Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
*Also one day, the Earth is likely to be united politically. The course of human history has been a steady consolidation of political entities, from bands to tribes to chiefdoms to proto-states and nation states and now even larger groupings. Eventually, there will be political unity. This is surely many centuries distant at present (on the other hand, who knows? much about the world today is beyond what anyone could have imagined just a couple hundred years ago).
The world is not static. Change comes, sooner or later. Nuclear weapons are not going to be an eternal fixture, though it seems extremely unlikely that they won't outlast anyone currently alive.
This agenda is purely evil. It would mean that people that are now relatively free would be governed by the most powerful individual or group, without regard to their wants or needs.
*Also one day, the Earth is likely to be united politically. The course of human history has been a steady consolidation of political entities, from bands to tribes to chiefdoms to proto-states and nation states and now even larger groupings. Eventually, there will be political unity. This is surely many centuries distant at present (on the other hand, who knows? much about the world today is beyond what anyone could have imagined just a couple hundred years ago)."
I would not disagree, but I think it better to couch it in terms of generations rather than centuries.
English is now the language of the World. In almost every foreign State, you learn your language and then English as a second language.
Over generations, that will change to learning English as the primary language and the your cultural language as a second language.
Foreign States are interdependent to a great extent and over generations the level of interdependency will increase until it reaches 100% of all foreign States.
There are actually theories of international relations about that. Two of them are Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Liberal Institutionalism.
What's the difference? Neo-Liberal Institutionalism relies heavily on NGOs -- Non-Governmental Organizations -- like multi-national corporations, international quasi-governmental bodies and other international organizations (like Doctors Without Borders) to do what government does under Neo-Liberalism.
Also, there's no longer a taboo about inter-racial marriages. Even Asians, and I'm talking about all Asians including Southeast, Southwest and Central Asians, no longer frown on inter-racial marriages.
As that takes place over generations, group identities break down.
The first group identities to break down are racial and ethnic identities.
As people of different races or ethnicities inter-marry, they no longer self-identify with that particular group.
You could see that on the 2010 Census as people of mixed races/ethnicities did not self-identify as Asiatic, Black or White.
Currency is another thing that unifies as does regional organizations. Eventually sub-Saharan Africa will unify like the US or Europe as will Central America, South America and Asia.
Technology will actually accelerate the process, because everyone is interconnected by social media.
I assume you mean nuclear power, since everyone wants nuclear weapons gone. So let's discuss nuclear power:the only alternative to fossil fuels in a world where the electrical grid cannot function without power that is available when the demand occurs.
The only other significant power source that the electric grid can use is hydroelectric - which unfortunately cannot be significantly expanded since it requires huge amounts of land with significant differences in elevation. Even if there were a place that met this requirement that was available for development, flooding millions of acres and wiping out 100% of that wildlife habitat is environmental destruction on an incredible level. Plus, all that land must be taken by eminent domain with property owner compensation.
Solar technology is fine for very limited applications but it is useless as a source of energy that can support the electric grid (for a variety of technological reasons that involve real-world limitations (i.e., they can't be solved by technology or work-arounds).
Wind similarly is fine in the few locations and circumstances where it is feasible, but useless to power the electric grid. It can only be used in places where the wind blows all the time, and where it doesn't blow too hard (wind turbines must be shut down in times of high wind or expected high wind). It requires large amounts of land (or ocean surface) for extremely low amounts of power, and the amount of time that wind turbines are "down" because of mechanical problems is astronomical (this from a friend who works for company operating the most wind turbines in the nation). Finally, it costs 7X as much to produce as fossil fuels (could you afford for your electric bill to be multiplied by 7?).
FYI, a nuclear power plant CANNOT explode like a nuclear bomb (according to a nuclear engineer I know) - the worst case is a meltdown (dubbed the "China Syndrome"), which we saw in the case of Three Mile Island (which killed not a single person, and did not even result in more cancer among the surrounding population over the next 15 years https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...13935111002039). As for Chernobyl, the U.S. has never used that type of reactorbecause it is much more unstable / dangerous. Additionally, the operators of Chernobyl (for whatever reason) purposely shut off all the safety systems - a move similar in effect to getting in a tractor trailer, going onto a freeway, flooring the accelerator and then steering directly into a bridge piling.
It is sad that so many who care about the environment are technophobic, when technology has given us the ultimate safe, cheap, environmentally friendly solution to society's need for large amounts of energy.
I would not disagree, but I think it better to couch it in terms of generations rather than centuries.
English is now the language of the World. In almost every foreign State, you learn your language and then English as a second language.
Over generations, that will change to learning English as the primary language and the your cultural language as a second language.
Foreign States are interdependent to a great extent and over generations the level of interdependency will increase until it reaches 100% of all foreign States.
There are actually theories of international relations about that. Two of them are Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Liberal Institutionalism.
What's the difference? Neo-Liberal Institutionalism relies heavily on NGOs -- Non-Governmental Organizations -- like multi-national corporations, international quasi-governmental bodies and other international organizations (like Doctors Without Borders) to do what government does under Neo-Liberalism.
Also, there's no longer a taboo about inter-racial marriages. Even Asians, and I'm talking about all Asians including Southeast, Southwest and Central Asians, no longer frown on inter-racial marriages.
As that takes place over generations, group identities break down.
The first group identities to break down are racial and ethnic identities.
As people of different races or ethnicities inter-marry, they no longer self-identify with that particular group.
You could see that on the 2010 Census as people of mixed races/ethnicities did not self-identify as Asiatic, Black or White.
Currency is another thing that unifies as does regional organizations. Eventually sub-Saharan Africa will unify like the US or Europe as will Central America, South America and Asia.
Technology will actually accelerate the process, because everyone is interconnected by social media.
Yes, the trend is obvious, but it's happened before. Everything you just said could have been said to describe the Roman Empire, and like the Roman Empire, the new One World govt will stay in power thru intimidation and the use of force....and there will always be the resistance, the Freedom Fighters who will once again eventually win as The Empire crumbles under its own weight & complacency....and the cycle will begin again.
I would not disagree, but I think it better to couch it in terms of generations rather than centuries.
English is now the language of the World. In almost every foreign State, you learn your language and then English as a second language.
Over generations, that will change to learning English as the primary language and the your cultural language as a second language.
Foreign States are interdependent to a great extent and over generations the level of interdependency will increase until it reaches 100% of all foreign States.
There are actually theories of international relations about that. Two of them are Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Liberal Institutionalism.
What's the difference? Neo-Liberal Institutionalism relies heavily on NGOs -- Non-Governmental Organizations -- like multi-national corporations, international quasi-governmental bodies and other international organizations (like Doctors Without Borders) to do what government does under Neo-Liberalism.
Also, there's no longer a taboo about inter-racial marriages. Even Asians, and I'm talking about all Asians including Southeast, Southwest and Central Asians, no longer frown on inter-racial marriages.
As that takes place over generations, group identities break down.
The first group identities to break down are racial and ethnic identities.
As people of different races or ethnicities inter-marry, they no longer self-identify with that particular group.
You could see that on the 2010 Census as people of mixed races/ethnicities did not self-identify as Asiatic, Black or White.
Currency is another thing that unifies as does regional organizations. Eventually sub-Saharan Africa will unify like the US or Europe as will Central America, South America and Asia.
Technology will actually accelerate the process, because everyone is interconnected by social media.
Uniting everyone is nice, in theory. The problem is that bullies prevail, and the "uniting" is done under terms and conditions we would not appreciate. The West always pines for "peace in our time." Our competitors; not so much.
Uniting everyone is nice, in theory. The problem is that bullies prevail, and the "uniting" is done under terms and conditions we would not appreciate. The West always pines for "peace in our time." Our competitors; not so much.
The really wonderful thing is, our competitors - Russia and China, at least - are in the process of disappearing through population decline. And best of all there is no way back for them; they will decline until their respective countries become functionally extinct. That, in my opinion, cannot happen soon enough.
The really wonderful thing is, our competitors - Russia and China, at least - are in the process of disappearing through population decline. And best of all there is no way back for them; they will decline until their respective countries become functionally extinct. That, in my opinion, cannot happen soon enough.
The problem with developments that happen "eventually" or "in the long run" is, as Keynes said "in the long run we're all dead." It is true that Russia and China are not immigration friendly. It is also true that totalitarian systems are inherently unstable, despite appearances to the contrary. The trouble is, in their death throws, they can still do incredible damage. And the depopulation is far from instantaneous.
I agree with you that the classic nuclear superpowers are no longer the main threat. The rogue nations more than make up for it.
I was surprised to read, one time, that nuclear missiles have a life expectancy of 10-20 years, and they have to be replenished, from time to time, those no longer employable are sent to Barker Air Force base in Louisiana. So one must think, of the nuclear stockpiles in the world, how many are employable and unemployable..
I don't think we'll ever get rid of them, if nothing else as a back-up.
I just finished a book on Cyberwarfare and some believe cyberattacks will lessen the need for nuclear weapons.
When Sony was "bombed" by North Korean cyberattackers, some looked upon it as having a nuclear weapon foisted on Sony. It brought Sony down to its knees. All because they were about to release a movie very degrading to Kim Jong. North Korea has sped ahead and has one of the best cybercorps in the world, and every country in the world today needs a Cybercorps just in case they're attacked.
I was surprised to read, one time, that nuclear missiles have a life expectancy of 10-20 years, and they have to be replenished, from time to time, those no longer employable are sent to Barker Air Force base in Louisiana. So one must think, of the nuclear stockpiles in the world, how many are employable and unemployable..
I don't think we'll ever get rid of them, if nothing else as a back-up.
I just finished a book on Cyberwarfare and some believe cyberattacks will lessen the need for nuclear weapons.
When Sony was "bombed" by North Korean cyberattackers, some looked upon it as having a nuclear weapon foisted on Sony. It brought Sony down to its knees. All because they were about to release a movie very degrading to Kim Jong. North Korea has sped ahead and has one of the best cybercorps in the world, and every country in the world today needs a Cybercorps just in case they're attacked.
Good info. Thanks.
Pinpoint guided bombs and missiles preclude the need for really massive weapons, I think. Nowadays, we can hit the target we really want to hit; no need to take out the whole square mile.
I'm not sure what cyberattacks would look like, but I've got food stored just in case...... Ya know? We'd be good for about a month or so.
Bottom line: Given their shelf life and the coming population decline, I think Nukes will become extinct - no treaty needed.
[quote=Gerobime227;57503596]Do you think we'll ever completely get rid of nukes? Like every country will one day agree to completely get rid of anything and everything nuclear?
Sure America can give up nuclear weapons right after the Chinese Russians and North Koreans do.
(it might be helpful to stop hating things and hate irrational and evil behavior instead).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
