I expect, hope, that this thread will elicit lots of responses, perhaps most of them negative.  We are faced with NK having, developing and maybe one day selling nuclear weapons; Iran is striving for them as well.  At the other end, at one time here in Dane County, Wisconsin, it was proposed that no one own handgun.  My thesis is that it is impossible, as well as perhaps legally questionable, to prevent nations or people from owning weapons, either of the nuclear variety or small arms.  Both have been proposed to be banned, usually by well-meaning people, in order to prevent their use.  Flat statement: that will never happen.  Indeed, we can discourage such ownership, by international or local measures to do so, but the bottom line is that we’ll never eradicate either class of weapons, nor should we.  Throughout the course of human history as I know it at least, never has a weapon been eliminated from armories, unless it has been surpassed by something more lethal and handy.
To paraphrase the NRA, with which I mostly disagree, banning weapons from citizens just means the criminals have freer rein.  The same with countries.  No country, including the U.S., is going to unilaterally disarm itself when other countries do not do so, nor can they be forced to do so except by, how ironic, use of superior arms.  “Moral arguments” make great sound bites, but mean nothing in terms of influencing the behavior of anyone but those who’d not arm themselves in the first place.  I was in Costa Rica last year, where they proudly stated they had no armed services; I refrained from commenting that that was true because someone else, namely the U.S., did so and was assuring their security. 

It is not to me the ownership of arms that is the issue, it is the use of those arms that bears attention.  The fact that I own several weapons is irrelevant, hopefully they’ll sit gathering dust; the fact North Korea or Iran, etc., have and/or seek nuclear weapons is (l) not possible to force them to not do so, and (2) means nothing unless and until they’re used.  I don’t like it, but then I’d really be interested if anyone here can propose how and why nuclear armed nations can force non-nuclear armed nations to remain that way, absent use or threat of use of those same weapons.  It seems to me almost inevitable that one day any time now, a movement or nation will use a nuclear weapon against their perceived enemy.  If and when that happens, it is also almost as sure that there will be military retaliation, most likely nuclear.  If and when the dust settles, then what’s left of national governments will be strongly motivated to desist in any further use. Not because of “moral” injunctions, but because they know their lives are at stake.  If Israel is attacked with a nuclear weapon, it is almost guaranteed they’ll reply, massively, against the attacker, probably with nuclear weapons.  They’d have no choice, either do so or become someone’s occupied nation by people who seek to kill them. 

The liberal mantra that we “ought to” disarm ourselves, of whatever weapons, is born of a gross ignorance of human behavior and history in the service of some idealistic ideology.  The Conservative threat that we “must stop” other countries from developing such weapons is equally naive and arrogant.

It cannot be prevented.  It’s been tried before and failed.  People always find or create weapons to fight for whatever they feel the need to fight for.

I’m pretty liberal, but I am a gun owner and support the right to own them, although I don’t support the NRA.  Passing gun laws has no affect on those who do not follow the law, although I believe Congress has figured that out (plus, most of them carry a gun as well).  I wish there were MORE liberal gun owners simply because any time I go to a gun range around here, my wife and I are usually the ONLY liberal thinking people there.  The others all hate president Obama and talk about how he’s going to take away their guns (even though he’s done nothing against gun ownership) then praise the lord and start shooting. 

As for other nations, I absolutely believe we should try to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, but the most you can succeed at is delaying it.  If a country wants nuclear weapons, they’ll get them.  It’s not really a big secret anymore how to build one.  It’s scary, yes, but I see no way to prevent it.  I think we’ll probably see a nuclear weapon attack by someone (most likely radical Islamists) within the next 20 years. 

One thought kinda frightens me about our country.  If (that’s a big IF) there ever were an uprising of the American people against the government (at the rate things are going, it’s not out of the realm of possibility), the right wing conservatives would be the ones leading it.  There are so few liberal gun owners, we’d be overrun. 

I’ll be heading to Canada if that happens.

Dennis Campbell - 14 April 2012 12:48 PM

I expect, hope, that this thread will elicit lots of responses, perhaps most of them negative.  We are faced with NK having, developing and maybe one day selling nuclear weapons; Iran is striving for them as well.  At the other end, at one time here in Dane County, Wisconsin, it was proposed that no one own handgun.  My thesis is that it is impossible, as well as perhaps legally questionable, to prevent nations or people from owning weapons, either of the nuclear variety or small arms.  Both have been proposed to be banned, usually by well-meaning people, in order to prevent their use.  Flat statement: that will never happen.  Indeed, we can discourage such ownership, by international or local measures to do so, but the bottom line is that we’ll never eradicate either class of weapons, nor should we.  Throughout the course of human history as I know it at least, never has a weapon been eliminated from armories, unless it has been surpassed by something more lethal and handy.
To paraphrase the NRA, with which I mostly disagree, banning weapons from citizens just means the criminals have freer rein.  The same with countries.  No country, including the U.S., is going to unilaterally disarm itself when other countries do not do so, nor can they be forced to do so except by, how ironic, use of superior arms.  “Moral arguments” make great sound bites, but mean nothing in terms of influencing the behavior of anyone but those who’d not arm themselves in the first place.  I was in Costa Rica last year, where they proudly stated they had no armed services; I refrained from commenting that that was true because someone else, namely the U.S., did so and was assuring their security. 

It is not to me the ownership of arms that is the issue, it is the use of those arms that bears attention.  The fact that I own several weapons is irrelevant, hopefully they’ll sit gathering dust; the fact North Korea or Iran, etc., have and/or seek nuclear weapons is (l) not possible to force them to not do so, and (2) means nothing unless and until they’re used.  I don’t like it, but then I’d really be interested if anyone here can propose how and why nuclear armed nations can force non-nuclear armed nations to remain that way, absent use or threat of use of those same weapons.  It seems to me almost inevitable that one day any time now, a movement or nation will use a nuclear weapon against their perceived enemy.  If and when that happens, it is also almost as sure that there will be military retaliation, most likely nuclear.  If and when the dust settles, then what’s left of national governments will be strongly motivated to desist in any further use. Not because of “moral” injunctions, but because they know their lives are at stake.  If Israel is attacked with a nuclear weapon, it is almost guaranteed they’ll reply, massively, against the attacker, probably with nuclear weapons.  They’d have no choice, either do so or become someone’s occupied nation by people who seek to kill them. 

The liberal mantra that we “ought to” disarm ourselves, of whatever weapons, is born of a gross ignorance of human behavior and history in the service of some idealistic ideology.  The Conservative threat that we “must stop” other countries from developing such weapons is equally naive and arrogant.

Hey Dennis

Sounds about right to me.  It seems to me that the best course of action for the more or less “responsible” nations with nuclear weapons, is to simply continue to develop and test ways of defending and/or neutralizing nuclear attacks.  If nuclear war is inevitable (which I believe it probably is), the best policy is to delay it as long as possible without completely pissing off the “less responsible” nations who may attempt to use nuclear weapons for nefarious purposes.  Nations with nuclear weapons telling other nations without that they can’t have them seems like it would increase the likelihood of reaching that critical threshold.

Hey Dennis

Sounds about right to me.  It seems to me that the best course of action for the more or less “responsible” nations with nuclear weapons, is to simply continue to develop and test ways of defending and/or neutralizing nuclear attacks.  If nuclear war is inevitable (which I believe it probably is), the best policy is to delay it as long as possible without completely pissing off the “less responsible” nations who may attempt to use nuclear weapons for nefarious purposes.  Nations with nuclear weapons telling other nations without that they can’t have them seems like it would increase the likelihood of reaching that critical threshold.

Agree with that.  Like you, I think it almost a sure bet that someone will use one for, to them, quite justifiable reasons.  What is not so clear, is what happens then.

oops, double post.

Bomb the bastards back into the stone age. Or let them do it to us. is there a viable middle road we could take that would not lead to such carnage?

Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 17 April 2012 12:17 PM

Bomb the bastards back into the stone age. Or let them do it to us. is there a viable middle road we could take that would not lead to such carnage?

One can hope for a limited exchange and then maybe the world will take a different position.  Almost everyone alive now was not alive in 1946

Dennis Campbell - 17 April 2012 12:24 PM

Almost everyone alive now was not alive in 1946

(Andrew):  That’s scary.

If we continue to advance technologically, there’s no reason why we can’t get to a point where we could detect and avoid any attempted nuclear attack before it succeeded, even by terrorists. Technological advancement, fueled by education, can lead to a better life in every area.

Ecurb Noselrub - 17 April 2012 12:38 PM

If we continue to advance technologically, there’s no reason why we can’t get to a point where we could detect and avoid any attempted nuclear attack before it succeeded, even by terrorists. Technological advancement, fueled by education, can lead to a better life in every area.

Unhappily, I don’t think it possible to prevent someone from importing a nuclear weapon in any of the millions of crates imported yearly, and setting it off.  Like that fellow in Norway, who quite proudly claimed he is sane and not guilty, so some “terrorists” feel the same.

Dennis Campbell - 17 April 2012 12:46 PM

Unhappily, I don’t think it possible to prevent someone from importing a nuclear weapon in any of the millions of crates imported yearly, and setting it off.  Like that fellow in Norway, who quite proudly claimed he is sane and not guilty, so some “terrorists” feel the same.

We’ve prevented it so far, and as technology advances, we can continue to stay one step ahead of the terrorists, until we find a way through technology to turn the terrorists into Boy Scouts. I don’t think anything is impossible.

Ecurb Noselrub - 17 April 2012 12:51 PM

Dennis Campbell - 17 April 2012 12:46 PM

Unhappily, I don’t think it possible to prevent someone from importing a nuclear weapon in any of the millions of crates imported yearly, and setting it off.  Like that fellow in Norway, who quite proudly claimed he is sane and not guilty, so some “terrorists” feel the same.

We’ve prevented it so far, and as technology advances, we can continue to stay one step ahead of the terrorists, until we find a way through technology to turn the terrorists into Boy Scouts. I don’t think anything is impossible.

Not impossible, exceedingly unlikely to prevent all attempts to do that, given enough of them.

I have to say, it does indeed seem as though the world is in a state of continued escalation.  I am reminded of how WWI began, triggered by one chaotic act.  I think we have to be wary of North Korea and also the Middle East, as nuclear attacks in those area would brew an even bigger conflict.

Mathemagician - 21 April 2012 06:44 AM

I have to say, it does indeed seem as though the world is in a state of continued escalation.  I am reminded of how WWI began, triggered by one chaotic act.  I think we have to be wary of North Korea and also the Middle East, as nuclear attacks in those area would brew an even bigger conflict.

I tend to agree that increasing conflict between the “west” and “east” is more, not less, likely.  Most of the east as I grasp it is basically ruled under a dictatorship, tinged with Islam or not, and those inherent values of submission to some authority seem inconsistent with those that provide a greater share in governance by most people under laws legislated by a majority.  I imagine ass you seem to that any use of nuclear weapons for whatever reasons would result in massive conflict between the east and west.

it seems the old man is saying Might makes Right.

well, he’s clearly worried that everyone knows it and is after their own Might because they’re tired of not-thems being more right than they are.

we need to fully address the reasons people want weapons. it may just be about personal safey. people may just want to stop worrying about stuff.

but the wealthiest and most powerful nations on earth can’t even keep their own streets clean. we can’t end poverty, nor crime, nor hunger, nor failures of education or health or even technology and science, even within our own borders, or within the borders of all those goddamned poor countries, where we’re fleeing (like cowards and lazy bastards, imo) to do it because its supposed to be so much cheaper and easier than to do it at home.

no government has the answer. no independent charitable organization seems to have discovered it either. this basically means no group of people has the answer. does one person somewhere have an answer but no group will listen? i am sure anyone with any education will say that answer is no. the fact is, we can’t see how one answer would work for everybody, and its difficult to see how a lot of different answers would work for everybody too.

how do we get everybody to stop worrying, so they care more about trivial things like game shows or shallow fictions, rather than literally arming themselves to a globally destructive capacity? would people still want to blow up the earth if all their earthly needs were taken care of? if nobody had to work for food, or electricity, or clean water, or good living conditions, or entertainment, or anything at all? where all their time would be free for their personal choice?

actually, probably not. its very likely that things like religion will continue to drive people to be unhappy enough to inflict harm on others, all in the name of some higher order or power or purpose, just so they can finally be at peace within their own minds. these people will not be satisfied until They make Right, whether through Might or any other means.

as i’ve been saying for a long time now, the only way to completely eliminate these threats is to give people the illusion of reality. isolation, without really being isolated. life in virtual reality, connected with everyone but at the same time electronically walled off so any destructive tendencies only damage a virtual environment.

we would have to figure out how to link all our senses up to a virtual environment, for one thing, and clearly anyone who didn’t want to live such a life would have to be killed.

oh. oh my. is that a flaw in my plan? hmm, well i think when it comes to world order, there can be only one. because unaccounted variables will always inevitably lead to the destruction of a system, given enough time.

that’s essentially what freedom is: the ability to cause harm to others for what will be believed to be a just cause.

so let’s say we don’t lock everyone up in the most deluxe prison ever invented, one designed to cater to their every whim, and one which they will believe is as real as any reality we’ve ever known. what then? well, the stupidity of human beings is vast. i’ve no doubt eventually one of those fuckers (but more likely several of them) will kill enough of us, and do enough damage to the planet, to undo all the progress we’ve ever known.

personally i’d rather not have everything humanity has ever accomplished undone and forgotten. and i don’t believe we can possibly anticipate the rapidity and depravity with which destructive agents can devolve what nature and time has so painstakingly wrought. it would be simple enough for the basic processes of our own planet to kill us all, should a large enough window of time be considered. meanwhile, we cannot get the attention of any significant percentage of our own kind to raise their heads above the most laboriously routine concerns for long enough to consider the vast potential of the technology even now at our disposal.

people are too intent on keeping things just as they’ve always known them that they’ll likely go on admitting only so much change as is found pleasing at the moment, presenting a situation in which many devious opportunities will be well available for those inclined enough toward malign designs.

so my solution would be to build the most extravagant entertainment system ever conceived, in order to essentially imprison people within a “Thought Matrix,” outside of which they can take no action. if they set fires, only 1’s and 0’s burn. if they detonate bombs, only 1’s and 0’s go flying. if they murder children, well, those children’s internet link get severed the moment any suspicious activity is detected and from the child’s point of view, a trainer scenario is displayed that explains how the child is in a multiverse (of sorts) of realities, in which harm to them is minimized by such actions as automatic disengagement from threatening situations.

from the murderer’s point of view, they are increasingly isolated into a reality that has fewer and fewer real people within it. perhaps we can even let them be aware of what is happening to them and that their own actions are causing it. solitary confinement still seems to be a terrifying punishment, perhaps all we need to reform dysfunctional minds is the threat of a virtual existence lived all by one’s lonesome.

now while everyone is living it up in The Matrix, or whatever pithy description you’d give it, the real minds could be set to tackling the vulnerabilities of the human race. namely, the incessant need for energy. first off it would be useful to simplify the infrastructure of our energy needs into a single conduit. instead of needing water AND air AND food AND a highly specific atmosphere AND gravity AND light AND, if we want to stay healthy in these bodies, exercise to regularly expend some of that energy soup in a specific fashion, it’d be nice to re-engineer the human organism to work quite well without, for instance, the exercise part, so that people could be locked into their virtual reality chairs their whole lives and have no ill physical side effects, much the same way corals are stationary.

and that’s just for starters. the fact we only exist on one planet is a vulnerability. the fact we are isolated to one solar system that is doomed to grow dim and cold is a vulnerability. and while yes that is a long way off, in the nearer term it is an inevitability that one day a massive rock could smash into us or that a supervolcano will explode or any one of a myriad other scenarios which, while seemingly far-fetched, are always based on solid geology, history, physics, and the study of the universe.

people tend not to care about such esoteric concerns generally, and that is precisely why they get in the way of the most auspicious developments. most people are afraid of a world full of clones, or immortals, or sentient robots, or all 3, and much more. they’re afraid of a world in which they don’t belong. so we should give people exactly the kinds of worlds they really and truly want. worlds within their own minds, created from their minds, over which they have complete control, that will function as their sanctuaries and sanity amulets, into which they can invite other real people and which people are free to enter, if so invited, or to leave, if and when they choose.

so we can find the minds who will solve the big problems. they’ll build the virtual worlds oriented toward discovering the answers anyway. people are different, and it is in that unique variety that we can find answers to all our problems, if we just make sure that people are free to think whatever they want, but in my extremely rigorously considered and re-considered opinion, the only way we can free people’s thoughts is to shackle their bodies.

even if we have to kill the ones who refuse. most likely we could simply ambush and drug nearly everyone who refuses, and implant them into virtual reality while they sleep. anyone else, well, if you’d be so adamant about not going to your own personal disney world that you’d kill as many people as it took to finally bring you down, i’m not really sure what you think your living for in the first place.

DI, that’s an interesting response to the OP.  (Yes, I love science fiction)

A couple of questions, though:

Do you think there is time enough to put your solution into practice? Surely it will be some 100s of years at least before we will understand the brain well enough and will have the technical wherewithal to build the virtual utopia you envisage. Isn’t the nuclear proliferation problem just a bit more pressing than that and likely to come to a head long before your scheme would become viable?

You say that “anyone who didn’t want to live such a life would have to be killed”. I suspect there would need to be quite a lot of killing. I doubt more than a few would willingly agree to be ‘locked in’ to your world. I think the very idea would provoke the greatest war ever known and those bad ol’ warheads would start wizzing around the world before you could say “Neo, I’m going in”.

But let’s say a group of like minded folks somehow got the power to safely kill all who didn’t want to come on board. And let’s forget the moral implications inherent in the issue of forcing others to live in ways they do not wish to live – we’ll say that the killing would be justifiable because it would be necessary to prevent “those fuckers killing enough of US, and do[ing] enough damage to the planet, to undo all the progress we’ve ever known”. Who is “US”? Who are “those fuckers”? Presumably those with the power to institute, maintain and control such a system would be “us”.  Would “us” need to remain outside the matrix, or at least be able to get outside when necessary to maintain and control it? Or could that all be done by “us” from the inside? But back to “us” - Who do you envisage being in control? I guess that would have to be someone like…well…you, no? It would have to be just one person wouldn’t it because surely, people being people, there’d end up being disagreement and, well, we know where that leads don’t we? I guess Satre was right - Hell is other people. It certainly would be in this scenario.

I quite like the idea of uploading human minds so that we can move out into the universe unhindered by our feeble bodies. However, that future will be for the few brave individuals willing and curious enough to embrace it. They shall inherit the universe. Until they meet another lot out there. Then it will be on again. Still, if you ever gained control I’m sure you would make a reasonable fist of it but that won’t happen because you’ll never be able to kill or persuade every single person to live virtual lives with just you in control. And goodness knows we’ve had enough gods already to last the lifetime of our species. Why would we want to set up and subject ourselves to a new one?

No,  if you want to be in sole control of the show (and you would have to be) you’ll have to go it alone. You will be the sole actor, the sole theatre technician and your own audience. But, then, that won’t matter because you’ll be able to conjour virtual hordes to inhabit your brave new world with you. If there are any of us left alive on earth or in other voluntary virtual worlds, do let us know how it all goes.

Oh, but wait. It won’t be you in control because by the time your fantasy becomes feasible you and everyone alive today will be long dead. That’s tough. Oh, well, I guess your heart was in the right place.