Political Theory

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

Pablo — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:13:10 GMT

Spideynw:

Pablo:
Possibly. It is not very likely however. If a large voluntary population was living in a close geographical region and was funding violence, it may be possible. The chances of there being no innocent peoples who would be damaged is very slim. I think nuclear weapons are a bad idea, but I won't take them away from people who aren't threatening with them.

Would you not have to collect evidence on all of them first? And then have a trial?

I myself do not think they can ever justifiably be used. However, I also do not think there is any way to protect against them without having them yourself as well and be willing to use them. The invention is quite the conundrum.

I'm not sure how it would all work out. It all depends on the DRO's of each group/individual. More likely than not, evidence and a trial would be a good idea to prevent being ostracized from other members of society.

I think nuclear weapons would become a thing of the past if/when a voluntary society emerges. They are too costly, too indescriminate, and would not be useful for defense. Nuclear weapons are a state apparatus. Owners of them would be ostracized heavily. Nuclear Weapon Awareness is the best bet in eradicating them.

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

Spideynw — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:10:17 GMT

Pablo:
Possibly. It is not very likely however. If a large voluntary population was living in a close geographical region and was funding violence, it may be possible. The chances of there being no innocent peoples who would be damaged is very slim. I think nuclear weapons are a bad idea, but I won't take them away from people who aren't threatening with them.

Would you not have to collect evidence on all of them first? And then have a trial?

I myself do not think they can ever justifiably be used. However, I also do not think there is any way to protect against them without having them yourself as well and be willing to use them. The invention is quite the conundrum.

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

Pablo — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:41:41 GMT

Spideynw:

Pablo:

Correct.

So you think a WMD could ever legitimately be used?

Possibly. It is not very likely however. If a large voluntary population was living in a close geographical region and was funding violence, it may be possible. The chances of there being no innocent peoples who would be damaged is very slim. I think nuclear weapons are a bad idea, but I won't take them away from people who aren't threatening with them.

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

Spideynw — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:31:02 GMT

Pablo:

Correct.

So you think a WMD could ever legitimately be used?

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

Spideynw — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:16:28 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
did I really do nothing wrong by playing roussian roullete with you and you being 'lucky' ?

First of all, I will assume you are not trying to setup a strawman, given I never claimed putting a loaded weapon to someone's head and pulling the trigger was OK.

Anyways, I would consider putting a loaded gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger would be a right's violation.

nirgrahamUK:
perhaps my threatening you, exposing you to imminent danger, is initiating aggression against you... thoughts?

I would agree with you, that it is initiating aggression. It is the same as if someone fired a gun at someone and missed. Just because you missed, does not mean a right was not violated. Anyways, what are you getting at?

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

Pablo — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:34:56 GMT

Correct.

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

wilderness — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:58:33 GMT

Pablo:

wilderness:
Because I wonder if nuclear weapons can explode without harming or killing innocents... I know that traditional missiles can explode without killing innocents.

I've stated that any weapon can have collateral damage. Any weapon can also not have collateral damage. This all depends on where the weapon is used.

That's what I've been asking. So you do think wmd's can explode without hurting innocents on earth.

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

Pablo — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:56:03 GMT

wilderness:
Because I wonder if nuclear weapons can explode without harming or killing innocents... I know that traditional missiles can explode without killing innocents.

I've stated that any weapon can have collateral damage. Any weapon can also not have collateral damage. This all depends on where the weapon is used.

On a positive note- Nuclear weapons have a deterent factor which allows them to very very seldomly be used. No one attacks someone that has nuclear war heads.

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

wilderness — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:06:33 GMT

Spideynw:

wilderness:
It is used for extortion.

But just having one is NOT extortion. It may be used for extortion, in which case it is a violation of rights. But just by owning one does not mean it is being used for extortion. As such, there is no rights violation by just owning one.

wilderness:
No. It is like somebody always pointing a gun at someone's face - based on what a nuclear weapons does on impact and somebody is sitting on standby ready to push the push/trigger.

No it is not the same. Regardless, using your analogy, how far away must someone be from the button for it to not be considered "pointing it at everyone's head"?

That's a good question and does bring into question any justification for ridding nuclear weapons based on presence only. What would you say if somebody was sitting at the helm ready to push the button, as is probably happening currently in the U.S. or some other country (maybe India and Pakistan)?

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

wilderness — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:02:59 GMT

Pablo:

Why do you agree with ownership of a traditional missile, and not a nuclear missile? Both have the capacity to cause widespread collateral damage, are potentially unstable, and can easily be used in threatening manners.

Because I wonder if nuclear weapons can explode without harming or killing innocents... I know that traditional missiles can explode without killing innocents.

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

Spideynw — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:12:03 GMT

wilderness:
It is used for extortion.

But just having one is NOT extortion. It may be used for extortion, in which case it is a violation of rights. But just by owning one does not mean it is being used for extortion. As such, there is no rights violation by just owning one.

wilderness:
No. It is like somebody always pointing a gun at someone's face - based on what a nuclear weapons does on impact and somebody is sitting on standby ready to push the push/trigger.

No it is not the same. Regardless, using your analogy, how far away must someone be from the button for it to not be considered "pointing it at everyone's head"? If I am carrying a gun, it is only a few seconds for me to get it out of the holster and point it at someone's head? So if someone is in one room away from the "button", is that far enough?

wilderness:

Spideynw:

wilderness:
For the latter when it goes off will kill innocents.

But until it is actually used to kill people or used for extortion, no rights have been violated.

No, because it is always a gun pointing at innocents.

No it is not, as I have shown above.

wilderness:
Somebody is sitting ready to pull the trigger except in the case of a gun it's more accurate and may not kill an innocent.

Here you go describing the object again. An objects attributes are irrelevant to whether or not a right has been violated.

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

Pablo — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:06:55 GMT

wilderness:

Pablo:

All weapons are capable of causing, and not causing, collateral damage.

Do you know absolutely that a nuclear weapon absolutely does not cause collateral damage on earth in some instances?

As with any weapon, the only person who can claim damage has been done, is those who have been damaged and/or those who are directly responsible for those persons. So, to answer your question, I can not know.

wilderness:
I wouldn't want it to be a matter of opinion, but rather universally warranted.

It will never be universally warranted. Also, I was not suggesting that a PDA attempt to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Rather, I am suggesting alternatives that have not been imagined yet. Perhaps some sort of charity which purchases and dismantles nuclear weapons? Maybe a 'nuclear watchdog' program which indicates who has a nuclear weapon, and releases that information to the public, initiating boycotts on that person? There are countless ways to achieve your ends without the possibility of violence.

wilderness:
It is a question of truth and justice

To be frank, it is not a question of truth and justice. It is a question of preferences. Your preferences for no one having nuclear weapons. An understandable preference, which is held by many. None the less, it is still a preference.

I have demonstrated that owning a nuclear weapon does not satisfy the definition of an initiation of violence. You have not shown any evidence that the initiation of violence to relieve one of his nuclear weapon can be considered 'just'. You have not made the distinction between a nuclear weapon and a traditional weapon, except for the varying degree of destruction. Why do you agree with ownership of a traditional missile, and not a nuclear missile? Both have the capacity to cause widespread collateral damage, are potentially unstable, and can easily be used in threatening manners.

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

Pablo — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:42:40 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

yes, thats a big part of it. stability of the weapon.

Its an interesting point. I'd have to give it a little thought before coming to a conclusion on how it could be handled. Obviously, I'm not a scientist, I am not familiar with the stability of a nuclear warhead. I'd imagine it would be pretty unstable.

Off the top of my head.. this is what I've come up with.

Most roads, residential and commercial properties, parks, and just about anything I can think of would have an expressive 'no nuclear ownership' clause. I know for certain, if I lease a peice of property, I would not want something as dangerous as a nuclear weapon on it. If I was selling a subdivision, I would make sure to include contract stipulations restricting nuclear ownership, right next to 'biological and chemical hazards', and '50 foot front yards'.

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

wilderness — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:40:56 GMT

Pablo:

wilderness:
but if we know for sure that when a nuclear weapon goes off it will absolutely kill innocent

We do not know this.

that's my point... we don't know this. Does anybody? I know for sure that when a gun goes off that it will or will not kill or harm an innocent. But I don't know for sure and I don't know if any person alive knows for sure that a nuclear weapon will or will not kill or harm an innocent.

Pablo:

All weapons are capable of causing, and not causing, collateral damage.

Do you know absolutely that a nuclear weapon absolutely does not cause collateral damage on earth in some instances?

Pablo:

I'm confident that we can figure out a solution to obtaining a nuclear free world without initiating violence.

this inquiry would lead to why justice would or would not be on the side of a PDA that tried to rid nuclear weapons whether from the governments or private individual(s)... It is a question of truth and justice... I wouldn't want to rid nuclear weapons if true justice wasn't on my side. I wouldn't want it to be a matter of opinion, but rather universally warranted.

Re: 2nd Amendment Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option

Pablo — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:29:50 GMT

wilderness:
but if we know for sure that when a nuclear weapon goes off it will absolutely kill innocent

We do not know this. All weapons are capable of causing, and not causing, collateral damage. It is a degree as to how much. It is not a different object.

Those who have intentions of bringing harm to innocent people should not be given any type of weapon, be it nuclear, or traditional. Hell, they shouldn't even be given access to sticks and stones.

Those who have no intention of bringing harm to innocent people should not be considered violent under any definition. Thus, no one can claim a defensive use of force against that person. Any restriction of that persons property ownership would be considered violence against that person.

I understand the difference of opinion here, and fully respect your wishes to obtain a nuclear free world. We must remember, however, that others have different viewpoints. As long as those viewpoints do not necessitate violence, violence should not be used as a response.

There are thousands of incredibly intelligent people on these forums, and hundreds of millions of others across the world who share your same viewpoint. I'm confident that we can figure out a solution to obtaining a nuclear free world without initiating violence.