Political Theory

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

kiba — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:17:16 GMT

MacFall:

wombatron:

GilesStratton:

I don't think PDAs would have nukes, they're simply too expensive and ineffective.

I would say that it depends on the yield, and on the degree of fallout. A low-fallout tactical nuke would be an excellent weapon against, say, an aircraft carrier, or a tank column.

Nah. Fuel-air bombs would work just as well, without the radioactive consequences.

Or bat-brone naplem bomb..(The US did research on bat-brone bombs in WW2 but it was never used because they have the atom bomb)

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

MacFall — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:27:50 GMT

wombatron:

GilesStratton:

I don't think PDAs would have nukes, they're simply too expensive and ineffective.

I would say that it depends on the yield, and on the degree of fallout. A low-fallout tactical nuke would be an excellent weapon against, say, an aircraft carrier, or a tank column.

Nah. Fuel-air bombs would work just as well, without the radioactive consequences.

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

ladyattis — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:46:11 GMT

Yeah, WMDs would be naturally deterred by the total cost to do a single act of mass destruction when you could have out competed your opponent by creation alone (exhausting the same resources, but have something to utilize/show for it). The only real purpose of an WMD in any possible set of cases is when your opponent is so dangerous that any part of it should not survive, thus the investment in WMDs would be extremely rare as much human beings are not bent on genocide and hopefully non-human persons elsewhere in the Universe are not bent on xenocide in kind.

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

BarleyLegal — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:38:12 GMT

Here is an issue. Of what USE would a nuclear weapon be to a privet citizen?

Seriously, it's the most wasteful investment imaginable. They had to build a small city to construct the first three nuclear bombs, and all that invested capital was good for what? Destroying capital. Short of bloody politics, that's all you can do with a nuclear weapon. Kill hundreds of thousands of people, and destroy all of there property. In short, if you break it, you buy it-- but in reverse.

Lets assume that Bill Gates had a free hand to throw every last cent he had into a nuclear program. If he managed to drop one on people, we probably wouldn't have time to debate the legalistic issues. He, and those who helped him would probably be hanging from a tree.

I'll put this another way: Why a nuclear weapon? Why not just buy ten thousand steak knives and give them to ten thousand maniacs, and air drop them into town? How is that less practical? How is that a less ludicrous scenario?

If we want to worry about something improbable, lets worry about something MORE probable, such as an asteroid impact.

IMO.

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

Simon Lote — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:47:18 GMT

It surely begs the question as to whether responsible people would want to own nuclear weapons? I don't think they would.

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

fingolfin — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:58:28 GMT

HeroicLife:

The possesion of nuclear weapons by responsible parties, like their possesion by responsible governments today is not really a problem.

You have to be kidding me. Tell me you're kidding me?!!

HeroicLife:

Regimes like North Korea and Iran use the threat of nuclear weapons to extract bribes and other benefits from civilized countries...

Civilised countries... ?!

HeroicLife:

...but surely markets can deal with that problem better than governments do now.

Agreed.

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

David V — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:32:25 GMT

The possesion of nuclear weapons by responsible parties, like their possesion by responsible governments today is not really a problem. But it is interesting to note how irresponsible governments use nuclear technology. Regimes like North Korea and Iran use the threat of nuclear weapons to extract bribes and other benefits from civilized countries, while countries like Pakistan have been caught selling their technology to the highest bidder. Maybe we should not expect a simple or safe solution to the threat of nuclear weapons in the wrong hands - but surely markets can deal with that problem better than governments do now.

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

fingolfin — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:05:30 GMT

No, but we do have to look to historical evidence for wild claims about imminent nucleur warfare or the like. It is *possible* that a maniac is waiting outside my house, right now, to blow me up. Unlikely, but possible. However, I don't spend my time worrying about it because there is no evidence to support the hypothesis, it is logically unsound and statistically unlikely, etc.

Likewise it is *possible* that a maniac (most likely working in government!) might one day in the future actually use a nucleur weapon against a populace - but historically and logically speaking it is highly unlikely and, if not, there is little we could do about it anyway. So why worry? The strongest incentive against use is itself universal nucleur armament. Of course I'm not saying I'm all for nukes, but you must admit it is a truly magnificent paradox that the most vile and destructive weaponry ever produced may unexpectedly, also manifest as a solution for bringing about relative global peace and stability.

I am almost certain that if Lebanon, Iraq or Afghanistan had openly possessed nucleur arms, no military invasion would ever have occurred. This is much of the current hoo-haa surrounding Iran, in my opinion. Does that clarify my position?

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

hayekianxyz — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:53:57 GMT

fingolfin:

Nukes stop nukes.

So, because it's never happened it never can happen?

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

Bostwick — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:25:55 GMT

Dont get me wrong, I want the US government to unilaterally nuclear disarm. I just take issue with the calls for prohibition.

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

fingolfin — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:40:40 GMT

Nukes stop nukes.

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

hayekianxyz — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:38:53 GMT

fingolfin:
No country with a nuclear weapon has ever been invaded.

And?

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

fingolfin — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:23:53 GMT

No country with a nuclear weapon has ever been invaded. The only 'countries' to ever use them have been those with massive governments inlcuding those supposedly 'civilised' (democratic!) ones, which just shows how completely brainwashed people are into thinking governments actually protect people, when it's quite the extreme opposite. Only governments use nukes and start wars, or provoke others unjustly into them, not ordinary everyday groups of people. It's what happens when you have a massive, monopolistic criminal gang in charge of an entire nation's economy and social structure.

So really the ultimate deterrent for nuclear warfare is nuclear warfare. Noone would be mad enough to use one if there is even the slightest potential for retaliation. We can't live our entire lives worried about what ifs and maybes, else we'd never even leave the house or get out of bed. This is the kind of paranoid fearful state of mind governments feed upon like a parasite, like religious cults which have to scare you and beat you down before bringing you back to the "light" and "love" of their [insert name of saint like figure here]. It's just a giant scam.

Nuclear war is used as yet another propagandist fear mechanism - to gain more state power; terrorists! paedophiles! global warming! global cooling! global dimming! acid rain! mad cows! SARS! etc etc etc.... the hooomons are EVIL! So we must put (the same supposedly evil) people in charge of... the people... to stop... the people from... ripping themselves to pieces!!!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QF5tAxAmC_M - "All media scares in three breaths..."

Fin

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

Maxliberty — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:53:54 GMT

Natalie:

If I find out that my neighbor is building a nuclear tactical weapon I have at least two choices:

a) get the hell out of the area before it blows

b) do something about it

There're going to be quite a few people pissed with the "made scientist's" plans. Having nuke around lowers the value of real estate, doesn't it? Since private defense agencies are not likely to cover the crazy nuke builders (knowingly, that is) s/he will be in a vulnerable position when these folk come to convince him that they'd really prefer to keep the value of their properties from falling. All very peacefully, of course ;)

Now, if someone wants to conduct experiments somewhere in the desert far away from other living souls... with the prior notice, of course... would anyone even care?

What if it's not the mad scientist. Suppose it's a munitions factory. Is that outlawed as well?

I agree with you that I am not going to allow anyone I deem as a maniac to have nuclear weapons near me. That doesn't mean I universally rule out the possibility of private groups having nuclear weapons.

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the anarcho-capitalist society

Natalie — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:18:50 GMT

If I find out that my neighbor is building a nuclear tactical weapon I have at least two choices:

a) get the hell out of the area before it blows

b) do something about it

There're going to be quite a few people pissed with the "made scientist's" plans. Having nuke around lowers the value of real estate, doesn't it? Since private defense agencies are not likely to cover the crazy nuke builders (knowingly, that is) s/he will be in a vulnerable position when these folk come to convince him that they'd really prefer to keep the value of their properties from falling. All very peacefully, of course ;)

Now, if someone wants to conduct experiments somewhere in the desert far away from other living souls... with the prior notice, of course... would anyone even care?