Which Will Get US first ? Where are your priorities?

A. Global Terrorism

B. Global Warming or Global Cooling

C. and D. Nuclear Holocaust

Comments

Seth says
Critizicing a president's policies by offering better alternatives is not RWG, it is called democracy.

Mark de LA says

The notions: Qui bono? Follow the Money... and Whose Ox is Gored ? are distinctions that should be applied to the independence on both sides of the scientific & political debate. That is:

Who benefits from seeing the issue in a particular way? Is there money or grants involved. Would seeing the issue in another way change the monetary or other rewards for the researcher or publisher of the results in a different way ?
What are the ultimate flow of money through the system that results from alternative viewpoints of a situation. Some people are getting fired for not towing the line.
Who is at a disadvantage as a result of some plan or course of action. China & Russia were not part of the Kyoto protocols & profit from selling carbon credits. They also benefit as a result of harming the US economically - something they were not able to do by competing directly with the US.

Seth says
There are policies which would tend to solve both A and B at the same time. Kill two birds with one stone as it were. (1) Ween ourselves from cheep Middle East oil and (2) at the same time develop and deploy clean renewable energy sources. (1) helps (2) and (2) helps (1) because if we have no motive to protect our cheep oil, then we can leave the Middle Eastern people to their own devises. All we need is strong leadership in that direction.

Solving (C), is a matter of investing the money we save from not waging war on radical Islam and the ME on good effective intelligence and effective home land security measures. I scoped the direction to solve the nuclear holocast in 4909. There too we need good solid leadership from the old US of A to end nuclear proliferation.

I notice that the policies of the Bush administration have been acting exactly in the opposite direction of the solutions that i have scoped above. Bush is a strong leader ... but he is leading us over a cliff.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-02-08 12:16:06 6008

There are policies which would tend to solve both A and B at the same time. Kill two birds with one stone as it were. (1) Ween ourselves from cheep Middle East oil and (2) at the same time develop and deploy clean renewable energy sources. (1) helps (2) and (2) helps (1) because if we have no motive to protect our cheep oil, then we can leave the Middle Eastern people to their own devises. All we need is strong leadership in that direction.

Solving (C), is a matter of investing the money we save from not waging war on radical Islam and the ME on good effective intelligence and effective home land security measures. I scoped the direction to solve the nuclear holocast in 4909. There too we need good solid leadership from the old US of A to end nuclear proliferation.

I notice that the policies of the Bush administration have been acting exactly in the opposite direction of the solutions that i have scoped above. Bush is a strong leader ... but he is leading us over a cliff.

SOS... I give up on this one. THE RWG is live & well. Go for the Bush-bashing. While you are weaning yourself from cheap Middle East Oil - please try to wean yourself from the RWG & hollow solutions. We can wean ourselves by using our vast reserves of coal, & renewables of ethanol etc. None of that will help B. Expecting good intelligence to cure Ahmadinejad & (mr. Ill) of their insanity & trance is fool-hearty. All the Bush-bashing in the world will not contribute even 1 kw to the power grid nor stop an atomic bomb from making the inhabitants of Seattle into crispy critters.

Mark de LA says

M 2007-02-08 11:18:49 6008

C & D are the most short term disasters followed by A. B is long term & may not show up. B can be solved, if it exists, by education & getting government out of the way of those who would solve the problem. It may be one of those pie in the sky ideas, but teach people to love the Earth & they will treat it better. Those who are into a panic have another agenda & axe to grind. A, C & D are not the domain of private enterprise. It is interesting that some people seem to be more interested in B than A, C & D.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-02-08 14:02:10 6008

Critizicing a president's policies by offering better alternatives is not RWG, it is called democracy.

Saying he is leading us off a cliff is not even a rational argument - it's just hyperbole & has nothing to do with a democracy.

Mark de LA says

Strangely enough this node was intended to tease out the priority of some big issues in our times. I thought it strange that so much attention & potentially huge shifts in $$$ were contemplated for the global warming (or not) problem while other issues which could destroy us were actually being frustrated by congress & politics. It was not really an invitation to restart the RWG.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-02-08 14:22:26 6008

M 2007-02-08 14:12:37 6008

seth 2007-02-08 14:02:10 6008

Critizicing a president's policies by offering better alternatives is not RWG, it is called democracy.

Saying he is leading us off a cliff is not even a rational argument - it's just hyperbole & has nothing to do with a democracy.

If i had said only that, then it may have been RWG. A valid critizism of my position would examine my proposals.

There is nothing new that I could see in your proposals which have been well debated before.

Seth says

M 2007-02-08 14:35:32 6008

Apparently you missed that solving B also helps solve A. Also solving B does not involve huge spending of $$$$ by government as you have implied. There are ways to lead the country to innovate and commit to policies that encurage not relying on cheep ME oil for our primary energy source. Also i think that the "Global war on terror" is more of a artifically created hysteria than "global warming". It is solved by investing in foreigh intelligence and homland security. So my priorities for spending money would be as follows:

(1) invest in foreign intelligence
(2) invest in homland security
(3) invest in global controle of nuclear materials
(4) redeploy our troops in Iraq (save billions of $$$ ... help pay for 1-3 above)
(5) stop developing our own nuclear weapons (fsave $$$ billions and help pay for 1 -3 above)
(6) put the dismanteling or our own nukes on the table agressively negoitating for a world treaty (no charge)

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-02-08 14:53:59 6008

M 2007-02-08 14:35:32 6008

We already invest in 1, 2 & 3 as much as we can. On 3, those in Iran & N. Korea & others - prolly Packistan & India would not cooperate. What do you think the IAEC is besides impotent. Item 4 (before the job is done) would hasten A to a disasterous conclusion. Solving B doesn't have a thing to do with solving A in particular it has it's payback (ROI) far in the future; 6006 notwithstanding. 5. We mostly do research & try to keep the ones we have from blowing up (i.e. maintenance) 6. Sorry, I think that has been discussed before & IMHO it is a stupid idea. The last one to hide a bunch of nukes away somewhere until all the rest of the ones in the world are gone wins! (or loses!) depending upon how you look at it. You can't get the whole world to agree on anything. Not even on whether Iran should develop it's own nukes. Item 6 is a loser out of the gate.

Let's face it, the global war on terror is a war on radical Islam, but it would not be PC to say so. Except for N. Ireland who has negotiated peace & the Basque sepratists & a few other radicals in small numbers elsewhere the majority of terrorists in the world are radical Islamists; the scary (terror) part being that they love death more than life & are willing to blow themselves up killing even other muslims to prove it.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-02-08 15:33:51 6008

M 2007-02-08 15:18:52 6008

We already invest in 1, 2 & 3 as much as we can.

Point is to invest more and invest it more effectively. I don't understand why we dont have massive programs to train and recruit spys to gather on the ground intelligence from Iran and Pakistan and other hot spots.

On 3, those in Iran & N. Korea & others - prolly Packistan & India would not cooperate. What do you think the IAEC is besides impotent.

(3) is not targeted against Iran and Korea. It is mostly targed against Russia and Pakistan ... and China and India ... countries that already are our allies. The reason we need to spend more money on it is that the IAEC is impotent ... well why should we accept that situation. Fix it. That will take some money. (5) and (6) are targeted against Iran and Korea. If we are serious (and that is the problem), then they will go along ... why? ... well to start off with it was Ahmadinejad's idea.

More, perhaps later, if your response at least groks what i have said.

None of your extreme proposals contain anything that suggests that other countries will cooperate to get rid of the world's nukes. Other countries seem to gain status by having them. Why would any one want to get rid of them. On the contrary, Russia seems to encourage Iran. Even so, once you get rid of nukes you have chemicals etc. It's one big mess that throwing money at will not solve. You will never know how much intelligence is gathered & how much humint there is by the very nature of the game. Try fixing anything associated with the UN, ha! You can't just throw money at things & hope they will work. Iraq is a great example of it. Ahmadinejad is an radical extremist who can't be trusted with nukes or negotiating about them. He has already proved so.

Seth says

M 2007-02-08 15:18:52 6008

We already invest in 1, 2 & 3 as much as we can.

On 3, those in Iran & N. Korea & others - prolly Packistan & India would not cooperate. What do you think the IAEC is besides impotent.

Seth says

M 2007-02-08 21:53:55 6008

Of course one can never be absolutely certain of the outcome of such a dramatic diplomatic innitivite. However i still predict that the other nuclear powers would go along. The reason is that this is natural group behavior. When the leader of the pack takes a dramatic action, others in the pack will follow. This is the basis of leadership. The reasoning being presented is very sound. Once nobody has this super weapon, which can never actually ever be used, then there is no reason to possess it. Once everybody decides to set aside these rediculous weapons, then having them will clearly set a nation apart as a paria in the society of nations. It is only that some nations have insisted on keeping them, that this reasoning cannot be used. This has to start at the top ... with the leader of the pack.

In any case, untill the rest of the nuclear powers sign the treaty, there is no treaty. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and nothing lost by starting the initiative. In fact it would put the US back on the moral high ground. We do, however need to make a dramatic movement in that direction to prove to the world that we are not just flapping our mouths. My proposal is that we cease any new development of these weapons. That and the dramatic proposal to the world will send a message that will start the ball moving in the direction of a nuclear feee world.

Mark de LA says

You (Seth) seem to have ignored all the decades of nuclear negotiation, movements etc. that have gone before you. Catch up! & see if you really have something new. I suspect NOT. There are countries like Russia, China, N. Korea & now especially Iran that want to make sure that the US is NOT thought of as the leader of the pack; who tend to go in the opposite direction for their own purposes. You also seem to ignore what Al Baradei has been doing for the last decade as well. I suggest if you want someone to take you seriously that you set up the script in detail which will get us from here to there.

"The US suddenly gives up all her weapons & then everyone else suddenly follows" is definitely NOT credible.

What follows after the nukes are all gone is likely more biological & chemical stockpiles along with some new & wonderful stuff like gama-ray lasers & sonic weapons - perhaps scalar weapons.

Hmmm... let's see: fists & feet.. bones.. rocks.. stone axes.. bows & arrows... catapults.. swords & knives.. poison.. guns & gunpowder.. bigger guns.. poison gas.. biologicals & poisonous chemicals.. atomic bombs.. bigger hydrogen bombs.. suicide airplanes.. suicidal people & road bombs.. {insert your next ideas here}

Mark de LA says

On the "Pull out First" idea {both Iraq or Nukes} (if not a comment about your sex life) comes this cartoon:

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-02-09 12:31:15 6008

M 2007-02-09 12:23:58 6008

You (Seth) seem to have ignored all the decades of nuclear negotiation, movements etc.

We have never put the elimination of our own nukes on the table. This is a new approach.

There are countries like Russia, China, N. Korea & now especially Iran that want to make sure that the US is NOT thought of as the leader of the pack

There is a huge difference between being "thought of as the leader" and "actually leading". This is an example of the latter. It requires action in the right direction.

NOT so!

Mark de LA says

If ever you doubt about the global warming-hysteria being political, read this article from the Boston Globe today.

Now which is likely to get the US first, an iceberg or terrorism? When will sane people inhabit the US Congress again ? Let's have the Pentagon put that in our threat accessment!

Senators Durbin & Hagel have been smoking too much of this:

Mark de LA says

Somebody else recognizes the real problems.

Mark de LA says

Freedom, not Climate is at Risk !

Mark de LA says

M 2007-09-13 08:22:12 6008

For more clues on the lack of real concensus see the Hudson Institute report news release here. It's worth a review before you begin doing some of the things the UK government is contemplating. Anyway, the major religions seem to be eclipsed by the Church of the Giant Earth Melt.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery

Which Will Get US first ? Where are your priorities?

Tags

Comments

See Also