Not at this point in time, imo.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
that gets personal... and therefore isn't universal (law) anymore... cause now the arguments can go in all kinds of directions such as, 'if only the amerindians had guns when the first colonists attacked them,' or 'if only Japan had more sophisticated guns when Perry at cannon point forced Japan to trade with the U.S.', etc...
wilderness: that gets personal... and therefore isn't universal (law) anymore... cause now the arguments can go in all kinds of directions such as, 'if only the amerindians had guns when the first colonists attacked them,' or 'if only Japan had more sophisticated guns when Perry at cannon point forced Japan to trade with the U.S.', etc...
The case against 'private property' of WMD isn't a universal law; it's the application of a theory of universal law on a particular case, vested in time and place.
AdrianHealey: The Walter Block article changed my mind on the case, indeed. The pure having of a nuclear weapon is, in my eyes, no different from pointing a gun at someone´s head 24/7, even if you are not really saying anything to would be considered a threat.
The Walter Block article changed my mind on the case, indeed. The pure having of a nuclear weapon is, in my eyes, no different from pointing a gun at someone´s head 24/7, even if you are not really saying anything to would be considered a threat.
Well it is different. Having a WMD is not the same as pointing a gun at someone's head 24/7. Having a WMD is like, well having a weapon. I mean, what do you think someone is going to do that has a WMD? Threaten the world with destruction if he or she does not get what he or she wants? Let's think about this for a sec. I have a nuclear weapon. You walk up to me with a gun. I say put your gun down or I will launch my WMD at you. You go BOOM, BOOM, and I am dead. Give me a freaking break with this whole, it is no different than pointing a gun at someone's head 24/7.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
AdrianHealey: Spideynw:You seem to be the one without reason here. So you can argue like a Rothbardian; but can you add a new argument? Because the whole ´you are not really attacking, thus therefore you should be able to have it´ is the point I was attacking. You obviously found it not to your satisfaction; granted. Repeating stuff and adding a few insults doesn´t really do the trick.
Spideynw:You seem to be the one without reason here.
So you can argue like a Rothbardian; but can you add a new argument? Because the whole ´you are not really attacking, thus therefore you should be able to have it´ is the point I was attacking. You obviously found it not to your satisfaction; granted. Repeating stuff and adding a few insults doesn´t really do the trick.
Did you have a rebuttal? Oh, nope. I guess you cannot argue at all. BTW, you were the one implying that I am unable to reason, since my position was the opposite of yours. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
I think the main problem with WB's case is that he is only considering defense against individual criminals. In cases involving defense against a state, WMDs are the ultimate counter. States use mass formation conventional forces such as infantry division, tank columns, air squadrons, armadas, naval fleets and so on. It is not only conceiveable that one could use a WMD to pinpoint a criminal mass without any collateral fallout, but that it is also the only realistic way to defend against a larger, superior force.
As far as the constant threat argument is concerned, I think it depends on the intent of the owner of the weapon.
Spideynw:Did you have a rebuttal? Oh, nope. I guess you cannot argue at all.
Why are you so whatever you want to call it? There is no need to be like this; it's only the internet. (By the way; besides the irrelevance of insulting people, your insult is also a non sequitur.)
BTW, you were the one implying that I am unable to reason, since my position was the opposite of yours
I did not say that I thought you were incapable of using reason. I said that I find the position you take, unreasonable (for lack of a better word) and I tried to explain why. Please note the difference.
Stephen Forde:I think the main problem with WB's case is that he is only considering defense against individual criminals. In cases involving defense against a state, WMDs are the ultimate counter. States use mass formation conventional forces such as infantry division, tank columns, air squadrons, armadas, naval fleets and so on. It is not only conceiveable that one could use a WMD to pinpoint a criminal mass without any collateral fallout, but that it is also the only realistic way to defend against a larger, superior force.
Exactly. This is why individuals do not own WMD's, but nations do. Laws do not stop individuals from owning WMD's. Individuals do not own WMD's, because they are worthless for individuals. An individual that owned a WMD could threaten a nation with retaliation if his or her person is threatened. The other nation would just send in an assassin and have him or her killed. But for a people, WMD's are great for defense against another group of people.
Excellent post.
Spideynw:Well it is different. Having a WMD is not the same as pointing a gun at someone's head 24/7. Having a WMD is like, well having a weapon. I mean, what do you think someone is going to do that has a WMD? Threaten the world with destruction if he or she does not get what he or she wants? Let's think about this for a sec. I have a nuclear weapon. You walk up to me with a gun. I say put your gun down or I will launch my WMD at you. You go BOOM, BOOM, and I am dead. Give me a freaking break with this whole, it is no different than pointing a gun at someone's head 24/7.
I don't really see why your conclusion follows from your argument; I'm sorry. Again; the difference between an ordinary weapon and a wmd is, well, the fact that a wmd is a wmd. The difference in kind - between something that can very easily be used for defence and/or attack without killing innocent people and something that is virtually impossible to use in such a way - gives me enough reason to consider it different, with different attitudes towards it from a philosophy of law perspective.
But I'm not really making new arguments here. So I consider it a agree to disagree.
AdrianHealey: Spideynw:Did you have a rebuttal? Oh, nope. I guess you cannot argue at all. Why are you so whatever you want to call it? There is no need to be like this; it's only the internet. (By the way; besides the irrelevance of insulting people, your insult is also a non sequitur.)
I am still waiting for a rebuttal.
AdrianHealey: BTW, you were the one implying that I am unable to reason, since my position was the opposite of yours I did not say that I thought you were incapable of using reason. I said that I find the position you take, unreasonable (for lack of a better word) and I tried to explain why. Please note the difference.
OK, well, "unreasonable" is a completely subjective word and therefore, completely worthless to use in a formal argument. You seem to know argumentative fallacies so well, how about you figure out which one this is.
Spideynw:The reason that people should be able to own a nuke is just as simple, it is reasonable..
This post was interesting to me because the underlying idea you didn't mention: A WMD could serve the purpose of defending one individual against a mass of aggressors. I don't necessarily see a scenario in which this would happen, but it is not an impossible scenario.
EDIT: I guess you do make this point in a later post. Of course, since it can be used for defense against a mass of aggressors, it can be used as offense against a mass of defenders.
AdrianHealey: wilderness: that gets personal... and therefore isn't universal (law) anymore... cause now the arguments can go in all kinds of directions such as, 'if only the amerindians had guns when the first colonists attacked them,' or 'if only Japan had more sophisticated guns when Perry at cannon point forced Japan to trade with the U.S.', etc... The case against 'private property' of WMD isn't a universal law; it's the application of a theory of universal law on a particular case, vested in time and place.
right, but I was thinking about this... I think Stephen brought this up and this is based on intent. If a person argued the intent was to shoot it into space, then nobody could stop that person from having a nuclear weapon based on his or her intent (even if he or she is lying). Yet, I'm sure there is explicit evidence that can easily be found that nuclear weapons are not currently present to be ignited in space. People sign documents and outrightly declare, as Spideynw is now and Stephen said too, that nuke's are to kill people in other countries on this earth. Nuclear fallout is a second key issue and those pacific islands prove that fallout is dangerous even decades after thus killing innocent people. Sure nuclear weapons may be used upon an army solely without killing innocents on the battlefield but fallout blown by wind or even fallout decades later in the same region is still evidently connected to the blowing up of the nuclear weapon and therefore is still the discharge of the nuclear weapon event potentially killing innocent people. Now people can set-up a perimeter around a formerly detonated nuclear zone to keep people out from becoming harmed so that's an option - or - is that really a reasonable option?
Spideynw: Stephen Forde:I think the main problem with WB's case is that he is only considering defense against individual criminals. In cases involving defense against a state, WMDs are the ultimate counter. States use mass formation conventional forces such as infantry division, tank columns, air squadrons, armadas, naval fleets and so on. It is not only conceiveable that one could use a WMD to pinpoint a criminal mass without any collateral fallout, but that it is also the only realistic way to defend against a larger, superior force. Exactly. This is why individuals do not own WMD's, but nations do. Laws do not stop individuals from owning WMD's. Individuals do not own WMD's, because they are worthless for individuals. An individual that owned a WMD could threaten a nation with retaliation if his or her person is threatened. The other nation would just send in an assassin and have him or her killed. But for a people, WMD's are great for defense against another group of people. Excellent post.
nation's are made up of individuals with various perspectives... that's not an argument.
AdrianHealey: Spideynw:Well it is different. Having a WMD is not the same as pointing a gun at someone's head 24/7. Having a WMD is like, well having a weapon. I mean, what do you think someone is going to do that has a WMD? Threaten the world with destruction if he or she does not get what he or she wants? Let's think about this for a sec. I have a nuclear weapon. You walk up to me with a gun. I say put your gun down or I will launch my WMD at you. You go BOOM, BOOM, and I am dead. Give me a freaking break with this whole, it is no different than pointing a gun at someone's head 24/7. I don't really see why your conclusion follows from your argument; I'm sorry. Again; the difference between an ordinary weapon and a wmd is, well, the fact that a wmd is a wmd.
I don't really see why your conclusion follows from your argument; I'm sorry. Again; the difference between an ordinary weapon and a wmd is, well, the fact that a wmd is a wmd.
And the difference between a gun and a bomb, is that, well a bomb is a bomb. So what? It cannot kill as many people as a WMD? And? A gun cannot kill as many people as easily as a bomb, so we should just make bombs illegal, using your logic. In fact, a single shot rifle cannot kill as many people as easily as an automatic rifle, so maybe we should make automatic rifles illegal. Wait, I know, a sword cannot kill as many people as a gun, so let's just make all guns illegal.
Your argument just boils down to WMD's are the most dangerous weapons, so we should get rid of them. But the logical conclusion of your argument is that we should get rid of all weapons.
wilderness:nation's are made up of individuals with various perspectives... that's not an argument.
It is not beyond reason that in a free society, people would buy insurance from a company that builds WMD's for protection from other nations. In essence, no one individual would own the weapon. A company would. But maybe I am missing your point.
Ryan Magnon:EDIT: I guess you do make this point in a later post. Of course, since it can be used for defense against a mass of aggressors, it can be used as offense against a mass of defenders.
Actually, I make the point that an individual could not use it in defense against a group of people. A group of people would not need to launch a WMD at an individual to take him or her out. They would just need to send an assassin.
Spideynw: And the difference between a gun and a bomb, is that, well a bomb is a bomb. So what? It cannot kill as many people as a WMD? And? A gun cannot kill as many people as easily as a bomb, so we should just make bombs illegal, using your logic.
And the difference between a gun and a bomb, is that, well a bomb is a bomb. So what? It cannot kill as many people as a WMD? And? A gun cannot kill as many people as easily as a bomb, so we should just make bombs illegal, using your logic.
no, it's understanding the nature of a bomb and a wmd. if the bomb goes off kills only criminals with no lasting discharge (fallout), then that bomb is different from a nuclear weapon.
Spideynw: In fact, a single shot rifle cannot kill as many people as easily as an automatic rifle, so maybe we should make automatic rifles illegal. Wait, I know, a sword cannot kill as many people as a gun, so let's just make all guns illegal.
In fact, a single shot rifle cannot kill as many people as easily as an automatic rifle, so maybe we should make automatic rifles illegal. Wait, I know, a sword cannot kill as many people as a gun, so let's just make all guns illegal.
we're talking about innocent people getting killed... a bomb (non-wmd type) or an automatic rifle can be used without killing innocents...
Spideynw: Your argument just boils down to WMD's are the most dangerous weapons, so we should get rid of them. But the logical conclusion of your argument is that we should get rid of all weapons.
no, that wasn't his argument from what I can tell...
Spideynw: wilderness:nation's are made up of individuals with various perspectives... that's not an argument. It is not beyond reason that in a free society, people would buy insurance from a company that builds WMD's for protection from other nations. In essence, no one individual would own the weapon. A company would. But maybe I am missing your point.
this argument boils down to threat. holding a gun is the same as a wmd in a missile silo. They are barrels with 'bullets' inside in a discharge position. a gun with bullets in its chamber in the hands of a person with nobody around can't hurt anybody... a wmd in the chamber of a silo with people at it's operating machines will hurt innocent people when it goes off - not potentially can, but will... Unless you can point out how a wmd going off can't hurt innocent people?
wilderness: Spideynw: And the difference between a gun and a bomb, is that, well a bomb is a bomb. So what? It cannot kill as many people as a WMD? And? A gun cannot kill as many people as easily as a bomb, so we should just make bombs illegal, using your logic. no, it's understanding the nature of a bomb and a wmd. if the bomb goes off kills only criminals with no lasting discharge (fallout), then that bomb is different from a nuclear weapon.
I never said there was no difference. But tell me this, when has a bomb ever been used to just kill a group of criminals? Or even for self-defense? The whole argument is based on the notion that WMD's will surely kill innocent people. Well, so will any bomb.
wilderness: Spideynw: Your argument just boils down to WMD's are the most dangerous weapons, so we should get rid of them. But the logical conclusion of your argument is that we should get rid of all weapons. no, that wasn't his argument from what I can tell...
Then, it appears it boils down to it will kill innocent people if used. Again, so would pretty much any missile or bomb.
Regardless, laws do not stop criminals from getting weapons, only law abiding citizens.
Spideynw: wilderness: Spideynw: And the difference between a gun and a bomb, is that, well a bomb is a bomb. So what? It cannot kill as many people as a WMD? And? A gun cannot kill as many people as easily as a bomb, so we should just make bombs illegal, using your logic. no, it's understanding the nature of a bomb and a wmd. if the bomb goes off kills only criminals with no lasting discharge (fallout), then that bomb is different from a nuclear weapon. I never said there was no difference. But tell me this, when has a bomb ever been used to just kill a group of criminals? Or even for self-defense? The whole argument is based on the notion that WMD's will surely kill innocent people. Well, so will any bomb.
no, the argument is wmd's can ONLY kill innocent people (even if criminals are mixed into the destruction). A bomb is more pin-point targeted. Unless you can think of a way that a wmd will never hurt an innocent.
Spideynw: wilderness: Spideynw: Your argument just boils down to WMD's are the most dangerous weapons, so we should get rid of them. But the logical conclusion of your argument is that we should get rid of all weapons. no, that wasn't his argument from what I can tell... Then, it appears it boils down to it will kill innocent people if used. Again, so would pretty much any missile or bomb. Regardless, laws do not stop people from getting weapons, only law abiding citizens.
Regardless, laws do not stop people from getting weapons, only law abiding citizens.
no, a missile or bomb is more pin-point accurate. a nuclear bomb isn't - it will kill innocents no matter what (if detonated on earth).. I did bring up the perimeter argument and I wasn't sure if that would avoid innocents from dying or not. I was wondering if there is a good argument as to how that is unreasonable or reasonable so there might be a way - not sure.
wilderness:no, the argument is wmd's can ONLY kill innocent people (even if criminals are mixed into the destruction). A bomb is more pin-point targeted. Unless you can think of a way that a wmd will never hurt an innocent.
Well, I can't say I have ever seen a bomb or missile used as defense against "criminals". They are either used by criminals or in wars. And innocent people pretty much always get killed in wars, regardless of the weapons.
wilderness:no, a missile or bomb is more pin-point accurate.
Regardless, making WMD's illegal just keeps law-abiding people from getting them, not criminals.
Spideynw: wilderness:no, the argument is wmd's can ONLY kill innocent people (even if criminals are mixed into the destruction). A bomb is more pin-point targeted. Unless you can think of a way that a wmd will never hurt an innocent. I think any bomb will kill innocent people.
I think any bomb will kill innocent people.
a bomb or missile can be discharged in the desert and not kill anybody
Spideynw: wilderness:no, a missile or bomb is more pin-point accurate. When has a missile or bomb ever been used to only kill criminals? Regardless, making WMD's illegal just keeps law-abiding people from getting them, not criminals.
When has a missile or bomb ever been used to only kill criminals?
a missile or bomb can only kill criminals - they are capable. wmd's are not capable. and wmd's, if unlawful, the criminals would be prosecuted whether in a libertarian society or those currently affirming and threatening others now with nation-states. what this would mean is - if a PDF was powerful enough it could justly prosecute criminals holding and threatening the use of wmd's.
wilderness:a bomb or missile can be discharged in the desert and not kill anybody
I re-wrote my post.
wilderness:if a PDF was powerful enough it could justly prosecute criminals holding and threatening the use of wmd's.
And it is the same today. A nation could prosecute criminals holding and threatening the use of wmd's. But individuals do not own them. Only governments do. So I just think the question is pretty much moot. As far as I know, the head drug guy in Mexico, who has an army that equals the Mexican governments army and is worth billions, does not have WMD's. I am sure it is not because he cannot get his hands on them.
wilderness:a missile or bomb can only kill criminals - they are capable. wmd's are not capable.
Can you prove this? I don't see how they can't be pinpointed against a mass of criminals.
Stephen Forde: wilderness:a missile or bomb can only kill criminals - they are capable. wmd's are not capable. Can you prove this? I don't see how they can't be pinpointed against a mass of criminals.
Well, they can be pin-pointed against a mass of invading troops, which I would call criminals.
Spideynw: wilderness:a bomb or missile can be discharged in the desert and not kill anybody I re-wrote my post. wilderness:if a PDF was powerful enough it could justly prosecute criminals holding and threatening the use of wmd's. And it is the same today. A nation could prosecute criminals holding and threatening the use of wmd's. But individuals do not own them. Only governments do.
And it is the same today. A nation could prosecute criminals holding and threatening the use of wmd's. But individuals do not own them. Only governments do.
No, individuals that continue to hold onto them in the face of justice would be weeded out as criminals. It's like in that other thread. Greenspan was just doing his job kind of argument you are giving. He's not really the interest rates falling. He's really not part of the problem cause Congress ok'ed it. I mean he was simply doing his job correct? In the face of justice the cockroaches would run and those inclined to be lawful will side with the law and those not inclined to be lawful will be against the law (criminals).
Spideynw: So I just think the question is pretty much moot. As far as I know, the head drug guy in Mexico, who has an army that equals the Mexican governments army and is worth billions, does not have WMD's. I am sure it is not because he cannot get his hands on them.
So I just think the question is pretty much moot. As far as I know, the head drug guy in Mexico, who has an army that equals the Mexican governments army and is worth billions, does not have WMD's. I am sure it is not because he cannot get his hands on them.
if it's not because he can't get his hands on them, then why doesn't he have them? criminal street gangs, drug lords that murder and steal, and governments are exactly the same only differences of degree/sophistication.
speculating aloud...
my opinion is that just as how targetable weapons may be legally possessed, until such a time as the owner crosses the line of legitimate use i.e. the device is used to initiate aggreression and the owner presents an immediate/imminent threat to innoccents, i.e. cocking his gun at them at close range without provocation. so too possession of a WMD approaches constituting a de facto initiation of aggression of ones neighbours. (think of the cocked gun present threat to innocents)
As such, the presumption should be that very few people could justly own such awesome and terrible devices. but i don't imagine that no-one can. i think the most reputable, honest, just, sincere, reliable members of any community, can fill their neighbours and peers with such confidence as to their probity, that the neighbours may even very well go so far as to positively ask the gallant to take on the responsiblity and honour of housing and protecting a WMD, as a defense against what other predatory states might still be in existence given our hypothetical. (or as emergency defence against space aliens or whatever).
my point in a nutshell, is that reputation will be where the case is made as to whether somone can be trusted with a WMD, whose very existrance poses an immediate threat to the lives and property of neighbours.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
yes it's provable. a criminal army is on a hillside, only an army, and the missile strikes and kills only that army. It's basic physics of projection and logistics of accuracy.
Spideynw: Stephen Forde: wilderness:a missile or bomb can only kill criminals - they are capable. wmd's are not capable. Can you prove this? I don't see how they can't be pinpointed against a mass of criminals. Well, they can be pin-pointed against a mass of invading troops, which I would call criminals.
yes I agree... and a criminal navy ship out in the ocean can be pin-point targeted too... I mean technology today isn't in the stone age.
nirgrahamUK: speculating aloud... my opinion is that just as how targetable weapons may be legally possessed, until such a time as the owner crosses the line of legitimate use i.e. the device is used to initiate aggreression and the owner presents an immediate/imminent threat to innoccents, i.e. cocking his gun at them at close range without provocation. so too possession of a WMD approaches constituting a de facto initiation of aggression of ones neighbours. (think of the cocked gun present threat to innocents) As such, the presumption should be that very few people could justly own such awesome and terrible devices. but i don't imagine that no-one can. i think the most reputable, honest, just, sincere, reliable members of any community, can fill their neighbours and peers with such confidence as to their probity, that the neighbours may even very well go so far as to positively ask the gallant to take on the responsiblity and honour of housing and protecting a WMD, as a defense against what other predatory states might still be in existence given our hypothetical. (or as emergency defence against space aliens or whatever). my point in a nutshell, is that reputation will be where the case is made as to whether somone can be trusted with a WMD, whose very existrance poses an immediate threat to the lives and property of neighbours.
you brought up the time-line factor too and that's another good point. This fits in with what Spideynw was saying quite possibly. If somebody had the reputation and was principally just enough to save guard nuclear weapons as a deterrence against other states during a transition period from state to stateless societies globally, then there might still be nuclear weapons in a transition stage for nation-states might simply be detered by fear until the final transition takes place. Then if nuclear weapons were kept solely for alien invaders or whatever space actions explicitly by reputable people (an honorable PDA), then that case can be justly made I think.
wilderness:yes I agree... and a criminal navy ship out in the ocean can be pin-point targeted too... I mean technology today isn't in the stone age.
Would you agree that making them illegal would not stop people from getting them?
Spideynw: Ryan Magnon:EDIT: I guess you do make this point in a later post. Of course, since it can be used for defense against a mass of aggressors, it can be used as offense against a mass of defenders. Actually, I make the point that an individual could not use it in defense against a group of people. A group of people would not need to launch a WMD at an individual to take him or her out. They would just need to send an assassin.
That assumes the knowledge that the defender has a WMD is known to the aggressors.
We mean WMDs. We are not talking about conventional missiles and bombs. Or are you conceding the point and admitting that WMDs can be targeted against criminals only.
Spideynw: wilderness:yes I agree... and a criminal navy ship out in the ocean can be pin-point targeted too... I mean technology today isn't in the stone age. Would you agree that making them illegal would not stop people from getting them?
wmd's I assume you are talking about... I agree with you. If a criminal wanted to get them a criminal potentially can - yes. But having nuclear weapons wouldn't stop a criminal from getting them either. A criminal always goes against the grain of what is true and will do anything even if we would have chips implanted in each person, which would be absurd, but the point is nothing stops a criminal from breaking the law or doing anything in the first place so how does having a nuclear weapon stop a criminal? If you're trying to point out that having a nuclear weapon to fire back at a criminal is what's needed that doesn't fly cause a good special forces team could infiltrate a criminals chambers and either deter the action or if the mad scientist did it behind everybody's back well it doesn't matter what we have or don't have in that case. We could have rocks or nukes, but we're dead anyways if a mad scientist made a nuke and launched it before we all saw it coming.
Stephen Forde: wilderness:yes I agree... and a criminal navy ship out in the ocean can be pin-point targeted too... I mean technology today isn't in the stone age. We mean WMDs. We are not talking about conventional missiles and bombs. Or are you conceding the point and admitting that WMDs can be targeted against criminals only.
I think your mixed up as to what's being discussed. We are talking about non-nuclear, non-chemical bombs and missile's being pin-point accurate compared to nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons, as the argument goes, ALWAYS kills innocents unless you can come up with a scenario (outside of space that has already been brought up) in which wmd's don't kill innocents. I brought up the perimeter scenario in which people would be not permitted to enter a certain geographical region in which a nuke went off in isolation (and nuclear fallout didn't travel through the air by wind/weather). But then I asked if that's a reasonable way to live with perimeters set-up in all isolated areas that have been nuked and nobody is allowed to enter them again (unknown how long nuclear radiation lasts as I linked the Pacific Islands that still have it from decades ago blasting). And is there any place on this earth that isolated that nuclear fallout would never travel from the spot of detonation?
You mixed up what was being discussed.When I asked "Can you prove this? I don't see how they can't be pinpointed against a mass of criminals.", it was in reference to your earlier "a missile or bomb can only kill criminals - they are capable. wmd's are not capable." So I was asking if you can prove that WMDs can be used to target criminals only.
I personally think the radioactive fallout problem is exaggerated by an overly imaginative and energetic eonvironmental movement. I'm not an expert though. I know that there is a certain amount of natual radiation in our environment and it is only higher levels of radiation that can lead to health problems. I also think that cleaner weapons could probably be developed. The whole objection is flimsy at best.
The main question is, obviously, whether or not the destructive power of the use of the weapon can be contained to aggressors only. The answer is yes. And since the answer is yes, and because people have a right to defend themselves, they have the right to posess WMDs that can be used to target aggressors only.
And if you don't think that they can be used against aggressors only, you should back it up.
wilderness: Spideynw: wilderness:yes I agree... and a criminal navy ship out in the ocean can be pin-point targeted too... I mean technology today isn't in the stone age. Would you agree that making them illegal would not stop people from getting them? wmd's I assume you are talking about... I agree with you. If a criminal wanted to get them a criminal potentially can - yes.
wmd's I assume you are talking about... I agree with you. If a criminal wanted to get them a criminal potentially can - yes.
So you would agree that it should not be illegal then to own WMD's?
wilderness:If you're trying to point out that having a nuclear weapon to fire back at a criminal is what's needed
No, in fact I have pointed out the exact opposite. WMD's do not protect individuals from other individuals.
Spideynw: wilderness: Spideynw: wilderness:yes I agree... and a criminal navy ship out in the ocean can be pin-point targeted too... I mean technology today isn't in the stone age. Would you agree that making them illegal would not stop people from getting them? wmd's I assume you are talking about... I agree with you. If a criminal wanted to get them a criminal potentially can - yes. So you would agree that it should not be illegal then to own WMD's?
How did you get from my response to this response of yours? I don't see the connection.
Spideynw: wilderness:If you're trying to point out that having a nuclear weapon to fire back at a criminal is what's needed No, in fact I have pointed out the exact opposite. WMD's do not protect individuals from other individuals.
ok, we agree on this point.
Stephen Forde: You mixed up what was being discussed.When I asked "Can you prove this? I don't see how they can't be pinpointed against a mass of criminals.", it was in reference to your earlier "a missile or bomb can only kill criminals - they are capable. wmd's are not capable." So I was asking if you can prove that WMDs can be used to target criminals only.
well you didn't say that... You didn't say "wmd's". You simply said can I prove it, and since I stated wmd's are not capable, I assumed you were referring to missiles or bomb's being capable. The information isn't difficult to find. It's easy to key words into google as I did below and found info. on nuclear fall-out and such. I've been arguing that I have yet to see how wmd's can be pin-point targeted at all.
Stephen Forde: I personally think the radioactive fallout problem is exaggerated by an overly imaginative and energetic eonvironmental movement. I'm not an expert though. I know that there is a certain amount of natual radiation in our environment and it is only higher levels of radiation that can lead to health problems. I also think that cleaner weapons could probably be developed. The whole objection is flimsy at best.
This
and this
also this
and this has pictures of people (scroll down)
oh and don't forget this from previously in the thread
you say flimsy without any evidence, I guess I assume too much of the knowledge of some people regarding nuclear fallout, I mean Japan was taught at a young age where I grew up, plus some other known places that have been repeatedly studied, so that's my fault....
wilderness: Spideynw: So you would agree that it should not be illegal then to own WMD's? How did you get from my response to this response of yours? I don't see the connection.
Spideynw: So you would agree that it should not be illegal then to own WMD's?
So you think owning a WMD is a violation of other people's rights?