New York Times on the Web Forums Books Features

Favorite Poetry

Contemporary or classic? Sonnet or free verse? What is it about poetry that strikes the imagination -- or turns some people away? To post poems in a single-space format, type (BR) at the end of each line but substitute < > for ( ). This is a "break line" indicator. It will allow the next line to appear right under the previous one, making the poem easier to read.

flyingvprod - 08:30am Sep 23, 2000 EST (#6237 of 6739)
If a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.- Kubrick

From my knowledge of human beings rshowalt; you don't want to lay off the police force, disarm the military, disarm the bomb, nor take guns away from private citizens, and it wouldn't hurt to have a good left hook, and smart attorneys. Art can do a lot of things, but there will always be good and bad, and an eternal struggle. So far as sex, that is easy; there are a lot of lonely people, just find a good one that you have a little certain something special goin' on with, and you should be in good shape.

willy_nilly - 10:43am Sep 23, 2000 EST (#6238 of 6739)

What is this the poetry and nuclear disarmament forum? Two world wars were fought in the first half of the 20th century. None in the second half. Without the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons it's almost certain that we would have had another, and even more terrible, world war.

in the United States most of all

I happen to like the United States, its form of government, and its economic system. It has its flaws, but looking at its potential enemies, I have no doubt who the good guys and the bad guys are. The nuclear shield that the United States provided allowed Western Europe to recover from WWII and eventually to go on to demonstrate in a rather decisive way the superiority of democracy, civil rights, and a relatively free market over Communist totalitarianism.

The threat, though, has not entirely disappeared. Dictatorships such as the one in China have a numerical advantage in population that could pose a serious threat to peace without the shield provided by nuclear weapons. Remember, that government is the heir of governments that just within the last few decades committed genocide against its own people, killing millions of them with no good justification. We may now have reason to believe that things have improved there, but can we rely on trust alone to guarantee that they will treat foreigners any better than they have treated their own people?

"Sir, what is your position on the practicality and morality of first strikes with nuclear weapons?"

I'd never support using nuclear weapons or, for that matter, weapons of any kind against a non-aggressive nation, but any potential aggressor should know that no country in the world will be allowed to use military force to threaten this country. If conventional weapons fail to repel an attack, then nuclear weapons should be considered as a last resort. That certainty in the minds of potential enemies will help to deter war far more than pious platitudes about how awful war is. Even the possibility that nuclear weapons will be used acts as a deterrent.

And to show the utter absurdity of things such as pledges not to use nuclear weapons, does anyone really believe that something like a pledge would stop a political leader who's not stopped by the thought of killing millions of persons?

The technical means to get rid of nuclear weapons, worldwide, forever, are within reach, and not even difficult.

Ridiculous. If by "technical" you mean that it would be technically possible to destroy them, then you've made a meaningless statement. Getting all countries to destroy their weapons and not build new ones in the future would certainly be "difficult." Many countries now have the capability of developing nuclear weapons, and among those countries there are some whose leaders might be willing to use them not only for defense but to get what they want. The most powerful deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons by such persons is to make sure that they know that if they use them, they and their country won't survive long enough to profit from their use. As long as such a threat exists, it's important to keep that nuclear deterrent.

rshowalt - 11:18am Sep 23, 2000 EST (#6239 of 6739)

Flyingvprod says interesting things. I agree with most of them. I'm very far from being a pacifist.

But one can be for ordinary usages of conflict. One might even take some pleasure in violence, as TV assumes people do. One can still be against genocide - especially uncontrollable destruction of the world

I never suggested laying off the police force - that would be a terrible idea. People are dangerous, and protection is necessary. I never suggested disarming the military. People organized in nation states can be very dangerous to other nation states - so military forces are a necessity.

I DO want to eliminate nuclear weapons. What exactly are they good for? Who can be in favor of the only thing they can do?

I'm not so very concerned about private citizens shooting each other one at a time, though it is unfortunate in some cases. It is an out of comparison smaller threat to the world than nuclear weapons.

You wanna try my left hook?

And I surely agree, that with things as they are in the United States of America, a person can have need of smart attorneys.

Just as you say, art can do a lot of things, but there will always be good and bad, and an eternal struggle.

Yes, and that eternal struggle will be much safer with nuclear weapons eliminated. Just because nuclear weapons are so enormously destructive, and the human race so diverse and pugnacious, nuclear weapons should be eliminated.

They can destroy the world.

wolverine137 - 11:23am Sep 23, 2000 EST (#6240 of 6739)
Disco before death.

Someone asked Albert Einstein what WWIII would be fought with, and he replied, I don't know, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.

wolverine137 - 11:28am Sep 23, 2000 EST (#6241 of 6739)
Disco before death.

bdhpoet1: Thanks for tip on Carmi, I'll check it out. The stable countries such as the U.S. do not worry me as much as the rogue nations, and Saddam Hussein has been doing a lot of sabre rattling lately. Sometimes the simplest, purest truths come from the mouths of babes...for truth is really quite pure and simple. No more wars, period.

(498 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Books Features Favorite Poetry