Mon
Jul
5
“ Amazing? Not at all. It’s called “self preservation.” Funny you should mention firecrackers: they’re illegal in many states (which pisses me off, actually: paternalistic politicians trying to “protect the children”), and if you knew more about us, you might understand their cultural and historical relevance. Regardless, you can complain about our history of testing nuclear weapons, but you know, we don’t anymore. You also conveniently forgot to mention that Russia has a similar history, and in fact set the record for the largest fusion explosion ever: fifty megatons of TNT equivalent, and that was tuned down from the design yield of one hundred megatons, over concerns about fallout. I believe our biggest detonation was about twenty-five (and at that, it exceeded expectations.) Just get one thing through your silly little head: this is NOT A MATTER OF FAIRNESS. It’s just not. We aren’t discussing trade agreements, or illegal immigration, or any of a hundred other issues that the world faces every day. We’re discussing weapon systems that can kill millions of innocent people in a few milliseconds. Do you really want everyone to have them? Is it “fair” that a city should die because you don’t like the U.S.? Look, the United States and Russia exercised the requisite restraint during the Cold War and after. Yes, that was the desired outcome of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), but put it this way: MAD worked. No ICBMs were fired, no long-range bombers dropped heavy weapons on Moscow or Washington. So here’s the question: do you honestly believe that all countries in the world capable of building atomic weapons would do the same? Do you believe that the leaders of all countries are sufficiently rational to understand the concept of MAD? Yes, we dropped small tactical devices on an enemy twice during World War II, but when you consider the power of modern fusion weapons when compared to Fatman and Littleboy, well, you really need to rethink your position. This is a matter of “we have them, Russia has them, China has them, England has them, Israel has them, and a few other countries have them, and that’s enough.” It less to do with who is the “most responsible”, and more to do with the odds of thermonuclear weapons being used increasing the more nations have them. Consequently, we’d like to keep anyone else who doesn’t already have them from acquiring them, and the United States is hardly alone in that position. Nobody who has atomic weapons, nobody who has seen what they can do, is at all comfortable with an unstable nation owning them. You can bitch all you want about that, but the fewer nations that have the things the better. You’re concerning yourself that it’s “unfair” that the United States and a few other powerful nations have nuclear weapons and don’t want anyone else to have them. Well, you’re damn right, it may be unfair, but it’s the sanest approach to the issue that we have. And you know what? The first time some two-bit “nuclear power” like Iran, Pakistan or North Korea decides turn a few square miles of someone else’s city into a glass lake, you’ll be the first to complain that the United States should somehow have prevented those deaths. I just know it. Hypocrites.
Slashdot Science Story | A Look Back At Bombing the Van Allen Belts
