Spideynw: wilderness: Spideynw: So you would agree that it should not be illegal then to own WMD's? How did you get from my response to this response of yours? I don't see the connection. So you think owning a WMD is a violation of other people's rights?
wilderness: Spideynw: So you would agree that it should not be illegal then to own WMD's? How did you get from my response to this response of yours? I don't see the connection.
Spideynw: So you would agree that it should not be illegal then to own WMD's?
So you would agree that it should not be illegal then to own WMD's?
How did you get from my response to this response of yours? I don't see the connection.
So you think owning a WMD is a violation of other people's rights?
If it is the same as a loaded gun that goes off and always kills innocents that stand it's way then yes. If it fires and doesn't hurt innocents - always - then no.
Edit: Let me rephrase this. It's a black and white question. Is it a loaded gun pointed at an innocent always? Or is it not, meaning, when fired there is the possibility that it will NOT hurt innocents?
You:wmd's are not capable. [of being pinpointed]
Me:I don't see how they can't be pinpointed
If you paid closer attention to sentence structure, you would in fact see that that is what I asked.
How can a thermonuclear device be used only against aggressors? Well if there are only aggressors and their property within a given spacial location, such as the location of the thermonuclear detonation, then it is only aggressors that are killed by the blast and only aggressor's property which is destroyed.
I guess that's not the same as pinpointing, but it's only aggressors who are targeted. There is no collateral damage.
Also, the sources you provided seem to indicate that the radiation level produced by a detonation decreases exponentially over time and the greater the distance from the blast. I just don't see it being a big third-party rights violator.
wilderness: Stephen Forde: I personally think the radioactive fallout problem is exaggerated by an overly imaginative and energetic eonvironmental movement. I'm not an expert though. I know that there is a certain amount of natual radiation in our environment and it is only higher levels of radiation that can lead to health problems. I also think that cleaner weapons could probably be developed. The whole objection is flimsy at best. This and this also this and this has pictures of people (scroll down) oh and don't forget this from previously in the thread you say flimsy without any evidence, I guess I assume too much of the knowledge of some people regarding nuclear fallout, I mean Japan was taught at a young age where I grew up, plus some other known places that have been repeatedly studied, so that's my fault....
Stephen Forde: I personally think the radioactive fallout problem is exaggerated by an overly imaginative and energetic eonvironmental movement. I'm not an expert though. I know that there is a certain amount of natual radiation in our environment and it is only higher levels of radiation that can lead to health problems. I also think that cleaner weapons could probably be developed. The whole objection is flimsy at best.
I personally think the radioactive fallout problem is exaggerated by an overly imaginative and energetic eonvironmental movement. I'm not an expert though. I know that there is a certain amount of natual radiation in our environment and it is only higher levels of radiation that can lead to health problems. I also think that cleaner weapons could probably be developed. The whole objection is flimsy at best.
This
and this
also this
and this has pictures of people (scroll down)
oh and don't forget this from previously in the thread
you say flimsy without any evidence, I guess I assume too much of the knowledge of some people regarding nuclear fallout, I mean Japan was taught at a young age where I grew up, plus some other known places that have been repeatedly studied, so that's my fault....
I think he was specifically referring to long-term fallout claims, which might be exaggerated (ie: causing cancer 20 years later). This is the hormesis vs. no-threshold models of fallout. Obviously, if you're in a city when it's hit by a bomb, the amount of radiation is going to affect you in relation to your proximity in a bad way.
Stephen Forde: You:wmd's are not capable. [of being pinpointed] Me:I don't see how they can't be pinpointed If you paid closer attention to sentence structure, you would in fact see that that is what I asked. How can a thermonuclear device be used only against aggressors? Well if there are only aggressors and their property within a given spacial location, such as the location of the thermonuclear detonation, then it is only aggressors that are killed by the blast and only aggressor's property which is destroyed. I guess that's not the same as pinpointing, but it's only aggressors who are targeted. There is no collateral damage.
nuclear fallout is the wonderment...
Stephen Forde: Also, the sources you provided seem to indicate that the radiation level produced by a detonation decreases exponentially over time and the greater the distance from the blast. I just don't see it being a big third-party rights violator.
Note the first source discusses not only local but world-wide nuclear fallout. And it doesn't state it happens everywhere around the world cause that depends on the weather, but it does move away from the local conditions to some world-wide regions in sporadic motions. But to predicate where, how much, and such is like asking to predicate the weather six months from now, but it has been measured in far off places in food for one, as the article mentioned. It does state worldwide fallout is not as serious as one would get closer to the epicenter. But then I brought up the lasting local effects that do last for decades.
Ryan Magnon: I think he was specifically referring to long-term fallout claims, which might be exaggerated (ie: causing cancer 20 years later). This is the hormesis vs. no-threshold models of fallout. Obviously, if you're in a city when it's hit by a bomb, the amount of radiation is going to affect you in relation to your proximity in a bad way.
"might"... which is why I'm stating I don't think any of us in this conversation know enough of the potential damages. Evidence points to long term local damage and some, though significantly less, world-wide damage. anything else counter to this has been one big "might" or 'personal belief in exaggerations'. I do science differently than those latter.
wilderness: "might"... which is why I'm stating I don't think any of us in this conversation know enough of the potential damages. Evidence points to long term local damage and some, though significantly less, world-wide damage. anything else counter to this has been one big "might" or 'personal belief in exaggerations'. I do science differently than those latter.
Well, if we're all so totally ignorant, they're all "mights", so the possibilities are open. We can't prove it since individuals are prohibited from owning nuclear materials!
Spideynw: Would you agree that making them illegal would not stop people from getting them?
Would you agree that making them illegal would not stop people from getting them?
Of course; but that's irrelevant for the question wether or not it ought to be illegal... Honestly; 2 different questions.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Ryan Magnon: Well, if we're all so totally ignorant, they're all "mights", so the possibilities are open. We can't prove it since individuals are prohibited from owning nuclear materials!
no... nuclear weapons have gone off in the world. The physical particles and their fallout impact have been tested and are testable - they are knowable truths.
wilderness: Spideynw: So you think owning a WMD is a violation of other people's rights? If it is the same as a loaded gun that goes off and always kills innocents that stand it's way then yes. If it fires and doesn't hurt innocents - always - then no. Edit: Let me rephrase this. It's a black and white question. Is it a loaded gun pointed at an innocent always? Or is it not, meaning, when fired there is the possibility that it will NOT hurt innocents?
Spideynw: So you think owning a WMD is a violation of other people's rights?
If the whole planet were criminals, then there would be no possibility of it harming any innocents.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: wilderness: Spideynw: So you think owning a WMD is a violation of other people's rights? If it is the same as a loaded gun that goes off and always kills innocents that stand it's way then yes. If it fires and doesn't hurt innocents - always - then no. Edit: Let me rephrase this. It's a black and white question. Is it a loaded gun pointed at an innocent always? Or is it not, meaning, when fired there is the possibility that it will NOT hurt innocents? If the whole planet were criminals, then there would be no possibility of it harming any innocents.
ok... so hopefully the whole world doesn't turn to the dark side and some true education permeates...
wilderness:ok... so hopefully the whole world doesn't turn to the dark side and some true education permeates...
Prove they have not.
Spideynw: wilderness:ok... so hopefully the whole world doesn't turn to the dark side and some true education permeates... Prove they have not.
I haven't. I choose justice. It is better to not go and start arresting people at this point and doing investigations. I think a mental paradigm shift is first in order - education.
wilderness: Ryan Magnon: Well, if we're all so totally ignorant, they're all "mights", so the possibilities are open. We can't prove it since individuals are prohibited from owning nuclear materials! no... nuclear weapons have gone off in the world. The physical particles and their fallout impact have been tested and are testable - they are knowable truths.
And it's not proven that fallout inhibition follows a no-threshold model or a hormesis model. When I said "We" I meant the people participating in this thread. Do you want to go around in circles again? This is totally digressing from the topic.
Ryan Magnon: And it's not proven that fallout inhibition follows a no-threshold model or a hormesis model. Do you want to go around in circles again? This is totally digressing from the topic.
And it's not proven that fallout inhibition follows a no-threshold model or a hormesis model. Do you want to go around in circles again? This is totally digressing from the topic.
Can you explain those models.
Wikipedia can probably explain it better than I can
Ryan Magnon: Wikipedia can probably explain it better than I can Linear no-threshold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no_threshold_model
Interesting. From what I understand, this model, in it's simplistic definition, is about threshold's of radiation damage from increased amounts (eg. epicenter of nuclear impact) on a range towards decreased amounts (geographical distance is increased or amount is filtered away into smaller doses). It tries to understand the impact I noticed on how cancer can develop, but states neurological damage is a different set of biological conditions and potential smaller doses may not germinate cancer but may germinate brain disorders.
Ryan Magnon: hormesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
And this is about how low doses of a toxin might be positive, but high doses might be negative - but this depends on the toxin, biological organism effected, etc... It seems this doesn't have a great foundation of being well-established in knowledge. So it's either flawed or much more work needs to be done to show how this is true or not.
Ok. Now what were you trying to state about these since I went ahead in defined these terms. First off though, do you agree this is what these terms mean? Secondly, connect that to the current discussion to express your point.
The Constitution says our right to bear arms shall be uninfringed. Therefore I have the right to walk around carrying a nuke.
On the other hand, there is no semblance of justice in this country and the Constitution is treated like a joke. The dying USSA empire uses the law merely as a cudgel for extracting wealth and obedience from the populace. We have more incarcerated per capita than any other country and even those of us who are "free" cannot move away and escape the taxation which follows you to the ends of the Earth.
wilderness: Ryan Magnon: Wikipedia can probably explain it better than I can Linear no-threshold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no_threshold_model Interesting. From what I understand, this model, in it's simplistic definition, is about threshold's of radiation damage from increased amounts (eg. epicenter of nuclear impact) on a range towards decreased amounts (geographical distance is increased or amount is filtered away into smaller doses). It tries to understand the impact I noticed on how cancer can develop, but states neurological damage is a different set of biological conditions and potential smaller doses may not germinate cancer but may germinate brain disorders. Ryan Magnon: hormesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis And this is about how low doses of a toxin might be positive, but high doses might be negative - but this depends on the toxin, biological organism effected, etc... It seems this doesn't have a great foundation of being well-established in knowledge. So it's either flawed or much more work needs to be done to show how this is true or not. Ok. Now what were you trying to state about these since I went ahead in defined these terms. First off though, do you agree this is what these terms mean? Secondly, connect that to the current discussion to express your point.
Sounds about right. I said this is a digression from the current discussion, so I feel bad for even bringing it up, but it was connected to the discussion because someone brought up the claim that reports of the effects of radiation are exaggerated. I don't necessarily believe or disbelieve this, I just thought it was a way to show an alternate point of view. Proponents of hormesis would say that there might be positive benefits from a small amount of radiation, and have statistics they would use to try to prove it. If it were true, this would cancel the argument that a nuclear bomb anywhere would cause adverse effects on the entire planet. The opposite is that a linear model would say that all radiation is bad, setting off a nuke has no benefit and could only cause harm. Therefore, someone on another side of the planet might get some poison from it if the radiation somehow reached them.
Maybe the whole discussion of the nature of the weapon is trivial though (I'm sure there are some here that might think that). The future might bring us weapons of mass destruction that don't have fallout or imprecision, but kill just as many people in one shot.
Ryan Magnon: Maybe the whole discussion of the nature of the weapon is trivial...
Maybe the whole discussion of the nature of the weapon is trivial...
It's not trivial cause it was exactly my point and I'm glad you brought it up. And as I stated earlier I don't think any of us in this thread have the knowledge, thus includes me, of what these models bring up and what else a physicists and a medical scientist could offer to this discussion. I reached into google and brought out evidence of past nuclear events and their impacts from the scientific research and you introduced url's that delve into this further. So a brush-off enacted by simplistically asserting 'exaggeration' doesn't cut it when it comes to doing the science, I agree with you.
Edit: Which actually comes back to full circle, in a way. If we don't know, then does somebody know this for sure when they allow nuclear weapons to be dropped or threatened to be dropped on earth? It's much more precise when it comes to non-nuclear, non-chemical bombs, missile's and/or guns those impacts can be accurate. And therefore if nuclear bomb impacts haven't been reasoned, but instead simply willed (cause of 'em there bad dudes) without scientific deliberation thus another positivist outcome without intellect considerations.
wilderness: And as I stated earlier I don't think any of us in this thread have the knowledge, thus includes me, of what these models bring up and what else a physicists and a medical scientist could offer to this discussion. I reached into google and brought out evidence of past nuclear events and their impacts from the scientific research and you introduced url's that delve into this further. So a brush-off enacted by simplistically asserting 'exaggeration' doesn't cut it when it comes to doing the science, I agree with you. Edit: Which actually comes back to full circle, in a way. If we don't know, then does somebody know this for sure when they allow nuclear weapons to be dropped or threatened to be dropped on earth? It's much more precise when it comes to non-nuclear, non-chemical bombs, missile's and/or guns those impacts can be accurate. And therefore if nuclear bomb impacts haven't been reasoned, but instead simply willed (cause of 'em there bad dudes) without scientific deliberation thus another positivist outcome without intellect considerations.
And as I stated earlier I don't think any of us in this thread have the knowledge, thus includes me, of what these models bring up and what else a physicists and a medical scientist could offer to this discussion. I reached into google and brought out evidence of past nuclear events and their impacts from the scientific research and you introduced url's that delve into this further. So a brush-off enacted by simplistically asserting 'exaggeration' doesn't cut it when it comes to doing the science, I agree with you.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure the claims are exaggerated.
wilderness:If it is the same as a loaded gun that goes off and always kills innocents that stand it's way then yes. If it fires and doesn't hurt innocents - always - then no.
That does not constitute a threat nor a harm, as such, it is not a rights violation.
wilderness:Is it a loaded gun pointed at an innocent always? Or is it not, meaning, when fired there is the possibility that it will NOT hurt innocents?
It is still not a threat nor a harm, as such, it is not a rights violation, and there is no cause of action.
Spideynw: wilderness:If it is the same as a loaded gun that goes off and always kills innocents that stand it's way then yes. If it fires and doesn't hurt innocents - always - then no. That does not constitute a threat nor a harm, as such, it is not a rights violation.
i dont understand your response. wildy described two hypothetical forks. and you dont address either. or formulate your own superiour analysis, but responded to something that you call *that*
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: Spideynw: wilderness:If it is the same as a loaded gun that goes off and always kills innocents that stand it's way then yes. If it fires and doesn't hurt innocents - always - then no. That does not constitute a threat nor a harm, as such, it is not a rights violation. i dont understand your response. wildy described two hypothetical forks. and you dont address either. or formulate your own superiour analysis, but responded to something that you call *that*
He said the same thing, twice, in essence. "That" is a "loaded gun that is so powerful, that whenever used, it kills more than the intended victim". "That" is an object, not a rights violation.
BTW, he referred to it as "it". And I referred to "it" as "that".
ho! so you dont credit him by imagining the gun as someones property, someone who is responsible for any damage caused by it? or have i misunderstood you?
nirgrahamUK: ho! so you dont credit him by imagining the gun as someones property, someone who is responsible for any damage caused by it? or have i misunderstood you?
Um, yes, of course the gun is someone's property (I don't think he made a statement about that though). But just owning a weapon, regardless of whether or not that weapon can target only "victims", is not a rights violation. And yes, a person that uses a weapon to harm another is responsible for the damage.
His argument is that owning a WMD is a rights violation because he is claiming that it will always harm innocent people if used. But that is no different than describing an object, and then claiming it is a rights violation to own that object. That is like me saying, "a ladder always has steps, so it is a rights violation to own one". Having steps is irrelevant to rights, as is the fact that WMD's are weapons of mass destruction.
Are you using a non-Blockian definition of the NAP? "It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another."
where does threatening ever come into the picture?
nirgrahamUK: Are you using a non-Blockian definition of the NAP? "It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another." where does threatening ever come into the picture?
Extortion.
Spideynw: nirgrahamUK: ho! so you dont credit him by imagining the gun as someones property, someone who is responsible for any damage caused by it? or have i misunderstood you? Um, yes, of course the gun is someone's property (I don't think he made a statement about that though). But just owning a weapon, regardless of whether or not that weapon can target only "victims", is not a rights violation. And yes, a person that uses a weapon to harm another is responsible for the damage. His argument is that owning a WMD is a rights violation because he is claiming that it will always harm innocent people if used. But that is no different than describing an object, and then claiming it is a rights violation to own that object. That is like me saying, "a ladder always has steps, so it is a rights violation to own one". Having steps is irrelevant to rights, as is the fact that WMD's are weapons of mass destruction.
1 - gun doesn't always threaten somebody, I've said this already, I even included non-nuclear, non-chemical bombs and missiles in this genus.
2 - a ladder doesn't always threaten somebody
3- The question is: Do wmd's always threaten somebody?
Various applied context has been given, including real-time unfortunate experimentation during and after nuclear impact, thus, fallout included which lead into two models specifically that were brought up and briefly discussed to answer 3. I have even given my opinion which is, 'I don't know enough to answer this fully.' Which lead me to, 'Does anybody including those people that would drop the wmd's?' therefore are they simply positivists willing something without intellectual apprehension of what a wmd impact is.
wilderness:1 - gun doesn't always threaten somebody, I've said this already, I even included non-nuclear, non-chemical bombs and missiles in this genus.
I think we need to clear up something here. No object is ever a threat. A "threat" is, "a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/threat). Just owning a weapon or object is never a threat in and of itself.
wilderness:2 - a ladder doesn't always threaten somebody
And again, no object ever threatens anyone. Only a person can threaten someone. So like I said, all you did was describe the object, and then make the claim that it is a threat, by being an object, which is impossible. If you did not make that claim, please accept my apologies.
wilderness:3- The question is: Do wmd's always threaten somebody?
No, the question is do WMD's ever threaten anyone, and the answer is no, they are not even alive. My guess is the question you are getting at is more likely, "is owning a WMD a threat?" The answer is no, because in order for something to be a "threat", there must be a declaration to use it.
Spideynw: wilderness:1 - gun doesn't always threaten somebody, I've said this already, I even included non-nuclear, non-chemical bombs and missiles in this genus. I think we need to clear up something here. No object is ever a threat. A "threat" is, "a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/threat). Just owning a weapon or object is never a threat in and of itself.
I agree, but it seems to be a whole new ball game with a nuclear weapon. They are constant threats not only during the Cold War but after and continuing currently. This consistency based on mutual assured destruction is apropos. It's based on your argument previously as to why countries that both have them don't use them. The countries themselves understand their impact of destruction. They sign treaties, but signal their ability to use such weapons with continual military testing of such scenarios in which they would use them - and they practice using them not on aliens but on other countries. Governments therefore tell their intentions we don't even need to guess.
Spideynw: wilderness:2 - a ladder doesn't always threaten somebody And again, no object ever threatens anyone. Only a person can threaten someone. So like I said, all you did was describe the object, and then make the claim that it is a threat, by being an object, which is impossible. If you did not make that claim, please accept my apologies.
I'm assuming there are people that would push the nuclear button. They are always at the switch board ready to activate these weapons. Somebody is always behind the trigger (just like a gun pointed at somebody's innocent face).
Spideynw: wilderness:3- The question is: Do wmd's always threaten somebody? No, the question is do WMD's ever threaten anyone, and the answer is no, they are not even alive. My guess is the question you are getting at is more likely, "is owning a WMD a threat?" The answer is no, because in order for something to be a "threat", there must be a declaration to use it.
Governments are always declaring their ability to use them and always have somebody ready to push the button. People are on staff maintaing, exercising, and sitting at the switchboard for if the call comes nobody has to roll out of bed and walk down to the button. It's always on standby with a person in wait. But the difference between a wmd in wait and a gun in wait is the gun when it goes off is more accurate than a wmd. For the latter when it goes off will kill innocents. The gun may or may not. The wmd always killing innocents, knowing somebody is always at the trigger ready to fire.
wilderness:I agree, but it seems to be a whole new ball game with a nuclear weapon. They are constant threats not only during the Cold War but after and continuing currently.
No they are not. You are using the word "threat" too loosely. That is just like saying if I open carry a gun, it is a constant threat to anyone that knows I have it. Big deal. No rights have been violated. It is only considered a rights violation if I use the gun for extortion or actually harm someone.
I guess what has to be clarified is that extortion is the problem, not it being a threat.
wilderness:They sign treaties, but signal their ability to use such weapons with continual military testing of such scenarios in which they would use them - and they practice using them not on aliens but on other countries. Governments therefore tell their intentions we don't even need to guess.
What are you talking about? They test weapons of mass destruction on who?
wilderness:I'm assuming there are people that would push the nuclear button.
And that is still not a rights violation until it is actually pushed or used for extortion.
wilderness:Somebody is always behind the trigger (just like a gun pointed at somebody's innocent face).
No, it is not like someone always pointing a gun at someone's face. It is like someone open carrying. Who cares?
wilderness:But the difference between a wmd in wait and a gun in wait is the gun when it goes off is more accurate than a wmd.
This point is irrelevant. A non-wmd bomb is more precise than a wmd. A gun is more precise than a bomb. A sword is more precise than a gun.
wilderness:For the latter when it goes off will kill innocents.
But until it is actually used to kill people or used for extortion, no rights have been violated.
Spidey, let us consider the following illustrative scenario.
i have a gun with 6 chambers. i put in a bullet. I walk up to you, and choose to play 'russian roulette' with you. you odnt get a say.
so, i pull the trigger one time.
perhaps, either
a) you die, and i should not have shot you.
b) you dont die, and i did nothing wrong.
did I really do nothing wrong by playing roussian roullete with you and you being 'lucky' ? perhaps my threatening you, exposing you to imminent danger, is initiating aggression against you... thoughts?
Do you believe anyone who has the willpower, know-how, and money to build and detonate a nuclear war head gives a shit about if it is illegal or not?
This debate is pointless. If you are irrationally fearful that someone is going to nuke your city, hide under your desk and cover your head.
Spideynw:But until it is actually used to kill people or used for extortion, no rights have been violated.
Agreed.
Just curious, how many of the people in opposition to nuclear ownership grew up during the cold war?
Pablo: Agreed. Just curious, how many of the people in opposition to nuclear ownership grew up during the cold war?
same with guns and russian roullette? or is it a boundary problem, which you can agree russian roullete crosses sides on, and therefore an argument can be made that nuclear weapons may be of similar kind, depending on the contingent circumstances?
wilderness:yes I agree... and a criminal navy ship out in the ocean can be pin-point targeted too... I mean technology today isn't in the stone age.
And a nuclear weapon can't pinpoint a target on the ocean/on a hill/in the desert?
The simple fact is, our traditional weapons can't be pinpointed with enough accuracy to eliminate errors and collateral damage to innocent people either.
nirgrahamUK:depending on the contingent circumstances?
I can agree that ownership of a nuclear weapon can/could constitute an aggressive action. If the intentions of the owner can be shown to be hostile in nature, I would endorse violence against that person. The same as I would endorse violence against a man who was detailing a plan to kill innocent people. I don't believe it necessary to wait until he has already started shooting to intervene. It is similar in nature to 'pointing a loaded firearm at an innocent person with the intention of killing them'.
Spideynw: wilderness:I agree, but it seems to be a whole new ball game with a nuclear weapon. They are constant threats not only during the Cold War but after and continuing currently. No they are not. You are using the word "threat" too loosely. That is just like saying if I open carry a gun, it is a constant threat to anyone that knows I have it. Big deal. No rights have been violated. It is only considered a rights violation if I use the gun for extortion or actually harm someone. I guess what has to be clarified is that extortion is the problem, not it being a threat.
No. The threat is absolutely being used here - no looseness.
Spideynw: wilderness:They sign treaties, but signal their ability to use such weapons with continual military testing of such scenarios in which they would use them - and they practice using them not on aliens but on other countries. Governments therefore tell their intentions we don't even need to guess. What are you talking about? They test weapons of mass destruction on who?
Not on who. They test them for whom (not aliens but people in supposed other countries).
Spideynw: wilderness:I'm assuming there are people that would push the nuclear button. And that is still not a rights violation until it is actually pushed or used for extortion.
It is used for extortion. It's your own argument as to why they aren't used - mutually assured destruction. And thus why governments endlessly sign treaties, bully other countries that may try to get them, etc...
Spideynw: wilderness:Somebody is always behind the trigger (just like a gun pointed at somebody's innocent face). No, it is not like someone always pointing a gun at someone's face. It is like someone open carrying. Who cares?
No. It is like somebody always pointing a gun at someone's face - based on what a nuclear weapons does on impact and somebody is sitting on standby ready to push the push/trigger.
Spideynw: wilderness:But the difference between a wmd in wait and a gun in wait is the gun when it goes off is more accurate than a wmd. This point is irrelevant. A non-wmd bomb is more precise than a wmd. A gun is more precise than a bomb. A sword is more precise than a gun.
No. This is the complete relevance of the argument, which as I've stated, 'Does anybody fully understand the impact of a nuclear weapon and if any innocents would get killed after impact?' That's the question at hand.
Spideynw: wilderness:For the latter when it goes off will kill innocents. But until it is actually used to kill people or used for extortion, no rights have been violated.
No, because it is always a gun pointing at innocents. Somebody is sitting ready to pull the trigger except in the case of a gun it's more accurate and may not kill an innocent. A nuclear bomb will, I believe - does any expert know otherwise?
Pablo: wilderness:yes I agree... and a criminal navy ship out in the ocean can be pin-point targeted too... I mean technology today isn't in the stone age. And a nuclear weapon can't pinpoint a target on the ocean/on a hill/in the desert?
you're way behind in what is being discussed in this thread... I've brought this up but anybody making the argument for nuclear weapons hasn't intellectually tackled this - idk why. Cause it's the heart of the discussion.
Pablo: The simple fact is, our traditional weapons can't be pinpointed with enough accuracy to eliminate errors and collateral damage to innocent people either.
The point is they can be accurate in a desert, but can nuclear weapons be that accurate due to fallout and what I also brought up previously - the area becomes radiated behind human health and thus why I stated this is a question: Do we want perimeter zones set-up that no human is able to enter for centuries or however long it takes for such radiation to reach safe levels again for those places in which tests occurred over 50 years ago are still unhealthy for people? As I've stated this might be out of range of law making such a determination.
Pablo: nirgrahamUK:depending on the contingent circumstances? I can agree that ownership of a nuclear weapon can/could constitute an aggressive action. If the intentions of the owner can be shown to be hostile in nature, I would endorse violence against that person. The same as I would endorse violence against a man who was detailing a plan to kill innocent people. I don't believe it necessary to wait until he has already started shooting to intervene. It is similar in nature to 'pointing a loaded firearm at an innocent person with the intention of killing them'.
exactly and what is happening currently is countries openly threaten nuclear warfare - they don't hide their ability as they sign treaties and run exercise drills which if their nuclear weapons would be fired they would kill innocents and may not even kill the governmental agents that start the wars for they would have been escorted to nuclear fallout shelters upon notice. And may not even kill military arms that have previously devoted their duty is to fight for the governments they join. Would they even tell the rest of their so called country men and women that a nuclear bomb is headed their way? But that's even more stirring of the pot.