We could reuse the missiles too: http://www.cringely.com/2009/10/what...teledesic-2-0/

I noticed a wingnut-looking link in the sidebar concerning the horror of EMP. Following these two links will bring you to more links that present, uh, a slightly different perspective.

Quoting claymisher: We could reuse the missiles too:

http://www.cringely.com/2009/10/what...teledesic-2-0/

Nice! Thanks. Good day for plowshares!

I thought this diavlog was excessively dismissive of the concerns regarding an EMP attack. The Wikipedia entry for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse) doesn't make it look like such a wingnut issue.

The bottom line for me, if nuke terrorism is such a long-shot, is that we should be saving the environment with massive amounts of nuclear (fission) power. It's the fear of theft of radioactive material that restrains me from this position. Although Mueller has not completely reassured me on this point, his argument does have some persuasive elements.

Although I agree with some of the points made by Mueller, the idea that nuclear weapons will simply wither away on their own, given some time, strikes me as absurd. The assumption that states will never use them (i.e., that overwhelming disincentives already are present) is especially unpersuasive. There are just too many plausible scenarios of how a nuclear war could break out to dismiss them, or to be unconcerned about the "sooner or later" argument. We really were at the brink during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and there's little reason to think we can avoid similar brinks in the future, as long as such weapons exist (although the nation-state players may be different). John also minimizes the trauma of nuclear weapons. The atomic attack on Japan STILL has health impacts today on subsequent generations of Japanese, as do nuclear test and nuclear accident incidents that have occurred elsewhere. There are victims today. Also, the psychology and morality of nuclear weapons deserves greater respect and consideration. Many of us find WMDs morally unacceptable in principle; no one should have the power of inflict mass destruction on others, much less threaten civilization, even in principle. The

Although I agree with some of the points made by Mueller, the idea that nuclear weapons will simply wither away on their own, given some time, strikes me as absurd.

The assumption that states will never use them (i.e., that overwhelming disincentives already are present) is especially unpersuasive.

I was impressed by the "reasonableness" of John Mueller's arguments. It's the same sort of reasonableness I expect in an accountant and Cato Institute analysis. Speaking of which, here's Mueller on Cato. One claim I have heard in Poli Sci classes nearly from Day One and accept almost as an article of faith is, that nukes in all their forms have ensured that another global war has not broken out after 1945. I would particularly like to hear Prof. Farley respond to that. Implicit in Mueller's argument is, that deploying nukes is irrational, and that if leaders would only analyze their arguments and plans, they would reconsider how nukes fit in their security policies. The first generation's (e.g., MacArthur's outburst about suing tactical nukes against the PRC, and Truman's deployment of nukes closer to the battlefield in Korea) conception of nukes was paleolithic, and Mutual Assured Destruction is little more refined. The

If these dinosaurs aren't good for defense, if the network of nuclear reactors doesn't have a purpose, if all those units and personnel on constant alert are unnecessary; and if related weapons platforms, like bombers, aren't necessary, how can the government justify the expense or find another sacred cow to take their place?

It's not that the US government justifies the expense; it's that the defense lobby owns the government. The Pentagon doles out contracts to virtually every Congressional district in the USA. The Bushies wanted a nuclear do-over in which we would "modernize" the arsenal with brand spanking new nuclear warheads (Ca-ching!). We'll see what the Great Abolitionist Obama says when his Nuclear Posture Review comes out in 2010.

I was surprised by how little discussion of North Korea there was, and how it was just restricted to their technical capacities rather than its geopolitical ramifications (or lack thereof, in keeping with Mueller's thesis). I also found it odd that Mueller assumed an accidental detonation in the host country rather than an accidental launch a la Stanislav Petrov. I liked the chemical weapons analogy. Chip Smith thinks that the fear of chemical gas in that period is the source of our belief in Holocaust gas chambers. I don't buy it, but interesting idea. Randall Collins' book "Violence: A Microsociological Theory" provides evidence that our fear of certain weapons is greatly disproportionate to the casualties they cause, but it cuts in the opposite direction so that we are more afraid of close-up violence relative to something like aerial bombing. I provide a bunch of quotes on that here. Overall, good diavlog. I first heard of Mueller from here and have been interested since.

Quoting T.G.G.P: I liked the chemical weapons analogy. Chip Smith thinks that the fear of chemical gas in that period is the source of our belief in Holocaust gas chambers. I don't buy it, but interesting idea.

Just to clarify, do you think that people have an erroneous belief in Holocaust gas chambers?

Quoting Don Zeko: Just to clarify, do you think that people have an erroneous belief in Holocaust gas chambers?

Quoting myself from elsewhere:

My general heuristic is to accept that I am probably not smarter than the expert consensus and to consider their conclusions the most likely. I don’t put much stock in conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, perpetual motion, rejection of anthropocentric global warming, creationism/intelligent design, or protectionism. I accept that the expert consensus can be wrong, so I don’t necessarily have strong commitments to particular beliefs.

I actually find it odd that holocaust deniers make such a big deal about gas as a method of execution. There have been plenty of genocides throughout history (Chip disagrees) using other methods and if they just shot them in the manner discussed in Christopher Browning's "Ordinary Men" I don't see how that makes a big difference.