Subject: Re: No Nukes?(was: Asteroid strike!!)
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:52:13 -0800
On 12 Jan 1997, Robert Hubby wrote:
> D. Braun (dbraun@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> : I thought the connection was apparent. Disarmament means no more weapons
> : production, and destruction/recycling in energy plants of the
> : delivery vehicles/plutonium, or other scenarios. Eventually, the Russian
> : mafia or the like will find it more difficult to procure a bomb. The
> : second part of my post is important, too; a more progressive foreign
> : policy would tend not to produce terrorist pissed off at the US, for real
> : or perceived insults. Abandoning MADD would mean that we would actually
> : have to negotiate and have political solutions worked out. It certainly
> : would not be an over-night process. Once the major powers agree to disarm,
> : international sanctions could be brought against those countries that
> : persist in having nuke weapons programs.
>
> What are you going to do? Nuke them?
No, my point has been that this would not be workable.
>
> : I would even settle for a token "MADD" policy after disarmament-- say, one
> : nuke under each country's capital---with the "red button" in the other
> : major powers' control. Why not? It would be simple, cheap, and
> : instantaneous. Easy to detonate---you could set them off via
> : the internet with the proper codes.
>
> Then some fanatical nutcase would hack the codes and hold the world for
> ransom. Duh!
They can't do that now? The codes would be encrypted, with access by
several persons to "launch", etc., as is done now.
Dave Braun
> R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
> "When minimum wage was an issue, the press found a minimum wage mother
> with two kids in five minutes...but they can't find one victim of the
> Whitewater Investments... and these people lost their retirement
> incomes!" - Anonymous
>
>
Subject: Re: No Nukes?(was: Asteroid strike!!)
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:34:17 -0800
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Harold Brashears wrote:
> "D. Braun" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Harold Brashears wrote:
> >
> >> "D. Braun" wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Harold Brashears wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "D. Braun" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> [edited]
> >> >>
> >> >> >Except times have changed. One rebel faction of a country may believe it
> >> >> >is in their best interest to set off a "suitcase bomb" (perhaps a tactical
> >> >> >nuke bought from the Russian mafia) in Central Park, NYC, because they
> >> >> >disagree with US policy in regard to the government with which they
> >> >> >disagree. Examples of this scenario abound, based on our immoral
> >> >> >"friendly dictators policy", aka the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which has
> >> >> >continued under Clinton, weasel words to the contrary. Then what? Do we
> >> >> >nuke the country these people came from? Probably not. Disarmament, in a
> >> >> >phased fashion, would seem to be the answer.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are going to get rebel factions to agree to disarmnment? Who will
> >> >> you negoiatate with in the PLO or the IRA?
> >> >
> >> >I didn't say that. We would negotiate with the major powers, to get them
> >> >to agree to disamament.
> >>
> >> The problem with that is that some of the possessors may not be "major
> >> powers". Do you know some way to insure that the IRA has not already
> >> purchased a bomb from a Russian general?
> >
> >No. But we pressure the Russians to dissarm and destroy their stockpiles.
> >Terrorist groups can be marginalized, by appealing to political factions
> >with grievances which have renounced violence.
>
> How in the world do you "marginalize" a terrorist group with an atomic
> bomb? By appealing to other groups, this will remove the bomb? Are
> you depending on them feeling bad about their bomb, and surrendering
> it, because you have appealed to other, nonviolent, groups? You can
> try that, but I hope the President does not.
By leaving them out in the cold, they don't gain. If they use it, they
don't gain. Meanwhile, counter-blackmail (not negotiation) would be in
order. As would covert action to destroy their capacity to deliver the
weapon. Pay off their rivals to steel the warhead. Dirty tricks. Whatever
it takes. The point is, keeping a nuclear arsenal for defense against such
groups makes no sense, and keeping an arsenal leads to proliferation.
Disarmament puts the major powers in a stronger position to limit spread
of nuke capability. Of course, if one believe that every country should
get all the nukes they desire, in order to spread MADD to most countries,
that is an entirely different objective. One I would not want our
president, or Congress, to have.
>
> >As we found with Om
> >(spelling?) in Japan, one need not use nukes to spread terror; if they had
> >been more successful, gas attacks could have killed 10s of thousands in
> >the subways.
>
> This makes it OK to use an atomic bomb, because they could just as
> well have used gas? I am sorry, but the analogy escapes me.
Putting words in my mouth, I see. I have been arguing all along that using
nukes to combat terrorist, or countries using to use a few nukes for
blackmail, is a ludicrous proposition. Now I espouse it?
> [edited]
>
> >I have said on this thread that it will take time, and not be perfect or
> >guaranteed. It is still the best option to reduce the possibility of
> >nukes being used.
>
> I am sorry again, but if it is not guaranteed, it will not ever work.
Check you eyeglass prescription Harold. I did not see guaranteed, I said
"not...guaranteed."
> No leader of any country, free or otherwise, will be the second to
> last one to destroy his nuclear weapons. Nor will they destroy theirs
> if they think that someone else is hiding some. Iraq showed how easy
> it is to hide some missiles.
so says you.
> >Their time has passed, as one Pentagon veteran recently
> >told the press.
>
> Oh great, you found a "Pentagon veteran" who is willing to bet his
> life and everyone else's that he can accurately know who has weapons
> and who has not. You have much more faith in the US intelligence
> agencies than I do.
My point is that people from many sectors agree that disarmament makes
sense.
> >Who do you nuke when that splinter group you never heard
> >of sets one off? Better to reduce the supply, and get international
> >agreements that use will completely ostracise, freeze-out, and
> >marginalize any group that wishes to gain by nuclear terrorism.
> >Better idea?
>
> You did not answer the question, how do you "marginalize" the last
> nation or group with atomic weapons? You better hope you do not
> succeed if you start, since this may simply force them to use what
> they have!
I have said so, maybe in another post on this thread. You certainly read
the papers, and can tick off 10 ways in which international political
objectives are accomplished, short of nuclear war.
> >> I think it will not be possible to get rid of nuclear weapons until
> >> there is a defense against them.
> >
> >And this one is not very substantive either. So called "Star Wars"
> >missile defenses are boondoggles, which simply contribute to the arms
> >race.
>
> I was noting a historical fact. You note there are no current
An historical fact starting with "I think..."?
Sounds like an opinion.
> treaties restricting the use of catapults in siege warfare, even
> though this was a problem for hundreds of years. If you think that
> all progress in military hardware will now cease, I hope you are not
> in the majority. Every group that has taken a similar stance in the
> past no longer exists.
Straw man alert. Why do you believe that you can acurately predict what I
think?
> Regards, Harold
> ----
Dave Braun
Subject: Re: The Biodiversity Crisis (was: The Limits To Growth)
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:42:28 -0800
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Elliott Oti wrote:
> Harold Brashears wrote:
> >
> >
> > You have stated there are mass extinctions, which you cannot prove,
> > because you do not know the species involved. Nonetheless you require
> > some effort to stop them these extinctions of unknown species.
> >
> > I will believe you are serious when you drop your internet access and
> > spend your money to save the unknown extinct species.
>
> What's wrong with counting the number of species wholly contained
> within a given area and extrapolating to other similar ecosystems?
>
> I don't believe estimates of any species' numbers anywhere are obtained by
> simply counting snouts; efforts are made to take as many representative
> samples as neccessary, and these numbers are extrapolated to cover the relevant
> territory. If only because it is impossible for an underfunded biologist
> to crawl on his hands and knees across Texas counting every damn fire ant in
> existence there.
>
> I have no idea how many species disappear daily, but if a field ecologist
> says x square kilometres of habitat contain on average y complete species,
> I'm inclined to accept his extrapolation to z square kilometres of
> destroyed forest.
>
> It's the way things are done in other fields, anyway.
> Opinion polls, estimating commercial fish populations, even the subject I
> minored in, astrophysics: to estimate things like the number of stars
> in the galaxy ( anybody think some poor undergrad somewhere sat down to
> count all 400 billion of 'em?) or the rate of formation of stars (even
> undergrads can't wait 12 billion years to watch 'em all forming individually).
>
> Of course, you may not trust statistical methods completely, but
> they *have* come a long way since the days of "lies, damn lies and statistics".
>
> Elliott
> Whi
If I may inject my opinion, Brashears, a scientist himself, is a skeptic
about scientific theories that make predictions he does not like.
That is all well and good, but then he attacks the integrity of the
science, while offering up the exception to the general case, or the
minority opinion, or the uncertainty involved in any theoretical statement
as rebuttal. That is just his style, and not a bad one for promoting
discussion. However, I have interpreted it as propagandizing, and the fur
has flown for my contemptible "ad hominim" attack by calling a spade a
spade. Beware the onset of the bicker-fest.
Dave Braun
>
Subject: Re: The Biodiversity Crisis (was: The Limits To Growth)
From: Jim
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:25:46 -0700
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> I was surprised that Jim Steitz found the book "Extinction Rates"
> entirely irrelevant, preferring to concentrate his attention and ours
> entirely on unknown extinctions. Maybe he is just too lazy to go to
> the library or a bookstore.
>
> He has also argued (at least I think it was he) that humanity's
> progress has involved enormous extinctions everywhere agricultural or
> industrial development has occurred. In so far as most people believe
> his assertions, they will decide that they prefer further development
> even at substantial cost in extinctions of unknown species.
I have not heard of the book "Extinction Rates" (except here.) I will
check it out one of these days, but I do not rearrange my day at John
McCarthy's request. (Personal insult not appreciated.) I have not found
anything "entirely irrelevant", but the extinctions unquestionably going
unnoticed do deserve our attention, because most public focus is on the
plight of a few charismatic species.
Extinction rates in modern times are far greater than those of the past,
due to the sheer level of our exploitation, and to new areas being
opened to human encroachment. This is not "asserting" anything, because
it is a known fact. So, it is not valid to say "it was OK before, so it
is OK now."
Subject: Re: The Biodiversity Crisis (was: The Limits To Growth)
From: Jim
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:44:08 -0700
Harold Brashears wrote:
>
> Jim wrote:
>
> >Harold Brashears wrote:
> >>
> >> Jim wrote:
> >>
> >> [edited]
> >>
> >> >The great majority of extinctions are of species not yet known to man.
> >> >Great numbers are going extinct before they are ever discovered, so you
> >> >can't know "what extinctions are actually occuring", but can make
> >> >numerical projections based on knowledge of rainforest biology.
> >>
> >> That is an interesting technique. You hypothesize some species, then
> >> hypothesize that we must be killing them, then count them as part of a
> >> mass extinction. That is insufficient data for me.
> >>
> >We know beyond a doubt that rainforests harbor many species that have
> >very restricted ranges, only a few of which we have discovered. To say
> >that they don't would be like saying that all the stars or galaxies
> >discovered are the only ones that exist.
>
> That is an interesting analogy, but I do not think that it is
> appropriate here, unless you intend some drastic action as a result of
> the paucity of stars or galaxies.
>
Of course not. My point is that the existence of many unknown species is
undeniable, as are the existence of many unknown galaxies.
> You have stated there are mass extinctions, which you cannot prove,
> because you do not know the species involved. Nonetheless you require
> some effort to stop them these extinctions of unknown species.
>
The term is mass extinction (singular), which is a unique global event
of biodiversity collapse of all families. The current extinction
epidemic certainly qualifies as one, because of the collapse of entire
ecosystems, and all resident species. Humans not having discovered these
species changes nothing. You must bear in mind that "unknown" is not an
objective description of a species, but only of human knowledge of it.
Subject: Re: Mega-malls stormwater runoff
From: artifaxi@aol.com (Artifaxi)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 00:26:54 GMT
>Parking facilities are certainly part of the problem, but so are urban,
>suburban and rural streets and road systems. Which should be targeted
>first? The challenge facing EPA and the states is to assess the vast
>range of threats to water quality due to stormwater runoff and figure
>out how to set requirements for remediation and controls on future
>development. In some areas, controls on new development are in place;
>it's the retrofitting that's problematic, due to the high potential
cost.
Parking facilities seem to offer a better target(ha ha) than do roadways
since you are asking or requiring a single owner or corporation to take
resposibility for his discrete area instead of some road authority or
overlapping municipalities. I don't argue that roads are not just as great
contributors to runoff problems but an effort to strengthen BMP's on
interstates, I don't know, you tell me how it would proceed.
EPA and salaried state and local water officials should dump the politics
and take go-slow policies off the table regarding urban runoff. As is
always the case common urban problems like sewers or trash handling never
are addressed until half the city is dying of yellow fever or some such
catastrophe. The county's rivers will have to be dead before they try to
save them.
>If you mean that there should be specific prescriptions for stormwater
controls,
>treatment systems, etc. at the national level-- there is wide consensus
that such
>a "one size fits all" approach would not be effective. Thus the current
plan to
>have the states and local governments handle more of the specifics.
I have encountered this objection and after some thought I have to say yes
and no. I do think a low cost modular retrofit multi-chamber treatment BMP
is at hand. There have been many demonstration studies. Such retrofits
might be manufactured in mass quantities like model-T's and ganged
together to provide adequate capacity as needed. It looks to me that
parking lot contaminents offer a general group of contaminents to be
controled-sediment bound hydrocarbons, metals maybe a few others. I would
investigate cold weather accessories like a heater and possibly aeration.
This is added to a water quality inlet chamber, a settling chamber and a
sand/carbon filter chamber. Even a partial first flush capacity would
improve stream conditions is implemented.
Thanks for your comments, Bud
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: murray@unico.com.au (Murray Brandon)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 16:02:55 +1100
In article <32DA73A5.3B20@stud.warande.ruu.nl>,
Elliott Oti wrote:
>Er ... I kind of doubt that.
>Not that the reasoning is 100% unsound, but practically all industrialised
>countries are putting the big crunch on anything that smacks of
>population expansion or immigration.
>You can scarcely get into a European country as asylumseeker, the USA
>has all but put machine-gun posts along the border with Mexico to
>keep out immigrants; I don't think most governments have a vested interest
>in pop. increase.
I don't know about in your country, but here in Australia, the government
has a policy of a steadily increasing population. There are encouragements
to families to have children in the form of tax rebates, and no
disincentives to have many kids. In fact, if you're a welfare recipient
already, it pays to have more children to achieve an economy of scale.
The US population is on the up too, for what reason, it doesn't matter.
They allow it, and I doubt environmental concerns play a role
in their population policy at all, having discussed such things with
many street-level Americans while I was there. Such things are not
covered by their education system, at least not any effect.
--
..and God saw Murray's Homepage, and behold, it was bogus..
o, ,o o, o., ox (o_, Murray Brandon
)-' `-( )-' )' )' )_, (murray@unico.com.au)
>\ /< >\ >\ >^ > http://alphalink.com.au/~murray
Subject: Re: The Biodiversity Crisis (was: The Limits To Growth)
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 05:54:36 GMT
Jim Steitz includes:
I have not heard of the book "Extinction Rates" (except
here.)
and
I have not found anything "entirely irrelevant", but the
extinctions unquestionably going unnoticed do deserve our
attention, because most public focus is on the plight of a
few charismatic species.
Extinction rates in modern times are far greater than those
of the past, due to the sheer level of our exploitation, and
to new areas being opened to human encroachment. This is not
"asserting" anything, because it is a known fact. So, it is
not valid to say "it was OK before, so it is OK now."
The authors of the chapters in book Steitz hasn't heard of are the
world's leading experts on extinctions, and the senior editor
Professor Sir Robert May, FRS, is the chief scientific adviser to the
British Government.
Steitz's confidence in what he asserts is misplaced.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
