My last word my comments were (open for correction),you can't deny
the triangle may benefit some other members to read the books listed.
The members that understand will govern themselfs according. Some
members may like the general information.When you guys start up,its
like a buzz saw.Just a little slower understanding with going to all
reference books They now have a lot information to work with.

 

With respect to your statement -

it would be much better to understand each other and make friends instead of enemies

- we might note that people have friends, but nations have interests.

There is a great deal of commonality between the loosely-defined "western" countries. That may be due to the ability of a Frenchman being able to view a Swiss (or Englishman, American, etc.) as being very much like himself.

With countries - areas, really - where international contact is not commonplace, it is easy to view foreigners as "other", and thus less than human. It is in everybody's interest to integrate these peoples into the world community.

But having the ability to resist aggression, from nukes on down, makes life perhaps a bit safer. I don't care to bend to the will of Kim Il Sung, Osama Bin Laden, and so on.

 

You should brush up on your history. The A-bomb was tested at White Sands, NM before it was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Granted, this isn't a lot of testing, but it was tested.

Sorry for not being more specific, "first time testing", by that I meant on human targets.

The US lost many ships at Pearl Harbor, but the aircraft carriers happened to be out at sea. The stated reason for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to prevent the extremely large losses of life on both sides that were forecast, based on the fighting in places like Iwo Jima, where the Japanese fought to the last man. It was thought that the Americans would lose at least a million troops in Okinawa, which is not even in the main group of Japanese islands.

In other words, the end justified the mean in that case, but yet, it's what "were forecasted", I would say one cannot know exactly what would have happened. One the other end, a super power threatened has more consequences than when weak ones are. Not only was it because to save life losses on both sides, but US couldn't accept the idea to have lost so many ships, and a retaliation was necessary, and the atomic bomb was the new powerful secret weapon to capitulate Japan as american troops were really having a hard time fighting them. And US could have lost the war.

That's a very nice thought, but it assumes that everyone can "just get along," which has never happened for very long in human history.

Yes, you can say that, but I don't know what else one would like to do about it. Take revenge? judge the criminals,etc? I really don't know. Damage has been caused, we'll always have people not ready to get along with it, but I believe newer generations shall forget it and support peace by eliminating hatred.

Sometimes there are people out there who have no intention of making friends.

Yes, I agree, we can't really do much about it but it's unfortunate that human beings will keep fighting between themselves, and yet, the same people unite when they have a common enemy. It's pathetic.

Thanks for reading.

 

But having the ability to resist aggression, from nukes on down, makes life perhaps a bit safer.

Possessing nukes might make one feel safer, but remember, your enemies will feel less safe on the other side. Meaning, they too will come up with plans to develop weapons to counter your nukes. If you have nukes to protect yourselves, then they too will have the right to defend them against you. Don't claim that the world can trust US with nukes, that's certainly not how it works in the mind of your enemies, and they can say that, you are the one who developed it, manufactured it, and even used it, so, it that sense, how would you want your "enemies" to "trust" you. I hope you get what I mean.

We are far from living in an utopian world, but what I'm trying to point out is that, for example, "if we didn't have guns in the first place, it would not have been so easy to just kill", I've not been very clear here, but I hope you do get the idea of what I meant. But it's unfortunate that it's how things are.

Cheers.

 

I believe newer generations shall forget it and support peace by eliminating hatred.

You don't really believe that...

it's unfortunate that human beings will keep fighting between themselves, and yet, the same people unite when they have a common enemy. It's pathetic.

Thanks for reading.

... do you?


(I know I don't. Mankind has not changed in at LEAST the past 2500 hundred years - I don't expect to see any change.)

 

You don't really believe that...


... do you?


(I know I don't. Mankind has not changed in at LEAST the past 2500 hundred years - I don't expect to see any change.)

I personally believe that if they want it, we can all do it. But if they don't then that's just unfortunate, but I'll keep hoping and wishing they change whatever the time it's gonna take to change.

"Mankind has not changed, and you don't expect to see any change," then, why not change now? If we are enlightened enough, we can change it. I did mention that we are far from living an utopian world, but let's do our best, unless of course you don't want to.

See, the thing is, sometimes, by keeping on believing/justifying "trend" can prevent one from being more optimistic in life. I would say that we called something to be "normal" because "we" made it normal. I hope you get what I mean.

Thank you.

 

Unfortunately, the bomb has proved one point to my satisfaction, if you want one side to behave, and they have the power to utterly destroy you, then you have to be able to take them out with the same certainty. It's the only formula that works with humanity. A dark twist on enlightened self interest.

 

I personally believe that if they want it, we can all do it.

Sure, but we don't all want it. There are millions of people all over the world who are willing, at any one time, to go to war for what ever it is they want. That will never change.

And it probably should not change:
If my freedom is threatned - say you tell me that I will need a permit to travel ... or that I will be told in what state or area to live ... or that I must pay 50% in taxes .. or that I may only marry certain women ... or that my career choice is up to someone else to deceide - I would be willing to fight in a civil war to preserve my freedoms. I would be willing to kill to preserve my way of life.

It is this willingness to kill that keeps my freedoms alive - as it is what provides assurance that such freedoms won't be taken away - those wishing to take them (if those people exist) don't want to pay the price to take them. You see, I "set" the price for my freedoms in my willingness to defend those freedoms to the death.

 

if you want one side to behave, and they have the power to utterly destroy you, then you have to be able to take them out with the same certainty.

That's why I said in my previous post that we are allowed to and should defend ourselves, but, like you said, it's unfortunate that it's not the case with humanity, at least, most of the time, if not never, that military actions become the evident solution. To sum up, that's the main idea I've been trying to convey:- mutual understanding, respect and peace. And one way to try to achieve it, I believe, is through education.

Cheers.

 

Sure, but we don't all want it. There are millions of people all over the world who are willing, at any one time, to go to war for what ever it is they want. That will never change.

They are stupid. It's pathetic, at least, this is how I see it. And I don't know why the hell people wouldn't want to leave in peace. Believe me, what happen during war, on the battlefield, is beyond our imagination if you haven't been through it before.

And it probably should not change:
If my freedom is threatned - say you tell me that I will need a permit to travel ... or that I will be told in what state or area to live ... or that I must pay 50% in taxes .. or that I may only marry certain women ... or that my career choice is up to someone else to deceide - I would be willing to fight in a civil war to preserve my freedoms. I would be willing to kill to preserve my way of life. It is this willingness to kill that keeps my freedoms alive - as it is what provides assurance that such freedoms won't be taken away - those wishing to take them (if those people exist) don't want to pay the price to take them. You see, I "set" the price for my freedoms in my willingness to defend those freedoms to the death.

Yes! You are allowed and should fight for your rights and freedom! I never said no. But that's what I'm trying to say, there are limits. We should respect each other and reach mutual understanding to achieve peace. I also believe in "Verily, Absolute Freedom/Democracy is Anarchy". It's a great sacrifice to die for your freedom, but it's an even greater sacrifice to live for your freedom. I hope you get what I mean.

Cheers and Peace.

 

They are stupid. It's pathetic, at least, this is how I see it. And I don't know why the hell people wouldn't want to leave in peace. Believe me, what happen during war, on the battlefield, is beyond our imagination if you haven't been through it before.

Oh, I agree 100%.

Yes! You are allowed and should fight for your rights and freedom! I never said no. But that's what I'm trying to say, there are limits. We should respect each other and reach mutual understanding to achieve peace. I also believe in "Verily, Absolute Freedom/Democracy is Anarchy".

Can't say I disagree with that, either.

It's a great sacrifice to die for your freedom, but it's an even greater sacrifice to live for your freedom. I hope you get what I mean.

Now you have lost me. I might agree, I suspect I won't, but you've got to explain it to me.

 

Now you have lost me. I might agree, I suspect I won't, but you've got to explain it to me.

I mean, why would you fight for your freedom to such an extent so as to die for it? If that's so, then what's worth? if you would be dead and not be able to enjoy it.
You can say future generation will enjoy it because you fought for it.

But here is what I say, you fight for your freedom not with the intention to die for it, but to live long enough until you die, while fighting for it. Some can't accept to lose and keep fighting even if it means death and believe they will get peace of mind for having fought for their freedom. They can't live with their mind being tortured for not being able to get their freedom and that's what drive you to fight, implying in that sense, the sacrifice to too hard to bear, you are giving up to your bitter feelings, and also in that sense, "it's a greater sacrifice to live for your freedom than to die for it", and somehow, find "virtual" peace of mind in death as many believe. Use your pen, not your gun.

I hope that's clear enough now.

Many thanks.

 

I mean, why would you fight for your freedom to such an extent so as to die for it?

Because that's sometimes what it takes. If you are willing to fight for your freedom, but not too much, you will almost certainly lose it. For a large part of human history, the vast majority of people have lived under some kind of servitude. Most people accepted that condition, but a few could not, and fought to preserve their freedom. I will assert that most of those people knew that once they fought back, there was the strong possibility they would not survive.

Nanophotonics, I don't know you, and my only perception of you comes from the few words you have written. I would guess that you are young, perhaps in your twenties, with the idealism of youth. The views you have expressed seem very utopian. Some people believe that humans can be perfected, given the right conditions, the right training, and so on. As for myself, there is a very long history of evidence that leads me to believe the perfectability of mankind is not attainable, nor even desirable.

If that's so, then what's worth? if you would be dead and not be able to enjoy it.
You can say future generation will enjoy it because you fought for it.

But here is what I say, you fight for your freedom not with the intention to die for it, but to live long enough until you die, while fighting for it.

See above. We're not talking about some computer game here or an athletic contest where you can just say "time out."

Some can't accept to lose and keep fighting even if it means death and believe they will get peace of mind for having fought for their freedom.

I don't buy this at all. The goal of fighting for freedom is not peace of mind -- it's to be free.

They can't live with their mind being tortured for not being able to get their freedom and that's what drive you to fight, implying in that sense, the sacrifice to too hard to bear, you are giving up to your bitter feelings, and also in that sense, "it's a greater sacrifice to live for your freedom than to die for it", and somehow, find "virtual" peace of mind in death as many believe. Use your pen, not your gun.

I hope that's clear enough now.

Many thanks.

 

That's why I said in my previous post that we are allowed to and should defend ourselves, but, like you said, it's unfortunate that it's not the case with humanity, at least, most of the time, if not never, that military actions become the evident solution. To sum up, that's the main idea I've been trying to convey:- mutual understanding, respect and peace. And one way to try to achieve it, I believe, is through education.

Cheers.

This assumes every one wants to be reasonable, a faulty maxim.

 

I guess this is related, so figured I'd hijack the thread a little...

This past week I've being seeing on the news that North Korea is going to launch a rocket/missile, claim its a satellite, some countries claim it's not. One country promises to knock it down. I'm on the opposite side of the world, so not really up on these events. Personally, I don't believe it's a weapon, and probably is a satellite. I know that the American Space program was mostly to justify the research and money, but the goal was to build a better missile, and we have the best. I just don't understand how people with the intelligence to build this bombs, would actually get involved in such a project these days. Most every one on the planet reaps the misery unleashed if somebody does launch a nuke. Those nearby will die quickly, those further on get to linger and suffer. Some might think they were spared, until they fail to reproduce, or give birth to something horrible.

We profited from the space program in many other ways, other than weapons. Wouldn't it be better to get involved, and help North Korea in their research? We have a lot of junk orbiting the planet, if we cooperate they are less likely to bump into something important. Satellites cost millions to put up there, sometimes they don't make it. If North Korea launches, and it fails in flames, as it stands, they will be accusing the neighbors of knocking it down (excuse for war). Nuclear bombs are bad, but nuclear power plants and a Space program (technology industry), could help a struggling nation move above the petty fighting.

 

Well, I was going to respond, but the last two posts said it all.

There is simply nothing for me to add, as I am of the same mindset as Bill and Mark.

 

Hi, may be I wasn’t clear enough for you as I was replying to “wr8y”, and also it’s not that easy to convey messages very precisely at once, and many times I expect that others would understand what I’m really trying to say.

Because that's sometimes what it takes. If you are willing to fight for your freedom, but not too much, you will almost certainly lose it.

Yes, it can cost your life. Referring to what “wr8y” said about the will to fight for freedom, I was trying to explain that, you fight for something, and during the fight you can die, or you can also die during war but not necessarily when on duty, that is, what many refer to as natural death. It should not be thought of as saying “I will fight to death” with the intention in mind to die. You do not go to war to die as such, you go to war to win the cause you are fighting for, and during the fight you might die and as you asserted that most of those people knew that once they fought back there was the strong possibility they would not survive. That’s in some ways what the so- called suicide bombers do. Their mission is not to die, but to cause damage for whatever reason they deem worth fighting for from their point of view, but, they don’t have the necessary weapon carriers or technologies to attack with aircraft etc, as I expect most of them are from weak/poor nations, and as such, they sacrifice their life by using their human body as a sort of weapon carrier and target weak spots not well guarded, i.e., civilian targets. In that sense, not only are you justifying your determination to fight until death for your freedom, but you are somehow at the same time justifying, what you might refer to as “terrorists”, their right to strike back, and yet it’s most likely that you certainly won’t accept a strike back. It depends on what “freedom” you are fighting for. This leads back to the main topic, if you say you have the right to defend yourself by possessing nukes and you stress on the importance of your right to have them to defend yourself and value human rights, then, any other nations considering the USA as a potential threat to their national security have the right too to possess anything they deemed necessary to deter you from using your nukes on them. Your justification to have nukes suddenly, and somehow, becomes in conflict with what you consider as your “safety” and your ideology of “freedom and rights”. I repeat, “Absolute freedom/democracy is Anarchy”. And again you might say that it sounds too philosophical than realistic.

For a large part of human history, the vast majority of people have lived under some kind of servitude. Most people accepted that condition, but a few could not, and fought to preserve their freedom.

Very often, we have the tendency to base our analysis on human history or trends etc, well, I’ll tell you, (as an engineer) an analogy to the idea, we too base our experiments on previous results to compare with and what people refer to as “to forecast”, again based on history/trend, we engineers on the other end extrapolate graphs to predict characteristics of devices over certain regions. Such can also be illustrated by many philosophical theories in physics.

Nanophotonics, I don't know you, and my only perception of you comes from the few words you have written. I would guess that you are young, perhaps in your twenties, with the idealism of youth.

Sorry, I’m not planning to reveal anything I deem non-critical about me at the moment, may be some other time. Cheers.

The views you have expressed seem very utopian. Some people believe that humans can be perfected, given the right conditions, the right training, and so on. As for myself, there is a very long history of evidence that leads me to believe the perfectability of mankind is not attainable, nor even desirable.

Yes, it might sound very utopian and I’m not surprised to hear it. But from what I’ve read, listened and seen throughout my entire life, I concluded that we people we keep messing up our own ideologies/philosophies, scientific evidence, religious beliefs, and so on. We keep comparing things and we’ll keep changing. You are realistic, and I’m too, but when it comes to discussion like “nukes” etc, things are not that simple. Circumstances vary enormously, and everybody will have their own different views about the topic and I found my reasoning for mutual respect and understanding so far to be the only solution to disputes/conflicts and reach peace, and yet, you can say it’s not going to happen, and I would probably agree, but this is what I propose for as a final solutions to our problems even tough mankind will never attain perfection nor it is desirable as you mentioned. Some would say the world wouldn’t be “running” if everything was to be perfect. Then, for example, you’ll have other people justify it with religious beliefs in “evils” leading mankind to take unethical/unfair decisions in life.

See above. We're not talking about some computer game here or an athletic contest where you can just say "time out."

I’ve already given much detail above now for you, and I hope that explains everything for you over what I meant. Even though I agree I might not have been specific enough for you.

I don't buy this at all. The goal of fighting for freedom is not peace of mind -- it's to be free.

Ok, peace of mind, not completely the only reason. You really mean fight for freedom to be free (but why?) in its pure context, very obvious, but again I think I’ve given enough information above by now. If people don’t have thoughts/feelings/interests etc, well I guess we would be living like plants doing nothing much really. Not even appreciating the meaning of freedom means to be free. (But free for what? and why? - Many reasons I believe.)

Many thanks to all of you for your comments.

By the way, I’m a new member on this forum, it’s for electronics, anyone sure that what we’re talking about relevant/allowed? I hope it’s not completely irrelevant.

And my final conclusion is "Nukes is bad for humanity". (Justified) (Just trying something, well pure guess, to destroy incoming comets threating the Earth with nukes may be, who knows)

Cheers.

 

Unfortunately, the bomb has proved one point to my satisfaction, if you want one side to behave, and they have the power to utterly destroy you, then you have to be able to take them out with the same certainty. It's the only formula that works with humanity. A dark twist on enlightened self interest.

Well, now that I'm reading it again, for the time being, USA has the power to utterly destroy others (I believe so), so, does that imply that others countries have to be able to take you down with the same certainty if they now want you to behave......?

Cheers.

 

Ok, peace of mind, not completely the only reason. You really mean fight for freedom to be free (but why?)

I cut the rest of the sentence - is that ok? Am I taking you out of context? I hope not.

I am serious about dying for my freedom, I have no intention of living under any servitude. I will not tolerate being told where to live, to worshiop, who to worship, when or if I can travel, etc.

By the way, I’m a new member on this forum, it’s for electronics, anyone sure that what we’re talking about relevant/allowed? I hope it’s not completely irrelevant.

We are in "off topic" - an area set aside for this.

This leads back to the main topic, if you say you have the right to defend yourself by possessing nukes and you stress on the importance of your right to have them to defend yourself and value human rights, then, any other nations considering the USA as a potential threat to their national security have the right too to possess anything they deemed necessary to deter you from using your nukes on them.

Understood. Ok, what country could make the case that we are a threat to them? North Korea and Iran sure fit the bill, don't they? But why would they consider us a threat? Why only them? Why does Brazi or India or Japan or Isreal or Spain or France or Canada or dozens of other countries fail to consider us to be a threat?

The answer to my question contains the answer to your inquiry.

 

Well, now that I'm reading it again, for the time being, USA has the power to utterly destroy others (I believe so), so, does that imply that others countries have to be able to take you down with the same certainty if they now want you to behave......?

Cheers.

As do China, France, Britain, Russia, and to a lesser extent, India, Pakastan, and Israel. Wannabes include North Korea and Iran (and how would you feel about these two jems).

Your bias is showing. Good or bad, the bomb is here to stay. The thing to worry about is new technologies, which will be cheaper and easier, and are around the corner. They can't be contained either.