"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 25/04/17 11:15, bert wrote:
In article , TimW
writes
On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote:
On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:

" ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the
button
and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our
politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic
that
anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the
entire human race, is the crazy person in the room."

He does have a point.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/


TW

Perhaps he does, but it is flawed.
Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed?
Beachy Head is that way

Don't understand that at all.

Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than
unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent
is taking a suicidal stance.


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having
Nuclear Weapons? I think none.
In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better
result than the destruction of some of them?
TW

And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long
time. Has that contributed to peace?
Yes. In the post-WW2 era it deterred the USSR from invading western
Europe.
Have those nukes meant that the US hasn't needed to get involved in
foreign wars? What about GB, we have had one shoddy war after another?
What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Is North Korea's Nuclear program
keeping the country safe? I don't think so.

TW

But there has been no use of nuclear weapons in these wars. That is the
point of nuclear weapons. It makes sure no one uses nuclear weapons.
Maybe if everyone had them they would prevent conventional wars also.
But then look how WW1 started.

Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the
population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to
which they wish to become accustomed.

Wars havent been about that for a long time now, if they ever were.

The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed.

And that is impossible given the nature of war.

Without too much destruction of property

Thats very easy now.

Nuclear weapons are not very good at that.

They are on the no destruction of property now.
But basically kill everything if used like that.

Sort of like what Genghis Khan was
into, but with no real effort at all to use.