{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by SI19:
12/17/2013 4:13:58 PM
5
The whole point of them is contradictory.
IF they were a deterrent of war to promote peace (as many goverments keep purporting), we wouldn't have the constant fear of being wiped off the face of the Earth if someone decided to say "*Feck* you!" and send a few off, which would ultimately result in everyone else joining in and fecking everything up. While nuclear weapons were developed first and led to relatively good uses later (nuclear power, though that in itself is a bit iffy with all the radioactive waste, nuclear fallout through meltdowns, etc, etc...), they should never have been invented.
Many of the scientists who developed them to end the WWII early were regretful of their decisions, so that clearly shows something is horribly wrong with something that has such power to end all life within a km radius in a second, not to mention everyone else effected by the radiation after.
TLDR; You can't have peace when in constant fear. Nuclear Weapons are a no-no.
English
-
[quote]Many of the scientists who developed them to end the WWII early were regretful of their decisions, [/quote]You can put that down to their actions directly causing intentional loss of life - they're too emotionally invested to be reliable as sources against nukes. Between the power of nukes as deterrents, and nuclear power plants as all around better alternatives to fossil fuels, I'd say We're better off thanks to them.
-
Edited by SI19: 12/19/2013 4:53:02 PM[quote]You can put that down to their actions directly causing intentional loss of life - they're too emotionally invested to be reliable as sources against nukes.[/quote] Woah now. So does (conventional?) war, yet the soldiers don't seem too regretful or emotionally invested when they're killing people face to face (regardless of enemies OR civilians, in some cases). And they are perfectly reliable, as they were also scientifically invested in this and knew how they worked (kinda - there was some sort of calculated probability at the time that the chain reaction continuing indefinitely, unless I'm mistaken) I'm not debating whether Nuclear power is good or bad, IMO it's good, but needs improvement in regards to waste disposal and development (fission to fusion or using Thorium rather than Uranium as the fuel rods), but I'd rather that they'd not developed nuclear weapons at all, and went right to nuclear power.
-
Soldiers != scientists There's a huge difference between your work being used by someone else to kill people... ...and YOUR work being "to kill people" And I fully agree with you that we need more work on improvements - if we actually funded NASA we could simply shoot the nuclear waste off into the infinite void of space - but at least Lockheed has almost cracked fusion.
-
We'd actually be ok if just a few nukes were fired. My dad worked on the Aegis missiles. They can knock nukes out of space. Peace living in fear is still greater than war, and consider this, since the development of nuclear arms, there hasn't been a major war between any of the world powers. That's 50 years of relative peace. I don't think that world has ever seen that before. And I'm not living in fear despite the presence of nuclear weapons.
-
Edited by SI19: 12/17/2013 5:26:51 PM[quote]Peace living in fear is still greater than war[/quote] I'm really not sure I could agree with this. Being a civie of a neutral country makes me safe from any form of conflict if one were to arise, but what's the difference between being in constant fear of a possible nuclear Armageddon occurring compared to being in an alternate universe where Nukes don't exist but are in fear of evacuations, invasions, bombs, etc from a (is it called "a conventional war"? not entirely sure) going on within those 50 years? Nearly 70 years of "relative peace" has been 50 years fearing the Cold War going hot, with the last 20 revolving around the Middle East. There really hasn't been much in the way of real peace. The fear of nuclear war is certainly more justified, considering if it were to happen ANYWHERE we're all bound to be affected. Think of the Chernobyl disaster, the fallout from that caused a serious problem to places as far as Wales for years later, and that wasn't even designed to be a weapon in the first place! And while it's great us developed countries have anti-nuclear devices, I'd rather neither. The research and money gone into researching nuclear weapons (and anti-nuclear weapons), specialised military vehicles (thinking of the "V bombers" that Britain had in from the 1950's) and whatever else nuclear weapons-oriented could have gone into something so much better.
