Having a friend in opposition is an excellent position for discussion as the pair of you learn over time subjects to avoid. For example, abortion is a loser as we won't agree so no point in talking of it. Therefore, onward to points where agreement may exist between extremes, as opposed to extremists.
There's the question of rationalization of the world as half of America's budget goes to the military and, no matter how much money you're packing, that can hardly be described as rational.
There are mistaken perceptions on both sides as there is the impression of the Left that only START matters and everything will be peachy after the nuclear weapons delivered via ICBM weapons are limited or destroyed. However, that is not the case, only part of it. We're aware the ICBMs are strategic weapons but we are also aware of the tactical nukes and we're fairly sure a shoulder-fired nuclear weapon exists. There was agreement from both sides on the inherent danger in the tactical nukes versus the strategic nukes.
The ICBMs are the Known Fear as we have lived with them for well over fifty years. There is a major point in possession of a weapon for so long without using it. Mankind never keeps a weapon for that long without using it so there is a fundamental lesson to be learned.
Note: yes, it was used twice in Japan. And we horrified ourselves with what those ones did yet they were tiny relative to the ones which came after.
It's important to note the horror as that which we held for the Holocaust, arguably the worst premeditated event in human history, lasted for less time than we have held the horror of atomic weapons. In justification of the statement, we now see anti-Semitism practiced commonly, NAZI parties, NAZI bands, etc, etc. We hear others saying the Holocaust never happened. Thus, that horror, arguably the worst ever, has persisted for less time than that of the horror of nuclear weapons and the evidence is no-one ever again used them.
The theme has nothing to do with anti-Semitism as we all die from the nukes. Nevertheless, the point seems significant in relative horror and it's the same point which will be observed by the Right or the Left in discussion of how START proceeds toward elimination of strategic nukes. All of us want them gone but neither side agrees on what is an appropriate number of them to guarantee M.A.D. (Mutually-Assured Destruction). It's a rational point of opposition and the discussion means progress.
The primary problem, as agreed with the Right, is with tactical nukes as they can easily be used by an individual rogue, hijacked, or some other compromising event. Even if the weapon only bangs with one kiloton or less, chucking only one of them into the city center of any major city in the world will kill it for years.
We observe the wanton use of RPG weapons (Rocket-Propelled Grenade) as this is the same concept in giving an individual unbelievable firepower. These things are so destructive they can burn their way through all the battle armor of a tank and still kill everyone inside it. One person can do that.
There was agreement as well that these weapons are a Conspicuous Danger and need immediate attention both for the production of those existing and also for future weapons such as the 'invisibility cloak' which is nearly functional at Livermore Labs in California. As noted by my friend, they are inventing things which haven't any kind of civilian use as who needs an invisibility cloak other than stalkers and killers. There is tremendous danger in this manic pursuit of the ultimate weapon and there is also tremendous expense.
In observing the discussion, I'm confident that reasoning adults, with or without opposition, can resolve the problem of tactical nukes just as with START. The problem is they are not being addressed now. Meanwhile pols talk about Clinton's email, whether Fiorina is hot, and what does Donald Trump have on his head.
There's no point in going into something you see for yourself anyway. The actual point goes beyond them as we need an agreement on tactical nukes and I'm confident reasoning, non-political adults can do that.
The most important thing coming out of this segment is the awareness that willful production of weapons inevitably results in them being used. There is room for compromise here as real Republicans don't want the weapons when the ones we have are big bucks and big bang already. The real Left doesn't want them for all the corny but valid reasons you know already. The outstanding point is Republicans don't want them either, even if only because it's wasting money ... but they get built anyway. Therefore there is a problem to fix. We find where that lies and then we get on with the discussion.
The one most confusing of all is the Cop Problem as there is the perception the world needs an Enforcer. That's not necessarily agreed but there's no question there are creeps about who will do anything to satisfy their wants. The general view of the Left is the United Nations is the flow from the League of Nations, both of which were created for the specific purpose of maintaining peace in the world and preventing another World War. Therefore, if there's any World Cop, that should be the one.
However, we do not discount the position of the Right in which national sovereignty must never be surrendered. The point is valid as the United Nations easily becomes the dreaded One World Order, so much the preoccupation of the sexual fantasies of conspiracy theorists.
Note: the latest from the conspiracy crowd is the observation all U.S. Presidents have had an RH-negative blood type. Well, obviously that means something, doesn't it.
Since we have good confidence deals can be made regarding possession of the nukes, assuming reliable and dedicated people are making those deals, the next concern is how to reach an accord regarding this Cop Problem as we agree one exists but we disagree altogether on how it is being pursued.
We suspect it's likely the United Nations can have the medical and food type of distribution as people can probably make that deal because it's a pain in the ass to do it yourself, the economy of this approach is much better, and the global distribution is probably more effective.
That deal is not likely to come regarding military considerations and understandably. For most, putting down the guns is the same or nearly the same as putting down the flag. It's over. The perception is grossly exaggerated as very few really want to kill each other but, the fact remains, some do.
It appears the general evolution, ideally, is START will continue, hopefully at an improved rate, to reduce the overall nuclear tonnage in the world. It's hoped tactical nuclear weapons will be addressed in the near future such that rational discussion can commence on reduction of these weapons as well. Through these types of positive and authentic changes is absolute proof of direction to up-and-coming nations such as Iran, etc which would possess nuclear capacity. Thus any negotiation is clearly in good faith as Iran is not being asked to do anything the U.S. and the Russians are not doing already. This, in turn, reduces general tensions in the region and thus the need for any Cops.
Still you need Cops for ISIS. This is not agreed as there has to be clear and focused discussion regarding what, precisely, is the U.S. trying to accomplish. However, the example serves for intervention in any kind of dispute in any other sovereign nation. Humans make one unbelievable hell of a mess out of this and here is the stickiest discussion of all. However, here on the Left, we believe movement in the other areas of this discussion will serve to mitigate any propaganda regarding America being the Great Satan, etc, etc. Um, no, pal. We're getting rid of them. What's up with you?
The fact of disagreement on the last segment is not disturbing due to the positive areas of agreement and areas of improvement. That is a major encouragement out here in the Rockhouse as there had previously been the perception of the desire to endlessly build more and more weapons, this was ubiquitous within the GOP, but that isn't true and it's an excellent sign.
Next question: why aren't politicians doing this. Neither of us want to be politicians, we didn't even want to be managers. (Long story but probably quite a few can relate to finding you're good at something you didn't particularly care about doing but it was worth some serious dollars to someone to get you to do it. Well...)
There's the question of rationalization of the world as half of America's budget goes to the military and, no matter how much money you're packing, that can hardly be described as rational.
There are mistaken perceptions on both sides as there is the impression of the Left that only START matters and everything will be peachy after the nuclear weapons delivered via ICBM weapons are limited or destroyed. However, that is not the case, only part of it. We're aware the ICBMs are strategic weapons but we are also aware of the tactical nukes and we're fairly sure a shoulder-fired nuclear weapon exists. There was agreement from both sides on the inherent danger in the tactical nukes versus the strategic nukes.
The ICBMs are the Known Fear as we have lived with them for well over fifty years. There is a major point in possession of a weapon for so long without using it. Mankind never keeps a weapon for that long without using it so there is a fundamental lesson to be learned.
Note: yes, it was used twice in Japan. And we horrified ourselves with what those ones did yet they were tiny relative to the ones which came after.
It's important to note the horror as that which we held for the Holocaust, arguably the worst premeditated event in human history, lasted for less time than we have held the horror of atomic weapons. In justification of the statement, we now see anti-Semitism practiced commonly, NAZI parties, NAZI bands, etc, etc. We hear others saying the Holocaust never happened. Thus, that horror, arguably the worst ever, has persisted for less time than that of the horror of nuclear weapons and the evidence is no-one ever again used them.
The theme has nothing to do with anti-Semitism as we all die from the nukes. Nevertheless, the point seems significant in relative horror and it's the same point which will be observed by the Right or the Left in discussion of how START proceeds toward elimination of strategic nukes. All of us want them gone but neither side agrees on what is an appropriate number of them to guarantee M.A.D. (Mutually-Assured Destruction). It's a rational point of opposition and the discussion means progress.
The primary problem, as agreed with the Right, is with tactical nukes as they can easily be used by an individual rogue, hijacked, or some other compromising event. Even if the weapon only bangs with one kiloton or less, chucking only one of them into the city center of any major city in the world will kill it for years.
We observe the wanton use of RPG weapons (Rocket-Propelled Grenade) as this is the same concept in giving an individual unbelievable firepower. These things are so destructive they can burn their way through all the battle armor of a tank and still kill everyone inside it. One person can do that.
There was agreement as well that these weapons are a Conspicuous Danger and need immediate attention both for the production of those existing and also for future weapons such as the 'invisibility cloak' which is nearly functional at Livermore Labs in California. As noted by my friend, they are inventing things which haven't any kind of civilian use as who needs an invisibility cloak other than stalkers and killers. There is tremendous danger in this manic pursuit of the ultimate weapon and there is also tremendous expense.
In observing the discussion, I'm confident that reasoning adults, with or without opposition, can resolve the problem of tactical nukes just as with START. The problem is they are not being addressed now. Meanwhile pols talk about Clinton's email, whether Fiorina is hot, and what does Donald Trump have on his head.
There's no point in going into something you see for yourself anyway. The actual point goes beyond them as we need an agreement on tactical nukes and I'm confident reasoning, non-political adults can do that.
The most important thing coming out of this segment is the awareness that willful production of weapons inevitably results in them being used. There is room for compromise here as real Republicans don't want the weapons when the ones we have are big bucks and big bang already. The real Left doesn't want them for all the corny but valid reasons you know already. The outstanding point is Republicans don't want them either, even if only because it's wasting money ... but they get built anyway. Therefore there is a problem to fix. We find where that lies and then we get on with the discussion.
The one most confusing of all is the Cop Problem as there is the perception the world needs an Enforcer. That's not necessarily agreed but there's no question there are creeps about who will do anything to satisfy their wants. The general view of the Left is the United Nations is the flow from the League of Nations, both of which were created for the specific purpose of maintaining peace in the world and preventing another World War. Therefore, if there's any World Cop, that should be the one.
However, we do not discount the position of the Right in which national sovereignty must never be surrendered. The point is valid as the United Nations easily becomes the dreaded One World Order, so much the preoccupation of the sexual fantasies of conspiracy theorists.
Note: the latest from the conspiracy crowd is the observation all U.S. Presidents have had an RH-negative blood type. Well, obviously that means something, doesn't it.
Since we have good confidence deals can be made regarding possession of the nukes, assuming reliable and dedicated people are making those deals, the next concern is how to reach an accord regarding this Cop Problem as we agree one exists but we disagree altogether on how it is being pursued.
We suspect it's likely the United Nations can have the medical and food type of distribution as people can probably make that deal because it's a pain in the ass to do it yourself, the economy of this approach is much better, and the global distribution is probably more effective.
That deal is not likely to come regarding military considerations and understandably. For most, putting down the guns is the same or nearly the same as putting down the flag. It's over. The perception is grossly exaggerated as very few really want to kill each other but, the fact remains, some do.
It appears the general evolution, ideally, is START will continue, hopefully at an improved rate, to reduce the overall nuclear tonnage in the world. It's hoped tactical nuclear weapons will be addressed in the near future such that rational discussion can commence on reduction of these weapons as well. Through these types of positive and authentic changes is absolute proof of direction to up-and-coming nations such as Iran, etc which would possess nuclear capacity. Thus any negotiation is clearly in good faith as Iran is not being asked to do anything the U.S. and the Russians are not doing already. This, in turn, reduces general tensions in the region and thus the need for any Cops.
Still you need Cops for ISIS. This is not agreed as there has to be clear and focused discussion regarding what, precisely, is the U.S. trying to accomplish. However, the example serves for intervention in any kind of dispute in any other sovereign nation. Humans make one unbelievable hell of a mess out of this and here is the stickiest discussion of all. However, here on the Left, we believe movement in the other areas of this discussion will serve to mitigate any propaganda regarding America being the Great Satan, etc, etc. Um, no, pal. We're getting rid of them. What's up with you?
The fact of disagreement on the last segment is not disturbing due to the positive areas of agreement and areas of improvement. That is a major encouragement out here in the Rockhouse as there had previously been the perception of the desire to endlessly build more and more weapons, this was ubiquitous within the GOP, but that isn't true and it's an excellent sign.
Next question: why aren't politicians doing this. Neither of us want to be politicians, we didn't even want to be managers. (Long story but probably quite a few can relate to finding you're good at something you didn't particularly care about doing but it was worth some serious dollars to someone to get you to do it. Well...)
No comments:
Post a Comment