Future of the 'Doomsday Planes'

Let's hope we never have to use it. Nuclear weapons have prevented another world war through the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Unfortunately some players today don't understand that concept.

We've seen versions of MAD fail before. For example, the decades of interlocking Mutual Defense Pacts in Europe in the late 1900's and early 1910's was supposed to be a deterrent to war, as any nation that struck another nation in anger would surely be crushed by the treaty-bound allies, there would be no 'profit' to war, only loss.

Then Gavrilo Princip decided to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand, and all hell broke loose.

The reach and threat of nuclear weapons has formed another delicate balance, and it may only be a matter of time before another Gavrilo Princip shows up to ruin EVERYONE'S day again.

You could be right. Those Naked Apes are, unfortunately, too clever for their own good and will one day do themselves in. With competitiveness in the equation, we are more and more unsafe as "What we can do" further exceeds "What we should do".

Maybe it's a universal phenomenon that intelligent species destroy themselves before advancing enough to achieve interstellar travel, and that is why we haven't been visited by ETs.

We might stand a better chance of surviving if we quit letting these "Alpha Male Gorillas" set policies where they get to steal all the bananas, and instead put scholars, philosophers, artists, and engineers in charge of policy, then we'd be able to use the fairly collected tax money (remember, we'd have people with brains AND compassion in charge of setting tax policy) to maintain our infrastructure and spur industry to reach for the stars.

(Or at least they could design and build a giant, floating stone head we could ride in as we convince the "Alpha Male Gorillas" to kill each other off.) (If you miss the reference, go google "Zardoz".)

Nah, there is only so much compassion in the world, and we own better than our share of it here in the good old U.S.A.

That is where despots everywhere are clamoring for more stuff.

"there is only so much compassion in the world,"

That you can even THINK such a thing makes me weep. Did He set a limit on how much compassion He could give when he was hanging from the Cross between two thieves? He was there to forgive the men who gambled for His cloak, for the man who thrust the spear into His side. How can we follow His example without striving to be as compassionate as Him?

Or, to borrow the words of a Republican, "...With malice towards none, with charity for all..."

OH I totally get the idea of a Savior with compassion for all, but I am also being wise when I realize that mankind has not perfected nor brought much compassion to bear of late.

Which is why we need to strive to be even MORE compassionate.

If you boil all this down to its simplest terms, we're dealing with a battle of Love vs Hate.

Love seeks to unify us, to improve the lot of all, starting with those who need the most help.

Hate seeks too divide us into countless little camps of "Us against Them." Hate seeks to destroy us all, starting with the easiest prey, those who need help.

I'm not sure if you heard of this news article, but a few weeks ago, the story broke about a trio of men who vandalized the outside of a Mosque. One of the men was arrested and convicted, and at the trial he showed remorse and contrition. He could not afford to pay the fine the court had levied against him and faced additional jail time, but the congregation who he attacked pulled together and raised the money to pay the fine for him. That was a clear example that disproves the "all Muslims are hateful terrorists" stereotype that is being pushed by the "Right Wing."⁽¹⁾ All people, regardless of nationality, creed, or skin tone⁽²⁾, have the capacity for Love or Hate, and while taking the route of Love may open us up to be hurt, it is the only way to stop Hate. Meeting Hate with more Hate just perpetuates the cycle⁽³⁾.

Notes:

1. Again, not all Conservatives believe this stereotype, but prominent persons within the party, such as Rush Limbough, promote ideas like this, and through their platforms, they make the claim to speak for ALL Conservatives, and when the people he claims to represent don't speak up and say they disagree, then it creates the appearance that they DO share the "values' espoused by the 'demagogue.'
2. Dividing humans by 'race' is just another tactic to make it easier to hate the 'others/outsiders'
3. It's like the 'Cycle of Abuse.' The man who was beaten as a child by his father in turn beats his own son. They may rationalize it as "Beating kids dosen't mess them up. I was beaten as a kid and I turned out fine; that's why I beat my own kids." Or they may just lash out at their kids out of instinct, because that's the only way they've been shown how to raise kids. But it only takes one person in the chain to say "You know, this doesn't seem right. I am *NOT* going to use physical punishment on my kids like my father did to me," to break the cycle, one person choosing Love ends a generations-long chain of Hate.

Trust me, if rocket man launches about one more missile, we may be obliged to show him the ultimate love, megatons of love. Tough love is better than no love at all.

This little dic-tator has no need of compassion. He needs for Big Daddy China to reel him in, put him over their knee, and give him a thrashing he will not forget. He is like a spoiled kid at Wal-Mart, that annoys everyone, and the store manager can't touch him, for fear of a nuclear law suit. It is the mother's job (if she is there), to reel this kid in, and get him under control by whatever means comes to hand, short of leaving a permanent record, or full-on choking the life.

Love your fellow civilized people, Americans too, even especially them. Don't hate anyone, but don't be anyone's door mat.

...and instead put scholars, philosophers, artists, and engineers in charge of policy...

In my opinion is that the problem I see is you'd end up getting the 'Neville Chamberlain' effect of appeasement policies.

And compassion is not the word one would use.

I would not send a scholar, philosopher, artist, or engineer to negotiate with a Viking king intent on raiding my country.

You need someone who knows the art of the deal, and also expects full-on treachery.

Who better to know what evils lurk in a man's heart than the Philosopher who has studied Man's history through the ages.

Only a fool walks into a deal without expecting treachery.

And I never said Defense would be neglected, just that the shield-bangers would not be the one's setting policy. They are still needed and respected as bodyguards.

As to negotiating with a Viking King...

Philosopher: "This clan attacked out settlement last month after the negotiations? Then we will respond properly."

Scholar: "Orders to the fleet: cannons on the top deck will load chain shot, cannons on the lower decks load solid ball. Once we are within range of the harbor, I want to see every Viking mast chopped in two, and every hull holed at the waterline. Warships, fishing boats, longboats, if it floats and can carry a man I want it rendered useless."

Artist: "But spare the smallest boat they have; that will be the one the Viking chief will use when he comes to US to handle this round on negotiations. Yes, that will present the proper image of humility that we wish this ruffian to wear."

This is not a revenge scene, it is simply sending a message; "Remember that thing you did to us, Do Not Do It Again." You assume that being Compassionate means being 'weak,' but nice does not mean stupid. You'll notice that the offered scenario does not mention harming the townsfolk, only destroying property. And if they lack the manpower to repair the whole fleet at once, they must make a choice; repair the warships first and let the people go hungry, or repair the fishing boats first to feed the people and delay a return to pillaging. You see the Compassion there: Attack the repairable property instead of extinguishing lives, and give the opponent a choice between hurting themselves with more Hate, and focusing inward as they have to take a break from fighting.

A final note: if the Vikings are fixing the fishing boats first, and are having trouble with their food supply, the Compassionate thing to do would be to bring in food and supplies, "Humanitarian aid" at no charge to the vikings, "We see you are choosing a peaceful route for now, let us share our bounty with you and show the joys of peaceful trade."

Just as often, it might the English King that deals treacherously with Ragnar.

I am just saying that in one certain country after years of starvation while the fearless leader just gets fatter, being vaporized might be a release.

We have seen compassion fail more ... there is not one paint brush that is the answer to everything.

that is why the State Department has not totally packed up and left the building on NK.

Yes! The, "my red button is bigger than your red button" mentality brings a whole new meaning to the word, "mad".

lyn, how could you say such a thing!!!!

After all Donald Duck himself is quoted as, saying about himself, that he was a stable genius.........not quite sure which stable he belongs to........certain not one that contains thoroughbreds..........Do the have stables for geriatric hacks that have fallen out of their trees???..........Lt. Cmdr. Queeg of the USA!!!!

Yes the mind boggles! "A stable genius.......with a big red button"

Our latest Lt. Cmdr. Queeg is a former TV show host.

"Our latest Lt. Cmdr. Queeg is a former TV show host."

So is Drew Carey, and Carey, unlike Drumpf, didn't come up with 'vanishing bone spurs' to avoid the draft, He served honorably in the marine Corps Reserve for six years.

Also, Carey's TV Show is still going strong, so he's a CURRENT TV show host.

Yes, but he does not have the beeg red button to pooosh.

He doesn't need a big button, he has a big wheel:

Oooooo.....now I am screed, can't even spiel scared.

Is Lt. Cmdr. Queeg related to Dr. Strangelove in some manner? By the way, where did that other 5 gallons of strawberry ice cream get off to?

Yippy, Kai Yay, MF's (my friends)! Let's blow something up! Just not in our own back yard this time.

Well, at least his big red button has a high probability of actually working if ever needed. WE, of course, pray we never actually have to press the big red button.

They understand it, but many are willing to die!

I'm not one of those willing to die like that.

I want my cause of death to be "extreme old age.⁽¹⁾"

Notes:

1. The full description is a bit longer, however it is also inappropriate for a professional forum.

Big badda boom

In my best Mel Brooks' voice imitation: "MY schwartz is bigger than YOUR schwartz!"

E-4 and my all-weather umbrella - job done!

"in the event ground stations are compromised following a nuclear attack" Compromised? I like the way the military obliterates the English language.

They do that so they don't scare the troops.

"Compromised" sounds better than "Blown to bits." And besides, there are several ways a ground station can become "compromised following a nuclear attack":

• Blown to bits
• Electronics fried by EMP
• Crew dead from heat/radiation
• Crew "broke morale and routed" (aka "panicked and ran away")
• Power feed to ground station severed
• Captured by hostile forces
• Crew defected to Opposing Force

All of these result in "Ground Station has been lost, may or may not be recoverable/salvageable." The word Compromised sums it up nicely, especially when you look at other uses of the word as an adjective: an undercover agent who has been Compromised has either defected or been discovered, and is no longer a usable asset.

I was referring to their use of the language. "Compromise" means to reach an agreement short of aggression. They are nothing but aggression.

Compromise is such a weak word. If Johnny rips the seat out of his underpants, we might say they are "compromised", but we both know what it means, and so does Little Johnny.

One cannot negotiate with a terrorist dictator, and that is what we have in NK.

I still think whatever crap he can sling at the U.S. is nothing, but I am the last one willing to wager L.A., Seattle, Portland, or SF on it. Oh snap, BTW, their new ballistic model can hit the East Coast just as well.

We cannot play at "mutually assured destruction" with someone like this. We have to be right 100% of the time, we can knock whatever crap he throws at us right out of the sky, and do it relatively harmlessly, or it is still game on for the little thug.

I think there needs to be smart munitions with range of at least 100 miles, and encode his face into the software. Note: I did not say take the shot, yet. I think someone should however call S.W.A.T. and have them on hand for this guy.

The term compromise is bad word to use, when negotiating the agreement has to be where Both/All sides walk away with an agreement where all sides think they won.

It is unfortunate that compromise has descended into this usage where if a compromise is reached, the immediate assumption is that "our side failed in the negotiations."

All throughout the History of the United States, compromise has played a huge role in gaining sufficient consensus in Congress and the Senate to allow the passage of key laws in our Constitutional Structure.

Those compromises were not political losses, they were Statesmen-like victories.

When two completely rigid sides attempt to negotiate an agreement, there has to be some give and take, and not through deception, as deception ends up being the undoing of the party that is not honest.

Both sides have to be totally honest what they are flexible on, and what is fundamentally retained in their position. In that environment, both sides can truly walk away with a "win-win". Really, in those rare instances, it is We The People who win.

See my post #38...