Well, I can’t say I have ever seen a bomb or missile used as defense against “criminals”. They are either used by criminals or in wars. And innocent people pretty much always get killed in wars, regardless of the weapons.
Regardless, making WMD’s illegal just keeps law-abiding people from getting them, not criminals.
a bomb or missile can be discharged in the desert and not kill anybody
a missile or bomb can only kill criminals - they are capable. wmd’s are not capable. and wmd’s, if unlawful, the criminals would be prosecuted whether in a libertarian society or those currently affirming and threatening others now with nation-states. what this would mean is - if a PDF was powerful enough it could justly prosecute criminals holding and threatening the use of wmd’s.
I re-wrote my post.
And it is the same today. A nation could prosecute criminals holding and threatening the use of wmd’s. But individuals do not own them. Only governments do. So I just think the question is pretty much moot. As far as I know, the head drug guy in Mexico, who has an army that equals the Mexican governments army and is worth billions, does not have WMD’s. I am sure it is not because he cannot get his hands on them.
Can you prove this? I don’t see how they can’t be pinpointed against a mass of criminals.
Well, they can be pin-pointed against a mass of invading troops, which I would call criminals.
No, individuals that continue to hold onto them in the face of justice would be weeded out as criminals. It’s like in that other thread. Greenspan was just doing his job kind of argument you are giving. He’s not really the interest rates falling. He’s really not part of the problem cause Congress ok’ed it. I mean he was simply doing his job correct? In the face of justice the cockroaches would run and those inclined to be lawful will side with the law and those not inclined to be lawful will be against the law (criminals).
if it’s not because he can’t get his hands on them, then why doesn’t he have them? criminal street gangs, drug lords that murder and steal, and governments are exactly the same only differences of degree/sophistication.
speculating aloud…
my opinion is that just as how targetable weapons may be legally possessed, until such a time as the owner crosses the line of legitimate use i.e. the device is used to initiate aggreression and the owner presents an immediate/imminent threat to innoccents, i.e. cocking his gun at them at close range without provocation. so too possession of a WMD approaches constituting a de facto initiation of aggression of ones neighbours. (think of the cocked gun present threat to innocents)
As such, the presumption should be that very few people could justly own such awesome and terrible devices. but i don’t imagine that no-one can. i think the most reputable, honest, just, sincere, reliable members of any community, can fill their neighbours and peers with such confidence as to their probity, that the neighbours may even very well go so far as to positively ask the gallant to take on the responsiblity and honour of housing and protecting a WMD, as a defense against what other predatory states might still be in existence given our hypothetical. (or as emergency defence against space aliens or whatever).
my point in a nutshell, is that reputation will be where the case is made as to whether somone can be trusted with a WMD, whose very existrance poses an immediate threat to the lives and property of neighbours.
yes it’s provable. a criminal army is on a hillside, only an army, and the missile strikes and kills only that army. It’s basic physics of projection and logistics of accuracy.
yes I agree… and a criminal navy ship out in the ocean can be pin-point targeted too… I mean technology today isn’t in the stone age.
you brought up the time-line factor too and that’s another good point. This fits in with what Spideynw was saying quite possibly. If somebody had the reputation and was principally just enough to save guard nuclear weapons as a deterrence against other states during a transition period from state to stateless societies globally, then there might still be nuclear weapons in a transition stage for nation-states might simply be detered by fear until the final transition takes place. Then if nuclear weapons were kept solely for alien invaders or whatever space actions explicitly by reputable people (an honorable PDA), then that case can be justly made I think.
Would you agree that making them illegal would not stop people from getting them?
That assumes the knowledge that the defender has a WMD is known to the aggressors.
We mean WMDs. We are not talking about conventional missiles and bombs. Or are you conceding the point and admitting that WMDs can be targeted against criminals only.
wmd’s I assume you are talking about… I agree with you. If a criminal wanted to get them a criminal potentially can - yes. But having nuclear weapons wouldn’t stop a criminal from getting them either. A criminal always goes against the grain of what is true and will do anything even if we would have chips implanted in each person, which would be absurd, but the point is nothing stops a criminal from breaking the law or doing anything in the first place so how does having a nuclear weapon stop a criminal? If you’re trying to point out that having a nuclear weapon to fire back at a criminal is what’s needed that doesn’t fly cause a good special forces team could infiltrate a criminals chambers and either deter the action or if the mad scientist did it behind everybody’s back well it doesn’t matter what we have or don’t have in that case. We could have rocks or nukes, but we’re dead anyways if a mad scientist made a nuke and launched it before we all saw it coming.
I think your mixed up as to what’s being discussed. We are talking about non-nuclear, non-chemical bombs and missile’s being pin-point accurate compared to nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons, as the argument goes, ALWAYS kills innocents unless you can come up with a scenario (outside of space that has already been brought up) in which wmd’s don’t kill innocents. I brought up the perimeter scenario in which people would be not permitted to enter a certain geographical region in which a nuke went off in isolation (and nuclear fallout didn’t travel through the air by wind/weather). But then I asked if that’s a reasonable way to live with perimeters set-up in all isolated areas that have been nuked and nobody is allowed to enter them again (unknown how long nuclear radiation lasts as I linked the Pacific Islands that still have it from decades ago blasting). And is there any place on this earth that isolated that nuclear fallout would never travel from the spot of detonation?
You mixed up what was being discussed.When I asked “Can you prove this? I don’t see how they can’t be pinpointed against a mass of criminals.”, it was in reference to your earlier “a missile or bomb can only kill criminals - they are capable. wmd’s are not capable.” So I was asking if you can prove that WMDs can be used to target criminals only.
I personally think the radioactive fallout problem is exaggerated by an overly imaginative and energetic eonvironmental movement. I’m not an expert though. I know that there is a certain amount of natual radiation in our environment and it is only higher levels of radiation that can lead to health problems. I also think that cleaner weapons could probably be developed. The whole objection is flimsy at best.
The main question is, obviously, whether or not the destructive power of the use of the weapon can be contained to aggressors only. The answer is yes. And since the answer is yes, and because people have a right to defend themselves, they have the right to posess WMDs that can be used to target aggressors only.
And if you don’t think that they can be used against aggressors only, you should back it up.
So you would agree that it should not be illegal then to own WMD’s?
No, in fact I have pointed out the exact opposite. WMD’s do not protect individuals from other individuals.
How did you get from my response to this response of yours? I don’t see the connection.[:)]
ok, we agree on this point.
well you didn’t say that… You didn’t say “wmd’s”. You simply said can I prove it, and since I stated wmd’s are not capable, I assumed you were referring to missiles or bomb’s being capable. The information isn’t difficult to find. It’s easy to key words into google as I did below and found info. on nuclear fall-out and such. I’ve been arguing that I have yet to see how wmd’s can be pin-point targeted at all.
and this has pictures of people (scroll down)
oh and don’t forget this from previously in the thread
you say flimsy without any evidence, I guess I assume too much of the knowledge of some people regarding nuclear fallout, I mean Japan was taught at a young age where I grew up, plus some other known places that have been repeatedly studied, so that’s my fault…
So you think owning a WMD is a violation of other people’s rights?