PowerSwitch

Scary article:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=civ ... -shortages

I have the answer to failed states, however, and it's not pretty.

If the world descends into a 1930s hairtrigger environment, nuclear weapons will be used against the failed states to "cleanse" their populations.

fifthcolumn wrote: I have the answer to failed states, however, and it's not pretty.

If the world descends into a 1930s hairtrigger environment, nuclear weapons will be used against the failed states to "cleanse" their populations.

Why would you do that? Leaving aside the moral issues, the effects of using nuclear weapons don't remain within a countries borders. 20 years after the chernobyl accident we still have problems on sheep farms in this country http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/1 ... amesmeikle.
Nuclear weapons are a crap idea, using them is like pissing on your own strawberries.

fifthcolumn wrote:Scary article:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=civ ... -shortages

I have the answer to failed states, however, and it's not pretty.

If the world descends into a 1930s hairtrigger environment, nuclear weapons will be used against the failed states to "cleanse" their populations.

Crude, morally bankrupt and dumb.

Suicidal Islamic militants are 60 miles away from getting nuclear weapons.

Very interesting Scientific American article though, so thanks for posting that.

A nuclear weapon and nuclear reactor are two very different pieces of equipment.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still lived in and, and always were.
A bomb is designed to go *bang*, a reactor is designed to boil water for long periods.

Crude, morally bankrupt and dumb.

Are you making a prediction, saying France WILL NOT use chemical weapons to drive starving africans south of the Pyrenees (And Alps) and nuclear weapons to keep them there?
Or are you making a moral statement, that its a very naughty thing to do and the UN will send them a letter telling them its very bad?

If the latter, what do you predict the French will do when Italy and Spain collapse into anarchy under the strain of 500m starving Africans, who then look further north for survival?


****
Edit
****
I was confused for a minute that SA was argueing for the nuclear bombing of refugees

You're getting overexcited DJ. Take some tablets and lie down in a quiet room.

So that means you dont have a better prediction of future events?

The swine flu will kill them all off before they get to France

DominicJ wrote:So that means you dont have a better prediction of future events?

Get a grip, man. You're letting your prejudice and paranoia distort reality.

foodinistar wrote:

DominicJ wrote:So that means you dont have a better prediction of future events?

Get a grip, man. You're letting your prejudice and paranoia distort reality.

Wars have been started all over the planet for things other than "just" reasons. Our own government is responsible for genocide on multiple occasions (remember the Irish).

So do you think that because you (while you are not starving to death) would not countenance viewing other competitors for resources as enemies, it would stop the less moral?

I'll take a bet right now that Dom is right. In the scenario proposed, the French (and Us of course) will use nukes and other draconian measures to stop floods of refugees from Africa and other poor places.

Morals only apply to those who can afford it

ziggy12345 wrote:Morals only apply to those who can afford it

Exactly. It's the lifeboat problem. You can take two extra children but to do so you must yourself jump overboard.

The very graphic example of this dilemna shows up at the start of 28 weeks later when the kid arrives at the door being chased by hordes of the infected. Would *you* let the kid in, knowing what's going to happen?

fifthcolumn wrote:

ziggy12345 wrote:Morals only apply to those who can afford it

Exactly. It's the lifeboat problem. You can take two extra children but to do so you must yourself jump overboard.

I'd take the 2 extra kids and throw the fat bloke over. He can float

RenewableCandy wrote:I'd take the 2 extra kids and throw the fat bloke over. He can float

You bad girl.

Coicidentally I remember the old nike ad with the two blokes looking at a lion and the line "I don't need to outrun the lion. I only need to outrun you."

With that ad in mind while camping in the rockies and being given the "how to avoid being eaten by a bear" presentation I looked around the room to guess which of the dads I could beat up quickly and leave as bait so me and my boy could get away. More or less evil than your idea?