D
-
League Of Reason Forums will shut down 10th September 2025.
There is a thread regarding this in General Discussion.
The Nuclear Disarmament Game
- Thread starter amorrow2
- Start date
Another bad idea complicit in that poorly conceived notion that governments aren't rational agents is what some of us have titled the Spock meme in the past. When you say the word 'rational' some people then hold whatever that adjective is describing to be pinnacle of reason indicating an absence of distracting, misguiding emotion, instead inhabiting a venue of pure logic, and of course, no person can meet that standard so it's actually done as a means of dismissing them as rational.
But that is, of course, not at all what the term 'rational' means in any context except for the fictitious population of Vulcan.
In the context of a rational agent, it just means that they are able to identify self-interest, and will make decisions that at least don't conflict with their self-interest. I would say that's a perfectly reasonable description of anyone in power, be they elected democratically or an autocrat, even if nothing else than because it's something we'd expect from all cognitively competent adults.
Thus, even someone as venal, dumb, and erratic as Trump is a rational agent, despite lacking the reasoning powers of a normal mentally healthy adult.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Why would you think of Spock as the pinnacle of rationality?
Thats obviously Data.
Thats obviously Data.
Here is a pretty good review of nuclear disarmament:
www.nti.org
Nuclear Weapon Reduction | Disarmament of Nuclear Weapons | NTI
Nuclear Disarmament Resource Collection
I ran across this page
www.counterpunch.org
Which says
Biden’s choices for Secretary of State and National Security Advisor have been from the foreign policy establishment, individuals who support, as does Biden, a strong U.S. nuclear posture based in Cold War thinking.
End quote
Well, maybe the USA and Russia and just make a non-treaty agreement to a 10% reduction in nukes this year. The same for next year and ask China for a 10% reduction as well.
That is not much different from the trend that has been going on for the past 30 years.
Biden's Foreign Policy and Nuclear Weapons: a Dialogue
Ricard Falk: The humane and competently handled responses that the Biden presidency has pursued with respect to the COVID challenge, mitigating economic
www.counterpunch.org
Which says
Biden’s choices for Secretary of State and National Security Advisor have been from the foreign policy establishment, individuals who support, as does Biden, a strong U.S. nuclear posture based in Cold War thinking.
End quote
Well, maybe the USA and Russia and just make a non-treaty agreement to a 10% reduction in nukes this year. The same for next year and ask China for a 10% reduction as well.
That is not much different from the trend that has been going on for the past 30 years.
Cabbages like a soil with a pH value of around 6.8, but it has to be well drained and is often drastically improved by the addition of compost or decaying organic matter. Evidence suggests that cabbages have been cultivated in China for at least 6000 years, meaning that late Neolithic and early Bronze Age Chinese peoples experienced cabbage farts.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
@amorrow2 Looks like you have not been paying attention.
The US is going to continue Trumps nuclear policy and actually going to produce more nuclear weapons, not less.
The UK is also thinking about doing the same, but till they actually start, there is no way of telling if they are gonna do it or not. Their government is as untrustworthy as North Korea.
The US is going to continue Trumps nuclear policy and actually going to produce more nuclear weapons, not less.
The UK is also thinking about doing the same, but till they actually start, there is no way of telling if they are gonna do it or not. Their government is as untrustworthy as North Korea.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Of course they're increasing stockpiles, because military spending is the one thing that nobody wants to have the discussion about. Certain assumptions are made, and promulgated, and that's the end of it. All else flows from those assumptions, which is why amorrow's entire enterprise here is doomed to irrelevance.
A diversion of funds that amounted to a tiny drop in military spending would provide every American with comprehensive healthcare at the highest level with zero increase in taxes without impacting the US military's readiness or R&D in any way whatsoever. Military budgets are and have been getting diverted into law enforcement deployment programmes that have effectively militarised the police, rendering citizens the enemy, in thought and in deed, all while leaving unaddressed the rhetorical pachyderm of yore in the form of the fact that the government is, by will or neglect, killing a silly number of its citizens given its status on the world stage of developed nations. It's outperformed in some critical metrics by developing nations, despite being the richest nation on Earth.
Anyhoo, anybody who isn't considering the many and detailed objections to amorrow's core premise, let alone the voluminous expositions of why his terms could only work in a world extant only in his poorly-imagined but quite specific (in terms of mutilating babies and other matters) iteration of what he laughably terms 'reality'.
My cohort has, as always, nailed it. I might simply respond 'my mum has a washing machine', and it would have all the epistemic value of amorrow's diseased imaginings, each imparts information, but of differing quantitative value:
1. That my mother has a washing machine.
This is pretty trivial. It would actually be somewhat strange if she didn... actually, I realise that's a particularly first-world view... still, you couldn't refine your search terms very much with 'owns a washing machine' if you were looking for somebody specific in a population, for example.
2. That amorrow needs help of the kind that we're not qualified to deliver, for problems that we're more likely to exacerbate than to assuage.
Neither is really a topic conducive to discussion, unless you have a particular interest in the preferences in white goods among Irish pensioners in England.
A diversion of funds that amounted to a tiny drop in military spending would provide every American with comprehensive healthcare at the highest level with zero increase in taxes without impacting the US military's readiness or R&D in any way whatsoever. Military budgets are and have been getting diverted into law enforcement deployment programmes that have effectively militarised the police, rendering citizens the enemy, in thought and in deed, all while leaving unaddressed the rhetorical pachyderm of yore in the form of the fact that the government is, by will or neglect, killing a silly number of its citizens given its status on the world stage of developed nations. It's outperformed in some critical metrics by developing nations, despite being the richest nation on Earth.
Anyhoo, anybody who isn't considering the many and detailed objections to amorrow's core premise, let alone the voluminous expositions of why his terms could only work in a world extant only in his poorly-imagined but quite specific (in terms of mutilating babies and other matters) iteration of what he laughably terms 'reality'.
My cohort has, as always, nailed it. I might simply respond 'my mum has a washing machine', and it would have all the epistemic value of amorrow's diseased imaginings, each imparts information, but of differing quantitative value:
1. That my mother has a washing machine.
This is pretty trivial. It would actually be somewhat strange if she didn... actually, I realise that's a particularly first-world view... still, you couldn't refine your search terms very much with 'owns a washing machine' if you were looking for somebody specific in a population, for example.
2. That amorrow needs help of the kind that we're not qualified to deliver, for problems that we're more likely to exacerbate than to assuage.
Neither is really a topic conducive to discussion, unless you have a particular interest in the preferences in white goods among Irish pensioners in England.
Last edited by a moderator:
China's Foreign Minister Wang You is calling for nuclear arms reduction by the USA and Russia.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Important distinction here, the military is only loaning their equipment and weapons to the police for the most part. Its important, cause the military could take it all back with the stroke of a pen and put it in storage.
Btw. defunding the military is only a good idea, if its done right. Gotta keep in mind, the US military is the biggest jobs and healthcare program in the whole world. And well, the idiots are gonna slash the personel first, not the weapons. I am fully supportive of young Americans sitting somewhere in a completly obsolete base in Italy, saluting and watching stuff on youtube all day, rather than starving in New York, homeless in LA or getting shot in Chicago(Btw. Afghanistan is half as dangerous as Chicago).
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Which is an entirely unimportant distinction given the point under discussion. it is, in fact, entirely irrelevant, and its interjection here is fucking stupid.
In fact, your 'distinction' .as you so laughably named it, is actually a massive point in support of my point, rendering your 'important distinction' nothing more than you blowing your own trumpet by showing mommy your poop, clever boy.
I'm going to ignore the rest, because it's even more laughable than this.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
So ... you are unhapppy about something supporting your point?
And of course its important, you just have to consider the implications. The US military or the US government, could demilitarize the police with the stroke of a pen without losing a cent of the police budget and without having to pay anything to get rid of it. And the military would have to pay the cost of warehousing it. And the police would have no recourse to that, cause its a loaned. Try to keep up.
And btw. writing that you are gonna ignore something, is not ignoring it, smarty pants.
And of course its important, you just have to consider the implications. The US military or the US government, could demilitarize the police with the stroke of a pen without losing a cent of the police budget and without having to pay anything to get rid of it. And the military would have to pay the cost of warehousing it. And the police would have no recourse to that, cause its a loaned. Try to keep up.
And btw. writing that you are gonna ignore something, is not ignoring it, smarty pants.
Last edited by a moderator:
Where do you get the idea that all the military equipment used by US police is loaned to them by the army?
Of course the government can demilitarize the police, albeit with somewhat more than the stroke of a pen, but the military has no such ability being just as much subject to the government as the police.
Of course the government can demilitarize the police, albeit with somewhat more than the stroke of a pen, but the military has no such ability being just as much subject to the government as the police.
I note the phrase "Second Cold War".
en.wikipedia.org
I saw a protest banner on the news today that read.
Peace! No new Cold War!
Young people care about their future.
As with so many wars, it may be an old person's war but a young person's fight.
Second Cold War - Wikipedia
I saw a protest banner on the news today that read.
Peace! No new Cold War!
Young people care about their future.
As with so many wars, it may be an old person's war but a young person's fight.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
@Sparhafoc Official government sources?
Well, actually Kyle Kulinski, Humanist Report or Jimmy Dore. Maybe Lee Camp. Could also have been Cody or even John Oliver, I dunno, got something running on my 2nd monitor all day and its not like this kinda stuff is a secret.
Controlled property: Consists of military items that are provided via a conditional transfer or “loan” basis where title remains with DoD/DLA. This includes items such as small arms/personal weapons, demilitarized vehicles and aircraft and night vision equipment. This property always remains in the LESO property book because it still belongs to and is accountable to DoD. When a law enforcement agency no longer wants the controlled property, it must be returned to DLA’s LESO for proper disposition.
www.visualcapitalist.com
www.vox.com
Well, actually Kyle Kulinski, Humanist Report or Jimmy Dore. Maybe Lee Camp. Could also have been Cody or even John Oliver, I dunno, got something running on my 2nd monitor all day and its not like this kinda stuff is a secret.
Controlled property: Consists of military items that are provided via a conditional transfer or “loan” basis where title remains with DoD/DLA. This includes items such as small arms/personal weapons, demilitarized vehicles and aircraft and night vision equipment. This property always remains in the LESO property book because it still belongs to and is accountable to DoD. When a law enforcement agency no longer wants the controlled property, it must be returned to DLA’s LESO for proper disposition.
Charting the $1.7B Transfer of Military Equipment to Police Departments
This visualization tracks the last decade of the 1033 Program, which provides free military equipment to police departments around the U.S.
www.visualcapitalist.com
Why America’s police look like soldiers
Why are the police bringing military assault rifles to protests?
www.vox.com
Last edited by a moderator: