Why The Gun Is Civilization

[Rich]

Hwaii?

Darn, have we done it again?

It's south American drawl

 

[Brianwarnock]

Hwaii was stolen from the natives, what's your point again

So was America, Canada, Argentina, infact the one place the Europeans didn't steal from the natives was The Falklands, it was empty when the Norwegians discovered it.

Brian

 

[Rich]

So was America, Canada, Argentina, infact the one place the Europeans didn't steal from the natives was The Falklands, it was empty when the Norwegians discovered it.

Brian

Yes, good point, Stats will have to try again

 

[Pauldohert]

A very good point - but the Nowegians seemed to have nothing to do with it.

If i beleive wikipedia ahead of Brian?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#History

 

[Alc]

If i beleive wikipedia ahead of Brian?

Sacrilege!

 

[statsman]

Hwaii was stolen from the natives, what's your point again

Hawaii was stolen from the natives by the British.

The Americans stole it from the Brits.

If you check the state flag of Hawaii, you may be in for a suprise.

 

[statsman]

So was America, Canada, Argentina, infact the one place the Europeans didn't steal from the natives was The Falklands, it was empty when the Norwegians discovered it.

Brian

England was stolen from the Anglo-Saxons by the Normans.

At one time in history it was perfectly acceptable behaviour to help yourself to your neighbour's country.

If we have advanced past that, maybe we can get past the need to own firearms.

Here's hoping.

 

[GaryPanic]

England was stolen from the Anglo-Saxons by the Normans.

At one time in history it was perfectly acceptable behaviour to help yourself to your neighbour's country.

If we have advanced past that, maybe we can get past the need to own firearms.

Here's hoping.

We are so far away from that date, I wish it was not so, but border problems all over the world, relgious problems , and oil

 

[Rich]

At one time in history it was perfectly acceptable behaviour to help yourself to your neighbour's country.

.

But America still thinks this is acceptable today

 

[Rich]

A very good point - but the Nowegians seemed to have nothing to do with it.

If i beleive wikipedia ahead of Brian?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#History

Norwegians, Dutch, not a lot of difference between the two is there?

 

[Alc]

Having to settle disputes with physical force is so far from being civilized in my beliefs. Humans are supposedly the only animals with the ability to reason, and the only animals which willfully destroy its own enviornment.

In spite of the obvious dangers of being on one end of a gun I hope that I never take the position of it being okay to be on the other end of a gun

Concise and well put.

 

[statsman]

Norwegians, Dutch, not a lot of difference between the two is there?

The Dutch make much better chocolate.
The beer's about even.

 

[statsman]

Having to settle disputes with physical force is so far from being civilized in my beliefs. Humans are supposedly the only animals with the ability to reason, and the only animals which willfully destroy its own enviornment.

Man is the only animal that blushes.....or needs to
Mark Twain

 

[Libre]

I have not read the whole thread, but I did read the 1st post, and some of the replies.
KennHigg, your argument fails because guns do NOT level the playing field, as you wrote. Suppose I accept your premise that reason and force are the only 2 possible factors that motivate human action and interaction. Then the person with the more powerful reason will win over the person with the less powerful reason. Similarly, the person with the more powerful force will win over the less powerful force. That means that there is NOT a level playing field, even with everyone "carrying", and capable of inflicting lethal force. Some will have bigger, more powerful weapons, some will have greater skill with the weapons they have. A slingshot in the hands of a trained assassin will trump an assault rifle in the hands of a frightened office worker.
There is still no level playing field, you've just changed the baseline level to a different elevation.
You may be right about the reason and force idea though. I'll have to think about that.
You could probably reduce that to just reason, as the greater force is a reason for the weaker party to act as directed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

My original point, and I stand on it, is the hesitation factor that ALLOWS someone to stop and think.

No, I don't advocate common carrying of concealed weapons in modern society. I was describing a time past.

Now, we have national-level things that are the equivalent to guns.

They are called sanctions, embargos, etc.

But they are still examples of force used to attempt to sway someone else's thinking.

By the way, earlier in this thread, someone openly wondered if the world hadn't stepped past that stage. With terrorist acts such as 9/11, the Spanish train sabotage, gunmen at the London airports, bombing and assassination in Iraq, etc.... I would say "No, we have not stepped past that stage."

The whole theory of deterrence is that you must force your weaker enemies to realize they CANNOT win - but might find compromise. Having guns DOES INDEED lead you to a war of attrition. But if you can wear down ENOUGH of your enemies, they are the ones who back down.

GWB is so wrong about Iraq that it hurts - yet he's not wrong in what he says (generically) about terrorism. It CANNOT be allowed to operate unchecked. Here's Doc's dictionary for you: Appeasement = delayed surrender. And THAT, my friends, is a hard lesson found in every history book worth reading. You CANNOT negotiate with a terrorist except in the way Bruce Willis did so in The Fifth Element. Negotiate under duress = lose!

 

[dan-cat]

The whole theory of deterrence is that you must force your weaker enemies to realize they CANNOT win - but might find compromise. Having guns DOES INDEED lead you to a war of attrition. But if you can wear down ENOUGH of your enemies, they are the ones who back down.

Attrition and deterrence are mutually exclusive.

 

[Libre]

By the way, earlier in this thread, someone openly wondered if the world hadn't stepped past that stage. With terrorist acts such as 9/11, the Spanish train sabotage, gunmen at the London airports, bombing and assassination in Iraq, etc.... I would say "No, we have not stepped past that stage."

The whole theory of deterrence is that you must force your weaker enemies to realize they CANNOT win - but might find compromise. Having guns DOES INDEED lead you to a war of attrition. But if you can wear down ENOUGH of your enemies, they are the ones who back down.

The "whole theory of deterrence" - whatever that might be - breaks down completely when the opponents have totally different motivations and completely different goals from each other. It only works if you can assume both sides have the same rationality.
If that rationality were to preserve as much life/capability on your side while destroying as much life/capability on the other side, and both sides had that rationality, then deterrence might work.
It would prevent one side from going forward with an attack when it is clear that such an attack would lose more than it would gain. For example, you wouldn't try to kill 20 enemy combatants if you saw you were going to lose 200 in doing so.

We're used to that, and we understand that. That has always worked in the past but now the rules have changed.
And, if you're wrong in your assumption, and you don't acknowledge a new rationality, a new set of rules, then you are making a deadly error.
What if the other side is willing to suffer huge losses, if only to inflict ANY injury on the opposition?
Such is the case with suicide bombers, who sometimes are the ONLY casualties of their acts.
They don't care about deterrence, they've already ignored the greatest (to us) deterrence that there is, namely, the threat to their own life.

And that is the big mistake that we (in the Western world) have been making. We're so ingrained in our mode of thinking that we just can't adjust to a different mode - that of the suicide attacker - and we base our defenses and deterrents on an incorrect assessment of the opponent's fears and motivations.

 

[dan-cat]

And that is the big mistake that we (in the Western world) have been making. We're so ingrained in our mode of thinking that we just can't adjust to a different mode - that of the suicide attacker - and we base our defenses and deterrents on an incorrect assessment of the opponent's fears and motivations.

A good post but I'd like to take you up on this point.

Suicide attacks are nothing new. Kamikaze pilots in World War 2, Hitler had even managed to recruit suicide pilots to bomb the US because they could not design planes to cross the Atlantic and back.

We're told this 'suicide bombing' is new and shocking. Bull. Tell that to the crew of USS Bunker Hill.

Deterrence is powerless without a demonstration. Hence Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Another historical example of why the gun is not civilisation.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Dan whilst agreeing with your comments re suicide bombers I cannot figure your comments on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were not a demonstration for deterrent purposes, but a means of hastening the end of the war to save many allied lives and they possibly saved Japanese lives too.

A gun is a gun, it is merely a tool, neither civilisation nor anything else.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

They were not a demonstration for deterrent purposes, but a means of hastening the end of the war to save many allied lives and they possibly saved Japanese lives too.

I had a long 'discussion' with Rich a while back on this. Having thought about it, I think that what you say is true however I do think the bombings served an additional 'demonstrative' purpose in preparation for the oncoming cold war. Diplomatic attempts to prevent this from happening were kept to a minimum.