Christian Democrats in the United States
Global Issues - Non-nuclear StrategyWe support a strong defensive strategy, but also a total elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world. A nuclear-armed terrorist cannot be deterred by a nuclear response. If the United States can get along with the overwhelming majority of nations, and deal with others through conventional force, aiming all this doomsday at the world's citizens only serves to make people feel threatened before they have ever offended or even cared about our society. The risk of accidental or terrorist use of nuclear arms increases every day. We must direct all efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, but the United States must live up to its own standards and goals. We submit that if the United States takes the lead in nuclear disarmament, all civil nations of the world will follow voluntarily.
For power generation, nuclear fission (splitting uranium) is and always will be unsafe, because the waste products remain radioactive for so many centuries, potentially causing birth defects and diseases for hundreds of years. Nuclear fusion (how our sun works) is worth researching, because the potential higher power yield would leave much less radioactive waste.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Monday, April 12, 2010
8:32 PM
Also, saying only that nuclear weapons should be abandoned forgets the truth: the world will not need any weapons at all, when God writes love in all our hearts. The lion will lie down with the lamb.
We do not need to unite the world. All we need is to unite America - to remember why people wanted a better place for you a long time ago.
No number of weapons will ever eliminate the perceived need for weapons, once you start down that path of thought. No "prompt global strike" strategy will ever unite the world, so no one should deceive themselves to think that is the goal of such a strategy. It would never work.
It's challenging to think after seeing violence that we are not trapped in the cycle. Most "official sources" would try to curb such free thinking, to excuse the violence perpetrated by authoritarian organization. They'd use the idea easily enough to put down dissenters by excluding them from society and turning a mob against the thinker. They would spur nutcases to take up the banner of that thought and then buy guns and plan to bomb a cop funeral, which is crazy; then people hear "Christian believer" and think something on a range from "wingnut" to "psycho."
They still won't acknowledge the thought: violence is not necessary in any form.
With extremely rare exceptions, people are capable of controlling their own actions, and of working out their problems. Yet, this is not what we teach children in school, but instead that they are bio-chemical automatons running programs like the computers we use to train them into mechanistic thought. Then we apply labels to those whose brains go haywire when jammed into such a box, autistic, ADHD, mentally ill, whatever, isolating the outliers and training a negative feedback loop in the brain when socially outcast.
Those rare exceptions who cannot control themselves, who cannot see their way out of the maze without violence, are the domain of the Lord, and until judgment day, the rest of us can cope with those cases without violence, without war, and without the death penalty. The only thing the world needs is freedom to think our way out of it. You can make that choice. Even if you do not figure it out, trying has better results than not trying. No one can tell you that you must make the choice to think, but it is possible that the entire world will end if you do not.
This doesn't fit within our normal everyday perceptions. People on the front lines of a war may feel unwilling to trust the other side to a mutual decision to lay down arms. Yet, peace is possible.
non-armed strategy, period
No global government will ever bring about peace.Also, saying only that nuclear weapons should be abandoned forgets the truth: the world will not need any weapons at all, when God writes love in all our hearts. The lion will lie down with the lamb.
We do not need to unite the world. All we need is to unite America - to remember why people wanted a better place for you a long time ago.
No number of weapons will ever eliminate the perceived need for weapons, once you start down that path of thought. No "prompt global strike" strategy will ever unite the world, so no one should deceive themselves to think that is the goal of such a strategy. It would never work.
It's challenging to think after seeing violence that we are not trapped in the cycle. Most "official sources" would try to curb such free thinking, to excuse the violence perpetrated by authoritarian organization. They'd use the idea easily enough to put down dissenters by excluding them from society and turning a mob against the thinker. They would spur nutcases to take up the banner of that thought and then buy guns and plan to bomb a cop funeral, which is crazy; then people hear "Christian believer" and think something on a range from "wingnut" to "psycho."
They still won't acknowledge the thought: violence is not necessary in any form.
With extremely rare exceptions, people are capable of controlling their own actions, and of working out their problems. Yet, this is not what we teach children in school, but instead that they are bio-chemical automatons running programs like the computers we use to train them into mechanistic thought. Then we apply labels to those whose brains go haywire when jammed into such a box, autistic, ADHD, mentally ill, whatever, isolating the outliers and training a negative feedback loop in the brain when socially outcast.
Those rare exceptions who cannot control themselves, who cannot see their way out of the maze without violence, are the domain of the Lord, and until judgment day, the rest of us can cope with those cases without violence, without war, and without the death penalty. The only thing the world needs is freedom to think our way out of it. You can make that choice. Even if you do not figure it out, trying has better results than not trying. No one can tell you that you must make the choice to think, but it is possible that the entire world will end if you do not.
This doesn't fit within our normal everyday perceptions. People on the front lines of a war may feel unwilling to trust the other side to a mutual decision to lay down arms. Yet, peace is possible.
> detail, links and comments >>
Friday, July 10, 2009
8:54 PM
Mr. Schlesinger misses the entire point. Under mutual assured destruction, the mainstream military theory which "justifies" having nukes, you have to know what country to blame. However, no country is going to execute a nuclear first strike, because they would be destroyed. In the event terrorists set off a nuke against the U.S. or its outposts, the people to blame are dead or fugitives. You cannot hunt or punish fugitive terrorists with nukes. Punishing innocent people by reducing a random country to ash would be a mark of shame on the original victim of the attack for all of history. "Why?" the response target city would cry. "Why do they take their anger out on us?" And that would be the last thing they cry. It would be nothing more than mass sacrifice of innocent victims to the imagined blood gods of humanity's brutal past.
If terrorists attack they are mutineers and criminals. Given mutual assured destruction, no rational state actor or citizen of any kind of government would launch a nuclear first strike. States cannot threaten to use nukes for extortion, because other states would call their bluff. Nukes are purely deterrent. That is core to this theory of brinkmanship.
So, any terrorists who use a nuke, whether engaged in government somehow or not, are by definition independent and irrational, so collective punishment of countries or ethnic groups is irrational in parallel. Anarchy does not submit to definitions of the mind; anarchists have given up on their potential and turned back from the infinite paths forward, back toward their base instincts, giving up what makes them human. They have stopped questioning their own minds; then in the ultimate irony of anarchy they replace the flowering wave of their mind with a strict and simplistic order of death.
If you respond with nukes against a terrorist attack, who do you respond against? 10 million innocent people? Then their allies respond in kind, and the whole world blows up. That is the only thing nuclear strategy has to say to a terrorist attack: destroy the entire world. What if that is exactly what the terrorists want, because they are out of their minds?
Nukes are an irrational weapon to begin with: nuclear winter could wipe out most life on planet earth. In a certain very real sense, a nation nuked by terrorists would have to turn the other cheek; for the survival of life on earth. There is no other option if the conspirators of the plot are all dead and dispersed. Blood for blood? Whose blood? Pick a random city and push the button?
No, from the perspective of military strategy, the most obvious answer is overwhelming personal force, reaching out and kicking down people's doors, to find the remaining people responsible. A nuclear response against a terrorist nuke is not a viable military option. But if the U.S. "Nuclear Umbrella" were replaced with the steady and very personal fist of Uncle Sam, states could still be deterred from using nuclear weapons, and we could deter terrorists as well. Our personal guarantee to kick the living shit out of any country and any terrorist organization that would use a nuke, without nuking anyone in retaliation, is worth a lot more tactically to any country under our protection than the threat of a nuclear holocaust that will kill nearly all life on earth. Duh.
But of course, all violence is stupid, pointless and contrary to God's love for us that we should reflect for each other. A world of peace is certainly possible; the meek shall inherit the earth. These may be the last days of violence, as the critical mass of spirit overflows, as the golden rule is etched into the hearts of humankind by God's sometimes painful and scary fire, by suffering and loss, by heartache and by dreams. It is said that after a period of the rule of evil on Earth, Jesus Christ in the flesh, and the Lord (and the "space force" of the Lord) will return, and life and love will be everlasting. Sickness and hunger will end and we will flower into our New Earth in the heavens. The dark ages in Europe and the East, the blood wars and mass sacrifices among pre-columbian natives of the Americas, colonialism, slavery, the holocaust and mechanized genocide on unbelievable scales; these certainly seem to be just about as bad as people can get. You have to consider it, because it is there, part of our human spirit -- some people in antiquity thought deep thoughts and encountered deep wisdom, and that voice echoes through the ages.
Maybe it's actually just about over, and then we can get onto painting and math, farming and exploring the solar system, living out our full potential as God's agents of creation, not destruction. That might be more likely, more nearby, than anyone thinks, in fact, within us, waiting simply for our breath to unlock the voice that will make it so.
Men of Mr. Schlesinger's generation and mind set are the ones who utterly fail to grasp the reality of nuclear weapons. It's the Button. The End. Not the end of the age, but the end of everything. Fortunately, for those with a little faith in existence, that is not what those people in antiquity foresaw, wise beyond their own dimensions. Tribulation, persecution, wars, yes, but after that, a new world, in which all people choose to live well with each other because the Lord has written love on their hearts.
The age of death is over because people wish it to be. Educated people in liberal democracies are not going to nuke each other because they are not stupid, and they have plenty of ways to resolve their differences across borders. Together, it is within the grasp of the People to sign some petitions, stamp a few pieces of paper and put our nuclear weapons to rest. We don't need them. They serve no institutional, human or spiritual purpose. They are a huge liability and a threat to the existence of life on earth. There is no other way around that.
Democracy, close to the people, in some form, is necessary in every country, ironically because of mutual assured destruction, and its failure to respond to terrorists. Democracy's structure functions over time in the best common interests of all the country's people. Nations with their own best interests in mind tend to realize they have no reason to nuke each other, and never will, because they can work out their problems with time.
Even the most brutal governments of our world today, especially the ones making and seeking nukes, must realize that helping terrorists get nukes in any way, or even helping terrorist organizations who later acquire nukes independently, will bring them one of two things: A) total world destruction or B) invasion by conventionally armed forces. Either way, it's the end of the money train, the end of the party, the end of personal power for the people running those governments.
We can convince those people in those governments that democracy is in their own best interests, because their personal party gets bigger, no one gets shot, and they can retire gracefully and rich. But the most important fact to convince them of is, in a world of free democracies, nukes have no military purpose, and because nuclear-armed terrorism threatens everyone, the best military choice is to disarm and democratize.
Military and political power brokers of Mr. Schlesinger's generation took the world on a dangerous and psychotic bender drunk with personal power from possessing the ability to destroy the entire world. As the pure survival need for functional democratic government increases around the world with the increase in population, democracy spreads, because it must. Non-democratic rulers begin to realize that enabling their people to solve their own problems is the only way to get those problems solved, else the peoples' problems will become the rulers' problems in a big way.
As democracy spreads, the greatest threat is not the possession of nukes by adversaries, because no state can any longer be an adversary in that sense. The greatest threat is the existence of nuclear weapons, period. If we believe in democracy, if we believe in the whole American project, then our military tacticians have to look forward and plan ahead for that day. Otherwise, they are working against the realization of that goal, and against the interests of the nation.
who do you nuke in response to terrorists?
Former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger (WSJ editorial) says "we should be working on [civil defense response strategy] with respect, certainly, to the possibility of a terrorist weapon used against the United States."Mr. Schlesinger misses the entire point. Under mutual assured destruction, the mainstream military theory which "justifies" having nukes, you have to know what country to blame. However, no country is going to execute a nuclear first strike, because they would be destroyed. In the event terrorists set off a nuke against the U.S. or its outposts, the people to blame are dead or fugitives. You cannot hunt or punish fugitive terrorists with nukes. Punishing innocent people by reducing a random country to ash would be a mark of shame on the original victim of the attack for all of history. "Why?" the response target city would cry. "Why do they take their anger out on us?" And that would be the last thing they cry. It would be nothing more than mass sacrifice of innocent victims to the imagined blood gods of humanity's brutal past.
If terrorists attack they are mutineers and criminals. Given mutual assured destruction, no rational state actor or citizen of any kind of government would launch a nuclear first strike. States cannot threaten to use nukes for extortion, because other states would call their bluff. Nukes are purely deterrent. That is core to this theory of brinkmanship.
So, any terrorists who use a nuke, whether engaged in government somehow or not, are by definition independent and irrational, so collective punishment of countries or ethnic groups is irrational in parallel. Anarchy does not submit to definitions of the mind; anarchists have given up on their potential and turned back from the infinite paths forward, back toward their base instincts, giving up what makes them human. They have stopped questioning their own minds; then in the ultimate irony of anarchy they replace the flowering wave of their mind with a strict and simplistic order of death.
If you respond with nukes against a terrorist attack, who do you respond against? 10 million innocent people? Then their allies respond in kind, and the whole world blows up. That is the only thing nuclear strategy has to say to a terrorist attack: destroy the entire world. What if that is exactly what the terrorists want, because they are out of their minds?
Nukes are an irrational weapon to begin with: nuclear winter could wipe out most life on planet earth. In a certain very real sense, a nation nuked by terrorists would have to turn the other cheek; for the survival of life on earth. There is no other option if the conspirators of the plot are all dead and dispersed. Blood for blood? Whose blood? Pick a random city and push the button?
No, from the perspective of military strategy, the most obvious answer is overwhelming personal force, reaching out and kicking down people's doors, to find the remaining people responsible. A nuclear response against a terrorist nuke is not a viable military option. But if the U.S. "Nuclear Umbrella" were replaced with the steady and very personal fist of Uncle Sam, states could still be deterred from using nuclear weapons, and we could deter terrorists as well. Our personal guarantee to kick the living shit out of any country and any terrorist organization that would use a nuke, without nuking anyone in retaliation, is worth a lot more tactically to any country under our protection than the threat of a nuclear holocaust that will kill nearly all life on earth. Duh.
But of course, all violence is stupid, pointless and contrary to God's love for us that we should reflect for each other. A world of peace is certainly possible; the meek shall inherit the earth. These may be the last days of violence, as the critical mass of spirit overflows, as the golden rule is etched into the hearts of humankind by God's sometimes painful and scary fire, by suffering and loss, by heartache and by dreams. It is said that after a period of the rule of evil on Earth, Jesus Christ in the flesh, and the Lord (and the "space force" of the Lord) will return, and life and love will be everlasting. Sickness and hunger will end and we will flower into our New Earth in the heavens. The dark ages in Europe and the East, the blood wars and mass sacrifices among pre-columbian natives of the Americas, colonialism, slavery, the holocaust and mechanized genocide on unbelievable scales; these certainly seem to be just about as bad as people can get. You have to consider it, because it is there, part of our human spirit -- some people in antiquity thought deep thoughts and encountered deep wisdom, and that voice echoes through the ages.
Maybe it's actually just about over, and then we can get onto painting and math, farming and exploring the solar system, living out our full potential as God's agents of creation, not destruction. That might be more likely, more nearby, than anyone thinks, in fact, within us, waiting simply for our breath to unlock the voice that will make it so.
Men of Mr. Schlesinger's generation and mind set are the ones who utterly fail to grasp the reality of nuclear weapons. It's the Button. The End. Not the end of the age, but the end of everything. Fortunately, for those with a little faith in existence, that is not what those people in antiquity foresaw, wise beyond their own dimensions. Tribulation, persecution, wars, yes, but after that, a new world, in which all people choose to live well with each other because the Lord has written love on their hearts.
The age of death is over because people wish it to be. Educated people in liberal democracies are not going to nuke each other because they are not stupid, and they have plenty of ways to resolve their differences across borders. Together, it is within the grasp of the People to sign some petitions, stamp a few pieces of paper and put our nuclear weapons to rest. We don't need them. They serve no institutional, human or spiritual purpose. They are a huge liability and a threat to the existence of life on earth. There is no other way around that.
Democracy, close to the people, in some form, is necessary in every country, ironically because of mutual assured destruction, and its failure to respond to terrorists. Democracy's structure functions over time in the best common interests of all the country's people. Nations with their own best interests in mind tend to realize they have no reason to nuke each other, and never will, because they can work out their problems with time.
Even the most brutal governments of our world today, especially the ones making and seeking nukes, must realize that helping terrorists get nukes in any way, or even helping terrorist organizations who later acquire nukes independently, will bring them one of two things: A) total world destruction or B) invasion by conventionally armed forces. Either way, it's the end of the money train, the end of the party, the end of personal power for the people running those governments.
We can convince those people in those governments that democracy is in their own best interests, because their personal party gets bigger, no one gets shot, and they can retire gracefully and rich. But the most important fact to convince them of is, in a world of free democracies, nukes have no military purpose, and because nuclear-armed terrorism threatens everyone, the best military choice is to disarm and democratize.
Military and political power brokers of Mr. Schlesinger's generation took the world on a dangerous and psychotic bender drunk with personal power from possessing the ability to destroy the entire world. As the pure survival need for functional democratic government increases around the world with the increase in population, democracy spreads, because it must. Non-democratic rulers begin to realize that enabling their people to solve their own problems is the only way to get those problems solved, else the peoples' problems will become the rulers' problems in a big way.
As democracy spreads, the greatest threat is not the possession of nukes by adversaries, because no state can any longer be an adversary in that sense. The greatest threat is the existence of nuclear weapons, period. If we believe in democracy, if we believe in the whole American project, then our military tacticians have to look forward and plan ahead for that day. Otherwise, they are working against the realization of that goal, and against the interests of the nation.
> detail, links and comments >>
Thursday, November 20, 2008
6:57 AM
Nuclear fusion (how our sun works) is worth researching, because the potential higher power yield would leave much less radioactive waste, in a form that can be more easily contained while it dissipates.
Fission must be phased out. Don't believe the pundits when they tell you that uranium fission nuclear power can be made safe. They represent an industry caught up in a cycle of profiteering at the expense of our health. Radioactive heavy metals are an abomination that have no place in a healthy human habitat. If we promote a long-term uranium fission power strategy, we will have more radioactive waste than can be managed safely. We strongly object to the blind faith of the European Christian Democrats who support nuclear fission power, and to their lack of vision for a healthy future free from dependence on oil. If nothing else, they are willing to sacrifice the health of nuclear energy workers who will inevitably suffer from accidents and mishandling of those waste materials.
And, some by-products of these materials and facilities used to generate power can be turned into weapons. There is no such risk from a theoretical proton fusion
reactor.
To make proton fusion work, what we need is more research in super-conductivity - materials that conduct electricity with little resistance at relatively high temperatures. For all of its scary possibilities, fundamental research at the Large Hadron Collider seems like it might yield a greater understanding of the fundamental physics of matter and energy, which might contribute to our ability to create these materials.
The potential for nuclear fusion power is infinite. Except there are perverse incentives of the energy industry not to make such a quantum leap forward in power generation. While the initial plants might be expensive, hot fusion plasma reactors could potentially provide nearly free, virtually limitless electricity. If fusion can work, you can bet that the petro-chemical industry would do everything in their power to keep us from developing that potential.
fission and fusion power
For power generation, nuclear fission (splitting uranium) is and always will be unsafe, because the waste products remain radioactive for so many centuries, potentially causing birth defects and diseases for hundreds of years.Nuclear fusion (how our sun works) is worth researching, because the potential higher power yield would leave much less radioactive waste, in a form that can be more easily contained while it dissipates.
Fission must be phased out. Don't believe the pundits when they tell you that uranium fission nuclear power can be made safe. They represent an industry caught up in a cycle of profiteering at the expense of our health. Radioactive heavy metals are an abomination that have no place in a healthy human habitat. If we promote a long-term uranium fission power strategy, we will have more radioactive waste than can be managed safely. We strongly object to the blind faith of the European Christian Democrats who support nuclear fission power, and to their lack of vision for a healthy future free from dependence on oil. If nothing else, they are willing to sacrifice the health of nuclear energy workers who will inevitably suffer from accidents and mishandling of those waste materials.
And, some by-products of these materials and facilities used to generate power can be turned into weapons. There is no such risk from a theoretical proton fusion
reactor.
To make proton fusion work, what we need is more research in super-conductivity - materials that conduct electricity with little resistance at relatively high temperatures. For all of its scary possibilities, fundamental research at the Large Hadron Collider seems like it might yield a greater understanding of the fundamental physics of matter and energy, which might contribute to our ability to create these materials.
The potential for nuclear fusion power is infinite. Except there are perverse incentives of the energy industry not to make such a quantum leap forward in power generation. While the initial plants might be expensive, hot fusion plasma reactors could potentially provide nearly free, virtually limitless electricity. If fusion can work, you can bet that the petro-chemical industry would do everything in their power to keep us from developing that potential.
> detail, links and comments >>
Friday, May 4, 2007
12:31 PM
The answer: 2.
The fission bombs dropped on Japan were firecrackers compared to the hydrogen fusion bombs we have now. Just two bombs — one in the north bay and one in the south — would wipe out everyone, because the bay would be vaporized into superheated steam that the shock wave would push out into all the surrounding cities. If we weren't caught in the blast, we'd be poached like fish.
how many nukes would it take?
My junior high civics teacher once asked us if we knew how many nukes it would take to destroy the entire San Francisco bay area. (For those of you who don't live here, the SF Bay is a large inland bay about 70 miles long, connected to the ocean at the Golden Gate bridge: map)The answer: 2.
The fission bombs dropped on Japan were firecrackers compared to the hydrogen fusion bombs we have now. Just two bombs — one in the north bay and one in the south — would wipe out everyone, because the bay would be vaporized into superheated steam that the shock wave would push out into all the surrounding cities. If we weren't caught in the blast, we'd be poached like fish.
> detail, links and comments >>
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
7:17 PM
Non-nuclear Strategy
We support a strong defensive strategy, but also a total elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world. Right now Russia is concerned over deployment of US anti-missle shield systems in Europe. We say, this is a golden opportunity to collaborate with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenals — build defensive systems for Russia in exchange for agreeing to a mutual reduction in nuclear arms.
A nuclear-armed terrorist cannot be deterred by a nuclear response, so why do we have them if we can get along with the overwhelming majority of states and people in the world? Why do we have all this doomsday aimed at all the world's citizens? Don't you think that might make people nervous?
> detail, links and comments >>
Archives May 2007 / November 2008 / July 2009 / April 2010 /