Political debate: Make Your Voice Heard

[Hitchhiker]

Like others have said, this is a rather difficult thing to decide. I don't think we should make any more nuclear weapons, since the "mutual assured destruction" theory is no longer very assured. I mean, so what if every country with nuclear weapons sends out its weapons? The end result is the same, we're still dead. The only way to ever prevent that from happening is to get rid of the nuclear weapons.

There's no such thing as a responsible country. Countries are fluid things, and a country is only responsible as its government. At any point in time, a country could have a bad government, which would reflect poorly on a country. So I don't think that any country should keep nuclear weapons around. I know that again, others will tell me that the "less trustworthy" nations would not comply with such a resolution, and stockpile their nukes, but the only way it will ever happen is if we actually get serious, start dismantling our nuclear weapons, rather than talking about it and making the other side go first.

[Arellia]

Would be nice if that theory worked. But does Korea really care about us making some grand compromise? Would they just sit back, watch us dismantle our weapons, and find it so heart-wrenchingly fair that they'll do the same? Very, very unlikely. The problem with furthering technology is that worse weapons will always be made. Uses for nuclear plants do not have to be weapons-oriented, but they certainly could be, with some modification. Nanotechnology will make worse weapons, too. But if we shut the door on weapons, it makes it difficult to further the science field, in some ways.

I will agree with you on one point, though. There really isn't such a thing as a responsible country, but there are governements less likely to be corrupted. With all the safeties in America's government, it makes the process of getting a corrupt dictator difficult to the point of near impossibility. (Although, never say never) I would still have to consider Canada and the U.S. more "responsible" than Cuba and Iraq, just given the history. It's much easier to get a corrupt governement (Which Cuba and Iraq have both have or had) in those types of countries, and both those countries are more dangerous if and when they posess WMD's.

[Zeke Zabertini]

Well, look at it this way: if only one or two nations have nuclear weapons, and in small enough numbers to hide them effectively, then even if someone drops the hammer at least some people will probably survive. Right now, if anyone fires, we're all dead. Even if only the worst human beings on Earth survive, that's still preferable to me to the complete destruction of our planet and our race.

[Arellia]

This is why we need to keep them out of the hands of Iran and such, while keeping them around as a means of protection. And really, I don't think we'd all die if the weapons started going off. Though, I'm sure most people wouldn't be too happy if we finally blew the middle east to--oh, my, did I incinuate using radical force? Shame on me...

(No, I'm not quite that insane...but it's a thought...)

[Zeke Zabertini]

The solution to ending a lot of the middle east violence is simple: stop giving money and weapons to Israel. That's another topic, though. Remember that nuclear attacks don't just affect their targets, the radiation spreads for thousands of miles. We'd be doing a great deal of harm to all of Europe, Asia, and Africa. It would affect us too, eventually.

[Hitchhiker]

[Arellia]

I would admit to that. Again, I did not say that we should blow a nice, SMOKING hole in the-- sorry again. No, really. I'm kidding. But I do think we need to use more force. Not nuclear force, perhaps, but force.

[Zeke Zabertini]

Force ain't gonna help. All that does is piss people off more and give the enemy ranks new recruits. In the fight against terrorism, the goal should be to get rid of those we know of and try to win over the population with friendship and aid. If we can break the stigma against us, the terrorist groups will suddenly find that they can't find any more people to do their dirty work. Nuking them would be a horrible solution. A great way to turn the rest of the world against us.

[Arellia]

Terrorists really don't care. Let's just come out and say it--this is a holy war, and the war is against anyone who is not Muslim, in the terrorists' minds. If someone really believes in what the terrorists are saying, I don't think that's going to make much difference. I think the troops should use the force necessary to beat back the terrorist regime. (Not that we'd throw out Geneava convention rules, though this is quite kind of us, since they were not even in the Geneava convention.) But, if we use any more force, people (No, not the middle eastern people, the anti-war people) will revolt. So politically, it would be suicide. Unfortunate, in my mind.

[Zeke Zabertini]

And to mine, the single most fortunate reality in this whole debate so far. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. It seems to me that it would be advantageous for the United States and all other nuclear-capable countries to sign a treaty to limit themselves to ten nuclear weapons each. That way we'll still be able to glass whole countries and have an effective deterrant, but not have the power to blow up the whole planet.

[Arellia]

^Best idea I've heard so far, I must admit.

[Zeke Zabertini]

Hmm. An agreeable note to move forward from. The next issue comes from my good friend Hitchhiker.

Space travel. How important is it? Should it be handled in the public sector or the private sector? What should its focus be? Should we put money into missions of exploration, or do things closer to home?

[Pah-Wraith]

[Zeke Zabertini]

New topic. Please.

[Kyre]

[Hitchhiker]

I agree, space travel is very important. We're running out of natural resources--the asteroid belt most likely contains several varieties of useful minerals and metals, if we can figure out a way to harvest those, we could prolong the Earth's ability to support our population.

And because our population is already too high for the Earth to support, we can think about colonization, orbital space facilities, et cetera.

I think it should be handled by both the government and corporations. "Tourist" space travel, if we ever get it, would be a great commercial boost to any economy--provided people have big enough bank accounts. But SpaceShipOne's flight proved two things: Space has clear potential for commercial application, and Microsoft is already establishing a foothold in space.

Most government work is already outsourced to private sector operations by now. Boeing manufactures the space shuttle. With a private industry coordinated by government goals and regulations, we might actually be able to make it work.

However, we've already polluted the Earth, and believe it or not, we're doing a good job at polluting space. There's a bunch of useless junk there that is dangerous to us, because it is travelling so fast that if it hits a satellite or space shuttle, the satellite or space shuttle could get severely damaged.

There's also a fine line between manned missions and unmanned missions. I think both are vital: manned missions give us a sense of participation, and of course, prove that we can actually make space a viable environment. Unmanned missions often provide us with useful data. While I'm disappointed that NASA is already writing off the Hubble, at least they're bringing out a new telescope.

Space is there, we might as well use it.

[Captain Dappet]

I think we should settle our problems on this world, before colonizing new worlds, or even trying.

The money used in space research can easily be dropped alittle to aid the people, instead.

That would be my priorities, anyway. The welfare and prosperity of the people firstly, and secondly research in the areas of space and military.

[Zeke Zabertini]

I say human interest and space exploration both deserve funding. The military though; I agree with you there.

[Captain Dappet]

Yes, and no one seems to disagree.