Most of us have lived through the Cold War and the Shadow of the End of the World. Now, I'm not one of those who think that the Danger of a Nuclear Apocalypse is over. Does this new breed of terrorism mean that we have MORE to fear from nuclear weapons, or are these people just an extension of the kamikaze pilots who went about their business before most of us were born?!?

I don't want to cause anyone any nightmares or EVEN start a political/religious/racial discussion. I just want to know, getting down to brass tacks, do you feel that humankind is more in danger of extinction than ever before? No need to answer if you're going to slip into a tirade. We need COOL heads around here, at least if we want to be part of the solution (that is, if you think a problem exists.)

I do. Not only is the number of nuclear bombs increasing but Bush is the one who holds all of them and that is something that really scares me. Global warming is getting worse every second and our government, Bush doesnt want to do anything about it but make it worse. He wants to stop many environmental laws that slow down the process. Also, he is very aggressive and I have no doubt that he will use a nuclear bomb without thinking. It could start others using it and the world, or the world as we know it, would come to an end. I have not lived through the cold war though. But I do know that the number of trees and oxygen in the world is much less. The world is growing in population and is using up and wasting more natural resources as the rainforest every minute. I dont think it is as much terrorism because terrorists dont have all the bombs, our government does. If we can not hold the united nations together, and think of the world as one, chaos will be brought and nuclear bombs will be dropped.

Of course modern terrorism is scarier than "the bomb" of the cold war era. At least the Soviets had respect for human life. Conservative Muslims, the supportors of Islamic terror have no respect for human life and would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon to kill non-believers. They're already committing genocide in the Sudan -- Muslims killing Christian blacks. They wouldn't hesitate to kill 3000 innocent civilians in New York. They killed 300 children at an elementary school in Russia. They consider killing yourself & others via homicide "martyr" bombs a ticket to "paridise" -- any religion which rewards mass-murder and serieal homicide with sex (72 virgins in the afterlife) is not legitimate in my mind.

Bottom line. Mutually assured destruction, the concept which protected us during the cold war has no effect on people that have no respect for their own lives or the lives of other human beings.

EDIT: One more thing. The biggest mistake the U.S. goverment ever made, in retrospect, was supporting the Muslims in their uprising against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That marked the rise of modern Islamo-facism, UBL, etc. We should have let the Soviets waste their resources in Afghanistan. What difference would yet another country have made in their empire?? They would have crumbled in the late 80's with our without Afghanistan. By arming the Muslims, the U.S. empowered a group that has no respect for human life -- they don't hesitate to martyr their children, abuse their women, and spit on anyone who doesn't believe in Allah.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SparkleMotion,

To address the question in the topic header, mark, absolutely. The current brand of terrorism is much scarier than The Bomb. Car bombs in Northern Ireland, a fertilizer bomb in Oklahoma City, and hijaked planes in New York City are all a part of collective experience. We have watched them in action and witnessed the aftermath on television. Imagining ourselves on that city street, in that office, or on that plane is something we can all do and it is terrifying.

The Bomb, however, is and always has been an abstraction for the vast majority of people. We can look at the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the yields of Fat Man and Little Boy were so much smaller than the weapons that defined the Cold War that to invite comparison is disingenuous to the point of dangerous. Thomas Reed addresses this issue in his recent book At The Brink: An Insider's History of the Cold War. Reed worked as a young man at Livermore as a designer of thermonuclear weapons and in later life in a variety of public policy positions. He makes a passionate case that anybody who has ever witnessed the explosion of a thermonuclear device would consider their use unthinkable, which I guess is the point I'm trying to make. It is very hard to be truly afraid of something you simply cannot conceive.

You ask a second question, though, mark. Is humankind more in danger of extinction than ever before? Absolutely not. For all the fears that any extremist element will gain possession of a nuclear device or biological agent, those are unlikely events. Laymen overestimate the availability and ease of use of the former. As for the latter, let's just say The Omega Man is unlikely to become reality any time soon.

I would expect opinions in this thread to come down along generational lines. Having come to adulthood during the Cold War, I can remember the chill fear of contemplating the escalation of events that would erase our species from the planet. I can only imagine what it was like to live through the Cuban Missile Crisis. Terrorism, domestic and international, is certainly a more tangible, everyday fear, but only because we can get our minds around it.

Now Playing: CNN Saturday

Personally, I find the bomb scarier, but that may be due to myself being Canadian. Living where I do, I can't imagine terrorism ever being a problem for me, unless I travel across the border or to some other wealthy imperialist nation, or fascist dictatorship. The bomb however, if dropped on either Russia or the U.S. would create enough fallout to end my life unless I made it to some hidden bunker in the Rockies. Terrorism is only frightening to those that can imagine being a victim of it, which should be a difficult thing for a Canadian who doesn't leave the country. As for being closer to extinction, it is truly just a matter of time, so every day that goes by means we are closer to extinction, as our planet does have a finite lifespan.

Also-The Muslim religion does not reward mass murder and serial homicide, just like Christianity does not reward crusaders who did the same, and Catholicism does not reward pedophiles. Read the Koran before you stereotype the religion. Not all Muslim's are American hating, woman oppressing, homicidal martyrs! All the followers of a religion shouldn't have to answer for the lunacy of a small portion of it's believers.

I agree. I do not feel scared about terrorists. Maybe that is because I am not in that large of a city, I do not know. Terrorists, as you say without the bombs can only kill so many people. A few nuclear bombs and the human race is gone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smenkharon:

Also-The Muslim religion does not reward mass murder and serial homicide, just like Christianity does not reward crusaders who did the same, and Catholicism does not reward pedophiles. Read the Koran before you stereotype the religion. Not all Muslim's are American hating, woman oppressing, homicidal martyrs! All the followers of a religion shouldn't have to answer for the lunacy of a small portion of it's believers.

---

I didn't refer to the Muslim religion. I stated that conservative, fundamentalist muslims believe in the world-wide jihad and the 72 virgin for martyrdom theory. Unlike our own Oklahoma City bomber, you can't call the conservative Muslim bombers the "extreme" or the unsusual for several reasons, one of which is the lack of mainstream Muslim condemnation of the beheadings, the bombings, and the terror in general. All I hear about is the "reasons" for the acts. Did we care about the "reasons" behind the Oklahoma City bombming??? No. He was a mass-murderer...end of story. And we exectured him. I hear nothing but justifications for Muslim killings -- America in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia, American intervention in the Israel/Palestine conflict, etc. If you give a reason for killing children & innocent civilians, you are excusing the behavior. It seems like only the minority of muslims are willing to condemn the jihadists.

There's a lot I could say here, but I'll limit myself to a few points.

1. I've been thinking about terrorism alot professionally recently (I've got a textbook coming out with Prentice Hall called The Morality of War: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives which features a section on the topic) and there's usually a question-begging element to calling someone a "terrorist." Usually this is to simply beg the question that they are acting outside of the bounds of something (international law? morality? justice?) politically necessary for a "legitimate" war, usually a legitimate Westphalian authority. I'm not sure if this is a fair way to assess the subject. (Other options, which seem more plausible, focus on WHO the targets of attack might be and what sort of tactics are used) This is NOT to defend terrorists generally, or to defend any one terrorist action. But, to wheel out an old saw, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

2. I second LinnTate's point: growing up during some of the scarier Cold War showdowns makes me very uneasy about nuclear annihilation. Nena's song "99 Luftballoons", an apocalypse scenario, always freaked me out as a teen, because I couldn't shake the feeling that we were a button away from the end of the world.

I'm not a fan of preventative or preemptive warfare, particularly against an enemy that is stateless, but I am all for a strong and unified intelligence program that keeps us abreast of what those who want to harm us are doing. No more of this FBI/CIA in-fighting: get on the same page, already!

Yeah, P.E., I know a lot of "freedom fighters" who get their kicks out of rigging elementary school gymnasiums with explosives and shooting infants in the back.... Freedom fighters... sure....

Just this morning, SparkleMotion, your hackles were up because you believed your earlier comments were being taken out of context. Now, you take pE's comments out of context, ignore his own clear caveat, and post a deliberately sarcastic and inflammatory response.

This is not the way to contribute to a civil discourse and runs the risk of making you look very, very foolish.

Now Playing: The Cards with a 6-2 lead over the Dodgers in the top of the 4th in L.A.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LinnTate:
Just this morning, SparkleMotion, your hackles were up because you believed your earlier comments were being taken out of context. Now, you take pE's comments out of context, ignore his own clear caveat, and post a deliberately sarcastic and inflammatory response.

This is not the way to contribute to a civil discourse and runs the risk of making you look very, very foolish.

Now Playing: The Cards with a 6-2 lead over the Dodgers in the top of the 4th in L.A.

---

No, I was well aware of the caveat. Let me just make my point a little clearer, and I will steer clear of any loaded expressions like extremeists, terrorists, insurgents, etc. Anyone who targets children for death -- including those who killed all of those Russian children -- are subhuman. They belong in the same class as rodentia. Any attempt to put that kind kind of entity into a larger political context is futile. That rodentia class should be exterminated. I'm not talking about any religious group, ethnic group, or otherwise. Any group that would literally target and kill hundreds upon hundreds of defenseless children should be exterminated like vermin.

Now I should say that there was a class of "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" or "separatists" in that group that intitially took over the school which, as soon as they fully realized what their leaders were about to carry out, attempted to stop the killing. They are heroes! And they were summarily shot in the back by their vermin leaders. Similarly, some of the hijackers on the 9/11 missions were not told of the ultimate plan -- to kill 3000 innocent men, women and children. I would put them in the "terrorist," "freedom fighter," "extremist" class. But those who flew the planes and planned the ultimate result -- vermin.

All other political nonsense aside, do we all agree with me??? Actually, let's consider that a rehtorical question. I tend to get a little too passionate about these things and I'm not the best at "playing with others" when I see images of that day in Russia & of Sept 11 (which are all over the TV this weekend). I do respect your opinions, PE, LT, and mf.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SparkleMotion,

who cares...do we really need to argue over which of 2 horrific things is the worst?

quote:

---

Originally posted by SparkleMotion:
Yeah, P.E., I know a lot of "freedom fighters" who get their kicks out of rigging elementary school gymnasiums with explosives and shooting infants in the back.... Freedom fighters... sure....

---

I get the rhetorical point, SM. I find it hard to defend most ostensible cases of terrorism, but the trite point, I think, carries some weight. The American revolutionaries were, by most common definitions of terrorism, in fact, terrorists. Almost any state that secedes or tries to secede starts with anti-state terrorism.

I agree with your central point whole-heartedly. I was trying to make a similar one: my main point, I'd like to think, is that the better way to get a grip on terrorism is to use something like a tactical definition of terrorism: a terrorist is someone who targets and intentionally (deliberately) targets innocent civilians and non-combatants. In that way, the tragedy in Russia is not excusable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by philosopherEric:

I agree with your central point whole-heartedly. I was trying to make a similar one: my main point, I'd like to think, is that the better way to get a grip on terrorism is to use something like a tactical definition of terrorism: a terrorist is someone who targets and intentionally (deliberately) targets innocent civilians and non-combatants. In that way, the tragedy in Russia is not excusable.

---

I totally agree with your definition and didn't mean to take the ball too far in different direction, there...sorry!

quote:

---

Originally posted by SparkleMotion:

I totally agree with your definition and didn't mean to take the ball too far in different direction, there...sorry!

---

No worries, SM. You don't have to apologize to me...I understood what you were after. I've been dealing with this for the last few years with fellow political philosophers, whenever I offer anything that might be remotely considered as a defense of terrorism. I always get accused of making a claim for the sake of the rhetoric, which is partially true. But it gets to the actual point, which is that terrorism is usually defined as "military or military-like force which we find offensive in some way." My question, and the point you made first, is to show WHY we feel that way. Killing kids and parents is never defensible, in my view.

All things being equal, I'd be a pacifist. But I've seen enough evidence to know that Realism kicks in at some point: things aren't equal. Sometimes we have to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SparkleMotion:
I tend to get a little too passionate about these things and I'm not the best at "playing with others" when I see images of that day in Russia & of Sept 11 (which are all over the TV this weekend). I do respect your opinions, PE, LT, and mf.

---

You do get passionate, SparkleMotion, but when you're called on it you inevitably take a deep breath and state your position more clearly, which is a quality I admire a great deal.

I like to fancy myself objective, but fear that what's really happened is that I have become numb. That is much worse, I think, than getting a little too passionate in the face of such outrages.

Now Playing: NPR's All Things Considered

Am I copping out by saying that I think Modern Terrorism is JUST AS scary as The Bomb? I truly think it's a tie...at least for me.

Being born in 1961, I grew up with nuclear weapons, MAD, SALT, etc., and it was always in the back of my mind that one day could be the last day, and we'd all be blown up.

Then with the fall of Russia and the Berlin Wall, I actually believed that the world as a whole was safe.

So I guess that lasted about 10 years or so, until Sept. 11. Now, it is once again at the back of my mind that one day there could be a terrible terrorist attack in the United States, and that will be the end of us. As others on this board have noted, it is indeed scary that many of the Arab terrorists have little regard for their own lives, and will endanger and kill us all, and will think they are doing a great thing for mankind/Allah.

I hope I'm not coming off as too depressing...it's not something I dwell on...unless of course, I see a topic like this on a message board!

quote:

---

Originally posted by asc85:
Am I copping out by saying that I think Modern Terrorism is JUST AS scary as The Bomb? I truly think it's a tie...at least for me.

---

It's not a cop-out, asc85, because it seems more and more likely that modern terrorists may be able to, in fact, get ahold of "the bomb."

It's funny how "the bomb" is an identifier everyone recognizes. No adjectives needed there! Same thing with "the pill." (That last part isn't my original thought...the comedian Gary Gulman does a great bit on the pill!)

Hey, I kinda like this thread too. Anybody hear have another perspective?

Terrrorism is the current day bogeyman. National western media follow their governments hysteria and fear mongering to create a falsehood. Terrorism today is as it has been for decades.

I'm far more realistically fearful of nuclear holocaust, and that threat also is being conflated.