Follow up question: What voting issue could possibly outweigh the murder of millions of unborn babies?

[undead_rat]

So, you believe Russia, India, China, Pakistan, Iran, USA and Israel can be brought to the table of nuclear disarmament. That’s fine if one believes it. I can also consider such to be farfetched.

Let me clarify once again, what I have recommended is unilateral nuclear disarmament by the USA. That is what we could accomplish if we had the will (and the votes) to do so. Judging by the Catholic opposition to such an undertaking that is seen on CAF, I have to admit that we probably do not have that will.

 

[mythbuster1]

Yes, but the casualty figures of nuclear warfare are greatly exaggerated. A full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia would result in the deaths of about a third of each belligerent’s population within two weeks, and another third within a year. The total fatalities would be nine or ten figures, but it would not even be close to an extinction-level event.

 

[mythbuster1]

I’m telling you it’s not a question of will. We don’t have the ability to disarm in less than a few decades. Dismantling nuclear weapons without burning up the cores actually increases the risk of nuclear attack, because the storage facilities are less secure than missile silos. Once you have weapons-grade fissile material, building nuclear weapons is easy.

 

[undead_rat]

undead_rat:

You discount the possibility of a global nuclear war, and this might be correct except for the fact that this disaster is predicted by the OT prophets.

That is debatable.

Some kind of disaster of fire is certainly mentioned in OT prophecy. Going by the promise that YHWH made in Genesis 8:21, that disaster cannot be caused by anything that could be regarded as an “act of God.” The only mechanism left is for the disaster to be caused by an act of man.

 

[undead_rat]

I’m telling you it’s not a question of will. We don’t have the ability to disarm in less than a few decades. Dismantling nuclear weapons without burning up the cores actually increases the risk of nuclear attack, because the storage facilities are less secure than missile silos. Once you have weapons-grade fissile material, building nuclear weapons is easy.

What you are saying is that we are trapped with no way out. I find this hard to believe even though I understand that dismantling and destroying all of the USA’s nuclear weapons would be a big job. I see it as our only chance to avoid disaster. Continuing on the present course of spending a trillion dollars on nuclear weapons will not end well.

 

[Aquinas11]

The family separation policy is considered a deterrent. T

The first photo of this was published by CNN and attacking Trump, only to later realize the “kids in cages” in photo were during Obama admin.

 

[undead_rat]

Yes, but the casualty figures of nuclear warfare are greatly exaggerated. A full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia would result in the deaths of about a third of each belligerent’s population within two weeks, and another third within a year. The total fatalities would be nine or ten figures, but it would not even be close to an extinction-level event.

Your numbers do not take into account the thousands of nuclear bombs that are not actively deployed in compliance with the START treaty. After the first round of nuclear exchanges, these will be activated and used by both sides. Then there are the global radiation effects and the possibility of a nuclear winter. It could well be extinction in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

[mythbuster1]

I agree with most of that platform, but some items are too vague and need more details.

 

[pnewton]

I said it was debatable, not that I wanted to debate. It has no bearing on the topic unless one takes in this sort of Hal Lindsey-esque interpretation of end times. I also do not cast lots to determine my vote.

 

[undead_rat]

Prophesies have this way of being fulfilled in ways that people don’t expect.

That’s a good point. No one seems to expect that the terrible prediction of Isaiah 66:15-16 will be fulfilled by a global nuclear war.

 

[mythbuster1]

I’m a nuclear engineer, and I call it as I see it. In 2010, President Obama made a deal with Russia for each to convert 32 tons of weapons-grade plutonium into commercial fuel. President Trump cancelled that plan because it was a boondoggle: the MOX facility at Savannah River was years late and billions of dollars over-budget, to the point that finishing it would cost ten times what the fuel was worth. This is the sort of problems we are dealing with in disarmament.

 

[undead_rat]

Is there no way to de-weaponize the darn stuff? Could each plutonium pit be buried down an expended oil well shaft a thousand feet deep? Or cased in lead an dumped in a 10,000 foot deep ocean trench?

 

[mythbuster1]

President Trump’s plan is to mix it with materials that will render it unusable and bury it at Yucca Mountain. Personally, I’m skeptical about how effective that would be at denaturing it, and Yucca Mountain was delayed for decades by Harry Reid. My recommendation would be to use it for fuel as is, either in reactors designed to burn such high purity fissile material or as feedstock for medical isotope generators.

 

[Ridgerunner]

None of this really has anything to do with the Alinsky formulation.
But I do not doubt there is a great deal of spiritual despair among people in the west. But while I have the greatest respect for Mother Teresa, I am not certain very many people commit abortion to spare the child a “bad life”. I suspect it’s more their own desire to have a “better life” they feel they would have without a child. And I don’t just mean the mothers. I strongly suspect peripheral people have more influence on these mothers than most of us realize or credit.

I have some experience with the people at Catholic Charities of Southern Missouri who run a home for women in danger of abortion and are in the process of building another. While the mothers often do despair and think abortion is the only answer, they mostly do not want it, and will avoid it if they can. But there are others who do, and who pressure them; boyfriends, husbands, parents, pimps, pushers, yes, even social workers.

 

[PetraG]

None of this really has anything to do with the Alinsky formulation.

Alinsky makes Machiavelli look like a St. Ignatius. Yikes. He reportedly said: “People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others. The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all of the people," but he doesn’t seem to understand that moral ends are not achieved by immoral means.

Alinsky’s 13 Rules for Radicals

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

That reads like a devil’s dozen of things that are wrong with politics, honestly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Let me clarify once again, what I have recommended is unilateral nuclear disarmament by the USA.

If we disabled them all, I believe we would see nukes coming at us the following day.

 

[PetraG]

If we disabled them all, I believe we would see nukes coming at us the following day.

No, but I think we’d be put into positions that would put the flesh and blood persons of our military in harm’s way a lot more often.

Nuclear weapons are a way to wipe out civilians without putting any military personnel in harm’s way. Excepting a case such as the end of World War II, when the Allies had both combatants and prisoners of war who were in harm’s way and likely to die if the war were brought to a conventional conclusion, the use of nuclear weapons under most circumstances is profoundly immoral.

Still, countries without them have not become the targets of those that do. I don’t think our enemies would start nuking us as if they thought our allies would do nothing about it.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Infanticide could be manslaughter, it could be murder, there are legal nuances.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Still, countries without them have not become the targets of those that do

That’s because either someone else protects them with nuclear weapons or because they’re not deemed worth the adverse reactions it would produce. MacArthur would have done it in the Korean War if he had the ability. Why would we assume no Khameni or Haqqani would ever do it?

 

[undead_rat]

undead_rat:

Let me clarify once again, what I have recommended is unilateral nuclear disarmament by the USA.

If we disabled them all, I believe we would see nukes coming at us the following day.

I don’t see it. The reason that Russia will attack the USA with nuclear weapons is because she fears that the USA is about to launch a nuclear first strike against her. Take away that fear, and there is no motivation to launch a pre-emptive strike.