Western Society, Nuclear Arms, CCTV, and other fun stuff

Not sure how this will really end up but whatever.

CCTV is an interesting thing. It psychologically replicates in a society that is noticeably more agnostic/atheistic than it's predominantly religious counterpart the idea of being watched and punishment for "wrong" actions.

Last time I checked, Dallas has this system publicly implemented as well as London.

Major department stores of course have been using them for some time.

Now, lets say this western society thing continues to work.

Great.

Lest say it doesn't.

Not so great.

China is becoming increasingly westernized which can be observed in the major cities of Shenghei, Beijing, and Honk Kong.

Lets say this system becomes less "effective" both at either preventing and/or discouraging crime in a largely atheistic society.

Anarchists begin popping up everywhere who not only want to see the system fail but decide that they need to make it go away for a bit.

The only trick here is: oops the government has nuclear arms.

Kind of hard to rebel against the threat of that, both psychologically and physically. There might be a bluff stand-off, but what happens when the bluff is called?

or is there no bluff?

This scenario would probably only be applicable after the cold war ripple effect wears out and if open rebellion becomes geographically concentrated (like for example, the succession of states from the union.....)

Notice how "smaller" countries are still eager to gain WMD's and people are still flipping ♥♥♥♥ about it. (mostly in the west it seems.)

This is probably why my political psychology text book argues that the global political spectrum can currently be described as being in a Hobbesian state as is described in the Leviathan.


Anyway, I was going to ramble further but that's basically the gist of it.

Rebellion seems like it will never come in the west so long as the powers that be have nuclear arms at their disposal.

Sorry to be a wet blanket. =B

What are your guy's thoughts.

Once the fear of foreign attack (relative to the reader's perspective of course) dies down, shouldn't the world powers be obligated to get rid of them in order to preserve the balance of power between the people and their governments?

Obama is talking about getting rid of nuclear arms, but even without them the balance of power is tilted in favor of the government. The USA's military is extremely powerful and could leave a serious dent in any nation, even its own. You might argue that the members of the military would revolt along with the rest of the country, but not all of them would and America's military is designed so that you could create a powerful fighting force with only a few thousand people, and only a hundred or so would need to be trained. If you have enough people to fly the B52s or man two or three of the Nimitzes then any sort of revolt is in serious danger of being crushed.

^aren't AK 47's legal to own now?

O_o

Originally Posted by Mooncalf

^aren't AK 47's legal to own now?

O_o

You could have a thousand AK's, wouldn't matter when a B52 turns you city into rubble.

^yes good point.

Your opening post is incredibly ramblomatic, so if you could pose a particular question or point of consideration rather than asking us what we think about a stream of consciousness, people would probably have more to say.

^it wasn't stream of consciousness I promise!

(that was going to be a polygamist thread I might or might not be guilty of dreaming of writing.



Basically this is the most realistic and pertinent question to consider:

When nuclear arms are no longer necessary for defending ones country from another, be it in psycological power struggle or in a more practical fashion:

What is to stop the governments from abusing that power against the will of the people?

The government can be whatever you think it will be when that day comes.

Originally Posted by John Henry Eden

Obama is talking about getting rid of nuclear arms, but even without them the balance of power is tilted in favor of the government. The USA's military is extremely powerful and could leave a serious dent in any nation, even its own. You might argue that the members of the military would revolt along with the rest of the country, but not all of them would and America's military is designed so that you could create a powerful fighting force with only a few thousand people, and only a hundred or so would need to be trained. If you have enough people to fly the B52s or man two or three of the Nimitzes then any sort of revolt is in serious danger of being crushed.

So suppose a few states wanted American Revolution/Civil War II and attempted to overthrow the Federal Government...there's nothing they can do as they will just crush the revolt?

Originally Posted by Link the Zora

So suppose a few states wanted American Revolution/Civil War II and attempted to overthrow the Federal Government...there's nothing they can do as they will just crush the revolt?

Unfortunately for any revolutionaries yes. I'd say that for any revolt to stand a chance of success at least 25% of the population would have to participate and this would have to include more than 80% of the military. Anything less than that and they have no hope. This is if we're talking about a post nuclear America. Currently you'd only need one man to utterly destroy any revolt no matter how large it is.

I'd first like to point out that worldwide nuclear disarmament will lead to more wars, not less. The presence of nuclear weapons has prevented several possible wars, and has kept other wars from escalating. In fact, if you wanted world peace, all you would have to do is equip every country in the world with nukes, and the principle of MAD will prevent conventional wars from occurring as frequently. The only flaw would be crazy world leaders (ex. Kim Jong Il) who ignore MAD.

I'd also like to point out that even in the case of a second american civil war, nukes wouldn't be used. Unless the president happened to be really stupid, they wouldn't use nuclear weapons on their own soil, since fallout would likely effect loyal states and possibly Mexico and Canada (depending on which states rebel).

We wouldn't bomb our own country. Ever imho.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

I'd also like to point out that even in the case of a second american civil war, nukes wouldn't be used. Unless the president happened to be really stupid, they wouldn't use nuclear weapons on their own soil, since fallout would likely effect loyal states and possibly Mexico and Canada (depending on which states rebel).

Still the fact that the Govt. has them is quite frightening and could discourage people from revolting, plus we don't know what a future president might do if he gets desperate.

What the hell does atheism have to do with this thread?

and western society according to whom?

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

I'd first like to point out that worldwide nuclear disarmament will lead to more wars, not less. The presence of nuclear weapons has prevented several possible wars, and has kept other wars from escalating. In fact, if you wanted world peace, all you would have to do is equip every country in the world with nukes, and the principle of MAD will prevent conventional wars from occurring as frequently. The only flaw would be crazy world leaders (ex. Kim Jong Il) who ignore MAD.

^that's a pretty big "if" if you ask me.

M.A.D. probably won't work for ever, and if/when it ceases to work it will be....

not pretty.

(^understatement.)

With M.A.D in place you've pretty much guaranteed that for a country to "feel like" a player on the global field, they have to own nukes.

It's like a bad meme being repeated over, and over, and over, and over,....
etc.......

Country westernized, country feels good about itself for a bit.
country isn't happy anymore.
country wants more power.
country makes nukes
crazy leader somehow gets into power.
everyone gets pissed off again.
etc......

^that's the theory of M. A. D at work.

Even if it prevents all out nuclear war, M. A. D. just prevented all-out war and gave us, not peace, but spattered proxy wars that people weren't entirely happy about.

I'd also like to point out that even in the case of a second american civil war, nukes wouldn't be used. Unless the president happened to be really stupid, they wouldn't use nuclear weapons on their own soil, since fallout would likely effect loyal states and possibly Mexico and Canada (depending on which states rebel).

^again, a big if. (I mean it's not like.....it hasn't happened before....)

Originally Posted by Anann

What the hell does atheism have to do with this thread?

and western society according to whom?

aww I was wondering when you'd come out of the shadows.

I thought I explained it already about the atheism bit. but it's not that relevant anymore really .

Western society according to mooncalf, but we can use a different word if it best suits your needs or if you find the word either less than suitable or not sufficiently descriptive.

I don't mean for it to sound like I'm wanking off for the sake of the Euro-americans vs Pan-asia and/or Russia, but:

in my mind when I say westernized I mean:

is industrializing: is building very tall buildings, is rapidly becoming industrialized and/or capitalistic/free market, is developing increasingly complex infrastructures (both politically, economically, and socially), is dealing with things like environmental ethics due to the inevitable destruction of ecosystems from said "westernization", and other fun stuff.

^whether or not those are "good and/or bad" things is relative to the reader.

I'd rather be an amazonian shaman and talk to animals, to be honest.

*edit*

oh, I forgot North and South Korea.

That's a nation that's been torn in two:

all thanks to M. A. D. ...ness ........

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

We wouldn't bomb our own country. Ever imho.

I agree. I'm not sure how America would go to war with itself again. I think the reason we don't have to worry about this is because any revolt would have been crushed within a few weeks and we've learned our lessons from the first Civil War. Do we really want to go through that experience again?

I think nukes itself, ironically, is keeping us from WWIII. Who's going to be sane enough to press the button that destroys the world?

Originally Posted by Link the Zora

Who's going to be sane enough to press the button that destroys the world?

err...the Iranian president?


*waits to be called a muslim hater by a very large Iranian woman in an overly skinny burka*

no, but seriously.

a presidential puppet figure being run by an overly manipulative vice president and a couldn't-give-a-**** think-tank would do the trick nicely.

when you have nothing to lose, everything, to gain, and a lot of bore dome to cure, suddenly pushing a shiny red button can seem like a really good idea.



pertinent movie is pertinent.

Originally Posted by Link the Zora

I agree. I'm not sure how America would go to war with itself again. I think the reason we don't have to worry about this is because any revolt would have been crushed within a few weeks and we've learned our lessons from the first Civil War. Do we really want to go through that experience again?

I think nukes itself, ironically, is keeping us from WWIII. Who's going to be sane enough to press the button that destroys the world?

Peaceful rebellion is the only thing that will work, the US military is relatively unbeatable, especially for some rebels. Even if they create a new nation, the original US will still have all the power and it would be illogical to mess with them.

The Iranian President. Although is less likely since most nations DO have something to lose, which is why the bigger threat comes from the tiny factions.

Originally Posted by Mooncalf

Basically this is the most realistic and pertinent question to consider:

When nuclear arms are no longer necessary for defending ones country from another, be it in psycological power struggle or in a more practical fashion:

What is to stop the governments from abusing that power against the will of the people?

The government can be whatever you think it will be when that day comes.

Firstly the simple fact that using such a weapon would probably increase the chance of revolution. For an example in fiction, the Galactic Empire from Star Wars probably only had reasonably mild dissent from relatively small groups of rebels before the use of the Death Star. Building the station and having it there was bad, but using it on Alderaan only rallied more people behind the Rebellion. Likewise, there may be dissent, but nuking the base of dissent, if it resulted in civilian casualties, would inevitably result in further outcry until the cause of maintaining order and power was lost by its sheer pointlessness.

Secondly the fact that it's no fun being a dictator if you nuke so many civilians, because you have no one to rule over.

But I've posed a similar idea before, partly in jest - a total Zero Tolerance policy on crime and dissent in general, to the point of nuking a small city if even a single crime such as theft is reported. Demonstrate a willingness to nuke your own people to maintain law and order, demonstrate that there is no price you're willing to pay, demonstrate that it's not tyranny you want, but order. My above propositions rely on the idea that such a government would thrive on ruling its own people and was serving its own interests, as such meaning that a nuclear attack on its own people would not serve its interests. Effectively this means that the people could hold themselves to ransom. My idea here suggests that instead of ruling for the sake of ruling, instead of power for the sake of power, I'd be ruling for the sake of maintaining order, and as such if people were to say "if you kill us you'll have no one to oppress", I can simply respond with "I'm not here to oppress".

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

I'd first like to point out that worldwide nuclear disarmament will lead to more wars, not less. The presence of nuclear weapons has prevented several possible wars, and has kept other wars from escalating. In fact, if you wanted world peace, all you would have to do is equip every country in the world with nukes, and the principle of MAD will prevent conventional wars from occurring as frequently. The only flaw would be crazy world leaders (ex. Kim Jong Il) who ignore MAD.

You underestimate the power of insanity.

I'd also like to point out that even in the case of a second american civil war, nukes wouldn't be used. Unless the president happened to be really stupid, they wouldn't use nuclear weapons on their own soil, since fallout would likely effect loyal states and possibly Mexico and Canada (depending on which states rebel).

You forget the fact that we now (I believe) have clean nuclear bombs that simply burn.

Are you referring to thermonuclear bombs? If so, fallout is actually worse. a lot worse. I don't know all the science behind them, but I think they use fusion, which allows for the epicenter to be as big as they want it. If not, then I want to know what the new toy is

Originally Posted by kman7100

Are you referring to thermonuclear bombs? If so, fallout is actually worse. a lot worse. I don't know all the science behind them, but I think they use fusion, which allows for the epicenter to be as big as they want it. If not, then I want to know what the new toy is

I think it's H-bombs or something actually. I know I remember hearing about a clean nuclear bomb that simply burns immensely but with no nuclear fallout in my chemistry classes of yesteryear.