- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Well, there is the argument that nuclear proliferation actually makes the world safer.
World most peaceful now than at anytime in 12 years
- Thread starter Pikache
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
ArmyRick said:
I'd say hurricane analogies are probably pretty inaccurate in addressing this situation and sensationalistic given the current preponderance of hurricanes in the media.
Gunnar
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 375
- Points
- 830
I don't believe that good and bad are subjective terms, but people tend to be subjective about interpreting them because "good" and "bad" imply value-judgements. The problem as I see it, is that right now, nobody knows the difference between good and bad, it's all one massive spate of grey. People don't fight and die for moral relativism...they fight for what they believe is right. The problem right now is that neither "side" is in the right...or even convincing...nobody gives a damn.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue the point of good and bad with someone who is being congratulated by a self-described moral relativist....suffice to say, you and I disagree...So here's to me. :cheers:
That was the point I was trying to make...that there are no wars (or limited conflicts) at present because nobody thinks they have anything in particular to gain. A Wahabist can whine to the UN, and Canada will be supportive. A US combat team can kill terrorists on the ground, and Iraqis will be supportive. From each viewpoint of the here and now, they're winning the war, whatever war they choose to believe in. You get REAL war when one side decides they're losing....and that takes a while for politicians to realize, as, being losers themselves, they're not good at recognizing it ('cuz if they did, they'd have to quit their jobs or kill themselves).
Anyway, I'm not going to argue the point of good and bad with someone who is being congratulated by a self-described moral relativist....suffice to say, you and I disagree...So here's to me. :cheers:
That was the point I was trying to make...that there are no wars (or limited conflicts) at present because nobody thinks they have anything in particular to gain. A Wahabist can whine to the UN, and Canada will be supportive. A US combat team can kill terrorists on the ground, and Iraqis will be supportive. From each viewpoint of the here and now, they're winning the war, whatever war they choose to believe in. You get REAL war when one side decides they're losing....and that takes a while for politicians to realize, as, being losers themselves, they're not good at recognizing it ('cuz if they did, they'd have to quit their jobs or kill themselves).
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,030
- Points
- 1,040
>Now.... who'se saying that the world is safer now?
Me - because even if you can demonstrate actuarially that the world is more unstable and subject to many smaller messy conflicts, "the world" as an entity is safer because we aren't one mistake away from permitting the nuclear fleets of the US and USSR to achieve full realization of their respective purposes.
Me - because even if you can demonstrate actuarially that the world is more unstable and subject to many smaller messy conflicts, "the world" as an entity is safer because we aren't one mistake away from permitting the nuclear fleets of the US and USSR to achieve full realization of their respective purposes.
- Reaction score
- 9,224
- Points
- 1,260
Wars have always "littered" the planet - we just seem to pay more attention to them now that we don't worry about the Soviets and that we all have access to Cable News (if it bleeds, it leads).
Brad raises an interesting point: Although the probability of thermonuclear war was low, the consequences were extremely high. Now we have the obverse - there seems to be a relatively decent chance of seeing a terrorist attack, but the consequences (in absolute terms) are minimal. Either way, we will be gainfully employed, but it does offer relief to have the Sword of Damocles removed from the dining room....
Brad raises an interesting point: Although the probability of thermonuclear war was low, the consequences were extremely high. Now we have the obverse - there seems to be a relatively decent chance of seeing a terrorist attack, but the consequences (in absolute terms) are minimal. Either way, we will be gainfully employed, but it does offer relief to have the Sword of Damocles removed from the dining room....
Similar threads
