Aliens

[HeyYou]

Quotes are getting pretty thick here... so... here's a clean one. :D

 

The people don't make the decisions. Governments do.

 

Using the human race as an example is all we got. I don't think it is too far fetched to theorize that beings like us, may react in similar fashions, given similar circumstances.

 

However, I can see that arguing this further is rather pointless. Neither one of us has any hard evidence to base an argument on, therefore, all we both have is just speculation. You obviously have a kinder/gentler view of the universe than I do. So, I am just going to agree to disagree with you, and call it good.

 

Enjoy. :D

[marharth]

Quotes are getting pretty thick here... so... here's a clean one. :D

 

The people don't make the decisions. Governments do.

 

Using the human race as an example is all we got. I don't think it is too far fetched to theorize that beings like us, may react in similar fashions, given similar circumstances.

 

However, I can see that arguing this further is rather pointless. Neither one of us has any hard evidence to base an argument on, therefore, all we both have is just speculation. You obviously have a kinder/gentler view of the universe than I do. So, I am just going to agree to disagree with you, and call it good.

 

Enjoy. :D

I am not saying that the universe is kinder, I am saying that the universe is such a violent place it is more likely violent races will wipe themselves out before reaching the point of FTL travel.

[JimboUK]

Quotes are getting pretty thick here... so... here's a clean one. :D

 

The people don't make the decisions. Governments do.

 

Using the human race as an example is all we got. I don't think it is too far fetched to theorize that beings like us, may react in similar fashions, given similar circumstances.

 

However, I can see that arguing this further is rather pointless. Neither one of us has any hard evidence to base an argument on, therefore, all we both have is just speculation. You obviously have a kinder/gentler view of the universe than I do. So, I am just going to agree to disagree with you, and call it good.

 

Enjoy. :D

I am not saying that the universe is kinder, I am saying that the universe is such a violent place it is more likely violent races will wipe themselves out before reaching the point of FTL travel.

 

Why would they wipe themselves out? We're a violent race and we've had the ability to wipe ourselves out for over 60 years but we're still here.

[marharth]

Quotes are getting pretty thick here... so... here's a clean one. :D

 

The people don't make the decisions. Governments do.

 

Using the human race as an example is all we got. I don't think it is too far fetched to theorize that beings like us, may react in similar fashions, given similar circumstances.

 

However, I can see that arguing this further is rather pointless. Neither one of us has any hard evidence to base an argument on, therefore, all we both have is just speculation. You obviously have a kinder/gentler view of the universe than I do. So, I am just going to agree to disagree with you, and call it good.

 

Enjoy. :D

I am not saying that the universe is kinder, I am saying that the universe is such a violent place it is more likely violent races will wipe themselves out before reaching the point of FTL travel.

 

Why would they wipe themselves out? We're a violent race and we've had the ability to wipe ourselves out for over 60 years but we're still here.

60 years is nothing, that's not even a average human life. Human lives are extremely short in the grand scheme of things.

 

We are not a entirely violent race, some humans have shown that they can be peaceful.

 

We are lucky that we don't have a lot more violent influences that could completely screw us up.

[Ghogiel]

We are not a entirely violent race, some humans have shown that they can be peaceful.

 

 

And look what happened to them all. They are a lesson. Either one to emulate or as one to save you making the same mistakes.

 

I am down with Buddha. :thumbsup:

[JimboUK]

Quotes are getting pretty thick here... so... here's a clean one. :D

 

The people don't make the decisions. Governments do.

 

Using the human race as an example is all we got. I don't think it is too far fetched to theorize that beings like us, may react in similar fashions, given similar circumstances.

 

However, I can see that arguing this further is rather pointless. Neither one of us has any hard evidence to base an argument on, therefore, all we both have is just speculation. You obviously have a kinder/gentler view of the universe than I do. So, I am just going to agree to disagree with you, and call it good.

 

Enjoy. :D

I am not saying that the universe is kinder, I am saying that the universe is such a violent place it is more likely violent races will wipe themselves out before reaching the point of FTL travel.

 

Why would they wipe themselves out? We're a violent race and we've had the ability to wipe ourselves out for over 60 years but we're still here.

60 years is nothing, that's not even a average human life. Human lives are extremely short in the grand scheme of things.

 

We are not a entirely violent race, some humans have shown that they can be peaceful.

 

We are lucky that we don't have a lot more violent influences that could completely screw us up.

 

60 years is long enough to prove that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent.

[Aurielius]

60 years is long enough to prove that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the modern equivalent of the Sword without the Shield. I am not afraid on the opponent with a storehouse of weapons but I am afraid of the opponent with just one. Even illiterate Knights of the dark ages knew the value of armor. So I am not as sanguine as you about the proven viability of a strategy that is based upon an absence of defense.

[HeyYou]

60 years is long enough to prove that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the modern equivalent of the Sword without the Shield. I am not afraid on the opponent with a storehouse of weapons but I am afraid of the opponent with just one. Even illiterate Knights of the dark ages knew the value of armor. So I am not as sanguine as you about the proven viability of a strategy that is based upon an absence of defense.

 

That would assume that there was a viable defense though. With nukes, well, there just isn't one. Yet. (that they are going to tell us about anyway.....)

 

The problem with MAD, as I see it is, it appears now that some of our enemies see dying in the 'holy war' as martyrdom, and something to be desired, so, the threat of dropping a few megatons on them loses any of its "defensive" capabilities. In order for it to work right, the enemy needs to be just as interested in surviving as you do....

[marharth]

60 years is long enough to prove that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the modern equivalent of the Sword without the Shield. I am not afraid on the opponent with a storehouse of weapons but I am afraid of the opponent with just one. Even illiterate Knights of the dark ages knew the value of armor. So I am not as sanguine as you about the proven viability of a strategy that is based upon an absence of defense.

 

That would assume that there was a viable defense though. With nukes, well, there just isn't one. Yet. (that they are going to tell us about anyway.....)

 

The problem with MAD, as I see it is, it appears now that some of our enemies see dying in the 'holy war' as martyrdom, and something to be desired, so, the threat of dropping a few megatons on them loses any of its "defensive" capabilities. In order for it to work right, the enemy needs to be just as interested in surviving as you do....

You can survive nukes quite easily, nukes are not really deadly due to the explosion, it has to do with the radiation. Of course you would die if you got hit head on by one due to the thermal energy, but the larger areas around the nuke is what causes most of the deaths due to the fallout.

 

A large underground reinforced bunker could easily protect against nukes.

 

Not only that we can always launch a missile to stop the incoming nuke.

 

This would be different if it is a terrorist attack, since they would likely be using a nuke set off from the ground.

 

However, there is not much direct risk from that since it is highly unlikely that a terrorist group could make multiple nukes AND get them into the country AND get them to a tactical spot to set off.

 

For the survival of the human race, we should be fine. For the survival of the modern world and the majority of the population, we still have somewhat of a defense system against nukes.

 

The defenses we do have may not always work, and I do suppose they are not nearly as useful as they need to be.

 

I do suppose that single nuke could tear apart civilizations through politics, so I don't really know if anything I said beforehand matters.

[HeyYou]

Easily??? I think you seriously underestimate the destructive power of a nuclear weapon. I would also point out, that only an EXTREMELY small percentage of the worlds population would make it into any shelter.......

 

Survivability depends a lot on the scale of the war too..... If we had an all out, free for all, toss 'em if ya got 'em, war, very little would survive, and those that were left would not survive long, simply due to the lack of resources left to sustain life. It would quite probably be the end of the human race. Some would survive if they could stay underground for a year or ten... but, what would they have to come out to? A landscape devoid of vegetation, where nothing would grow? A society that has been bombed back into the stone age? And that's just the effects of the bombs, doesn't even consider the repercussions of several hundred nuclear plants scattered around the world..... look at what just happened in Japan, and they had crews that were on scene very shortly, to try and control the damage. Now, consider what would have happened if NO ONE had shown up to start repairing it....... Ruh Roh Roerge.

 

Anti-missile defense systems aren't all they are cracked up to be either. Their accuracy leaves something to be desired, and simply due to the sheer volume of landmass that qualifies as "targets", you can defend a few small areas, and that's it. You can wave goodbye to all your major cities, seaports, manufacturing centers, etc. Not to mention seats of government....... they would just be smoking craters. Not to mention the fact that certain 'protected' targets would get several missiles tossed at 'em. Odds are VERY good, at LEAST one would get thru.

 

And that ignores sub-launched ICBM's...... they would not give enough advanced warning for an anti-missile system to even get a shot off, let alone have any hope of actually hitting them.

 

And cruise missiles..... anti-missile systems wouldn't even see them coming......

 

Now, a theatre nuclear exchange would certainly be survivable.... probably just uncomfortable for those downwind. :D

 

There are so many holes in the US borders, it would be a simple matter to smuggle a bomb or three into the states. Once in, you could go anywhere you wanted, and indulge yourself in some instant urban renewal.

 

Terrorists won't necessarily have to build their own bomb either. I think the highest likelihood would be some country like N. Korea, or Iran, selling them one, (giving them one?) and then having it show up someplace inconvenient.

 

Granted, at this point, the prospects of an all-out nuke fest are rather unlikely, but, who knows what the future will bring.