• Posty McPostface
    4.3k
    In Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or : How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, is depicted, rather comically, a mad scientist who understands that the doomsday weapon is actually an absolute deterrent against nuclear war. The only misfortune is that nobody knew about it in time as for it to serve its purpose as an absolute deterrent. Some may brush off the whole movie as a dark comedy; but, the threat of nuclear war is as real as it was back then. Make no mistake, a single modern day nuclear tipped submarine is by all means and purposes a version of a 'doomsday weapon' as depicted in that film.

    In another thread I wrote about the logic of the fragile peace that keeps nuclear war from actually happening. Namely, if a country happens to be your enemy and has nuclear weapons with the capability of attacking you, then according to the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine you hold the resources, land, and population of the enemy country hostage as to prevent nuclear war from happening, as do they. As long as the threat is credible and real, peace is assured, according to the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine.

    Now, one must realize that such a situation is on face value repugnant and undesirable. To live in fear of one another is certainly not how we ought to live. Yet, so long as nations cannot live in peace with one another, then virtual annihilation by one madman or mistake becomes more and more likely, and given enough time, inevitable.

    How does one surmount this dilemma?
  • MathematicalPhysicist
    12
    Well it's all about luck that we are still alive and kicking and no one accidentally pushed the button... :-P
  • tim wood
    905
    To live in fearPosty McPostface
    Was there ever a time when there wasn't the possibility of fear? This points me back to a consideration of what you're asking.
    Are you asking about fear or the thing feared? Are you asking for yourself or for "we"?
  • Posty McPostface
    4.3k
    Are you asking about fear or the thing feared? Are you asking for yourself or for "we"?tim wood

    Could you clarify, as I'm not sure what exactly your asking? If you mean fear in general, I wonder if that is the cause for such situations to arise. If that is the case, then how does overcome that fear?
  • Caldwell
    150
    To live in fear of one another is certainly not how we ought to live.Posty McPostface
    I don't know if there's statistical studies done on what we should fear the most. Death by car accident at hundred miles an hour, terminal disease, natural disaster, or nuclear explosion?

    How does one surmount this dilemma?Posty McPostface
    Diplomacy and philosophical principles.
    Yes, I know. Diplomacy is the most maligned political move given the nuclear temperament. And so is mind over matter doctrine.
  • tim wood
    905
    It goes to the question of what the problem is. If it's fear, then there are various therapies. If it's the fact of big bombs as causing fear, then that's your personal version of polio, malaria, leprosy, the black death, gangs, bullies, guns - no end of things-as-facts that can cause fear. If it's the fact of a thing as a fact, then what fear?

    And are you asking on your own behalf, or on the behalf of "us." Usually, fear is personal, to the person experiencing the fear. And the dilemma is? is it how to live in the knowledge of facts that are unpleasant? Or fear that you cannot yourself eliminate the cause of? All of these are different questions that call out for different answers.

    As to fear in general, if you mean a generalized fear that is essentially a fear of nothing in particular, that's usually called anxiety/angst/dread. Again, a matter for some counseling (which we all could use, at one time or another). I'm not calling you out, just sayin' I can't make headway in the face of so many different possibilities.
  • Posty McPostface
    4.3k
    It goes to the question of what the problem is. If it's fear, then there are various therapies. If it's the fact of big bombs as causing fear, then that's your personal version of polio, malaria, leprosy, the black death, gangs, bullies, guns - no end of things-as-facts that can cause fear. If it's the fact of a thing as a fact, then what fear?tim wood

    Just to quell the fears stoked in the OP, our collective aversion for war has kept us more safe than ever in modern history. People are averse to war and rationally, given nuclear weapons, there is nothing to be gained from it. Madmen are spotted on the spot and have a next to nil ability to gain power or influence. Populism, arguably is on the decline, and no sane politician is going to saber rattle another country, at least not in practice (politically maybe yes).

    So, what I have posted is from the source of an overactive mind. Not to be taken too seriously. *Man, am I pontificating, or what?*

    And are you asking on your own behalf, or on the behalf of "us." Usually, fear is personal, to the person experiencing the fear. And the dilemma is? is it how to live in the knowledge of facts that are unpleasant? Or fear that you cannot yourself eliminate the cause of? All of these are different questions that call out for different answers.tim wood

    I hope I answered my half of the question in the previous. What about you?

    As to fear in general, if you mean a generalized fear that is essentially a fear of nothing in particular, that's usually called anxiety/angst/dread. Again, a matter for some counseling (which we all could use, at one time or another). I'm not calling you out, just sayin' I can't make headway in the face of so many different possibilities.tim wood

    Yes, true. I figure it's just some generalized anxiety of some sort, haha.
  • Posty McPostface
    4.3k
    Diplomacy and philosophical principles.
    Yes, I know. Diplomacy is the most maligned political move given the nuclear temperament. And so is mind over matter doctrine.
    Caldwell

    When philosophers become kings, eh?

    Well, given that we require someone with at least some background of education, I tend to think that they can be reasoned with. Does that mean that we need less impulsive and more cool headed leaders? Yes, I think so; but, I don't know what can be done in that regard, speaking of the US, here.
  • tim wood
    905
    Yes, true. I figure it's just some generalized anxiety of some sort.Posty McPostface
    When such a thing gets going, it's no joke. I reckon most folks at one time or another deal with anxiety. Heidegger digs into it in Being and Time to mine it for what it says about being. It's an interesting phenomenon - from a safe distance!
  • Caldwell
    150
    When philosophers become kings, eh?Posty McPostface
    I hope not. Just benevolent advisers would suffice.

    Well, given that we require someone with at least some background of education, I tend to think that they can be reasoned with. Does that mean that we need less impulsive and more cool headed leaders? Yes, I think so; but, I don't know what can be done in that regard, speaking of the US, here.Posty McPostface
    Cool headed, intelligent,benevolent advisers to world leaders. The right arm. Within inches of the leader.
  • TheMadFool
    2.3k
    How does one surmount this dilemma?Posty McPostface

    Well, you seem to forget something very basic - human nature. I know it's a very vague term but I'm referring to general human drives and mentalities.

    You're talking about global destruction and nuclear arms but look how an individual person lives. Harmony in society is maintained through incentive AND deterrence. We incentivize good behavior and deter bad behavior. War is bad behavior and should be deterred.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.