WHEN are we going to STOP building WMD?

[serryjw]

I had a comcast problem and was off line for 2 days, so I watched Discovery on TV

quote........
It begs the question when is enough. What could we all do to help each other if trillions were not spent on development of WMD> This acronym has a new meaning.......EMP attacks that can wipe out the entire electric magnetic pulse of anything with in X miles..Think about what that could do to ANY military installation in combat...Think of it use on WallStreet or Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Sooooooooo we spend 10's of billions to defend against it and work to be the FIRST. Experts say that if hit, it could take YEARS to recover..
Think about a AIRBORNE LASER BEAM...We could vaporize entire villages w/o leaving the air! BOYS and their TOYS...when is this going to stop?
end quote......
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/futureweapons/photo/photo.html

[brokensymmetry]

1. Never. n/t.

.

[porphyrian]

2. If we do that, we can't sell them to people so that we can declare...

...war on them later for having them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. This "future weapons" business is mostly nonsense.

All the more reason not to spend any money on it.

[sgxnk]

7. and

those darned horseless carriages will never amount to nothing!

my favorite statement from a true "visionary" was the head of the patent office who claimed circa 1900 that his office was now outdated, because all inventions were pretty much already invented ... lol

also recall the 'visionary' bill gates comment that no PC would ever need more than 640k of ram

:l

even albert einstein, famously failed to accept aspects of quantum theory that just didn't "sound right" saying that "god doesn't play dice with the universe"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Unsound logic.

That's like saying because Bill Gates was wrong about ram that we'll all have flying cars and nuclear reactors in our basement by the year 2000.

And, FYI, while Einstein didn't particular care for logical outcomes of quantum theory, he certainly accepted it. He should have, he developed much of it.

[sgxnk]

11. no, it's not

like saying that at all

my point is that nobody knows what future technology will be the "next big thing". not me nor you

and einstein did not accept aspects of quantum theory primarily what is arguably among hte most important : the indeterminate nature of the universe (at the quantum level)

that's the point.

"the vision thing"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Yes, but...

just because nobody knows what future technology will bring doesn't mean we should start worrying about EMPs, government-built flying saucers, and giant walking battle tanks from Japan.

As for Einstein, like I said, he didn't like some implications of quantum physics, like HUP which you refer to. Still, he didn't question its scientific validity. After all he won a Nobel for his work in quantum physics.

[RobertSeattle]

4. I thought military electronics are hardened against EMP

But I'm sure most civilian electronics would literally become "toasters"....

[Selatius]

8. That's the problem with EMP; it's only good for civilian infrastructure

You could cause an instant Great Depression if you detonated several high yield nuclear devices in the upper atmosphere above major American cities. The cities below would not be destroyed by a shockwave or high levels of heat or anything of that sort as the radiation would be absorbed by the upper atmosphere, but the infrastructure itself will be damaged if not destroyed because all the electronics will be cooked from being struck by multiple EMPs.

[serryjw]

10. Didn't sound that way on the show

I'm sure they are trying but EMP is something we have worried about for 50 years. The weapon is the size of a beer can. NOTHING is faster than a 747 laser delivered beam. In a nanosecond all in it's path is vaporized.

Watch the slide show

[Selatius]

5. As long as there is profit to be had, there will always be WMD makers

If you want to stop it, you're going to have to take the profit out of war.

[mmonk]

6. When we implode. Otherwise, never.

[Quiet_Dem_Mom]

13. Did you catch Rachel Maddow's interview with Ben & Jerry re: nuke weapons?

They have a limited edition ice cream flavor called "American Pie". According to Rachel, the apple-pie ice cream includes a pie chart showing how much of the federal budget is spent on military/weapons. Ben has a video on their website demonstrating the total nuclear arsenal of the US: http://www.benjerry.com/americanpie/bens_bb.cfm

I have to admit, I did not realize we had such a large accumulation. I believe they had mentioned that we had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet several hundred times over. Ben & Jerry, along with the Children's Defense Fund, are trying to get some congressional support toward redirecting some of that yearly expense towards children's health insurance, vaccinations, etc.

More info:
http://www.benjerry.com/americanpie/index.cfm

[serryjw]

15. I KNEW how big it was

but it's a moving target and we keep spending money on more sophisticated ways to destroy each other and this planet. GREAT B & J video, thanks

Welcome to DU!!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. There's an implicit assumption in that question,

And I'm afraid I don't think it's a justified one.

[serryjw]

16. Huh............????

english please!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Sorry.

What I'm saying, in an extremely circumlocutory fashion, is that the OP should be asking "if" rather than "when" the US will stop making WMD, and the answer is probably "no", alas.

[serryjw]

18. That's where we disagree

OUR military budget like our capitalism is not sustainable. You can't keep putting these billions into weapons development at the expense of everything else....IT WILL HAVE to be cut by billions when Americans figure out we care getting a WMD instead of education, healthcare and environmental/global warming issues