to a minimum. Right now though there are enough nukes to destroy the whole world thoroughly, several times over. At the peak of the Cold war in fact the US had enough to destroy the world 7 times over. Where's the justification in that?

So I was wrong about the fuel comparison, still rockets/missiles meant to carry objects into space is still an entirely different field then ICBMs.

[GUNWOUNDS]

[Megashrap]

still rockets/missiles meant to carry objects into space is still an entirely different field then ICBMs.

  Well, the only thing currently that seperates the ICBM from any other missles are simply the payloads they are set to carry.  Other than that they are one in the same. (e.g,) a rocket liftoff to place a satellite in orbit vs, an ICBM=same or similar type of missles just that one is carrying a nuke or nukes, and one has a satellite.  And i'm not trying to just come across as some sort of NASA rocket scientist mentioning things about rockets....It's just all facts and data.  So entirely different field then ICBMs? yes, but either still uses the same means of transport.

[Caid Ivik]

There are two types of space rockets. Cargo rocket carries only systems to fly up devices to a certain point on the orbit, tough this means it needs much fuel. Returning missile is composed of at least two carrying systems: orbital engine carries a return vehicle, which on certain orbit parts from the carrier and then aims towards the target. ICBM usually carries more separate return vehicles with own warhead, maneuvering systems and countermeasures and whatever you need. When compared to scientific landing ships, it is very similar, just the payload is different.

To the topic, existence of technology, which can be used to build a colony on Mars as well as to shower a death rain over enemy cities, doesn't have a specific moral value, it's how we use it. Same is it with any weapon. You see, Wrights were also payed by army and nuclear energy wasn't interesant for them until they made a bomb using it. With existence of the weapon I take it similarily: it doesn't matter until you shoot someone. However, such possibility is the principle of security.

[Megashrap]

it's how we use it. Same is it with any weapon.

I agree.

[GUNWOUNDS]

well said.