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 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.
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.
nuclear fallout is the wonderment…
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.
“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! [:D]
Of course; but that’s irrelevant for the question wether or not it ought to be illegal… Honestly; 2 different questions.
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.
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… [:)]
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.
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.
Can you explain those models.
Wikipedia can probably explain it better than I can [;)]
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.
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.
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.
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.
Like I said, I’m pretty sure the claims are exaggerated.
