Avoiding Armageddon

Given that the Muslim world at large is at least several generations behind Western civilization and it's essentially secular political views, I have to agree that talk of nuclear disarmament is highly pre-mature...

What the West may be ready for, is not at all in agreement with the state of cultural evolution elsewhere, in significant parts of the Muslim world.

So-called rogue nations with nuclear firepower are generally held in check by neighboring nations i.e. North Korea vs China as an example, or the nuclear stand-off between Pakistan/India.

Surely nuclear threats are most viable among highly fluid and largely 'invisible' terrorist-driven factions that are motivated by religous delusion, and functioning without regard for the considerable prohibitions traditionally built into MAD.

After all, mutual destruction is just fine with folks intent on jihad, and confident of reaching a highly sought after heroic status in an afterlife paradise, as other posters have pointed out.

Here the MADness is 100% after the fact, and without the natural barrier of self-preservation in place, it has thus been reasonabley surmised that the threat of nuclear holocaust is the most immediate catastrophic danger to life and limb confronting the world today.

justillthennow, I agree that the nuclear arms falling into elements who think the afterlife is more important than our now is a frightening prospect. However, the idea that states like the established nuclear powers must disarm in the face of proliferation is foolish and the likely targets of nuclear blackmail or delivery in the ME can be counted on to deal with the threat from Iran.

Furthermore, even the crazies are likely to hold their nukes closely to their chest like the crown jewels of defense that they represent. While they profess a lunatic religious view, in fact they are the elites, who enjoy the perks of such, and are unlikely to rock the boat as severely as a nuclear attack would.

There is a frightening thought experiment available to anyone. What would or should the response be to a state or non state nuclear attack on a US Navy battle group?

EDBYRONADAMS:

"MAD worked.

Even in a tyranny like the Soviet Union, it worked as a deterrent.

Whether is will work in the future is an open question, but likely it will. In fact, such weapons freeze borders, making aggressive warfare less likely."

Well said. The nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States brought us to the point that War is no longer "politics by other means". I am not sure that is a bad thing. The world can not stand too many more World War II level events before civilization collapses for a very long time. So the disarmament crowd should careful what they wish for.

Hello TomMelchiorre,

"As for nuclear disarmament being a moral issue? No, it's not, nor is it a religious issue."

"But the immorality is in the killing, not the choice of weapon."

That is silly, and obviously faulty reasoning.

If we assumed that were true nuclear disarmament would still be a moral issue. Would it not be more immoral to kill five million in a few seconds than say, one per second with your machine gun?

And if you suggest that it is not the choice of weapon but the killing, is it then a neutral moral question, in your reasoning, to rape, torture and murder with a knife as opposed to by lethal injection or intentional overdose, or just simply to walk up to someone and fire away into their skull?

Society does now and always has had moral issue with many things. Since it's inception the destructive power of nuclear weapons have been a moral issue, Tom. There is indeed a hierarchy of more and less morally repugnant forms of murder. The moral debate on methods for fulfilling death penalties goes on today as society has adjusted it's forms of state sanctioned killing.

Your statement is silly.

Hello Edbyronadams,

To say that MAD will likely work in the future as it had worked in the past with the SU is about as naive and dreamy as a liberal sticking a flower in the muzzle of a gun as a statement of peace that will change the world. Sure, the tactic worked a few times, but more often flowers did not stand up well to bullets fired by hatred or anger.

Iran itself is not the threat directly, but the radicalized islamof***s waiting in line at the arms merchants in Tehran or Mogandishu, they do not have a home to protect and defend. If they do, they have left it. They have proven that as they walk into the huddled masses of the enemy with explosives and ball bearings strapped on and the delusion of a Paradise welcoming them. It is twisted and delusional lies, fed them by the clerics that do not strap the bombs on themselves or their own children, that is the threat. And the track record of whack jobs that blew themselves up beforehand, that simplifies your equation of if MAD will work into the future.

And I took you for a rational conservative type.

Hi friends

With the advent of the Promised Messiah 1835-1908, the Armageddon has already started.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Professor Silverman should realize that many of our fellow citizens fervently believe we are living in "the end times" and that the final battles between the forces of GOOD AND EVIL will take place on the slopes of Mount Megiddo similar to the mountains in Helmand Province in Afghanistan. These events will usher in the NEW MILLENNIUM and the return of the MESSIAH. Before this final unfolding of human history, a few chosen true-believers will be sublimated from the solid to the vapor state, id est, raptured into paradise faster than a quiverist's arrow. Nuclear disarmament? At ground zero at Hiroshima and Nagasaki many were sublimated. Can we be assured that nuclear weapons will not be used by the spiritual combatants at Megiddo? Seemingly, they would be used. Thusly, the just and the unjust would be vaporized together. How will their gaseous remains be separated? Gas chromatography? An intractable dilemma? Professor Silverman's perspicacious caveat should be listened to: Avoid Armageddon! It is the most practical and humane action our perplexed species could take at least for the next 1000 years. Desultorily, D. Reid Wiseman

MAD worked.

Even in a tyranny like the Soviet Union, it worked as a deterrent.

Whether is will work in the future is an open question, but likely it will. In fact, such weapons freeze borders, making aggressive warfare less likely.

Since the president's appeal was more for show than a reasonable policy, one wonders why we would bother to discuss it.

We need to be teaching our children that war is a taboo and offending rather than glorified with monuments. However we cannot since in this crazed religious world war is just another way of spreading one's religious beliefs. For example the ongoing conflicts that have lasted for centuries in the middle east.

Indeed what we say or pray is very little compared to what we do. So I hope everyone on here talking about a Department of Peace being a good idea is active in the national grassroots Campaign for a U.S. Department of Peace and encouraging their members of Congress to support HR 808. Google The Peace Alliance to join the campaign and learn more. If enough of us understand that we have the ability to change things and take action to change them, the world can indeed be more peaceful. Just as we can learn to build and operate (and profit from) the tools of violence, we can learn to build and operate (and profit from!) the tools of peacebuilding.

The question of whether we would have gone to war with Iraq if it had nuclear weapons is easily answered as we haven't gone to war with North Korea or Iran, the other two of three evil trio as deemed by Bush Jr, which do have nuclear weapons.

As for nuclear disarmament being a moral issue? No, it's not, nor is it a religious issue. It's an issue, of course, but I don't comprehend how it can be equated to morality any more than the use of machine guns. Is it immoral to kill? Usually, self-defense and assisted suicide the exceptions (although other reasons may be valid). But the immorality is in the killing, not the choice of weapon.

And as for cats, I side with Herb.

I agree with Professor Silverman that we must work towards peace from many different angles. Of course, Sam Harris, believes that religious moderates have taken much of the discussion off of the table simply by making it off limits to criticize another religion in any way. While, in many ways, we have a culture war already on our hands, it may quickly lead to a nuclear war if we do not find ways to move the world towards peace.

I agree that, no matter what we say or pray, it's what we do that determines where we go--in war and in peace.

I think that I too would like to see a Department of Peace, but whether total nuclear disarmament is possible and whether this would result in fewer wars or fewer people being killed, I am not sure. The possession of nuclear weapons by more than one country has probably served to deter nuclear war thus far. If no country had any nuclear weapons, would they be less likely, or more likely, to start a war? Would we have gone into Iraq if they had possessed nuclear weapons?

It is a tough decision to make, and contains the element of risk either way. But, let's go ahead with a Department of Peace and keep in mind that what we DO speaks louder than what we SAY.

Herb - I agree that we need to get rid of nuclear weapons and form a Department of Peace. However, the main weapon of mass destruction in use today is the machine gun. Most deaths recorded in the Lance survey of Iraqis were by small arms fire. Most of the five million that have died in the Congo in the last ten years died by means far short of nuclear weapons. The Peace Department comes first, not second. And the movement to enact Departments of Peace must be universal throughout the planet. Apparently, there are places in the world that need to learn how to solve problems peacefully outside of the nuclear powers.

I think the Department of Peace would be a great way to show the rest of the world that we want to lead the way in resolving our differences through nonviolent means. We need that kind of vision in order to restore our position as moral leaders in the global community.

Nuclear disarmament is a moral issue but I don't believe religion HAS TO pose a threat to peace. If religious leaders would support disarmament as a pro-life issue, it would go a long way to achieving this goal.

And, Herb, you can expect to hear from my mother about the intelligence of cats.

Of course nuclear disarmament is a moral issue, and of course religion poses a threat to peace, as Silverman points out. If one sits back and considers it objectively, the fatal flaw of the human animal could be the fact that it discovered nuclear power before it outgrew ancient religious beliefs. Perhaps Einstein came along too early, and perhaps we should have had more time to mature psychologically and religiously before we obtained the ability to split atoms. Only time will tell.