« BACK TO FORUM
Moderators:
AminaYasmine, Liamjod, mnopq
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Thadchayane
Joined: Sep 27, 2002
Posts: 4
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female & 20
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
the need for power
March 9, 2005 - 10:12 AM
|
|
we've seen after the cold war, what the effects of nuclear weapons can cause to the world. first we built it for curiousty, then we built it for protection, why do keep building it? does america and russia really need 10,000-20,000 nuclear weapons? are they planning to use it all? and if not, then why are they spending all that money on them? what would happen if we put those billions and billions of dollars into researching peace and helping needy? think. reflect.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Chris W
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: United States
|
Re: the need for power
March 10, 2005 - 01:55 AM
|
|
We live in a world were National Security is crucial for all nations involved on the playing field. During the cold war you remember there was also a space race which was really only a disguise for the nations involved to test nuclear payload delivery vehicles (ie ICBMs). The poor and needy from a view of compassion are priorities for care, but from a production centered world where money talks and BS walks, they are of no concern. Take this example as means to illustrate the view of the natural world of politics, If you had a cow that was sickly, ate your grass (consumed resources), and could not produce milk you would either sell the cow or put it down, after all why invest more money in an already losing investment. While this is not a moral view, which morals should govern man in all things that he does, it is not always the case. We live in an evolutionary centered world where survival of the fittest is a dominant idea for those who have power. Nation's interests are centered around protection of their assets which include labor and natural resources among other things technological secrets which could include weapon systems, advanced warning systems, centrally providing the paradgim that such secrets provide advantage in the event of competion (ie war). Nuclear weapons today now serve as fail safes of protection, they are deterrents of force, the nations that control them illustrate the concept quite evidently to their opponets that if war breaks out, They will annihlate your populace and production centers. Because of this fear of the results that are equated with the use of nuclear weapons, terrorism has spawned. Terrorism is the new vehicle for nations to implement national policy. Terrorism is not something new Genghis Kahn was a fanatical in his implementation of terror sending spies to the cities he was about to lay siege to spreading rumors that the Monguls were coming. This incited fear and caused the armies of the residing population to flee and disband into a rabble. Terrorists are a hard target, much like the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war who employed a tactic much like America's minute men during the revolution, they would attack then flee, inflicting massive casualties on their enemy by using the now popular term Gurilla Warfare which was coined during the Vietnam conflict. It works and is very effective to have a minimal force inflict as much damage as possible and flee. Much like a mosquito who bites you, takes what it wants, and as soon as you become aware to make an effort to swat at it, it flees leaving you with a loss of blood and it lives and goes on to attack another victim another day. The Utopian society that cares for the poor and has central policies that encourage compassion will never exist as long as resources are in short supply. After all why feed a dying cow when you have several healthy cows that need to be fed as well, and they produce resources for you to continue living. While it would be ideal to take care of the poor and the needy, it will never become a national priority like we would like it to become. The poor and needy are a parasite to nations using resources and producing nothing. While I support charity and compassionate organizations it is not realistic to assume that a nations government will take care of individuals who can bearly survive on their own while inflicting taxes upon the working class to support such an endeavor. Such people are complacent and in the real world, which is absent of compassion they would succumb to the natural order of things, in nature the lion preys on the sick and diseased. I am an advocate of compassion, but we have to remember that compassion is a human invention and we cannot become blinded with the concept that because doing the right thing, such as feeding and clothing the needy, we cannot assume that nature will follow the same course such as to provide rain for crops in a drought because it is the right thing to do, or to provide a warm day because an indivdual does not have a coat. Pray for warm weather, but buy a coat. You are a rare individual placing others needs before your own, while I hope that such a seed of compassion germinates and spreads like a weed, I remain reluctant to think that such a thing will happen during our generation.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Martin Tairo M.
Joined: Aug 18, 2004
Posts: 39
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 24
Country: Kenya
Province/State: Nairobi Area
City: Nairobi
|
Re: the need for power
April 12, 2005 - 09:32 AM
|
|
Originally posted by Thadcha
we've seen after the cold war, what the effects of nuclear weapons can cause to the world. first we built it for curiousty, then we built it for protection, why do keep building it? does america and russia really need 10,000-20,000 nuclear weapons? are they planning to use it all? and if not, then why are they spending all that money on them? what would happen if we put those billions and billions of dollars into researching peace and helping needy? think. reflect.
We might have better suggestions about how America should spend its ever excess money but what prevails is what they want. We are just left to sit, suggest and stare.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Udara
Joined: Dec 10, 2003
Posts: 55
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Sri Lanka
|
Re: the need for power
April 12, 2005 - 11:53 AM
|
|
I think Kiran in the other thread said it all!
"And history proves again and again that its greed that made people wage wars, greed for money, greed for power, greed for fame/name. And this is the basis for all that has happened till now "
Even in Buddhism, this is clearly explained!
cheers,
Udara
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Martin Tairo M.
Joined: Aug 18, 2004
Posts: 39
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 24
Country: Kenya
Province/State: Nairobi Area
City: Nairobi
|
Re: the need for power
April 13, 2005 - 11:15 AM
|
|
Originally posted by udara2004
I think Kiran in the other thread said it all!
"And history proves again and again that its greed that made people wage wars, greed for money, greed for power, greed for fame/name. And this is the basis for all that has happened till now "
Even in Buddhism, this is clearly explained!
cheers,
Udara
Hey Udara,
Would like to read a little about Buddhism in relation to the issue above and even more. Have you got any links to that info?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: the need for power
April 13, 2005 - 12:27 PM
|
|
Thadcha - guys...
You do reolize that both America and Russia stopped building Nuclear warheads over a decade ago.
They have both signed an agreement to reduce their Nuclear stockpiles -
And Bush and Putin just revised the old agreement and expanded it so that both Russia and the US are reducing their armiments by 2/3 over the next 10 years.
In a decade the US should have about 2200 and Russia about 1700
here is an article - http://www.china.org.cn/english/FR/33219.htm
I don't see anything wrong with the discussion - just think it should be accurate.
Nuclear weapons were never built as a "novelty" as Thadcha said - they were always built for war - and specifically they were built in WW2 because Germany was working on such a device it was beleived and the US wanted it first.
Anyway - just understand that neither the US or Russia are building arms at this point - both are dismantling them.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
« BACK TO FORUM
|
Forum Jump:
|
All times are GMT-05:00
|
» Check that you are logged in!
You cannot create new threads in this forum
You cannot post replies in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot edit/delete your posts in this forum
|
|
Administrators:
chengzhao1993, Liamjod
Moderators:
AminaYasmine, Liamjod, mnopq
|
|
Home
Community
