what green dots?
Posts: 3,157 
July 23rd, 2007, 10:36 AM
better watch out, though. there's a troop of right-wingers around here that don't take too kindly to being compared to the States.
Quoting Toro
I dunno. You tell me.
Is the US a more compassionate society because it spends several times more than Canada on social services?
better watch out, though. there's a troop of right-wingers around here that don't take too kindly to being compared to the States.
Newbie
Posts: 22
Location: In a two-storey house located near the center of a city that is small by extra-provincial standards.
Location: In a two-storey house located near the center of a city that is small by extra-provincial standards.
July 23rd, 2007, 11:18 AM
MAD may be the only thing that keeps people from blowing each other up, but despite what most people think, it is not a Nash equilibrium, where the best idea is to not fire nukes as long as no one else does. The thing that seperates it from being a Nash equilibrium is the fact that the more nukes launched, the more death, so in the perspective of the entire human race, the best course of action is to never fire a nuke, no matter what other people do. So that's what I'd do.
Quoting karrie
You don't understand. We're talking about nuclear warfare. My country would be blown up anyway. The best course of action is to avoid more destruction. The only reason for me to bomb someone else even though I'm sure to be destroyed would be for revenge, which is stupid and results in millions of further deaths.
Are you joking? Does that seriously work better in your eyes? Letting your country be bombed, and just throwing your hands up in the air over it. I can't even imagine. Lets hope you never run a country, because your citizenry would be sitting ducks.
MAD may be the only thing that keeps people from blowing each other up, but despite what most people think, it is not a Nash equilibrium, where the best idea is to not fire nukes as long as no one else does. The thing that seperates it from being a Nash equilibrium is the fact that the more nukes launched, the more death, so in the perspective of the entire human race, the best course of action is to never fire a nuke, no matter what other people do. So that's what I'd do.
House Member
Posts: 3,381 
July 23rd, 2007, 11:38 AM
A good line of reasoning, except it relies upon the other person considering your people as human beings. Just because you do see the "enemy" as human's doesn't mean the "enemy" (or those running the nation) see you in the same way and will be opposed to harming you and reaping the benefits of conquest.
In such a case by stating you will not fire a nuke, you encourage death and destruction by encouraging them to fire upon you.
A good line of reasoning, except it relies upon the other person considering your people as human beings. Just because you do see the "enemy" as human's doesn't mean the "enemy" (or those running the nation) see you in the same way and will be opposed to harming you and reaping the benefits of conquest.
In such a case by stating you will not fire a nuke, you encourage death and destruction by encouraging them to fire upon you.
July 23rd, 2007, 11:41 AM
Now, if you've already launched an attack of some other sort on a country, and they retalliate with a nuke, then it makes sense to not fight back, and instead desist with your hostile activities and rebuild. But, each and every situation is different and requires different tactics and actions.
Quoting Anachronism
No, I don't think you understand. If you haven't started a war, and someone hits your country with a nuclear bomb, simply not doing anything about it wouldn't be the end of it. Chances are occupation would be the result if you're not willing to fight back, tit for tat. And occupation never goes well for the native citizens. So, you refuse to set off a bomb, and let all your citizens live in the hell of being an occupied country (with a second nuke being the punishment if you resist, since you've already proven you won't fight back).
You don't understand. We're talking about nuclear warfare. My country would be blown up anyway. The best course of action is to avoid more destruction. The only reason for me to bomb someone else even though I'm sure to be destroyed would be for revenge, which is stupid and results in millions of further deaths.
MAD may be the only thing that keeps people from blowing each other up, but despite what most people think, it is not a Nash equilibrium, where the best idea is to not fire nukes as long as no one else does. The thing that seperates it from being a Nash equilibrium is the fact that the more nukes launched, the more death, so in the perspective of the entire human race, the best course of action is to never fire a nuke, no matter what other people do. So that's what I'd do.
MAD may be the only thing that keeps people from blowing each other up, but despite what most people think, it is not a Nash equilibrium, where the best idea is to not fire nukes as long as no one else does. The thing that seperates it from being a Nash equilibrium is the fact that the more nukes launched, the more death, so in the perspective of the entire human race, the best course of action is to never fire a nuke, no matter what other people do. So that's what I'd do.
Now, if you've already launched an attack of some other sort on a country, and they retalliate with a nuke, then it makes sense to not fight back, and instead desist with your hostile activities and rebuild. But, each and every situation is different and requires different tactics and actions.
Senate Member
Posts: 6,131
July 23rd, 2007, 11:47 AM
In thse events, these anti-militaristic Canadians will then be begging other countries with much larger and better equipped militaries to come to their aid.
Quoting #juan
They could fight seals or polar bears in the event of those magnificent creatures forming a military coup against the governments of Canada and the US (but especially Canada) for their sickening mistreatment, but they won't do any good against the Russians (in a battle for oil in the Arctic, for example) or anyone else who has a grudge against Canada.
One of the major planks in Harper's platform was large, armed, icebreakers for the north. He has reneged on that promise in favour of small coastal patrol ships that won't travel in over three feet of ice. I don't know what he thinks these little ships will do.
In thse events, these anti-militaristic Canadians will then be begging other countries with much larger and better equipped militaries to come to their aid.
Senate Member
Posts: 6,131
July 23rd, 2007, 11:49 AM
All those guns, warships, planes, bombs, etc? Not good for the environment.
Quoting karrie
Surely a World War would have one of the largest "carbon footprints" of all time. Oh come now.... surely a world war would help with the whole population crisis, and reduce the carbon footprint of combatant countries more than hybrid cars will.
All those guns, warships, planes, bombs, etc? Not good for the environment.
July 23rd, 2007, 12:01 PM
And it's not as if the men driving the planes and warships would be sitting at home if they weren't fighting a war... they'd be driving other things, and creating carbon in other ways. So we'd be about equal there.
Yep... world war's the way to go.
Quoting Blackleaf
Oh come now. One bomb may have a big carbon footprint, but, if it kills twenty people who'd otherwise be driving back and forth to work every day for forty years, then it's still helped the enviro.
Surely a World War would have one of the largest "carbon footprints" of all time.
All those guns, warships, planes, bombs, etc? Not good for the environment.
All those guns, warships, planes, bombs, etc? Not good for the environment.
And it's not as if the men driving the planes and warships would be sitting at home if they weren't fighting a war... they'd be driving other things, and creating carbon in other ways. So we'd be about equal there.
Yep... world war's the way to go.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
July 23rd, 2007, 12:22 PM
Quoting Blackleaf
Hahaha.
They could fight seals or polar bears in the event of those magnificent creatures forming a military coup against the governments of Canada and the US (but especially Canada) for their sickening mistreatment, but they won't do any good against the Russians (in a battle for oil in the Arctic, for example) or anyone else who has a grudge against Canada.
In thse events, these anti-militaristic Canadians will then be begging other countries with much larger and better equipped militaries to come to their aid.
In thse events, these anti-militaristic Canadians will then be begging other countries with much larger and better equipped militaries to come to their aid.
Newbie
Posts: 22
Location: In a two-storey house located near the center of a city that is small by extra-provincial standards.
Location: In a two-storey house located near the center of a city that is small by extra-provincial standards.
July 23rd, 2007, 02:34 PM
Then there's the fact that nuclear fallout would likely contaminate the majority of a given continent even if there were only a few missiles, and cause more deaths than the initial blast would. So why would anyone want to occupy a nuclear wasteland? No crops would grow there, precautions would have to be taken every time you set foot outside (and that's only after the years of the fallout being in the air), and the water would still be radioactive. It's entirely inhospitable. The only purpose for nuclear warfare is death, not colonization. So sovereignty means nothing in the case of impending nuclear strike, and thus the best course of action is to cause the least death possible, by not engaging in nuclear combat no matter the conditions.
If a nation really were to try to blow EVERYONE up with nuclear missiles, then I could see the point in retaliating. But a nation that really would do that is unlikely to ever exist. Plus, they'd only end up killing themselves as a result of the fallout. They would know this if their nuclear physicists were skilled enough to enrich uranium.
Quoting karrie
In a case where a nuclear strike is poised to eliminate the entire country (as it normally would, seeing as how there are thousands of nukes in existence within a single country), sovereignty would mean nothing because the sovereign nation wouldn't exist anymore in a few minutes. Occupation is more favorable than annihilation.
No, I don't think you understand. If you haven't started a war, and someone hits your country with a nuclear bomb, simply not doing anything about it wouldn't be the end of it. Chances are occupation would be the result if you're not willing to fight back, tit for tat. And occupation never goes well for the native citizens. So, you refuse to set off a bomb, and let all your citizens live in the hell of being an occupied country (with a second nuke being the punishment if you resist, since you've already proven you won't fight back).
Now, if you've already launched an attack of some other sort on a country, and they retalliate with a nuke, then it makes sense to not fight back, and instead desist with your hostile activities and rebuild. But, each and every situation is different and requires different tactics and actions.
Now, if you've already launched an attack of some other sort on a country, and they retalliate with a nuke, then it makes sense to not fight back, and instead desist with your hostile activities and rebuild. But, each and every situation is different and requires different tactics and actions.
Then there's the fact that nuclear fallout would likely contaminate the majority of a given continent even if there were only a few missiles, and cause more deaths than the initial blast would. So why would anyone want to occupy a nuclear wasteland? No crops would grow there, precautions would have to be taken every time you set foot outside (and that's only after the years of the fallout being in the air), and the water would still be radioactive. It's entirely inhospitable. The only purpose for nuclear warfare is death, not colonization. So sovereignty means nothing in the case of impending nuclear strike, and thus the best course of action is to cause the least death possible, by not engaging in nuclear combat no matter the conditions.
If a nation really were to try to blow EVERYONE up with nuclear missiles, then I could see the point in retaliating. But a nation that really would do that is unlikely to ever exist. Plus, they'd only end up killing themselves as a result of the fallout. They would know this if their nuclear physicists were skilled enough to enrich uranium.
Senate Member
Posts: 5,588
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
July 23rd, 2007, 03:31 PM
We are already coddled cradle to grave......perhaps we should have the ability to take our place along side of our allies in the free world.............
Quoting Minority Observer84
Exactly what "social issues" are you refering to?
As far as i'am concerned there are far more pressing issues that need support "social issues" things a conservative does not believe in
We are already coddled cradle to grave......perhaps we should have the ability to take our place along side of our allies in the free world.............
Senate Member
Posts: 5,588
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
July 23rd, 2007, 03:35 PM
Quoting Zzarchov
Well said.....although I doubt the Conservatives are going to "destroy much of the social structure I love about Canada"......they want to STAY in power, and have moved ever-closer to the centre of the Canadian political spectrum.
So, what your saying is:
Its ok to sell out the most vulnerable members of our society if you have more pressing needs closer to home?
I know thats not what you mean to say, but it is.
Just because they are few, our northern citizens have every right not to be annexed against their wishes by a foreign government. Basic needs such as not being overtaken by a foreign nation are the primary responsibility of a federal government before social needs, even basic needs like water and electricity. Civilian icebreakers are pointless and do not establish sovereignty, military ones do. Thus they ensure the basic right of our most vulnerable citizens to be able to remain in their own country.
Im normally an NDP man, but the fact that only the conservatives are willing to stand up for the most basic of government responsibilities is making me want to vote for them. I mean, sure they will destroy much of the social structures I love about Canada, but that is all internal damage and can be repaired later. If you lose soveriegnty, its gone, forever.
Its ok to sell out the most vulnerable members of our society if you have more pressing needs closer to home?
I know thats not what you mean to say, but it is.
Just because they are few, our northern citizens have every right not to be annexed against their wishes by a foreign government. Basic needs such as not being overtaken by a foreign nation are the primary responsibility of a federal government before social needs, even basic needs like water and electricity. Civilian icebreakers are pointless and do not establish sovereignty, military ones do. Thus they ensure the basic right of our most vulnerable citizens to be able to remain in their own country.
Im normally an NDP man, but the fact that only the conservatives are willing to stand up for the most basic of government responsibilities is making me want to vote for them. I mean, sure they will destroy much of the social structures I love about Canada, but that is all internal damage and can be repaired later. If you lose soveriegnty, its gone, forever.
Senate Member
Posts: 5,588
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
July 23rd, 2007, 03:42 PM
I guess consistency is much more than we should expect from the niave........
Quoting Blackleaf
Aside from the ignorant innuendo about the seal hunt, not a bad post. I love how the anti-Americans here are so absolutely willing to leave our defense totally in the hands of that "imperial" power. To say nothing of the fact that their absolute trust that the US would not move militarily against a defenseless Canada completely belies their condemnation of that country as imperialist.
They could fight seals or polar bears in the event of those magnificent creatures forming a military coup against the governments of Canada and the US (but especially Canada) for their sickening mistreatment, but they won't do any good against the Russians (in a battle for oil in the Arctic, for example) or anyone else who has a grudge against Canada.
In thse events, these anti-militaristic Canadians will then be begging other countries with much larger and better equipped militaries to come to their aid.
In thse events, these anti-militaristic Canadians will then be begging other countries with much larger and better equipped militaries to come to their aid.
I guess consistency is much more than we should expect from the niave........
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
July 23rd, 2007, 04:06 PM
As long as my stocks go up...
Quoting BitWhys
You're right.
What's naive is to assume everyone with an opinion gives a rat's ass which rich bastard controls the oil fields to the east of the Alaska/Yukon boundary.
everything after that is detail without a shot fired.
everything after that is detail without a shot fired.
As long as my stocks go up...
Newbie
Posts: 17
July 23rd, 2007, 07:45 PM
It wasn't about destroying the country that destroyed you, it was about preventing anyone from destroying anyone in the first place. The knowledge your own country would be destroyed was enough to keep anyone from launching the first attack because attacking your opponent now became the equivalent of attacking yourself.
If you ran a country without a MAD policy and you were attacked, one country would be destroyed. If you ran a country with a MAD policy and assured your enemy that the destruction of your country would result in the destruction of theirs, they would be unlikely to attack you in the first place and no country would destroyed.
I guess it's a good thing you don't run a country.
Quoting Anachronism
You've missed the point of MAD.
Canada shouldn't be attacking anyone. A standing army is needed to protect a country, yes, but attacking other countries and starting wars is most certainly not very important to that country's sovereignty.
MAD is a prime example of how fighting wars for the sake of fighting is stupid, stupid, stupid. If I ran a country and a nuclear strike were launched against it, I would not retaliate. I'd prevent the destruction of one more country by not attacking. See how much better that works than just blowing each other up? >.>
Anyway, the point is, an army to defend a country is the only army that's necessary.
MAD is a prime example of how fighting wars for the sake of fighting is stupid, stupid, stupid. If I ran a country and a nuclear strike were launched against it, I would not retaliate. I'd prevent the destruction of one more country by not attacking. See how much better that works than just blowing each other up? >.>
Anyway, the point is, an army to defend a country is the only army that's necessary.
It wasn't about destroying the country that destroyed you, it was about preventing anyone from destroying anyone in the first place. The knowledge your own country would be destroyed was enough to keep anyone from launching the first attack because attacking your opponent now became the equivalent of attacking yourself.
If you ran a country without a MAD policy and you were attacked, one country would be destroyed. If you ran a country with a MAD policy and assured your enemy that the destruction of your country would result in the destruction of theirs, they would be unlikely to attack you in the first place and no country would destroyed.
I guess it's a good thing you don't run a country.
