That does not constitute a threat nor a harm, as such, it is not a rights violation.
It is still not a threat nor a harm, as such, it is not a rights violation, and there is no cause of action.
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?
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?
Extortion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
What are you talking about? They test weapons of mass destruction on who?
And that is still not a rights violation until it is actually pushed or used for extortion.
No, it is not like someone always pointing a gun at someone’s face. It is like someone open carrying. Who cares?
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.
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.
Agreed.
Just curious, how many of the people in opposition to nuclear ownership grew up during the cold war?
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.
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?
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’.
No. The threat is absolutely being used here - no looseness.
Not on who. They test them for whom (not aliens but people in supposed other countries).
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…
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. 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.