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.
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?
No it is not, as I have shown above.
Here you go describing the object again. An objects attributes are irrelevant to whether or not a right has been violated.
Because I wonder if nuclear weapons can explode without harming or killing innocents… I know that traditional missiles can explode without killing innocents.
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)?
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.
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.
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?
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.