What are other peoples opinions on nuclear weapons. Do you think people should be allowed to buy them? I found this video quite worrying.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/the-vice-guide-to-travel/bulgarian-dirty-bombs
There are a thousand questions I’d like to ask. I only got basic training through the Chemistry of the Elements course (which deals with such taboo topics as how to refine uranium oxyde “yellowcake”, thermal reactors and fast reactors) but there are a few things that popped into my mind.
First thing, it would be extremely easy to build a “fake dirty bomb”. Radioactive scrap metal, mostly originating from the former Soviet block, is a serious concern for the European steel industry because it’s so widespread. It originates from a variety of sources hence it’s pretty easy to obtain. Build a fake artillery shell with some irradiated scrap metal and it will set off any Geiger-Muller counter the potential buyers may bring along. While there are some obvious safety concerns which are still not fully studied it would not be a proper “dirty bomb” which in its most basic form is nothing more than highly irradiated material with an explosive charge to spread the radioactive material as far as possibile.
Second thing, obtaining radioactive material is not as difficult as it sounds. I hope I don’t get the CIA’s attention by saying this but two of the worst nuclear accidents (both requiring a lengthy and expensive clean up operation) involved medical sources of radiation, not “dirty bombs”. The Goiania accident in Brazil is pretty well known. Lesser well known is the Samut Prakarn accident in Thailand. If terrorists are so crafty and well financed why don’t they set up a front company to buy a cesium-based radiotherapy device and use it for their means? Or why don’t they simply rob a hospital? It beats dealing with shady Bulgarian “businessmen” and it will work.
Third thing. Tracing a source of radiation is easier than it seems. During the Yom Kippur War, after Israel went on nuclear alert (viz Moshe Dayan’s famous cryptic phrase: “This is the end of the Third Temple” which really meant “Arm the bombs and fuel the bombers”), the US Navy found a Soviet vessel near the Bosphorous was leaving behind a peculiar radioactive “signature”. The ship was shadowed by a Navy Neptune aircraft carrying sampling equipment until it docked at Alexandria and then kept under close surveillance. At the time it was believed the Soviets had sent nuclear weapons to Egypt to counter Israel. Later research turned out the Soviets had most likely just loaded radioactive waste on the ship to fool the US (and hence Israel). This was done in 1973 and technology has since moved in leaps and bounds, so much now we know whence radioactive material came just by atmospheric sampling. That’s how it was discovered North Korea had a reactor of her own and didn’t just buy nuclear fuel from Pakistan.
Four thing. Small nuclear weapons (the kind “terrorists” are supposed to covet) are the most expensive and technically challenging of all. It took Israel over a decade of research (not to mention stealing/obtaining know-how from France, the US and the Soviets) to produce nuclear artillery shells. This, of course, with the full power of a State backing up the nuclear program. Also nuclear weapons are notoriously temperamental and require quite a bit of babying. How is a nuclear weapon supposed to function after being smuggled around and stored in the most unlikely places?
But surely if we had a free market, good quality bombs would be available and would not need to be smuggled. Should people be allowed to buy them? And if so, how could other people ensure that the bombs are not used?
Nukes wouldn’t exist in the first place if it wasn’t for national socialism. The state invented nuclear weapons during the orgy of destruction we call the Progressive era, in a free market system no private business would have gone through the expense of inventing something that useless.
Like any misallocation of resources caused by socialism, we have to deal with the mess as best as we can in a free society. A free society will gradually fix this, there is no shortcut. I don’t think it’s a good idea to implement more socialism to fix the problems caused by socialism.
So yeah, let people have nukes. Maybe one goes off once in a while. Just consider the deaths from private nukes an aftereffect of the Progressive era. It would be a rather insignificant one, actually. People die by the millions every day because statism holds back technological progress.
‘‘Nukes wouldn’t exist in the first place if it wasn’t for national socialism. The state invented nuclear weapons during the orgy of destruction we call the Progressive era, in a free market system no private business would have gone through the expense of inventing something that useless.’’
This is irrelevant. If there is a problem it has to be dealt with.
‘‘So yeah, let people have nukes. Maybe one goes off once in a while. Just consider the deaths from private nukes an aftereffect of the Progressive era. It would be a rather insignificant one, actually.’’
This could hardly be thought of as a good solution. Just let people destroy cities. Maybe lots go off all the time.
Unless you live on a planet of your own just having an a-bomb in your basement means you are (perhaps unwittingly) threatening other people.
If I had a neighbour who, while sleepwalking, pulled out a howitzer from his garage, aimed it at my window and loaded it with a grenade, I would now have every right to step onto his driveway and disable the howitzer. (He is threatening me without intent, since I am now in fact one press of a button away from annihalation even though he has no desire to see me dead.)
By the same token I have the right to force entry into the basement of my neighbour, who is a good guy and would not hurt a fly, but who has an a-bomb stashed there and disable it for good. (An a-bomb can not be aimed, it is aimed at everyone at all times.)
A person may own an a-bomb, but only if it is disassembled or otherwise put out of function (but then he’d have to allow acess to it to anyone that wanted to make sure that was the case — so you would end up with a de facto museum anyway).
Why worry about nukes so much when economic distortion kills so many more people? It’s like being afraid of flying while smoking.
It’s very relevant how the problem was created when we’re thinking about how best to deal with it. I don’t think we are well served to implement more socialism to deal with a problem that was caused by the last round of socialism. It never ends. We just have to take the hit. It’s painful, but otherwise we’re just in this vicious circle.
‘‘Why worry about nukes so much when economic distortion kills so many more people? It’s like being afraid of flying while smoking.’’
Economic distortion being bad does not justify having nukes. Both need to be stopped.
‘‘It’s very relevant how the problem was created when we’re thinking about how best to deal with it. I don’t think we are well served to implement more socialism to deal with a problem that was caused by the last round of socialism. It never ends. We just have to take the hit. It’s painful, but otherwise we’re just in this vicious circle.’’
Yeah but just dismissing it as something government caused, and saying its screwed but its government’s fault doesn’t bring us nearer to a solution. With or without government it is a problem and needs a solution.
Marko,
Could the same not be said for any weapon?
No.
The same could be said for any weapon aimed at your head.
Right. A bomb is implicitly pointed at everyone’s head within its blast radius. (That’s assuming it’s not a shaped charge, and even if it was, I doubt one would be able to figure that out without having some expertise in explosives.)
Shaped charges do focus a significant portion of the energy in specific directions. However, the destructive force of a bomb is not limited to the initial blast. Nuclear weapons cause fallout, even if the charge is directed 180 degrees from you, you can still be exposed to the radiation. Unless the owner/detonator has an easement on noise pollution, radiation proliferation, and waves of hot gas and debris, this would be an issue.
as has been observed in other threads on this subject, libertarians could find utility in the ownership and use of nukes in the service of territorial defense, somewhat like the “family atomics” in Frank Herbert’s Dune. I am extremely interested in observing the variety of security arrangements that wold likely emerge in a private law society.
And with a nuclear bomb harm can extend beyond blast radius by way of radioactive pollution. Such pollution can travel far and depending on the weather in any direction. (The Chernobyl accident was said to have affected a million people outside the Soviet Union, and significant pollution travelled as far as Switzerland and Greece.)
Well, thats also something to recognize. Nuclear power is dangerous even when it isnt weaponized. Chernobyl and fukushima have polluted the entire planet.
The idea that nukes would be illegal under panarchy because they represent a threat is debatable. After all, ‘banning’ nukes because they could cause damage is like banning guns on the same account. One is supposed to be punished only after a crime is committed, not before because he may commit one.
Also, if we let the ‘clear and present threat’ charge, fly for nukes why not for hydro dams? In terms of potential destruction, the bursting of a large damn would be far more disruptive than a small nuclear detonation. Would construction under anarchy be forbidden since dams are threats?
And we can all think of many technologies without which the world couldn’t do, and which may constitute grave threats if used improperly. From drilling and hitting some gas pocket that sends shockwaves for miles and miles around, to even risking having a building collapse, the world is full of threats. Nukes cannot be singled out.
In practice I think that nukes would exist under panarchy, owned by PDAs. If someone who was not trusted somehow got access to one, I think that a boycott would be orchestrated to convince him to sell it to these PDAs. If he refused, a guy with no PDA or insurance cover is as good as dead, and everyone can kill and/or steal from him. His nuke would just be stolen by PDAs, and he’d be killed if he resisted.
They are weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction, manufacturing them or maintaining them is an aggression against everyone in range.
It is not necessarily aggression, it merely grants the right to self-defence. Having them means forfeiting the right to keep people off your property etc.
Having an a-bomb in your basement is not aggression, but harming somebody trying to force entry into your house to disable it is.
By this standard having a knife in my pocket is also aggression against all people walking within a meter of me. Ho0w can you aggress against people by not aggressing against them?
Knives don’t usually work from across property-lines. And as for guns, if you keep your gun aimed at my property, I might consider that a threat (and reasonably so). However, just owning a gun doesn’t mean you are aggressing everyone in all directions it might be aimed.
Now with bombs, the aim is not a linear but spherical - all volume around blast radius - there is no safe side of the bomb when it goes off. With missiles it is of course tricky because not only is it a threat to those located near the weapons lab and silos, it is a threat to where it is aimed, which might not be known specifically (though I could see the various nearby countries being threatened by it).
That’s a very interesting angle, but I’m not convinced.
To repeat my earlier issue: wouldn’t this line of reasoning apply to a nuclear plant too? A hydroelectric dam? A chemical factory? Why pick nuclear weapons arbitrarily out of this bunch?