• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time to kick Iran

Ziggurat said:
Killing someone with a nuclear weapon is not morally different than killing them with conventional bombs. We killed more Japanese civilians with conventional bombs than with nuclear weapons. And what, exactly, does "unsuspecting" have to do with it? Is it really better to tell someone you're going to kill them before you kill them? Or is that only a requirement for using nukes?
Click to expand...

I do not want to snter in the polemic for or against the right of use of the nuclear weapons by the Americans in 1945, just want to show an alternative opinion ( the Japaneses` one ):

Abe has also been appeasing pacifists in Japan after his former defense minister, Fumio Kyuma, was forced to resign in July after suggesting that the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were unavoidable.

http://www.live-pr.com/en/japan-to-mark-war-anniversary-amid-r20411.htm

I am living in Japan, and they did not oust him, they really kicked his ass very very hard.
For one day, the word " shouganai " ( = it can not be helped ) was written at every hour in every channel.
 
Ziggurat said:
What if pigs could fly? Doesn't matter what they might or might not do in a situation that will not happen.
Click to expand...

That does not prevent the US to go out, and tell the world " we are ready to give up nukes, if everybody agrees "


Ziggurat said:
What you and so many other proponents of disarmament fail to realize is that the incentive for dictatorships and rogue states to acquire nuclear weapons would increase, not decrease, if the existing nuclear powers disarmed.
[..]
Click to expand...

No.
Rogue states ( basically, two or three and very weak economically and militarily countries ) can not do anything if the big powers of the world are determined to have a world free of nukes.
 
Ziggurat said:
Indeed. Stalin and Mao didn't choose their victims on the basis of religion, but they still murdered tens of millions.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the American pioneers, and what they did with the native Americans.
Also, what the Turks did with the Armenians in the 1920s.
What the Spanish conquistadores did with the Maya little bit before..
And what the Romans did with all the states they conquered about 1500 to 2300 years ago.
And, I am forgetting many..
 
Matteo Martini said:
That does not prevent the US to go out, and tell the world " we are ready to give up nukes, if everybody agrees "
Click to expand...

And there's no chance in hell everybody would. China, for example, can maintain a sort of military parity with the US as long as they have nukes. Give that up, and they're at our mercy. So why the hell would they ever do that? They won't. So why the hell should we be making useless, empty gestures? Just to make ourselves feel morally superior? Sorry, but I really can do without that sort of pandering.

No.
Rogue states ( basically, two or three and very weak economically and militarily countries ) can not do anything if the big powers of the world are determined to have a world free of nukes.
Click to expand...

How foolishly naive you are. How, pray tell, can we do that? Are you aware that the IAEA has never, in its entire history, discovered a clandestine nuclear weapons program? And even for countries you might not classify as "rogue" states, such as Pakistan, why on earth would they ever give up their nukes? Because we did? That's laughable: that's all the more reason to keep their nukes. The less power we have, the more relative power nukes represent, and the greater the incentive to obtain them. In the real world, disarmament on the part of the US won't lead to anyone else disarming.
 
Matteo Martini said:
I did not say " disarms ", I said " get rid of nukes, and bilogical and chemical weapons ".
I can not see why this should be impossible a priori
Click to expand...
Disarmament, in this context means WMD.

Everyone getting puppies and shiny new cars is not impossible either.
Israelis and Palestinians having mass orgies together isn't impossible either.

They're just not very reasonable.
 
Matteo Martini said:
I do not want to snter in the polemic for or against the right of use of the nuclear weapons by the Americans in 1945, just want to show an alternative opinion ( the Japaneses` one ):
Click to expand...

The thing is, that's motivated by nothing more than an emotional response, not a rational one. The question for this thread isn't about whether or not we should have, in that particular instance, used nuclear weapons. The question is whether there's any significant difference between using nukes and using conventional bombing which accomplishes similar levels of destruction. And I've seen no rational argument that there is, whether or not we should have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had we not nuked Japan, but instead sent more massive waves of conventional bombing, we might instead be having a debate about whether the firebombing of Hiroshima was justified or not. And the answer to that question, or the one you refer to, is actually irrelevant to my point.
 
Ion said:
By learning topology.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. Your link explicitly refutes the point you were trying to make, as the quotes I provided demonstrate. Why on earth would you present a source which contradicts your claims, unless you never understood the subject to begin with? Are you honestly trying to claim that you read through that entire paper, missed the quotes I posted, and came to the exact wrong conclusion? Sorry, but that's simply not believable - even I don't think you're that clueless. You posted it because you saw the words in the title, and assumed that it meant something other than it really did. Your inability to understand why a metric is part of the geometry, not the topology, of a manifold demonstrates that you've got no clue about any of this. You haven't learned topology at all.

You didn't hear of Poincare until I told you, which is a sign of the faulty U.S. education.
Click to expand...

Quite wrong. I had indeed heard of Poincare before I even signed up for this message board. Nobody's falling for this, Ion. It's quite obvious that you can't actually back up your claims, which is why you never had any response to the quotes I found in your own source. And anybody who knows much about Poincare and special relativity (which clearly doesn't include you) knows that his contribution was to the metric. Which, as mentioned before, is part of the geometry of special relativity, not its topology.
 
Strangely enough, even I have heard of Poincaré, both Henri and Raymond, though in slightly a different context for Henri.

What utter madness this thread has become. Carry on.
 
RandFan said:
Disarmament, in this context means WMD.

Everyone getting puppies and shiny new cars is not impossible either.
Israelis and Palestinians having mass orgies together isn't impossible either.

They're just not very reasonable.
Click to expand...

I find my idea quite more reasonable
Also, there can be no harm in going out and saying " OK, we propose to everyone to get rid of nukes "
If they will not accept, it will be their fault, not America` s
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
The thing is, that's motivated by nothing more than an emotional response, not a rational one.
Click to expand...

LOL!!
:) :)
I am laughing out loud..
You see how biased you are?
Japanese` s response is " emotional ", yours is " rational ".
You Americans are criticizing Putin, the guys in the middle East, Chavez, Morales, the Japanese and the Chinese?
Who else?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
And there's no chance in hell everybody would. China, for example, can maintain a sort of military parity with the US as long as they have nukes. Give that up, and they're at our mercy. So why the hell would they ever do that? They won't. So why the hell should we be making useless, empty gestures? Just to make ourselves feel morally superior? Sorry, but I really can do without that sort of pandering.
Click to expand...

I repeat:
That does not prevent the US to go out, and tell the world " we are ready to give up nukes, if everybody agrees "

Ziggurat said:
How foolishly naive you are. How, pray tell, can we do that? Are you aware that the IAEA has never, in its entire history, discovered a clandestine nuclear weapons program? And even for countries you might not classify as "rogue" states, such as Pakistan, why on earth would they ever give up their nukes? Because we did? That's laughable: that's all the more reason to keep their nukes. The less power we have, the more relative power nukes represent, and the greater the incentive to obtain them. In the real world, disarmament on the part of the US won't lead to anyone else disarming.
Click to expand...

I have not said:
" disarmament on the part of the US ".
 
Matteo Martini said:
I find my idea quite more reasonable
Click to expand...
Then we've found a point of disagreement.

Also, there can be no harm in going out and saying " OK, we propose to everyone to get rid of nukes "

If they will not accept, it will be their fault, not America` s
Click to expand...
Are you saying America should do this on purpose to make other people look bad?
 
Matteo Martini said:
No, one the purpose of having a world free of nukes, which I find something difficult to achieve, but not impossible
Click to expand...
Let's dispense with this notion that it's not impossible. Of course it's not impossible. That's a strawman.

I ask "is it realistic" and you say it won't hurt. I think that would just be a platitude. There is no reason to believe that anyone would take us seriously. There's no reason to think that India will suddenly feel good about giving up nuclear weapons. They spent a lot of money and obtained the weapons at great expense to themselves.

India believes that nuclear weapons are very important to their future. If they didn't they wouldn't have gone to the expense to get them.

Why should India take America seriously?

You keep saying, it won't hurt, ok, neither will asking everyone to stop hating each other and join together in unity and peace. It sounds good but it doesn't really have any substantive meaning because there are very real and serious problems that don't go away simply by suggesting everyone get rid of their nukes or have love for each other.

I'm not sure why I'm still discussing this.

I'm moving on Matteo.

Thanks.
 
RandFan said:
India believes that nuclear weapons are very important to their future. If they didn't they wouldn't have gone to the expense to get them.

Why should India take America seriously?
Click to expand...

What??
You ask why should India take America seriously?
Who do you think Indians are?
A moltitude of buffoons or stupids?
Or people who think Americans are buffoons?

RandFan said:
I'm not sure why I'm still discussing this.

I'm moving on Matteo.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom