Slashdot Mirror
Soaring, Cryptography, and Nuclear Weapons
Martin Hellman sends in a pointer to his essay that uses analogies from cryptography and the sport of soaring in an attempt to draw people in to thinking about the risks of nuclear weapons. Quoting: "... I did a preliminary risk analysis which indicates that relying on nuclear weapons for our security is thousands of times more dangerous than having a nuclear power plant built next to your home." Hellman is best known as co-inventor (with Diffie and Merkle) of public key cryptography, and has worked for over twenty-five years to reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons. He is also a glider pilot with over 2,600 logged hours. Hellman adds, "Readers needing a break can go to some photos of the Sierra Nevada mountains taken from my glider."
...who's takeaway from the article is that we need to build more nuclear plants?
Must have been a stack overflow somewhere. /BOFH reference
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
FWIW, the British secret service discovered public-cryptography several years before. Hellman et al just introduced it to the public. See Schneier's Applied Cryptography .
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
The thing is, if you all don't have nuclear weapons, and I covertly do, I win.
This is my sig.
If the dangers from owning your own nukes are so serious, why haven't we destroyed the world yet - even with some of the so-called religious fundamentalist whackos that people are so afraid of in the White House?
Honestly, all this fear running around and western democracies - and the Russians - are the ONLY ones who have managed them responsibly. We haven't blown the world up, and the worst are some "near misses" which didn't produce anything. Shoot, we're farther away now from nuclear war between major powers than we have been since before the Cold War.
Point fingers at Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, and their ilk. Leave the rest of us out of it. They're the nuclear "powers" to be afraid of, and we should raise defenses against their armament which are overwhelming - not detente.
"...I did a preliminary risk analysis which indicates that relying on nuclear weapons for our security is thousands of times more dangerous than having a nuclear power plant built next to your home."
Yeah...I would love to see how he produced that "risk analysis" statement. I guess, since nuclear reactors are virtually not dangerous at all with todays technology, it can be said that something that is only a little dangerous (relying on nuclear weapons for security, which has worked for almost 60 years) can be a thousand times as dangerous, because 1000 * 0 = 0.
In taking a quick glance, it seems like his estimates of
relying on nuclear weapons for our security is thousands of times more dangerous than having a nuclear power plant built next to your home
aren't even based on current technology of nuclear power plants. Plus I'd imagine that nuclear power plants are even better for our safety when you consider how a number of the new ones can be used to destroy old weapons-grade material...
This is nonsense.
Nuclear-armed nations invaded:
Zero
Non-nuclear nations invaded by nuclear armed nations.
Basically all of them.
Mutually assured destruction hasn't been US strategic doctrine since 1989. Now it's "deterrence"
"He is also a glider pilot with over 2,600 logged hours" ...
Ha! Ive spent more time on slashdot
Amateur
Go go Gadget Nailgun!
All of his risk estimates are based on analysis of 40 year old quotes. He may as well have just plucked figures from the air.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jordan_Gatling
In 1877, he wrote: "It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished."
Sounds a lot like this, from TFA:
Since World War III would mean the end of civilization, no one would dare start it.
The thing is, just as many bodies lie in the dirt since the invention of the machine gun, and armies are effectively as big as ever. Also, this invention has been used to commit COUNTLESS atrocities that wouldn't have been as possible before it was introduced.
My point is simple, focusing on the WEAPON is futile. In the hands of men anything will eventually be turned to evil. You have to assume the worst case when dealing with weapons and humanity. This is also why you basically HAVE to participate in the arms race. The opposite choice is elimination.
And for our next analysis, we will have Zbignew Brzenski give his opinion on quantum cryptography versus Enigma machines.
Why is it when a genius in field X has some free time, they think they can do immediately have deep insights in field Q?
----
As an obvious counterexample, a nuclear plant, to avoid disaster, needs continuous monitoring and maintenance by dozens of fallible humans, plus the critical reactor vessel gets steadily weaker due to neutron bombardment. It's not a question of "if", but of "when" something gives.
OTOH nuclear weapons, by comparison, are intrinsically inert. Only by a special sequence of ministrations can they be activated.
Personally I'd rather live next to something in category 2 than category 1.
pro-israel or anti-israel
pro-usa or anti-usa
you should be against iranian proliferation
there's this weird alien line of thought out there that goes like this: "if the usa has nukes, why shouldn't iran?"
what that thought represents is tribal nationalistic thinking trumping common sense
common sense holds that NO ONE should have nukes. so proliferation is bad, for whomever. the most logical approach to iranian proliferation then is this: "i am against iran having nukes, AND i am against the usa having nukes"
but this whole "i support iran having nukes, to balance out the usa" is a level of stupidity beneath respect
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They don't call it a Diffie-Merkle-Hellman exchange, who the hell is this Merkle guy?
military responses to economic and ideological problems never works
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Also depends on what you have. Say, hypothetically, you're in charge of an Iran-like banana republic and the US had no nukes but you had two nukes then you take out New York and Los Angeles with the nuclear strikes
Well, yes, but the problem is that a good sized h-bomb that takes out NY and LA takes with it a good chunk of the northeastern USA and southern california. Take a took at a map of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bravo_fallout2.png
That's a fallout plume of 1000 rads out to a range of over 100 miles. Now have a looksie at
http://www.outbreakid.com/radiation.htm
Put two and two together, and you'll see that even a single a large thermonuclear explosion could be a civilization ending event for the northeastern USA. There won't be retaliation, because, there can't be... when you've just wiped out the economy of the USA, and the manpower, the conventional forces would grind to a halt.
And we haven't even begun to discuss EMP effects from a single blast in space.
This is my sig.
I watched an interesting video a while back about what can be done to increase your chances of survival during a nuclear attack. The gist of it is that after the detonation you should make sure you get out of the path of the radiation which will be flowing with the wind. The presentation approaches the issue in a more rational way than most of our politicians.
The whole point of nuclear weapons is to overtly have them; if your possession of them is truly "covert," you don't win a damn thing. Even Israel's nuclear program was an open secret for years because it allowed them to gain the effects of deterrence without openly proclaiming that they had a nuclear arsenal. But nobody seriously believed they didn't have one.
Anybody else notice the nuclear weapons elephant in the room lately? I mean, beyond just the rhetoric level? I've noticed some people are re-evaluating their approach to nuke proliferation by deciding, "hey, let's build a shelter in the garage anyway, rather than just assuming everyone will be wiped out." Sort of a frightening trend, albeit more realistic than the idea that everybody's gonna die.
I was also watching a C-SPAN panel of economists a couple weeks ago, and one of the panelists was extrapolating based on the current economic situation. He weaved a short scenario that ended in nuclear war, and *nobody*, not *one* of the other panelists, batted an eyelash. Yikes.
If the author of TFA, Martin Hellman, is so concerned about the low speed pass then why not equip the glider with an emergency booster rocket? That way, if he ever finds himself without enough speed to come around and land he can activate the emergency booster rocket to gain enough speed to safely glide back and land OR he could equip his glider with a rocket powered ejection system OR (perhaps more feasibly) an aircraft parachute (a feature that is becoming more common in other light aircraft as a safety precaution against engine failure at a bad time).
Situation before the Atomic bomb :
Every 20-30 years, wars regularly happened between the most industrialized or powerful countries on earth.
The bomb ended WWII.
After the bomb :
No open/direct/full conflict between the most powerful countries on earth since then.
60 years of 'peace' as we have now since 1945 are an exception in the long recurrent wars that regularly dotted history.
if you simply rationalize every development in the world, and never draw a line, you don't actually stand for anything. its this weird sort of person who says they are acting according to the highest of principles, but all those principles seem to come down to is: accept anything that happens
sometimes you need to take action in this world that is risky and with a cloudy outcome, sometimes you do need to go to war, for the best of reasons. sometimes violent conflict is something you need to choose to engage in, in the name of upholding your values
not that i support invading iran either. but i would certainly support covert sabotage, or another action which is provocative and aggressive but short of full-scale war
but in general, i am very suspicious of people who always seem to advocate accepting vile things in this world. tell me on what grounds you would engage in violent conflict, and i will relax about my impression of your words, comfortable that you stand for something. but some people's "morality" seems to be pretty much let a rape take place in front of them, for fear of offending the rapist
its the bizarre desperate and failing attempt at rationalization that accepts nuclear proliferaiotn in the name of nuclear disarmament. and so far, that absurdity is what you represent to me
frankly, your words are morally and logically incoherent, unless you enunciate the conditions under which you would engage in violent conflict with iran
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
hmmmm anyone else going to blow the crunch whistle on this one?
obvious clue....
For several years Saddam bombed Iran (military and civilians) with Chemical weapons, handed to him by Rumsfeld. Iran demonstrated the capability to make similar weapons but emphasized that use of WMDs even in retaliation to enemy's action is against religious principals.
Now you are suggesting that Iran would nuke the second most sacred Islamic religious site after Mecca in a suicidal mission?!!
I also argued against the existence of any suicidal tendencies among Iranian leaders in previous comments which hopefully will shed some light on your distorted view of reality.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that article was kinda meaningless? Really, what's the point? "Hey guys, you know, having all of these nukes pointed at each other is pretty dangerous. Maybe we should do something about it?" Gosh, how insightful - I'm sure that nobody has ever thought of that before.
If you want to actually do something meaningful, figure out a way to reduce the risk that doesn't involve surrendering to the whims of any nutcase that has some nukes. We'll be waiting...
I don't reply to ACs
Be suspicious of any chain of reasoning based on taking what Homeland Security et al think as true. These people are fear mongers, and use artificially created fear to control the masses. For some reason their otherwise incoherent policies always seem to align on one point: they increase the profits of big oil.
Oh come on. The hydrogen did ignite and nothing significant happened. The "bubble" was what was left over after all the hydrogen that could have burned already had. The public and the environment suffered no injury, and the whole thing was blown way out of proportion.
It's only a problem because we have been hornswaggled into thinking of it as "waste" instead of thinking of it as "fuel reserves." If you want to suppress any technology try this simple trick:
For example, if you could convince people that they could only use 10% of the gas they put in their cars and had to save the other 90% forever, what would happen to the auto industry?
Incidentally, the whole "longer half-life == more dangerous" talking point is stupid. Saying that something has an enormously long half-life is just another way of saying that it is relatively stable. It's the things with the short half-lives you need to worry about. The tungsten in your lightbulbs, for instance, has a half-life of around 1,000,000,000,000,000 years. Buy the backwards logic of the anti-nuke people, it should be terrifying stuff, much more dangerous than uranium with a half-life of only 100,000 to 1,000,000,000 years, right? -- MarkusQ
international inspection teams in the usa, sounds like a good idea
it is possible to oppose iran and not support the usa. it is possible to oppose iran and the usa at the same time. so when you hear me oppose iran, do not automatically assume i am pro-usa
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
khan got them via a variety of means: dutch, chinese sources. but this isn't to blame the dutch or chinese like you blame the usa. the best way to describe the truth and ascribe blame for pakistan having nukes is that pakistan wanted nukes like india had, so it went out and got them. the fault of pakistan having nukes is... drum roll please... pakistan's
for you to suggest that the usa "gave" nukes to pakistan is a sort of braindead propaganda that imagines the world works like a bad hollywood movie plot, a cartoon, and seriously questions your ability to judge how and why things really happen in this world. pakistan is its own entity. it is not a puppet of the usa. when you see pakistan do something, question pakistan's agenda, not the usa's. pakistan does nothing it doesn't think is good for pakistan. the world has slightly more players in it than the only player you look at
"And why is Israel the only country allowed to have nukes without international oversight?"
ok, you go tell israel it can't have nukes. you get the security council to unilaterally insist israel give up its nukes or face invasion or economic isolation. would israel give up its nukes then?
no. because the reason israel has nukes is because israel wants nukes. there is no dark secret cabal secretly protecting israel's right to have nukes. it is more acccurate to say that the international consensus is that it is bad tha tisrael has nukes, it is dangerous, but at the same time, everyone accepts that they won't be persuaded to get rid of them
so why is it that in your mind, this acceptance of the inevitable is some sort of purposeful endorsement?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It is not possible, unfortunately, to approach the issue of nuclear arms proliferation in a purely abstract and rational manner because humans are not purely abstract and rational beings. Although MAD is not absolutely effective in all cases, as Mr. Hellman correctly points out in his essay, neither are the alternatives, IMHO, any more appealing. There will always be people and leaders in this world, Iran and Pakistan for example, who have or are rapidly acquiring nuclear arms AND are NOT, for various reasons, deterred by the prospect of their own destruction. How can we get rid of our weapons when countries like Iran are building arsenals of their own? Would any of us want to live under threat of nuclear blackmail from an ascendant and nuclear armed Iran? If living in a world wide Islamic theocracy is the alternative to a third world war then I would rather fight, even if it meant certain death, then live in a tyrannical and theocratic society.
etc.
that's the constitution of iran
it describes a theocracy
now, all other countries with a nuclear weapon are not theocracies. of course, religion holds a vast sway in many countries with a nuclear weapon, but they are still republics. the usa, for example, is currently run by a devout southern baptist. but his power is curtailed by the rules of his country's constitution, which is not overtly based on religion. if you wanted to say, erroneoussly, that the usa was generally equivalent to iran in terms of religious influence, you would have to give me something like: the pope has to approve of all presidential candidates in the us ballot, or they are denied the right to run for office (this is how it works in iran)
it does not work this way in pakistan. it does not work this way in israel. it doesn't work this way in any other nuclear armed country. if gw bush woke up tomorrow, and said god told him to nuke iran, he couldn't do that, as he does not hold the ultimate power to do that
but in iran, the ultimate decision to use nukes rests with grumpy old men who claim a monopoly on their ability to interpret the will of god. these same grumpy old men are the ultimate power in iran, they trump ahmadinejad
you don't see a problem there? you don't see something intrinsically different there than any other country? iran, having nukes, is genuinely different than every othe rcountry that has the bomb
pro-usa, or anti-usa, the facts about iran, because it is a theocracy, should scare you about iran having nukes, and give you special pause, unlike when you consider any other country with a nuke
we are talking about a theocracy, with nuclear weapons. no matter WHAT your ideological attitude, towards any country in the world: doesn't this fact give you pause, and doesn't it worry you uniquely?
so yes, i say, not as a pro-american, or an anti-american, but simply as a human being wary of the influence of fundamentalist religion in this world, that iran having the nuclear weapon is something especially worrisome, and stands out as especially dangerous, than all countries with nukes. simply because they are a theocracy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Two words: Use CANDU.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
the principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction) worked in the cold war between the usa and the ussr because russian leaders did not want to see dead russian children and american leaders did not want to see dead american children
meanwhile, iran is a theocracy
the deeply religious believe the afterlife is a glorious reward for the righteous, an eden. in its war with iraq, iran sent children with little wooden keys around their necks to clean up minefields. the keys were the keys to heaven. how is a death a deterent for those who see death as a reward? how do you deter iranian leaders when they think dead iranian children are in a better place?
a theocracy with a bomb should give everyone a special pause
iran with the bomb is different and unique when considering any other country that currently has the bomb
iran really should not get the bomb. no theocracy should
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I typically take my nuclear risk analysis from cryptographers and glider pilots.
--Toll_Free
Nuclear power isn't dangerous - bad engineering is dangerous. There's nothing special about nuclear power that makes it more dangerous than other industrial scale projects when engineered poorly.
Chernobyl was a massive engineering mistake, sure. But poor engineering of Chinese coal mines kills around 6000 per year. The Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India leaked fumes, killing something like 15,000 people in 1984. The BASF fertilizer plant in Oppau, Germany blew up in 1921 killing like 600 people. In 1947, fertilizer in Texas City, TX blew up killing almost 600. Even Georgia in 2008 had a sugar refinery blown up this year, killing 42 people. Then there are more obvious cases, like several instances of explosives stockpiles blowing up and killing thousands of people.
Yet there's no rush to ban fertilizer, pesticides, or powdered sugar because of bad engineering - you just zone industrial facilities a safe distance from residential areas.
How many deaths in the Three Mile Island incident, the worst nuclear accident in the US? None. Meanwhile, around 20,000 people die per year in the US from air pollution caused by coal power plants. Lung cancer, asthma, bronchitis, allergies, heart attacks, strokes, heavy metal poisoning, and cancer are all exacerbated by air pollution.
Replace coal plants with nuclear plants, or else watch a million Americans die in your lifetime because you can't separate facts from fear.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
the bias is yours, thinking that what underlines the actions of other countries is american actions. responsibility for everything in the world does not lead to washington dc. who is responsible for iran having nukes? IRAN is, and ONLY iran. to see it another way is, frankly, condescending to iranians. that they have no motivations or desires of their own, that they are merely cardboard cut out reflections of western actions. that's patronizing of you
if i see a child punch another child, and so i kick that child in the face, who is repsonsible for me kicking a child in the face? i am, according to any coherent logic or morality
but you wish to tell us iran is pursuing nuclear weapons because the usa invaded iraq. this is like saying the fault for me kicking a child in the face is the child's, for punching another kid. that the fault of the woman who got beat by her husband is her's, for wearing that dress he forbid her to wear. YOU are responsible for YOUR actions. IRAN is repsonsible for IRAN'S actions. get it? any other way of thinking about iran's actions is morally and intellectually incoherent, and patronizing and condescending to iranians
let's put it another way: the usa is solely responsible for invading iraq. according to your logic, i could say that saddam hussein is responsible for the usa invading iraq. of course this is absurd. but this rationale would be 100% in line with how you view the world, were you a braindead pro-american rather than a braindead anti-american
so do you smell bias?
yes. i am biased against those who can't think about the world they live in without viewing it through pro-american or anti-american blinders. i am able to view the world as it is, with many players on the stage other than washington dc. i am impartial. you, however, are a braindead partisan
you put forth the sort of braindead propaganda that imagines the world works like a bad hollywood movie plot, a cartoon, and it seriously questions your ability to judge how and why things really happen the way they do in this world
iran is its own entity. it is not a puppet of the usa. when you see iran do something, question iran's agenda, not the usa's. iran does nothing it doesn't think is good for iran. the world has slightly more players in it than the only player you seem capable of looking at
lose your bias
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
To use a car analogy, that's like comparing a head-on crash with a dead battery.
High speed low passes are not dangerous, if you execute them in the right manner. Against the wind, and don't fly away from the landing strip.
Gliding/nuclear risk analogy Vs common gliding expressions:
From TFA:
"Let's face it, nuclear weapons are the elephant in the room that no one likes to talk about."
Common gliding expression:
"There's no such thing as a good pilot, just an old pilot"
From TFA:
"So let's approach the issue from the less threatening perspective of the awesome picture below"
Common gliding expression:
"Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground"
Need I say more?
if you want to stand for no moral or even intellectually honest position, go ahead and put out your snipers
small clue for you: you don't effectively defend the integrity of the united states by abandoning all the principles your country is supposed to stand for
so in truth, your snipers would do more to dissolve american territorial integrity than protect it, because the existence of those snipers would weaken the will of the american people to believe its territory is worth defending
you have to stand for a set of principles, or you stand for nothing at all. standing for principles is what makes america great, woudln't you agree? well, snipers on the border makes you so disgusting, your lack of principles so heinous, that such an america would be a place that i, and most americans, would openly wage guerrilla war with
and that wouldn't be treason, that would be true patriotism
the day your snipers exist on the border, is the day america isn't american anymore. which is a strange thing to realize, since you are so keen on keeping out the mexicans and keeping america "american"
in truth, if you want to put snipers on the border, you aren't a real american. i say this in judgment of your beliefs, regardless of your ancestry. in fact, i would suspect some of those mexicans sneaking into our country have a better udnerstanding of what this country stands for than you do, if you honestly propose snipers on the border
and for that reason, i welcome those mexicans with open arms, and propose your deportation
in the name of strengthening america and standing for true american values
xoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If everyone was working from the same set of cultural and intellectual ground rules, he might have a point. But that is far, far from the case.
We have North Korea where the leader really doesn't give a rat's ass about the civilian population of the country. Their leader could foreseeably order a nuclear attack on Japan or South Korea and as long as he, personally, was assured of living in comfort it probably wouldn't matter that in the retaliation 99% of the civilian population and military would be wiped out.
Same goes for the leaders of Iran, when they get their first bomb. It is highly likely their cultural imperitive to destroy Israel will be quite a bit stronger than the disincentive from any retaliation. And today it is highly debatable that if Iran wiped out Israel if there would be any retaliation whatsoever. The UN might issue some strongly worded repremands, but we all know there is no teeth behind that.
The basic idea behind nuclear disarmament is that both sides can agree that use of nuclear weapons is just to horrible to consider. The fear during the Cold War was if the Soviets really saw things that way but we had enough in common with them to believe they did. We have virtually nothing in common with Iran's leadership or that of any terrorist group that might grab a weapon. We cannot assume a common cultural basis for an assumption they value the lives of their civilian population as strongly as people in the West do. As a matter of fact, we have clear evidence they do not value civilian populations strongly, from the locations where weapons are based for attacks and attacks on purely civilian targets.
One of the events that Hellman talks about is a *failure of nuclear deterrence*. In that case, the casualties might well number in the millions to billions. How low does the probability of such an event need to be, for it to be an acceptable risk? Very, very low indeed.
Hence his call for better estimation of the risks involved in each step in the tree, and coordinated work to reduce those risks, where possible.
I think that's overstating it a bit. The rational reasons for not reprocessing fuel revolve around the following issues:
1. Transporting used fuel to the reprocessing center and back.
2. Production and separation of enormous quantities of Plutonium, which needs to be carefully guarded due to proliferation and terrorism risks.
3. Some hazards in the reprocessing itself. There have been several serious accidents in reprocessing plants, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorp_nuclear_fuel_reprocessing_plant#2005_leak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accident
(and other incidents)
4. Reprocessing only really starts to make good economic sense if you bring fast breeder reactors online, and those have safety issues of their own.
Something like the IFR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor) might substantially reduce these risks, but until an advanced breeder reactor is actually built and operated for a significant period, it's hard to say how safe they really are, and whether they'll make economic sense.
living in hiroshima or nagasaki, said to you that they distrust iran more than the usa with the bomb, because it is a theocracy, and a theocracy thinks death is a gateway to paradise, and therefore iran would not have any problem using the bomb like russia or france, what would you say to this japanese person?
"If the US stopped behaving like, as you put it like a bad hollywood movie plot, the whole world would be better off."
absolutely 100% true. it is possible to oppose iran and not support the usa. it is possible to oppose iran and the usa at the same time. so when you hear me oppose iran, do not automatically assume i am pro-usa. furthermore, attacking the usa does not in any way attack me, or my words, or my position on iran getting the bomb
do you see that now? is it possible now for you to think about the words i am saying to you without the blinders of anti-america, or pro-america? do you think you can do that? or are you hopelessly biased about america? america is not the issue. IRAN is. understand yet?
"Iran is simply not really a threat to anyone"
this is a country whose leader repeatedly talking about wiping israel off the face of the earth. if i said that was a problem, do i have to be pro-israel to think that is a problem? or is it possible i can think that is a problem simply because i view any threat by any country to another country to be a problem?
to be against iran getting the bomb does not mean you need be pro-american or pro-israel, but simply concerned about religious fundamentalists with a nuclear bomb
religious fundamentalists with a nuclear bomb
that doesn't bother you?
religious fundamentalists with a nuclear bomb
can you examine that issue and deliver an opinion about that without your bias about america getting in the way? or can you only talk about iran and the bomb as framed as a pro- or anti-american issue?
in which case, you would simply be part of the problem in this world: your mind has been turned off, and you have turned into a braindead partisan
frame your opinion about iran having the bomb or not without mentioning the usa or israel at all, and you have a valid opinion. if you ar eunable to do that, you have a poisonous tribal, nationalist chest thumping bias. simple as that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if you can frame your opinion about iran having the bomb or not without mentioning the usa or israel at all, then you have a valid opinion. if you are unable to do that, then you only have a poisonous tribal, nationalist chest thumping bias. simple as that
i'm glad you do not have a problem with iran having a bomb. i await your response to me for your rationale for that without mentioning the usa or israel. if you can't do that, i consider your opinion incoherent. until you give me your opinion for iran's right to have the bomb, only mentioning iran and its qualities, not the usa or israel, then you don't have a valid opinion. as the issue with iran having the bomb or not, has to do with iran. and only has to do with describing iran's capacities. do you get that? or are your biased blinders completely blocking out any logic and reason?
since i am not hypocrite, i will explain my rationale to you for me opposing iran having the bomb without mentioning the usa or israel. fair enough?
that's the constitution of iran
it describes a theocracy
now, all other countries with a nuclear weapon are not theocracies. of course, religion holds a vast sway in many countries with a nuclear weapon, but they are still republics. some countries with the bomb are run by people who are religious. but their power is curtailed by the rules of their country's constitution, which is not overtly based on religion. if you wanted to say, erroneously, that other countries are generally equivalent to iran in terms of religious influence, you would have to give me something like: the pope has to approve of all presidential candidates in that country's ballot, or they are denied the right to run for office (this is how it works in iran, if you didn't know)
it does not work this way in any other nuclear armed country. if a president of another country woke up tomorrow, and said god told him to nuke iran, he couldn't do that, as he does not hold the ultimate power to do that in his country
but in iran, the ultimate decision to use nukes rests with grumpy old men who claim a monopoly on their ability to interpret the will of god. these same grumpy old men are the ultimate power in iran, they trump ahmadinejad
you don't see a problem there? you don't see something intrinsically different there than any other country? iran, having nukes, is genuinely different than every other country that has the bomb
the principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction) works because the leader of a country doesn't want to see children from his country dead in the street, which is what he would get, if he nuked another country with nuclear weapons
meanwhile, iran is a theocra
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Think about gliders versus nuclear bombs? I think the nukes win.
is this a demonization or a fact?
you trust a theocracy with a nuclear weapon. a THEOCRACY, as in, grumpy old men who have a monopoly on the word of god. is this a demonization or a fair description of religious fundamentalists my dear atheist friend?
"the US is a theocracy"
compare and contrast with the iranian constitution
you are biased, and this is the third time you have been unable to qualify your acceptance of a theocracy with nukes, solely on consideration of that government alone
"Your turn. remember, if you mention israel or the usa in your articulation of why iran can have the bomb, you have an invalid opinion."
Bullshit, You do not define the terms of discussion, much as you would like to set up a straw man.
To make it plain you have no right to limit this discussion to what YOU want to limit it to.
i do not define the terms of the discussion. i am only the messenger. don't shoot the messenger. my message, about the reality you inhabit, is simple: if you are unable to consider iran's right to have a nuclear weapon or not solely on the merits or lack thereof of the government of iran, you have an opinion which is not logically valid
somewhere in the usa is a blindly pro-american fool, who believes everything gw bush says. that fool is your intellectual equal, because you are blindly anti-american. the intellectual superior of the blindly pro-american is not the blindly anti-american. no, the intellectual superior of the blindly pro-american AND the blindsly anti-american is the person who can articulate opinions about the world WITHOUT IT STARTING WITH THE USA. because the usa is not the sole actor in the world. true or false? show me someone who can formulate opinions on the issues in this world not seen through the prism of "the usa is evil" OR "the usa is good" and you will show me an intellectually honest individual with an open mind. the only morally and intellectually consistent point of view about global issues is an unbiased one. you don't have that sir. therefore, your opinions are deficient and invalid
don't like my opinion of you? then be able to articulate to me an opinion about iran that does not revolve around the usa. this is not me dictating the terms of the discussion, this is me informing you of the only logical framework in which your opinions have any weight in the reality you live in
you are unable to see past your hatred of the united states. meanwhile, my rationale and thinking is neither pro-usa, nor anti-usa. my opinion does not involve the usa. it is formulated simply on a consideration of iran's government. this makes my opinion sound, unbiased, and fair. you, on the other hand, are a blind, ignorant victim of propaganda. you are unable to enunciate to me an opinion about iran without blathering on about the united states. IRAN IS NOT THE UNITED STATES. do you understand that? based on your words, you don't. you think the usa pulls a string, and iran jumps. you think american actions dictate responsibility for iranian actions. this is incredibly ignorant, condescending, and ethnocentric of you. you see iran not as a coherent entity capable of responsibility and accountability, but as a simple reflection of western actions. this is patronizing of you to iranians. you have a colonialist attitude to noneuropean parts of the world. in your thinking, a colonial european is responsible and accountable. but noneuropeans, in your thinking, are not responsible or accountable, but merely reflections of what europeans do. why are so racist towards iranians?
my thinking of iran considers iran as responsible for its own
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, it could work assuming you are only talking about a few bombs, not full scale nuclear war. A nuke used by terrorists or a rogue state would most likely be a small fission bomb and while catastrophic would not mean the end of civilization. Even half a dozen nukes in major US cities wouldn't be the end of the world.
The link to his soaring pictures are just incredible!
TFA summarized: "If you compare apples to oranges long enough, and invoke enough buzzwords and Professorial Authority, people will praise your new clothes alongside the Emperors".
Seriously, I've studied nuclear weapons for the better part of twenty years and I can't figure out what the hell this guy is talking about. Most of his article seems to be anti-American rhetoric, coupled with significant factual errors, and wrapped up with a finale of "I invented public key cryptography and am thus an expert on this completely unrelated topic".
theocracy
nuclear bomb
put the two concepts together in your mind, tell me what your mind comes up with
k thx
xoxoxoxoxoxox
fucking retard
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
FTFA
If a pilot does a 99.9% safe maneuver 100 times, he stands roughly a 10% chance of being killed.
I stopped reading here. What a moron.
Let's see, somebody already got the "tiring" quip and the "40,000 curies is a lot" nonsense, so I'll take a few of the points the other responders left.
The "conditions that changed" were that all the O2 was used up in the explosion. So there was no more to react with the remaining H2, and so it couldn't possibly explode. H2 in such an environment is essentially an inert gas.
Also, airliners are no threat to containment buildings.
I'll leave your claim that, as radioactive materials decay, "you get more radioactivity growing into your sample making it more radioactive than it originally was" alone in case someone else wants to play. (Hint: if that were true, and given that the Earth's crust was rather radioactive 4 billion years or so ago, what should we expect to see today?)
--MarkusQ
People killed from Nuclear attack during the cold war...0
People killed from nuclear accident during the cold war > 0
His reasoning is an emotional plea, not based on any facts.
Yes, I know how safe nuclear reactors are especially 4th+ Gen, I was just pointing out his illogic.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel
You could probably even build a Plutonium-only nuclear plant, but that'd be pretty foolish, since the fuel elements would be ready-made nuclear-weapons components.
Wow, this is THE Hellman from the Merkle-Hellman cryptographic scheme.
While looking at your 2004 photographs of the Ansel Adams Wilderness Area I realized you almost took picture of the region where Steve Fosset crashed in 2007. The future crash site is near the middle left-hand side of the photographs of "Banner Peak (12,945 feet) and Mt. Ritter (13,157 feet)." Just beyond a ridgeline above a small snowfield. The angle of the photograph doesn't show the actual slope that Fosset crashed into last year. Looking at the photographs you get a sense of the beauty of the region, the ruggedness of these mountains, and an understanding of the difficulty of finding a small missing airplane within the various valleys and rocks.
as in, theocracy. as actually stated in the country's constitution
not theocracy. as in determined by propaganda-addled fools
theocracy is actually the reality in iran: the mullahs decide who runs and who doesn't, they in fact disqualified a popular reformist against ahmadinejad. now if the pope decided who could run for us president or not, you would have a point. but since this is not reality, you're simply a blind partisan hack. typical, dumb, useless
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it