wilderness: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.
I completely understand the worry that comes with a state owning nuclear weapons. If I were to be able to choose, no state would own a nuclear weapon.
Now, whether or not testing of a weapon constitutes an open threat is where we have a disagreement. Would target practice with a handgun also be considered an open threat? If I lease a man a home, and I open carry a handgun - with which I practice every day - would it be feasible for that man to say he was coerced into the signing of the contract?
Obviously the situation is different when it comes to states and/or people who have violent intentions. This difference changes our example, from myself, to... Charles Manson - someone who has used violence against an innocent person in the past, and is intending to do so again in the future. It becomes a much more likely scenario that his carrying of a weapon could constitute coercive behavior. I don't think it is the specific action that is being taken, but rather the intentions of the person with the weapon.
Perhaps I misread your argument. You are not stating that certain countries have openly threatened nuclear warfare in a literal sense, are you? If so, please provide evidence.
wilderness: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
They have a high potential to cause massive amounts of pollution. This can be dealt with the same way all pollution is dealt with in a voluntary society.
Pablo: wilderness: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. I completely understand the worry that comes with a state owning nuclear weapons. If I were to be able to choose, no state would own a nuclear weapon. Now, whether or not testing of a weapon constitutes an open threat is where we have a disagreement.
Now, whether or not testing of a weapon constitutes an open threat is where we have a disagreement.
It comes down to that. Do you think when a nuclear weapon goes off it will automatically kill innocents, fallout, persistent radiation, etc... Comparing this to a handgun is missing the natures of these two weapons, obviously a hand gun may not automatically kill an innocent.
Pablo: Perhaps I misread your argument. You are not stating that certain countries have openly threatened nuclear warfare in a literal sense, are you? If so, please provide evidence.
It's not that countries are at defcom 1 so in that sense no. But these arbitrary stages are more similar to a person holding a gun and counting from 5 to 1 because somebody is always at the trigger of a nuclear weapon. Though they haven't counted down to 1, they are at five already. Whereas somebody with a gun isn't necessarily even at 5. They haven't started counting towards anybody. Like your target range or holding a gun in the open. It's what the gun does and what the nuclear weapon does that is under deliberation. A gun doesn't necessarily kill innocents but a nuclear weapon may necessarily kill innocents (meaning no way around it when the trigger is pulled). Simply having a nuclear weapon sitting in a silo isn't the same as a gun sitting on a bed for the nuclear weapon in a silo is pointed towards a destination with somebody on stand to push the trigger.
Pablo: wilderness: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 They have a high potential to cause massive amounts of pollution. This can be dealt with the same way all pollution is dealt with in a voluntary society.
yet I linked examples of nuclear radiation not having disappeared in places and the U.S. even needing to provide money to those in the Marshall Islands that have been impacted by a nearby test. Are they not cleaned up cause they can't be or not cleaned up cause nobody wants to? Idk. lots of variables...
nirgrahamUK: 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?
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?
You are initiating violence against the person. You have a 1 in 6 chance of intentionally bringing harm to them.
Scenario: Take the same person, same gun. I have all six chambers loaded, and instead I stood 15 yards back. My accuracy at this range is 1 in 6 shots hitting. Forget the fact of collateral damage caused by missed bullets. Would this constitute aggression? What if I only shot once, and missed? Clearly we are in agreement that intentionally placing an innocent person in a potentially harmful situation without their permission is aggression.
We also have to secede the fact that in some cases, this is not aggression. Take a circus of knife throwers for example. Obviously risk is being applied, but their is no violence. This is due to the 'with their permission' portion of the statement.
In order for an act to be aggressive it needs to satisfy all of the following:
1) Originate from a living entity
2) Have potential for harm
3) Be against an unwilling target(s)
4) Be intentional *
If any of these are not satisfied, it is not 'violence'.
*If #4 fails to be satisfied, it would be considered collateral damage, similar to a 'manslaughter' vs a 'murder' charge.
wilderness: yet I linked examples of nuclear radiation not having disappeared in places and the U.S. even needing to provide money to those in the Marshall Islands that have been impacted by a nearby test. Are they not cleaned up cause they can't be or not cleaned up cause nobody wants to? Idk. lots of variables...
If a person who has been adversely affected by anothers waste/pollution, they have every right to make themselves whole by litigation. If those in the Marshall Islands have not properly been made whole by the testors of the nuclear weapon, I encourage them to do so.
Could you clarify why this pollution issue bears any special weight from other pollutant issues?
Pablo: wilderness: yet I linked examples of nuclear radiation not having disappeared in places and the U.S. even needing to provide money to those in the Marshall Islands that have been impacted by a nearby test. Are they not cleaned up cause they can't be or not cleaned up cause nobody wants to? Idk. lots of variables... If a person who has been adversely affected by anothers waste/pollution, they have every right to make themselves whole by litigation. If those in the Marshall Islands have not properly been made whole by the testors of the nuclear weapon, I encourage them to do so. Could you clarify why this pollution issue bears any special weight from other pollutant issues?
Cause if said pollution is known to do A, but polluter does A anyway thinking they can simply pay for any damages with money isn't enough if A is known to kill innocents but they go and do A anyways.... It is known if A absolutely does such - but that's the question - does A absolutely kill or harm people? Whereas in other pollution scenarios ill-will may be avoided and therefore may not absolutely kill or harm others.
wilderness:It comes down to that. Do you think when a nuclear weapon goes off it will automatically kill innocents, fallout, persistent radiation, etc... Comparing this to a handgun is missing the natures of these two weapons, obviously a hand gun may not automatically kill an innocent.
I will grant this- a nuclear weapon has far greater potential of causing collateral damage than does a traditional weapon. Though, I do not believe it is true that they can not detonate without causing collateral damage. Historically, traditional weapons have caused more collateral damage due to their frequency of use than any nuclear weapon. We are looking at degrees, not an entirely different object.
Pablo: wilderness:It comes down to that. Do you think when a nuclear weapon goes off it will automatically kill innocents, fallout, persistent radiation, etc... Comparing this to a handgun is missing the natures of these two weapons, obviously a hand gun may not automatically kill an innocent. I do not believe it is true that they can not detonate without causing collateral damage.
I do not believe it is true that they can not detonate without causing collateral damage.
Do you know for sure? That's what I'm talking about. I think you understand now. Not only you, but does anybody? Or would people simply trigger them inclining their will without an adequate reason as to the effects? idk...
I agree withyour analysis and I think it indicates that the default position on nuclear weapon ownership is that it is illegitimate. it would only be legitimate in logically possible, but highly unusual circumstances. it is not per se illegitimate, but typically illegitimate
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
wilderness:Whereas in other pollution scenarios ill-will may be avoided and therefore may not absolutely kill or harm others.
So, your fundamental disagreement with nuclear weapons is if a pollutor should be held accountable for potential harm (death), caused by an intentional action of a living being, to an unwanting target? See my prior post. He has openly initiated violence, and should be held responsible to the DRO's/PDA's/VoluntaryGovernments of the aforementioned harmed person.
A nuclear weapon is still only a weapon. The simple act of owning one does not constitute violence. An intention of using one, or a threat of using one can be handled in the same way as a traditional weapon.
pablo, i think its less ownership thats at stake, as to location and imminent threat to innocents. i.e feel free to own as many nuclear weapons as you like, if they are stationed across the other side of the solar system. you want to bring a nuclear weapon within a few kilometeres of my home, we have a problem. this is like you playing russian roullette with me in the room. feel free to play russian roullete with just you in the room, but i am there too. cut it out :-o
Pablo: wilderness:Whereas in other pollution scenarios ill-will may be avoided and therefore may not absolutely kill or harm others. So, your fundamental disagreement with nuclear weapons is if a pollutor should be held accountable for potential harm (death), caused by an intentional action of a living being, to an unwanting target? See my prior post. He has openly initiated violence, and should be held responsible to the DRO's/PDA's/VoluntaryGovernments of the aforementioned harmed person. A nuclear weapon is still only a weapon. The simple act of owning one does not constitute violence. An intention of using one, or a threat of using one can be handled in the same way as a traditional weapon.
but if we know for sure that when a nuclear weapon goes off it will absolutely kill innocents (which isn't the case with non-nuclear bombs and guns) with somebody at the helm ready to push the trigger, then I think there is an explicit intent for those holding the weapons are not openly stating the nuclear weapons are for aliens (whereas in space it is possibly they wouldn't harm innocents) whereas an impact on earth (which governments state the weapons are for) will absolutely kill innocents (again other bombs and guns are not absolutely going to harm or kill innocents).
nirgrahamUK:pablo, i think its less ownership thats at stake, as to location and imminent threat to innocents. i.e feel free to own as many nuclear weapons as you like, if they are stationed across the other side of the solar system. you want to bring a nuclear weapon within a few kilometeres of my home, we have a problem. this is like you playing russian roullette with me in the room. feel free to play russian roullete with just you in the room, but i am there too. cut it out :-o
I think I might be understanding what you are saying now.
Are you concerned with the stability of the nuclear weapon? Hmm. If thats so, my appologies for not understanding the analogy.
yes, thats a big part of it. stability of the weapon.
nirgrahamUK: yes, thats a big part of it. stability of the weapon.
i agree with that as well... big part.
wilderness:but if we know for sure that when a nuclear weapon goes off it will absolutely kill innocent
We do not know this. All weapons are capable of causing, and not causing, collateral damage. It is a degree as to how much. It is not a different object.
Those who have intentions of bringing harm to innocent people should not be given any type of weapon, be it nuclear, or traditional. Hell, they shouldn't even be given access to sticks and stones.
Those who have no intention of bringing harm to innocent people should not be considered violent under any definition. Thus, no one can claim a defensive use of force against that person. Any restriction of that persons property ownership would be considered violence against that person.
I understand the difference of opinion here, and fully respect your wishes to obtain a nuclear free world. We must remember, however, that others have different viewpoints. As long as those viewpoints do not necessitate violence, violence should not be used as a response.
There are thousands of incredibly intelligent people on these forums, and hundreds of millions of others across the world who share your same viewpoint. I'm confident that we can figure out a solution to obtaining a nuclear free world without initiating violence.
Pablo: wilderness:but if we know for sure that when a nuclear weapon goes off it will absolutely kill innocent We do not know this.
We do not know this.
that's my point... we don't know this. Does anybody? I know for sure that when a gun goes off that it will or will not kill or harm an innocent. But I don't know for sure and I don't know if any person alive knows for sure that a nuclear weapon will or will not kill or harm an innocent.
Pablo: All weapons are capable of causing, and not causing, collateral damage.
All weapons are capable of causing, and not causing, collateral damage.
Do you know absolutely that a nuclear weapon absolutely does not cause collateral damage on earth in some instances?
Pablo: I'm confident that we can figure out a solution to obtaining a nuclear free world without initiating violence.
I'm confident that we can figure out a solution to obtaining a nuclear free world without initiating violence.
this inquiry would lead to why justice would or would not be on the side of a PDA that tried to rid nuclear weapons whether from the governments or private individual(s)... It is a question of truth and justice... I wouldn't want to rid nuclear weapons if true justice wasn't on my side. I wouldn't want it to be a matter of opinion, but rather universally warranted.
Its an interesting point. I'd have to give it a little thought before coming to a conclusion on how it could be handled. Obviously, I'm not a scientist, I am not familiar with the stability of a nuclear warhead. I'd imagine it would be pretty unstable.
Off the top of my head.. this is what I've come up with.
Most roads, residential and commercial properties, parks, and just about anything I can think of would have an expressive 'no nuclear ownership' clause. I know for certain, if I lease a peice of property, I would not want something as dangerous as a nuclear weapon on it. If I was selling a subdivision, I would make sure to include contract stipulations restricting nuclear ownership, right next to 'biological and chemical hazards', and '50 foot front yards'.
wilderness: Pablo: All weapons are capable of causing, and not causing, collateral damage. Do you know absolutely that a nuclear weapon absolutely does not cause collateral damage on earth in some instances?
As with any weapon, the only person who can claim damage has been done, is those who have been damaged and/or those who are directly responsible for those persons. So, to answer your question, I can not know.
wilderness: I wouldn't want it to be a matter of opinion, but rather universally warranted.
It will never be universally warranted. Also, I was not suggesting that a PDA attempt to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Rather, I am suggesting alternatives that have not been imagined yet. Perhaps some sort of charity which purchases and dismantles nuclear weapons? Maybe a 'nuclear watchdog' program which indicates who has a nuclear weapon, and releases that information to the public, initiating boycotts on that person? There are countless ways to achieve your ends without the possibility of violence.
wilderness:It is a question of truth and justice
To be frank, it is not a question of truth and justice. It is a question of preferences. Your preferences for no one having nuclear weapons. An understandable preference, which is held by many. None the less, it is still a preference.
I have demonstrated that owning a nuclear weapon does not satisfy the definition of an initiation of violence. You have not shown any evidence that the initiation of violence to relieve one of his nuclear weapon can be considered 'just'. You have not made the distinction between a nuclear weapon and a traditional weapon, except for the varying degree of destruction. Why do you agree with ownership of a traditional missile, and not a nuclear missile? Both have the capacity to cause widespread collateral damage, are potentially unstable, and can easily be used in threatening manners.
wilderness:It is used for extortion.
But just having one is NOT extortion. It may be used for extortion, in which case it is a violation of rights. But just by owning one does not mean it is being used for extortion. As such, there is no rights violation by just owning one.
wilderness: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.
No it is not the same. Regardless, using your analogy, how far away must someone be from the button for it to not be considered "pointing it at everyone's head"? If I am carrying a gun, it is only a few seconds for me to get it out of the holster and point it at someone's head? So if someone is in one room away from the "button", is that far enough?
wilderness: 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.
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.
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.
No it is not, as I have shown above.
wilderness: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.
Here you go describing the object again. An objects attributes are irrelevant to whether or not a right has been violated.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Pablo: Why do you agree with ownership of a traditional missile, and not a nuclear missile? Both have the capacity to cause widespread collateral damage, are potentially unstable, and can easily be used in threatening manners.
Why do you agree with ownership of a traditional missile, and not a nuclear missile? Both have the capacity to cause widespread collateral damage, are potentially unstable, and can easily be used in threatening manners.
Because I wonder if nuclear weapons can explode without harming or killing innocents... I know that traditional missiles can explode without killing innocents.
Spideynw: wilderness:It is used for extortion. But just having one is NOT extortion. It may be used for extortion, in which case it is a violation of rights. But just by owning one does not mean it is being used for extortion. As such, there is no rights violation by just owning one. wilderness: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. No it is not the same. Regardless, using your analogy, how far away must someone be from the button for it to not be considered "pointing it at everyone's head"?
No it is not the same. Regardless, using your analogy, how far away must someone be from the button for it to not be considered "pointing it at everyone's head"?
That's a good question and does bring into question any justification for ridding nuclear weapons based on presence only. What would you say if somebody was sitting at the helm ready to push the button, as is probably happening currently in the U.S. or some other country (maybe India and Pakistan)?
wilderness:Because I wonder if nuclear weapons can explode without harming or killing innocents... I know that traditional missiles can explode without killing innocents.
I've stated that any weapon can have collateral damage. Any weapon can also not have collateral damage. This all depends on where the weapon is used.
On a positive note- Nuclear weapons have a deterent factor which allows them to very very seldomly be used. No one attacks someone that has nuclear war heads.
Pablo: wilderness:Because I wonder if nuclear weapons can explode without harming or killing innocents... I know that traditional missiles can explode without killing innocents. I've stated that any weapon can have collateral damage. Any weapon can also not have collateral damage. This all depends on where the weapon is used.
That's what I've been asking. So you do think wmd's can explode without hurting innocents on earth.
Correct.
nirgrahamUK:did I really do nothing wrong by playing roussian roullete with you and you being 'lucky' ?
First of all, I will assume you are not trying to setup a strawman, given I never claimed putting a loaded weapon to someone's head and pulling the trigger was OK.
Anyways, I would consider putting a loaded gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger would be a right's violation.
nirgrahamUK:perhaps my threatening you, exposing you to imminent danger, is initiating aggression against you... thoughts?
I would agree with you, that it is initiating aggression. It is the same as if someone fired a gun at someone and missed. Just because you missed, does not mean a right was not violated. Anyways, what are you getting at?
Pablo: Correct.
So you think a WMD could ever legitimately be used?
Spideynw: Pablo: Correct. So you think a WMD could ever legitimately be used?
Possibly. It is not very likely however. If a large voluntary population was living in a close geographical region and was funding violence, it may be possible. The chances of there being no innocent peoples who would be damaged is very slim. I think nuclear weapons are a bad idea, but I won't take them away from people who aren't threatening with them.
Pablo:Possibly. It is not very likely however. If a large voluntary population was living in a close geographical region and was funding violence, it may be possible. The chances of there being no innocent peoples who would be damaged is very slim. I think nuclear weapons are a bad idea, but I won't take them away from people who aren't threatening with them.
Would you not have to collect evidence on all of them first? And then have a trial?
I myself do not think they can ever justifiably be used. However, I also do not think there is any way to protect against them without having them yourself as well and be willing to use them. The invention is quite the conundrum.
Spideynw: Pablo:Possibly. It is not very likely however. If a large voluntary population was living in a close geographical region and was funding violence, it may be possible. The chances of there being no innocent peoples who would be damaged is very slim. I think nuclear weapons are a bad idea, but I won't take them away from people who aren't threatening with them. Would you not have to collect evidence on all of them first? And then have a trial? I myself do not think they can ever justifiably be used. However, I also do not think there is any way to protect against them without having them yourself as well and be willing to use them. The invention is quite the conundrum.
I'm not sure how it would all work out. It all depends on the DRO's of each group/individual. More likely than not, evidence and a trial would be a good idea to prevent being ostracized from other members of society.
I think nuclear weapons would become a thing of the past if/when a voluntary society emerges. They are too costly, too indescriminate, and would not be useful for defense. Nuclear weapons are a state apparatus. Owners of them would be ostracized heavily. Nuclear Weapon Awareness is the best bet in eradicating them.