Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Another War

If you guys want we can simulate a scenario where a country takes a preemptive strike against another country and then fails to control the situation because the reasons of confict are embedded into the fabric of the country.

We can also discuss a scenario where a country does not take a preemptive strike against a country in conflict.Instead it tries to take a logical decision of create friendly realtionships with the people and culture with some sacrifice of ego resullting in savings of precious life and pain.A good sacrifice can build trust and a good business can build interest.
Things are simple if you really want.

I think you are "simple".

true.

Case 1: Pearl Harbor. Japan delivered a samurai deathblow to the US expecting immediate girly Liberal capitulation.

The US stifled its Liberal idiots and went on to do man's work: Saved Europe, crushed Japan, and delivered a reciprocal deathblow of its own vaporizing Hiroshima (payback) and Nagasaki (interest on the debt).

60 years later, how many Japanese speak English and how many Americans speak Japanese?

Case 2: 11 September 2001. Bush the Lesser says that if the ragheads do it again, he will be displeased. Don't put a chimp in the Oval Office.

Those who know nothing need not advertise.

So this is what's happened to the 1985 Nobel Prize winning "International Physicists Against Nuclear War".


And for what? Because your current government tells you that Iran has 3 goals:

1) Exterminate all Christians
2) Exterminate all Jews
3) Global Domination with their way of life as the
ideal

And that is the foundational basis of all the great reasoned rationale that convinces you so thoroughly?


PS. In the case of limited nuclear war, and the particular case where there would still be inhabitable pockets on the earth, does anybody have any suggestions or ideas where on the earth would be a good place to live?

I've always wanted to visit Tahiti. The South Pacific is full of fertile islands away from the prevailing winds that might carry fallout from heavily-targeted areas.

Closest Nuclear War encounters (50% of them were computer or human error):

Historical close-encounters

Before the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, an apocalyptic war between the United States and USSR was considered likely. The Cuban missile crisis in 1962 is generally thought to be the historical point at which the risk of World War III was closest. Other potential starts have included the following (see External links below for further examples):

* July 26th, 1956 ? March, 1957 - Suez Crisis the conflict pitted Egypt against an alliance between the French Fourth Republic, the United Kingdom and Israel. The U.S.S.R. threatened to intervene on behalf of Egypt, the U.S. became afraid of a larger war, and forced the British and French to withdraw.

* October 24, 1973 - As the Yom Kippur War was winding down, a Soviet threat to intervene on Egypt's behalf caused the United States to go to DEFCON 3. If the Soviets intervened, the Americans would as well. The Soviets then backed down from their threat and Egypt withdrew its request for assistance.

* November 9, 1979, when the U.S. made emergency retaliation preparations after NORAD saw on-screen indications that a full-scale Soviet attack had been launched. No attempt was made to use the "red telephone" hotline to clarify the situation with the USSR and it was not until early-warning radar systems confirmed no such launch had taken place that NORAD realised that a computer system test had caused the display errors. A Senator at NORAD at the time described an atmosphere of absolute panic. A GAO investigation led to the construction of an off-site test facility, to prevent similar mistakes subsequently. A fictionalized version of this incident was filmed as the movie WarGames, in which the test system is inadvertantly triggered by a teenage hacker believing himself to be playing a video game.

* September 26, 1983, when Soviet military officer Stanislav Petrov refused to launch ICBMs, despite computer indications that the U.S. had already launched

* January 25, 1995, when Russia almost launched a nuclear attack after a Norwegian missile launch for scientific research was detected from Spitzbergen and thought to be an attack on Russia, launched five minutes from Moscow. Norway had notified the world that it would be making the launch, but the Russian Defense Ministry had neglected to notify those monitoring Russia's nuclear defense systems.

That's right but humans are violent animals. Perhaps it is no surprise that we find ourselves living in this violent backward civilization here on Earth.


According to the Anthropic Principle, you should be a typical observer in the universe. Civilizations consisting of creatures that resolve their conflicts in a peaceful way probably evolve faster than backward civilizations like ours. We waste time and effort fighting over futile things which slows down the evolution of our civilization.


Civilizations that are advanced enough will replace their biological members by machines. Backward civilizations like ours will thus have produced more biological creatures in total compared to other less backward civilizations. Therefore the creatures living in our type of civilization are more typical than those that live in less backward more civilized civilizations.

What makes you think there is such a thing as a "typical" observer in the universe?


And if you are here basing your characterization of our typicality around the notion that we are somewhere in amongst the middle majority when it comes to our level of "peacefulness" versus our level of "aggressivness", then how do you know that the smaller minority that resides "above" us on the curve is representative of a manifestation which fits into our idea of being more peaceful?

I am not talking about History.
Given the fact we are educated and techonologically & socially advanced can we replace a possible war with peace.Can we delay the War for forever?
It is very well known that War takes place and probably it is just a matter of time when it will take place... A probability can be given for such an event in based on history data.
When it is known that we are going through a period of conflict can we prevent a war and thus lower the probability of having it with a particular frequency.
This is how we should think.
Delay the war as much as possible.
It may still happen in future but the chances of it repeating will reduce.
This is the only way for peace.
(Sooner it is better it is a wrong policy .. recurrence of a war can not be prevented using the above principle)...

This is just my theory. I think that a more peaceful civilization would have evolved faster. The Roman or Greek civilizations could have spend their resources on science instead of fighting wars. If they had done that then they would have progressed futher than we are now. They would probably have invented intelligent machines which would have replaced humans.

There is no evidence for that. Indeed, the whole idea behind evolution is the struggle within a hostile environment. The catalyst behind philosophy is the struggle (many times violent) to understand what is not understood and uncover what is hidden. Even Socrates I believe killed himself to avoid execution or banishment or something, and it was arguably one of his most famously celebrated and brightest acts. There is nothing to say that the advancements of a more peaceful civilization would not have been easily subsumed by a more violent civilization well practiced and experienced in encountering pansy civilizations and destroying them by means of their naivete.

But besides that, lets say that our civilization is a typical one and that more advanced civilizations would typically be more peaceful as you posit. What is to say that this more advanced peacefulness is something even approaching what you have in mind? What do you mean by "more peaceful"? Tending to be devoid of violence? Or more specifically tending to be devoid of killing?

Looks to me like the universe is set up for war with everything vying for territory, food, self preservation etc. With these dynamics in place it's easy to see why as a society evolves it will seek more sophisticated war strategies.

Just look at conflicts in recent time. They have no rational basis whatsoever. It's this irrationality that is crucial. If we had been more rational, we wouldn't have fought so many wars. But by being more rational, our technological development would have progressed faster. At a certain point the human body itself becomes ''outdated technology'' and will be replaced by machines that are far superior.

DKV,
In an ideal world peaceful talks should avoid wars. What scares me, as an American, is America's pledge to militarily aid Taiwan in case Taiwan is aggressed by Mainland China. The resulting scenarios are disastrous: full out nuclear war is a possibility. This would effect (at the very least) India, Japan, South Korea, Great Britian et al. North Korea also bothers me because no one knows what the hell Kim's intentions are.
The United States has been referred to as "the world's police" and this upsets many nations. The fact is that the U.S. has the capability to invest it's military in dozens of "peace keeping operations", almost no other nation can do this. Whether or not the U.S. is resentful to numerous nations, the fact is that without the U.S. (interplaying in world affairs) the world would be a far more dangerous place. That is a highly controversial statement, I'm sure.
Why is it that many nations "look up to" the U.S.' moral, social, scientific, and philosophical attitudes and leadership, while many nations do not? Is there a more controversial nation than the United States in the world, I do not know.
Our technology has far outpaced our societal maturity. So because there are weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, chemical etc.) humanity is not mature enough to know better not use it. The U.S. had amassed enough nukes in order to prevent anyone to consider messing with it. The climate has changed such that the U.S. is vulnerable to smaller forces (terrorists) and not, to an extent, to larger military invasion.

DKV, keeping positive "official" relations with nations is ideal. But the underlying intentions of nations is not always sincere or even fully understood. There will always, or at least for a very very long time, be military and wars.

Unfortunately we have to, for a large extent, tolerate the decisions of our government leaders whether or not philosophically we agree with them. Laws and bills are passed or blocked every day and the general public has not an iota of what is actually transpiring within our governments (e.g. USA or India).

Therefore I find it naiive to posit "can't everyone just get along"? No they can not.

"Not-Now" concept is based on Scientific priciples.
Peacefull discussions should carry on as long as possible with all might.
It will have many benefits primarily it will reduce the periodicity of War.
I thought it was very practical advice.
Country and situation specific discussion will become very complex to handle because of our conscious or unconscious affiliations..

Can the war be avoided forever ?
The common understanding reached by the founders of UN is no more respected...
It was ok if there was some flaw in the United Nations but today it appears to me that the spirit of UN has failed to gain respect with its powerful member states.
Do we need to go through another War for creating a True Earth Parliament?
Why do we still have insecure States?
Can we reach a better understanding before someone blinks?
It is not impossible to build a grand Economic Ecology on paper consistent with a Country's strengths and weaknesses in terms of Skills and Political Environment.