Slashdot Mirror


Forget Hashtag Activism: a Millennial's Guide To Nuclear Weapons Realism

Lasrick writes: Matthew Costlow is frustrated with his generation's tendency of "hashtag activism" and would like Millennials instead to get real on the issue of nuclear weapons. He writes: "Allow me to suggest a radical new mindset for my generation as it confronts the issues of nuclear disarmament, Russian and Chinese aggression, and nuclear proliferation: extreme humility. Instead of 'boldly' proclaiming the need to raise awareness, let's utilize our generation's greatest asset—access to data—and truly understand the issues before trying to solve anything. Instead of proposing 'fresh ideas' for their own sake, let's recognize that we are not the first generation to deal with these issues and probably will not be the last. Instead of studiously avoiding specifics or hard choices, let's face a messy reality and not simplify an increasingly complex world to bumper-sticker activism."

258 comments

  1. Let's start a Kickstarter campaign! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That will help.

    1. Re:Let's start a Kickstarter campaign! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Or, we could start a kickstarter campaign to teach Lasrick how to spell "millennial".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Let's start a Kickstarter campaign! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, one to bitchslap spelling trolls.

    3. Re:Let's start a Kickstarter campaign! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Or, one to bitchslap spelling trolls.

      I'd let it go if it were only once. But not only does he repeat the mistake, but there are commenters who just assumed he was right and made the same error.

      If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Great Idea! by lazarith · · Score: 3, Funny

    Great Idea! +1 Like

    1. Re:Great Idea! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Hashtag: great idea!
      There, I've done my part to save the world.

    2. Re:Great Idea! by righteousness · · Score: 1

      #GreatIdea
      There, I've done my part to save the world.

      FTFY

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    3. Re:Great Idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great Idea! +1 Like

      Reposted/ReTweeted
      #didmypart #wheresmyNobelPrize

  3. #nomorehashtags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    #nomorehashtags

  4. What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They're the only country with a history of using the bomb (not once, but twice). Am I missing something?

    The Chinese leadership seem alot more disciplined, analytical and sane when you look at the recent history of American leadership.

    1. Re:What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your bait, it's of low quality.

    2. Re:What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trick to 'overcome' American aggression is to be an American... Extra points for being white male...

      Oh look! Another hateful racist remark on Slashdot. I guess this is why I spend most of my time on hacker news. This community sucks.

    3. Re:What about American agression? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      How many people did the Chinese leadership murder? Somewhere north of 50 million?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re: What about American agression? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "disciplined, analytical and sane"

      Qualities that should inspire concern, fear, respect, and caution when displayed by your enemies.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    5. Re:What about American agression? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many people did the Chinese leadership murder? Somewhere north of 50 million?

      Murder implies intent. Most of those millions died through economic incompetence. The leadership of China did not intend to kill them.

      Also, keep in mind that the people running China today, are the political descendants of the people that opposed the excesses of the past.

    6. Re:What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I did not realize that the government that is on the island of Formosa returned and took over running the government on mainland China. Wow. The shit you learn on /.

    7. Re:What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol.

      Economic incompetence?

      China is the richest country in the world with the highest GDP of any nation.

    8. Re:What about American agression? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "The leadership of China did not intend to kill them." Mao certainly did intend to kill everyone and anyone who questioned his leadership in any way. He didn't give two shits about the famine killing millions and he is on record stating he was willing to sacrifice half the Chinese population if that was what it took for his policies to succeed.

    9. Re:What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol.

      Economic incompetence?

      China is the richest country in the world with the highest GDP of any nation.

      Are you joking? It's hard to tell these days.

    10. Re:What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your facts, Chief.

    11. Re:What about American agression? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      they're stealing islands from filipinos and vietnamese, and mountains from indians. americans do many fucking stupid things, but they're not a traditional imperial power like russia or china: digesting and absorbing neighbors

      if you disagree with me, ask any canadian mexican or caribbean how worried they are about the usa coming in and taking their land

      then ask china and russia's neighbors how they feel about their wonderful large neighbors, old imperial powers who have been encroaching on, splitting up, and destroying smaller neighbors for centuries

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    12. Re:What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was only a *day* after both the F-22 and the F-35 made their debut, the Chinese unveiled their copies, which are both flying now, and are both a prominent fixture in their arsenal, with numerous nations taking orders for these jets (Burma is a very large purchaser). China simply can't make then fast enough. Meanwhile, all of the Anglo-Saxon nations except Britain have dumped this lemon as if its fruit flies had syphilis.

      Lol.

    13. Re:What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You socialist fools are so blind. Why don't you run off to join that "worker's paradise" that "accidentally" killed millions of people.

    14. Re: What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't speak for Canads but Latin and Central America disagree.

    15. Re: What about American agression? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      china is building airstrips on islands right now it stole from the philippines in the last year

      russia last year annexed crimea and is occupying ukraine, and vivisectioned georgia in 2008

      please describe similar american actions in latin and central america

      you can't. they don't exist

      america has been quite retarded in its middle eastern adventures, but no neighbor of the usa is in danger of being invaded and absorbed into the usa against its will

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    16. Re: What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has killed millions on purpose, mostly in the name of protecting corporate access to natural resources.

      Of course, we don't even pretend to be an ok place to be a worker let alone a paradise. Maybe that makes you happy for some reason?

    17. Re:What about American agression? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Interestingly that sort of bodycount is nothing new for China, at least according to this. Fall of the Ming Dynasty, 25 million, 17C. Taiping Rebellion, 20 million, 19C. An Lushan Revolt, 13 million, 8C. Xin Dynasty, 10 million, 1C. Fall of the Yuan Dynasty, 7½ million, 14C. Chinese Civil Wars, 7 million, 20C. Mao Zedong (mostly famine), 40 million 20C.

      Just as Chinese "communism" is nothing of the sort but rather a return to its centuries-old beurocratic-Imperial tradition, complete with caste system, Mao's excesses were pretty much business as usual for the Middle Kingdom. Chinese culture and China in general can most certaily ill afford to start throwing stones in their particular glass house.

      Also tangentially Genghis Khan managed to do away with twice as many people as Stalin, using only arrows and swords.

    18. Re:What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be conveniently forgetting US history, e.g. taking land from Native Americans & Hawaiians, and various wars of US aggression.

    19. Re:What about American agression? by patrick.kursawe · · Score: 1

      Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the following philippine war And no, today's neighbors are not so afraid of the USA coming and taking their land. They are more afraid of pissing off the US government or some big US company (United Fruit Company comes to mind) and getting to enjoy a CIA organized civil war / coup d'etat in the years to come. That has been the established method of plundering other contries while not getting your hands too dirty during the last 100+ years. Glass house, stones...

    20. Re: What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to your capitalism and the poverty you use as a weapon against your enemies? I would love to kill you and your family asshole. Would love to see your loved ones maimed and dismembered while you watch, scum!

    21. Re: What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neoliberalism, idiot. Wars are inefficient, best to sign trade agreements and steal resources legally. That is the weapon you and your serpent kind use against your enemies.

      That is just fine, retribution is coming motherfucker ... Prepare to fucking die.

    22. Re: What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neoliberalism, idiot. Wars are inefficient, best to sign trade agreements and steal resources legally. That is the weapon you and your serpent kind use against your enemies.

      That is just fine, retribution is coming motherfucker ... Prepare to fucking die.

      Show me an activist and not everybody agrees or even understands why they are angry.

      Show me the insane, and not even THEY know why they are angry.

      Of which type is the quoted AC above?

      Perhaps it's just not understanding the definitions of "steal" and "legally" or perhaps it's just plain old nuttier than squirrel turds.

    23. Re: What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This "America used it first" argument pops up from time to time and really just serves to highlight the ignorance of people using it.

      This was back when MAD wasn't a thing, and many many lives were saved by doing things that way. If you read any analysis of what an invasion would have looked like you would see that nuking was the better option.

      Look at what would have been required to "soften" Japan for an invasion. The bombing of Tokyo and resulting fires killed around the same number killed in the Nagasaki attack. Now multiply those numbers times every major industrial city in WWII Japan.

      Many lives were saved on both sides by using the "shock and awe" of the weapon rather than attrition to win the war.

      Now the decisions that go into use of these weapons are completely different. They are many times more powerful, use by one party is likely to lead to use by all parties, and there are certain smaller nations that are trying to build an Arsenal, who don't care about their own people, let alone anyone else on the planet.

      The situation is far more complex than many people seem to realize.

    24. Re:What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're the only country with a history of using the bomb (not once, but twice). Am I missing something?

      The Chinese leadership seem alot more disciplined, analytical and sane when you look at the recent history of American leadership.

      You are joking, right???

    25. Re: What about American agression? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Wait, does the Chinese F-35 work? Because if so, it's not a very good copy.

    26. Re: What about American agression? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Name one time that the US did that. Do the homework, I expect links.

      If you are referencing Iraq, that is laughable. Before the Iraq war, there were sanctions preventing Iraq from selling their oil, all we had to do to access those natural resources was to relieve the sanctions and they would have sold to us at any price.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    27. Re: What about American agression? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The US has fought no major wars in the name of protecting corporate access to natural resources. (There have been incursions into South America to rescue United Fruit, for example, but we didn't kill millions in those interventions.) Could you list major wars, the sort that kill at least tens of thousands of people, because of corporate access to natural resources? The Iraqi invasion might possibly count, but I really don't know why it was started, and it was certainly not successful at getting US companies cheap access to oil.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    28. Re:What about American agression? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "Murder implies intent"

      At a minimum, you could at least admit that it was negligent homicide.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    29. Re:What about American agression? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Also tangentially Genghis Khan managed to do away with twice as many people as Stalin, using only arrows and swords.

      He also used early (and not terrible efficient) germ warfare. They may not have known what they were doing, but they knew what their aim was.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    30. Re:What about American agression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is your hateful racism I am exposing. That is why I get modded down. You people don't like to see yourselves as you are.

    31. Re:What about American agression? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Lol.

      Economic incompetence?

      China is the richest country in the world with the highest GDP of any nation.

      Even if that were true now (which it isn't) it certainly wasn't the case when Chairman Mao took control.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    32. Re: What about American agression? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      The US was involved (via the CIA) in subverting democracy and supporting dictatorships in many South and Central American countries during the Cold War including Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras (in rough chronological order).

      There are other ways of furthering your country's interests than overt military invasion.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. bit preachy but true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt05...

    The 'old folk' have know that for years.

  6. the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by ozduo · · Score: 2

    is to "nuke them from space" Ha Ha!!

    --
    I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
    1. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is to "nuke them from space" Ha Ha!!

      Sadly, a pre-emptive winning nuclear strike is the only way to be 100% truly secure.

    2. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "orbit". Please get your movie quotes straight.

    3. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by nichogenius · · Score: 1

      Look up the concept of a nuclear triad... a full pre-emptive nuclear strike against any nation with nuclear triad capabilities will only do one thing effectively: get 100's of millions or billions of human beings killed.

    4. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      The US had a five year monopoly of nuclear weapons and did nothing. On top of that they were on top of the world in military production capabilities while most of the rest of the industrialized world was in ruin and yet they still did nothing. So you have to agree that they were pretty stupid for not conquering the world at that point, huh?

    5. Re: the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      The only way to win is to not play the game.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by Boronx · · Score: 1

      America was also face to face with the army that had won the largest war in history. An army from a country too big to nuke at the time.

    7. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up the concept of a nuclear triad... a full pre-emptive nuclear strike against any nation with nuclear triad capabilities will only do one thing effectively: get 100's of millions or billions of human beings killed.

      "And then there will be peace!"

    8. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "orbit". Please get your movie quotes straight.

      It's "It" you get your movie quotes straight before criticizing others!

      "Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure!"

      FTFY

      Game Over man!

    9. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      America was also face to face with the army that had won the largest war in history.

      Somehow that isn't quite what I heard in history class. It seems that no one won the war on their own. If the US and Austrailia weren't pounding Japan into dust, the US and Britain pounding Italy into dust (mostly in Africa), and the US and Britain pounding on Germany, how long would Russia have survived?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    10. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by Boronx · · Score: 1

      You have a point with the Italians. As for the Germans, the Russians faced 10 times as many divisions as the Western Allies for twice as long.

    11. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Surrounded by incompetents!

      "I say we dust off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure"

    12. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      America was also face to face with the army that had won the largest war in history.

      Somehow that isn't quite what I heard in history class. It seems that no one won the war on their own. If the US and Austrailia weren't pounding Japan into dust, the US and Britain pounding Italy into dust (mostly in Africa), and the US and Britain pounding on Germany, how long would Russia have survived?

      At the time Germany invaded Russia, the USA weren't in the war and Britain had been pushed out of mainland Europe. What stopped Hitler from conquering Russia was the Russians, at enormous cost to both sides.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It took me a moment to find your most recent post - I'd neglected to add you previously. I'm not sure if you recall a conversation we had (about selling my business, having some access to capital, relationships, life changes, expectations, the universe, etc.) but I figured I'd find some way to drop you a line and say that I've found a way to act on your suggestion - to some extent. I am out doing my wanderlust thing again (I do this every couple of years, or so it seems) and I'm just driving around at random. I am in Buffalo, NY, and traipsing along with absolutely no goals or destination. I have no designated time to return. I have nobody specific to meet.

      I am just going where the road leads and, if life should grant me interesting choices then I'll make those choices when I come to them. I am not, specifically, searching for anything - when asked I am simply seeking to discover real America and where I belong in it. My journey brings me to places where I have not been and to to places where I have been many times already.

      The goal is not to meet someone or anything like that. The goal is just to be out there. I left the RV at home and I'm not even staying in particularly nice hotels. In fact, I'm in an EconoLodge on the outskirts of Buffalo at the moment, not far from the arena, and went to Niagara yesterday. Who knows? Maybe I'll meet some hitchhiker that is meandering the globe or country and headed exactly nowhere - just like I? Maybe I'll stumble into someone at a club, bar, a diner? *shrugs*

      It would probably be easier if I drank but I'm not wiling to go down that road. If I drank then I'd be able to enjoy the time spent in bars or clubs more. So far, I've gone to a couple and met some interesting people but I've not actually met anyone that piques my interests enough to stick around. I'm thinking that I should spend more time in libraries and the likes. I'm really not suited for bars and clubs.

      I did limit myself to packing only two suits. The rest of the time I'm in reasonably casual clothing. That way, I at least look fairly normal. I think a reasonable summary might be that we all have issues of some type. In my case, strange as it may sound, finding someone that's reasonably trustworthy could be difficult. I don't feel I'm being dishonest. I've not made anyone think anything that is not true nor have I been dishonest with anyone.

      Anyhow, I figured I'd say hello and update you. It's a strange thing for strangers to be doing on Slashdot but I've done stranger. Life is too short to be worried about conventions and, quite frankly, I'm not exactly doing anything better with my time. So, we'll see where it goes from here. Having no specific goals, I really don't, means I'm not expecting anything so it will be nearly impossible for me to be let down.

      If something interesting or amusing does happen then, well, life is good. If not then I have a place in Henderson and can just go up and buy a hooker.

      Finally, as always, I'm enjoying the drive. I do this whole "wanderlust thing" fairly often and have since my youth. Whilst I miss the comforts of home, the familiarity, there's something equally familiar about going nowhere and sleeping in random hotels. I'm thinking that I may seek a nice tourist area that is mostly shut down due to the season being slow. Perhaps I'll seek a nice bed and breakfast or rent a small cottage and hang around for a while.

      I am thinking of something along the lines of a small town with a general store that has a hardware store attached, a diner, a small bar, and plenty of broadband. I can stay for a week or two and see what local culture rubs off on me and meet new and interesting people.

      So, thanks. We'll see where it goes from here. The ubiquity of the internet has made life so much more simple. The geek in me is insisting on connecting through my own desktop, many miles away, to ensure that I've truly got a reasonably secure connection. I'm playing with varied apps on my phone, things I'd never do at home. I've also found myself opening up an IDE at night and tweaking and poking - things I've not done in ages. Life is good, no? Alas, we've all got our problems.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:the easiest way to stop nuclear aggressors by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it may work out - glad to hear you are out and about and having fun. Definitely try things you have never done before - that's where you meet the most interesting people (well, I do at least). And if you ever just want to chat, you can email me at br4nm4n - thats at comcast dot net - directly instead of through /.

  7. Progressivism by rockmuelle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Data driven politics has a name. No need to reinvent it. Unfortunately, it's always struggled to get a strong following.

    -Chris

    1. Re:Progressivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same progressivism that used to promote eugenics? Or the one that promotes a planned economy, causing wild distortions that make things worse? Or the one that supported the prohibition (of alcohol), with disastrous outcomes?

    2. Re:Progressivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my fuck.
      That's a good one.

    3. Re:Progressivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      The same progressivism that used to promote eugenics? Or the one that promotes a planned economy, causing wild distortions that make things worse? Or the one that supported the prohibition (of alcohol), with disastrous outcomes?

      Nah, it's the same progressivism that promotes the abortion of "undesirables". Read Margaret Sanger - the founder of Planned Parenthood. There's a reason their abortion clinics are found in mostly-black areas....

      "Eugenics" indeed.

    4. Re:Progressivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progressivism is another name for Marxist Communism.

      Take a look at some of this "data": http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkil...

    5. Re:Progressivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's the same progressivism that paid for seven years of benefits with 10 years of taxes but still tried to claim they were saving money.

    6. Re:Progressivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh bullshit. Progressivism is just whitewashed "Steal from everyone"

    7. Re:Progressivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After reading all the replies to your comment, I for one am not surprised at all that politics based on reality has not caught on.

    8. Re:Progressivism by jensend · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's total bullcrap, motivated only by your partisan arrogance. The attitudes of the left towards e.g. food production and the entire field of economics are just as totally anti-science and devoid of consideration for facts as the attitudes of the right towards e.g. global warming. There is no party or movement that can claim the high ground here and there is not a single single member of congress who can be said to be on the side of data driven politics.

      And your assumption "my party is always right and we just need to work to get it a stronger following" is exactly the bullcrap herd activist mentality he's talking about here.

      Even using the term "progressivism" to some extent involves the same kind of problematic hasty and violent arrogance. As Chesterton said,

      Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are fond of talking about "liberty"; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about "progress"; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about "education"; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. The modern man says, "Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty." This is, logically rendered, "Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it." He says, "Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress." This, logically stated, means, "Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it." He says, "Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education." This, clearly expressed, means, "We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children."

      The case of the general talk of "progress" is, indeed, an extreme one. As enunciated today, "progress" is simply a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative. We meet every ideal of religion, patriotism, beauty, or brute pleasure with the alternative ideal of progress--that is to say, we meet every proposal of getting something that we know about, with an alternative proposal of getting a great deal more of nobody knows what. Progress, properly understood, has, indeed, a most dignified and legitimate meaning. But as used in opposition to precise moral ideals, it is ludicrous. So far from it being the truth that the ideal of progress is to be set against that of ethical or religious finality, the reverse is the truth. Nobody has any business to use the word "progress" unless he has a definite creed and a cast-iron code of morals. Nobody can be progressive without being doctrinal; I might almost say that nobody can be progressive without being infallible --at any rate, without believing in some infallibility. For progress by its very name indicates a direction; and the moment we are in the least doubtful about the direction, we become in the same degree doubtful about the progress. Never perhaps since the beginning of the world has there been an age that had less right to use the word "progress" than we.

      Reaching solutions requires

      • a sincere realization of our own ignorance and the sincerity and rationality of our opponents
      • the willingness to engage in real and reasonable discourse with those we disagree with, working to find goals we can pursue with enough common cause that our pursuit will not require tyrannical coercion
      • consistent attention to the data and the best science in choosing means of pursuing those goals

      (Science does not prescribe goals, but describes possible courses of action and their likely consequences; many problems, from failed social programs to environmental disasters, could have been avoided had people listened to scientists from economists to ecologists about the unintended consequences of policies.)

      Unfortunately, I doubt any party in any Western nation is presently capable of any of these three things.

    9. Re: Progressivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. The basement rooms full of conservative interns getting 25 cents per post must be full tonight.

      One thing progressive policies never cause is millions of deaths in wars for profit. Conservative thinking always leads to that. Some people say it's the politics of 'screw you, I've got mine' when the reality is it's 'screw you, I've got mine because we got the military too steal it for us'. Usually thought right before another cut in veterans' benefits of course...

    10. Re:Progressivism by rockmuelle · · Score: 2

      *sigh* The core concept of progressivism is what most of us want - policy based on our current best understanding of how the natural and social worlds work. The fact that it's been used to promote questionable policies in the past shows its flexibility: as we learn more, those policies are abandoned. The alternative, blindly holding on to policies that have been proven not to work (supply side economics on the right, Marxism on the left) just shows... what? That adherents are too proud to admit mistakes and evolve?

      It's true that in modern American/Western politics the term has a slightly different connotation, but to pretend that the idea of using data and knowledge to find good policies is new (which the OP claimed - millennials are the first generation to use data!) is silly. Smart people for centuries have been trying this approach and it's never caught on with the general public.

      The fact that my original post got modded "funny" shows just how hard it is to get people to think seriously about this approach.

      -Chris

    11. Re:Progressivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, I read his comment in a sarcastic tone. Image everyone on the interest is always being sarcastic.

    12. Re:Progressivism by jensend · · Score: 1

      It does sound too conveniently and obviously obtuse, doesn't it? I think that's why he got the funny mods, is that people thought he was trying to ironically mimic the hashtag activist mindset.

      Unfortunately if you look at it shows he wasn't being sarcastic at all. Just arrogant and shortsighted enough to be blind to the irony of it.

    13. Re:Progressivism by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The attitudes of the left towards e.g. food production and the entire field of economics are just as totally anti-science and devoid of consideration for facts as the attitudes of the right towards e.g. global warming.

      The attitude of peple on the left to GM food and companies like Monsanto is not anti-science it's anti-Corporation or (if you prefer) anti-Global Capitalism.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  8. There will always be nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Get real. As long as there are governments like Russia, China, Iran who would attempt to take over the world if there were not any powers to oppose them, the world will always need nukes.

    1. Re:There will always be nukes by galabar · · Score: 0

      Nonono! Russia is invading the Ukrain because... US! ...and China is building artificial islands and bullying their neighbors because... US! Get it straight.

    2. Re:There will always be nukes by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      oh yes because they're the ones who used nukes on civilian population, invaded countries which didn't attack them on the opposite side of the world from them, provided dictators with money and dual-use tech to build chemical WMD.....yes those are the warmongers of the world who export death

    3. Re:There will always be nukes by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I say this as someone who studied nuclear physics in college and worked at los alamos: There is nothing magical about nuclear. It's just a tool. A person dying in a nuclear blast is no more or less dead than one dying from a carpet bombing, regular bombing or food poisoning. Burns are burns and maiming is maiming if you don't die. Some are worse than others.
      As someone once said in a movie, the only winning move is not to play the game. Before nuclear weapons it was possible to win a war by playing the game

    4. Re:There will always be nukes by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I say this as someone who studied physics in college and worked at Fermilab, those that had radiation sickness from prompt exposure of the fission bombs were maimed in ways that no ordinary bomb could do.

    5. Re:There will always be nukes by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      How so?

    6. Re:There will always be nukes by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      And those maimed by ordinary bombs were maimed in ways radiation cannot. Acute massive exposures are certainly scary, but so is shrapnel ripping you apart.

    7. Re:There will always be nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more time a person spends in transition from life to imminent death, the more torturous it is for its mind. Or at least that is how the survivors see them. That is why the most horrible deaths, in most people opinion, are those which are deliberately prolonged. Radiation sickness gives a number of increasingly worsening symptoms over prolonged time.

    8. Re:There will always be nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "yes those are the warmongers of the world who export death"

      As opposed to the nice sods who choose to keep it within their own borders?

    9. Re:There will always be nukes by Alioth · · Score: 1

      However, unlike regular chemical explosive weapons, nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to the whole of civilisation. Even a relatively small nuclear war (let's imagine India and Pakistan exchanging 50 weapons in the range of several tens of kilotons at each other) would cause climate change that would even impact countries thousands of kilometers from the conflict for many years afterwards.

    10. Re:There will always be nukes by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. What was illegal about Hiroshima is that the main Japanese headquarters for the defense of Kyushu (the southernmost of the four big islands) was in a city, surrounded by civilians.

      I'm having trouble with the plural in "invaded countries...". I'll give you Iraq, but what other countries? In Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea, we came to the aid of what we recognized as the legitimate government, and that's not invading. In WWII, we invaded countries that had been conquered by the enemy, but I'm ruling that that doesn't count.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:There will always be nukes by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Actually, to most of those, yes, they in fact have.

      invaded countries which didn't attack them

      Why yes, China has invaded other countries, such as the current slow invasion of the Philippians and Vietnam, and Japan, or the old in support of North Korea, though I will give you Vietnam, as the US was supporting the rebels in that war. Russia most assuredly has as they are currently occupying parts of Georgia and Ukraine and are currently invading Syria. Where in the world these countries are matters very little, it just makes the invasion easier.

      provided dictators with money and dual-use tech

      Snipped chemical as it matters little. Wouldn't this be kind of the Cuban missile crisis in a word, or Iran's current nuclear program? Or North Korea, or Vietnam, for China?

      The whole point being made is that we have to consider every country that has nukes before trying to get any one of them to disarm, yet you seem to think everyone but the US is a saint, which they definitely are not.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    12. Re:There will always be nukes by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      But nuclear weapons are unique in being tools that you can't actually use.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:There will always be nukes by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but in Afghanistan the US/coalition overthrew the Taliban who were the legitimate government.

      Whether or not it's a good thing that the Taliban were overthrown is a different question.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:There will always be nukes by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the Taliban was recognized by very few other countries as the legitimate government. It was the de facto government, but that didn't give it legitimacy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:There will always be nukes by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      wrong,. news for you, nuclear weapons also have the blast, shrapnel, heat...everything a chemical bomb does plus added bonus of gamma radiation

    16. Re:There will always be nukes by rubycodez · · Score: 1
  9. that's some serious hubris! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 0

    As a member of the Millenial generation, I find Matthew Costlow's point of view to be shortsighted and dim witted.

    Lastly, my generation has a nasty habit of encountering a problem and insisting that we do something about it. If you press us for specifics, you only hear crickets. So when we are confronted with the problem of, say, nuclear crises, a Millennial response goes something like this: “If humanity is ever to be free from the threat of nuclear catastrophe, people need to stand up and demand further action on nuclear reductions from their representatives.” What specific actions would free humanity from the threat of nuclear catastrophe? Why were these actions not taken earlier? How would unilateral nuclear reductions enhance our security? Crickets

    * What specific actions would free humanity from the threat of nuclear catastrophe?
    1) nuclear disarmament is a start.
    2) advancing our nuclear technology to use thorium would eat up nuclear waste and not produce plutonium.

    * Why were these actions not taken earlier?
    1) nuclear disarmament has been going on for a LONG time!
    2) it will take time and money to fully develop and the public has been conditioned to be terrified of nuclear anything.
    3) politics

    * How would unilateral nuclear reductions enhance our security?
    It would ensure that these dangerous weapons are not used on humans.

    So... can we do those or are you going to just bitch about other Millenials on the internet?

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thank you for offering a great example of what Costlow says is wrong with Millennials. Outrage, minimal analysis, bumper sticker solutions. The only thing keeping it from being a perfect example is the use of actual hashtags.

      Bravo!

    2. Re:that's some serious hubris! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      3) politics

      * How would unilateral nuclear reductions enhance our security? It would ensure that these dangerous weapons are not used on humans.

      So... can we do those or are you going to just bitch about other Millenials on the internet?

      Um ... you did see the "unilateral" part, right?

    3. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, that was the original article. "We should do these things! #hashtagsdonthelp"

    4. Re:that's some serious hubris! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      * How would unilateral nuclear reductions enhance our security?
      It would ensure that these dangerous weapons are not used on humans.

      So, if WE get rid of our nukes, that'll ensure that North Korea never uses a nuke? Interesting theory. Got any evidence it'll work?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re: that's some serious hubris! by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      I continue to be amazed that people actually want to abolish nuclear weapons just so we can all-out conventional slugfests again. Just the battle of the Marne.

      The best way to prevent large wars is to make sure that the old men and women get to play too. The thought of living in a bunker for a few years then ruling a world of ash seems to calm down even John McCain.

    6. Re:that's some serious hubris! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What specific actions would free humanity from the threat of nuclear catastrophe?
      1) nuclear disarmament is a start.

      That's like saying, in response to a question on how to solve world hunger, that "coming up with a magical device that just produces free food for everyone is a start". I mean, yes, it technically is, but you haven't made anything clearer.

      2) advancing our nuclear technology to use thorium would eat up nuclear waste and not produce plutonium.

      That's one valid point. Of course, it doesn't really solve the problem that states want to produce plutonium, because they want to have nukes. Until you address that part, the rest is immaterial.

      nuclear disarmament has been going on for a LONG time!

      Yes, except that it, for the most part, hasn't been unilateral (in cases where some countries did unilaterally dispose of their nuclear programs and/or arsenals, there was always an implicit assumption that they have a bigger ally who'll step in for them for MAD purposes).

      Furthermore, that process, despite going for a long time, has not really resulted in disarmament. There has been a significant reduction of stocks compared to the height of Cold War, but it basically went down to the level that's necessary for MAD and then stopped. If you want full disarmament, past experience is not necessarily helpful. And it's not even a given that the present configuration is stable, in light of the recent developments in world politics...

      it will take time and money to fully develop and the public has been conditioned to be terrified of nuclear anything.

      How much time? How much money? Where do we get those resources from? How do we recondition the public?

      politics

      Politics is one of the major factors in the development of human society - indeed, any coherent plan you might have for making things better is by definition also "politics". The question you should be asking is, how to rally people [who make decisions] behind your politics. If they aren't there already, it's either because they don't know about it (in which case, how can you make them be aware?), or because they perceive it to be conflicting with some of their other interests (in which case, how can you make it not conflict, or convince them that this is more important?), or because they don't think the plan will work (in which case, is it perhaps because there are some objective flaws in the plan, and how to address them?).

      * How would unilateral nuclear reductions enhance our security?
      It would ensure that these dangerous weapons are not used on humans.

      Yes. A unilateral nuclear disarmament (especially complete) would indeed ensure that these dangerous weapons won't be used on humans. It will be some other dangerous weapons, of a country that did not disarm, that will be sued.

      So... can we do those

      Who is "we"?

    7. Re: that's some serious hubris! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      All-out conventional slugfests are a lot of fun (as long as you are not the one being slugged at any given time). Have you ever noticed the rate of technological advances that occurred in WWII? The world went from fabric covered biplanes to pressurized metal intercontinental aircraft and from rocket cars to rockets in space in just a 16 years.

    8. Re: that's some serious hubris! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like any topic where "Millenials believe X": that is because they are idiots who have received a really shitty education. China has about 35 million "excess males" thanks to their one child policy and cultural traditions that put a premium on having a son. Assuming that most of these guys aren't gay, they will likely never have a girlfriend or spouse. In a world without nukes, what would stop a maniac leader from putting all those guys in uniform, giving them battle rifles, and then whipping them up into a frenzy saying that they're going to invade (Japan, India, etc) so they can fuck anyone chick they capture and bring them back to China for their wives? No one.

    9. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This story is soo old hat. You have to realize that generation NExt is not beholden to the old fashioned thinking that brought slavery and white privilege. Using the power of innovation and inclusiveness harnessed through next generation tools such as the web, will create a synergestic effect and bring about world peace and free puppies for all.

    10. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one valid point. Of course, it doesn't really solve the problem that states want to produce plutonium, because they want to have nukes. Until you address that part, the rest is immaterial.

      States will still want plutonium for weapons, sure. But once weapons grade plutonium is the only reason to keep those old reactors going it is going to be much easier to bring non-proliferation pressure to shut them down. Look at Iran - the problem there is you can't really guarantee which is legitimate production and which is illegitimate. Wouldn't even be a question if thorium was an option.

    11. Re:that's some serious hubris! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The question you should be asking is, how to rally people [who make decisions] behind your politics.

      Well said

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      "Never trust anyone over thirty" is the mantra of the radical left, and among the many reasons the left has put so much effort into politicising third level education since the 70s. Don't take my word for it, go look up the Harvey Silverglate interview, the co-founder of FIRE. And he identifies as a leftist.

      The reason for this shibboleth is another old adage - nothing takes an impression like youth and white paper. By the time you get into your thirties you've had a chance to experience the world and understand history and culture, you can see for yourself how destructive leftist policies can be - and I'd differentiate between leftism and the ostensible social goods they champion, for example a complete welfare state existed back in the Roman empire long before Marx put pen to paper.

      Many of these "millenials", much as I dislike the term, are simply products of what they were taught in college. They'll learn in time but by then another wave of indoctrinates will be stamping around the place telling us how older people are evil and should die.

      This isn't the whole picture of course but it's a substantial slice.

    13. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, no.

      One glaring trait of Millenials is a tendency to cocoon; to avoid anything that might broaden their worldview, and in many respects, a carefully constructed superficiality to keeps them from ever having to engage with the rest of the world.

      Other generations couldn't wait to leave the house, to see the world. Not Millenials. Yes, the economy is bad, but when did that ever keep the exuberance of youth tied to the farm?

      And especially university; the hellhole of witch-hunts that make up schooling now are a direct reflection of Millenials' inability to contend with anything not scripted and inoffensive. Most generations tended to get annoyed at being smothered while Millenials seems to embrace it.

      As it is they will be well into their 50s before they have enough life experience to contribute something useful.

    14. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that, as annoying as it is, when you're vocal (casually, not loudly) about your political beliefs, they're actually infectious. There have been several studies over the last decade or so. The majority of people just want to be like all the people around them. It happens subconsciously. When they see that five of their friends are fans of Politician A, without any real thought, they start to feel the same way.

      Hashtag activism for many issues actually does work. Like 1/100000th as good as actually getting of your ass and doing something, but just by spewing the right words you can influence someone else to do something. Especially when you throw in more dumb shit (that also happens to involve money) like the ice water challenge.

      Humans are dumb. All of us, even the ones who don't think we are.

    15. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "eep the exuberance of youth tied to the farm?"

      Well its a good thing some kids stay on the farm or we'd all be rather hungry. But I take your point.

    16. Re: that's some serious hubris! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What it does is gets thousands of people living in the streets "occupying" who don't actually have any real or clear message on how to solve these problems they are so worried about. It's like a bunch of 5 year olds screaming "ow it hurts! Fix it now!"

    17. Re:that's some serious hubris! by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Thank you for offering a great example of what Costlow says is wrong with Millennials. Outrage, minimal analysis, bumper sticker solutions.

      I lack to see how that differs from any other generation. "Outrage, minimal analysis, bumper sticker solutions." is a prefect description of not only my generation for the most part (Gen X) but certainly the current state of mind of the Baby Boomers as evidenced by my parents and their friends.

    18. Re:that's some serious hubris! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You know, pointing in the general direction of a single interview with one person I haven't heard of who is co-founder of something that's apparently an organization I've never heard of either isn't a good basis to characterize "the left" in general.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re: that's some serious hubris! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My read on the WWII advancement is that it was cashing in on what more basic research we had while not replacing it. Sort of like eating some of the seed corn because there's an emergency. Some of the progress was because we accepted more risks. The B-26 and the Navy SB2C dive bomber would not have been put into service for a lot longer in peacetime, if they went at all. Wartime warships were generally way overcrowded for peacetime use.

      While there were fabric-covered biplanes in WWII, they were mostly considered obsolescent at best (okay, the Italians still liked them). The Spitfire and B-17, to name two, were prewar, and late war fighters and bombers were similar to them but bigger and with more powerful engines. There were two jet aircraft to get into front-line service in any numbers, the German Me 262 and the British Meteor. I know of many problems with the 262 that made it a less than satisfactory warplane, and I've been told the Meteor had its own problems. The B-29 (the best pressurized metal intercontinental aircraft) was a case of luck. Boeing introduced lots of advanced features, which could have gone wrong, and so Consolidated was making the less advanced B-32 in case the B-29 didn't work.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    20. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Fairly sure my rates are beyond your ability to pay Dave, so feel free to hit Google and educate yourself.

    21. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And one of the few countries that has, in fact, disarmed was recently invaded and dismembered by one that didn't. The fact that no one stepped in stands as a huge incentive for no one to disarm ever again.

    22. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Thank you for offering a great example of what Costlow says is wrong with Millennials. Outrage, minimal analysis, bumper sticker solutions.

      I lack to see how that differs from any other generation. "Outrage, minimal analysis, bumper sticker solutions." is a prefect description of not only my generation for the most part (Gen X) but certainly the current state of mind of the Baby Boomers as evidenced by my parents and their friends.

      The Millennials have the backwash of the self-esteem movement on top of it all, being a pretty decent case study in precisely why that combination is a horrible, terrible idea as the self-esteem movement could be one of the poster children for the last part. When you've been told you're awesome for most of your life, it's a bit of a comedown to realize that you are, at best, normal, and maybe at the low end of that too. It doesn't help if you had the additional problem of having even what is normal expected behavior treated as praiseworthy, and discover that once an adult people will no longer praise you for such.

    23. Re:that's some serious hubris! by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The Millennials have the backwash of the self-esteem movement on top of it all, being a pretty decent case study in precisely why that combination is a horrible, terrible idea as the self-esteem movement could be one of the poster children for the last part. When you've been told you're awesome for most of your life, it's a bit of a comedown to realize that you are, at best, normal, and maybe at the low end of that too. It doesn't help if you had the additional problem of having even what is normal expected behavior treated as praiseworthy, and discover that once an adult people will no longer praise you for such.

      You say there is a case study? Can I get a link to that paper? Is is Psychological or Sociological in scope?

    24. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      The Millennials have the backwash of the self-esteem movement on top of it all, being a pretty decent case study in precisely why that combination is a horrible, terrible idea as the self-esteem movement could be one of the poster children for the last part. When you've been told you're awesome for most of your life, it's a bit of a comedown to realize that you are, at best, normal, and maybe at the low end of that too. It doesn't help if you had the additional problem of having even what is normal expected behavior treated as praiseworthy, and discover that once an adult people will no longer praise you for such.

      You say there is a case study? Can I get a link to that paper? Is is Psychological or Sociological in scope?

      If you want the published materials, hit up social psychology and you will get many papers--no formal case study since it basically was a massive experiment conducted informally, and odds are good that if it had to go through the formal routes it'd have had the Ethics Review Board go "Why did you think this was a good idea?" given that as far as I can tell there was strong evidence against its theoretical underpinnings from the start. Its theoretical underpinnings now are pretty much destroyed, in part by it.

      On the bright side, the self-esteem movement is large part of how we got pretty good confirmation that even small children can correctly identify bull--and some reasonably wonder why you are praising them for something that is, well, normal and expected for their age...and don't like the obvious answer.

    25. Re:that's some serious hubris! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Thank you for offering a great example of what Costlow says is wrong with Millennials. Outrage, minimal analysis, bumper sticker solutions. The only thing keeping it from being a perfect example is the use of actual hashtags.

      Bravo!

      I especially enjoued OP's insightful comment:

      * What specific actions would free humanity from the threat of nuclear catastrophe?

      1) nuclear disarmament is a start.

      If only someone had thought of this before!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re:that's some serious hubris! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'd differentiate between leftism and the ostensible social goods they champion, for example a complete welfare state existed back in the Roman empire long before Marx put pen to paper.

      So what's your point? That Marx was reviving an old idea, and therefore he's a plagiarist? Or that the only Real Welfare State is based on widespread slavery and imperialism?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:that's some serious hubris! by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      My point was that you can have a social safety net without buying into the dualistic us versus them, good and bad, black and white worldview that leftism - defined as that family of ideologies descended from and related to Marx's work - demands. It's not helpful, and in fact is counterproductive.

  10. mmm... by SpankiMonki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As near as I can tell, hashtag activism occurs in cyberspace. REAL activism occurs in meatspace. My advice to millennial "activists"? Step away from the internet and do something real.

    (don't do it on my lawn)

    1. Re:mmm... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      As near as I can tell, hashtag activism occurs in cyberspace. REAL activism occurs in meatspace. My advice to millennial "activists"? Step away from the internet and do something real.

      (don't do it on my lawn)

      But your lawn is so much ... safer ... than those sandier "lawns" ...

    2. Re:mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #BringBackOurActivists

    3. Re:mmm... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been to OWS and such? Meatspace is very much about hashtag activism these days, unfortunately.

    4. Re:mmm... by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      REAL activism occurs in meatspace.

      #GoOutside

      PS: take your own advice, or STFU.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    5. Re:mmm... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you ever been to OWS and such? Meatspace is very much about hashtag activism these days, unfortunately.

      It always has been. Slogans have always been part of political activism. They've found the same political graffiti in several places in pre-Christian Europe.

      Just because it's given a new name, "hashtag" doesn't mean it's something new. I'll bet there were plenty of dilettante colonials who were saying "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" when there were no British within earshot.

      It's not a new thing. Some people are Martin Luther King or Ghandi who will go to jail or starve themselves for a cause, and some people are Sarah Palin, who stands fast on the issues until she chips a nail or her gravy train gets stalled.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If "meatspace" is the opposite to "cyberspace" then why is cyberspace 99% pictures of meat?

    7. Re:mmm... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I agree that it is not a new thing per se, but I feel that the balance is getting tilted more towards it simply because of all the progress in communication tech. These things are ridiculously easy to organize and amplify now (in fact, quite a few are outright spontaneous). So the sheer number of them, and the amount of time people spend involved in them, is much larger.

    8. Re:mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #RomanusEuntDomus

  11. Summary and Article: Poor Trolling by Notabadguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An article and summary using buzzwords and hashtag activism to suggest people should stop using buzzwords and hashtag activism about nuclear issues - just to make the OP feel like they did something more than using buzzwords and hashtag activism.

    P.S. Hashtag activism.

    1. Re:Summary and Article: Poor Trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, this is political nonsense.

      > Russian and Chinese aggression

      How about our aggression?

    2. Re:Summary and Article: Poor Trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about preventing ww3?

    3. Re:Summary and Article: Poor Trolling by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      An article and summary using buzzwords and hashtag activism to suggest people should stop using buzzwords and hashtag activism about nuclear issues - just to make the OP feel like they did something more than using buzzwords and hashtag activism.

      P.S. Hashtag activism.

      Can we please call it "hashtivism"? "Hashtag activism" sounds like something an old person would say, probably via email.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  12. Oh it's about to get very real by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Limited nuclear attacks in a number of spots around the Earth are now assured, probably in five years or so.

    I look forward to the Buzzfeed articles explaining how EMP works are why half a continent has no working electronics - or I would if SF weren't the primary target.

    Good luck everyone! And don't forget to wrap at least one backup hard drive in aluminum foil.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limited nuclear attacks in a number of spots around the Earth are now assured

      How so? I've been hearing about 'rogue' nuclear weapons usage ever since those Clancy and Forsyth books got published sometimes in the early 80s, and it still hasn't happened, even though nobody is subscribed to MAD today anymore officially.

      Using tactical nukes is idiotic, because it pollutes places close to where you are, and using strategic nukes is not possible, well, because it is still the same players that got them, and they still only work as a deterrent.

      In summary: it is time to follow the advice in the summary and learn a thing or two about nukes, and not from the 80s thrillers.

    2. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's going to be some shit for brains country that starts firing off nukes, North Korea or Iran for example. But that's OK, the first outgoing one that gets off the ground will result in 50 incoming and will turn the shithole into fused sand.

    3. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      How so? I've been hearing about 'rogue' nuclear weapons

      Iran + 150 billion dollars = nuclear weapons being used.

      Iran is already close to having nuclear weapons; they will use them because they hope to be attacked, they are using the populace as a kind of human shield to stir up hatred against whoever retaliates. The whole goal is to instigate war, while at the same time killing as many of the "enemy" as they can.

      Iran also heavily supports a lot of other organizations like Hamas, who has no qualms about firing missiles at schools and civilian targets today, so why would they care if the missiles they fire are nuclear? All the better.

      Anyway, it's inevitable now so we'll just see who gets hit. No point in worrying anymore.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      You would not need nuclear weapons to flatten nk or iran and probably wouldn't be used to avoid political repercussions. That would doubly turn world opinion against whatever country initiated a nuclear attack.

    5. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran is not suicidal. They want nukes because without them they suffer the threat of an Israel who has nukes and no deterrence.

    6. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      Mod +1

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    7. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit on your post. Iran has never bothered anyone. Please take your 'Iran the boogeyman' nonsense and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    8. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would not need nuclear weapons to flatten nk or iran and probably wouldn't be used to avoid political repercussions. That would doubly turn world opinion against whatever country initiated a nuclear attack.

      How cute. It thinks world opinion matters.

    9. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran is not suicidal. They want nukes because without them they suffer the threat of an Israel who has nukes and no deterrence.

      Iran,maybe not. The moslems that run it, some of them are. Moslems elsewhere, definitely are.

      Remember, Iran is the country that used human waves of human shields in a war not so long ago when they KNEW they would be facing chemical weapons, and it was Iran that used children to clear land mines in that war as well. The people and parties running it now, were the ones running it then.

      It's laughable for you to assert that Israel will have unchecked aggression against and industrialized country full of muslems for no goddamn reason. Your antisemitism is sickening, as is Irans for thinking the same thing. Israel has had nukes for a long goddamn time and they have had lots of excuses to use them.

    10. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Iran is far from developing nuclear weapons. So far, in fact, that even Mossad, the CIA, and MI6 all agree that they aren't even pursuing them. But I'm sure you'll ignore that because it doesn't fit into your bizarre rhetoric. Plus comparing the pathetic rockets Hamas uses to nuclear armed ones shows you are either woefully ignorant of this topic or desperate to lie in order to make a point. Neither option seems to portray you as a sane, rational human being, so you might want to readjust your approach to discussing this topic.

    11. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You appear to be purposefully trying to use "Moslem" as some sort of offensive epithet. It's apparent because you screwed up trying to type it and ended up with "muslems". We get it. You are a xenophobe. That much is patently clear. You are making massive generalisations of great swathes of people (over 1.6bn) based on some schoolyard-level analysis. You are pathetic. I suspect you know this already.

    12. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The responding power(s) (the US, likely also Russia) would do what they needed to to take out the attacker's nuclear capabilities ASAP, and if that happens to involve ICBMs with thermonuclear weapons, well, that's how it goes. After that, the country would be flattened by conventional forces, and all traces of the previous government removed and/or facing war crimes trials.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Iran is very unlikely to use nukes, particularly now that they've agreed to inspections which will at worst greatly hinder their development. The Iranian leaders know what they can get away with while not being forcibly removed from power by Western countries, and nukes aren't it.

      If you want to worry about a Muslim nuke, worry about Pakistan. I do sometimes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Stuxnet must've just came from disgruntled Iranian employees and put their panties in a twist because none of the peaceloving Iranians could play Tetris anymore. No development at all and no covert intervention from the rest of the world, I'm sure.

    15. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You might want to consider the topology of NK (http://b.static.trunity.net/images/194500/600x617/scale/747px-north-korea-topography.png)

      To "flatten" a country that's roughly the size of Indiana with mountain ranges is quite a bit different that doing it to a desert nation. You also get to deal with the tunnels and bunkers they've created: http://articles.orlandosentine...

      Yes, the U.S. has bunker busters, but you have to know where to use them all. And the fact that NK has successfully tunneled into the ROK would indicate that the ability to detect them all is still lacking http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    16. Re:Oh it's about to get very real by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      GAGF dickhead

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  13. Stupid by hackwrench · · Score: 2

    On the internet no one can tell you're a Millennial, or from any other group, for that matter. I voted this article down as stupid, but it got through anyway. I'm sorry, but I'm not part of the echo chamber that âoeboldlyâ proclaims the need to raise awareness, nor do I assume such an echo chamber contains only Millennials.

    1. Re:Stupid by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      On the internet no one can tell you're a Millennial

      Totally gave me the "chilling movie tagline" vibe.

      In #space, no one can read your #hashtags........

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  14. Every new generation thinks it's special by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Guess what, those old people milling about in Congress and running around Iowa trying to become President, when they were young they didn't trust anyone over 30. They were the generation of Rock N Roll and psychedelic drugs. They were so special that they were going to change the world forever and usher in a new utopian age.

    Now they're just old fogeys and the world still has war and poverty and nuclear weapons.

    1. Re:Every new generation thinks it's special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm not so sure why everyone dumps on millennials when it comes to stuff like this. I see plenty of non-millennial CEOs in the news that justify their pay by the fact that they're more special than anyone else. I know plenty of baby boomers who talk about how millennials have entitlement issues while at the same time complaining that social security that the paid into is going away (you didn't pay for your social security, you paid for your parents & grandparents social security). But somehow, the millennials get a bad wrap. Of course there are people in all generations at all times that think they're special, and there are people in all generations at all times that don't have this problem. This problem isn't defined by any specific generation, it's defined by specific people. So why does everyone (especially the media) always try to define that as a generational problem when it doesn't even apply?

    2. Re:Every new generation thinks it's special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because they whine more than previous generations who at least didn't sit around mooching of their parents and needed them to drive them anywhere because they were too damn lazy or busy with a video game to bother learning how to drive.

    3. Re:Every new generation thinks it's special by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Every new generation thinks it's special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, but this new generation is completely different from that old generation. Sure you may say that that is what the last generation thought about the generation before their generation. But this generation is really different. I know because they tell me so all the time.

      Can't w8 2 c what the world will be like. I think there will be just as much hatred and bigotry as before. However the object of the hatred and bigotry will change. 'White' will be an insult and 'nigger' will be a complement. 12 year olds will insult taunt each other by crying 'homophobe' vs faggot.

    5. Re:Every new generation thinks it's special by ultranova · · Score: 1

      They were so special that they were going to change the world forever and usher in a new utopian age.

      And they did. Look at the US or the EU - or, for that matter, China. All are led by people who think they're building shining futures for themselves. That these shining futures always become nightmares for everyone else is neither accidental nor new. After all, if the parisians were comfortable rather than starving your Versailles could be a bit more opulent, whether it's personal wealth (US), new gold standard (Euro) or dreams of restoring lost glory (China).

      Now they're just old fogeys and the world still has war and poverty and nuclear weapons.

      What the world has is plenty of people who consider war, poverty and nuclear weapons as acceptable price to pay for their personal utopias.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Every new generation thinks it's special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh FFS.

      "The same exact reason why millenials turn up their nose at domestic brands of cars and go for the VWs, Toyotas, and Mazdas is why there are no meaningful jobs here in the US when it comes to manufacturing.

      Right, because it had nothing to do with he reputation domestic brands gave themselves. Ford = Fix Or Repair Daily. When did the bailouts happen, what is the average age of a millennial when that occurred? Domestic car manufactures didn't suddenly lose a bunch of sales one year when a new generation came of age to purchase a car. It was a long time making of bad decisions and bad reputations.

      Also, the newest generation of age can compel inter-national companies to keep their manufacturing in USA that may or may not increase their costs. You are a fucking moron.

      They didn't live with the Soviet Union as a boogeyman...You know who millenials act closely as? 1930s apolitical Germans. They would not bother with politics. We can see what happened next. Crappy economy, lots of immigrants coming in further driving down wages.

      Yes, instead we have the terrorist boogeyman. They can be any one anywhere at any time, and they already attacked us. The laws that gave the government power similar to pre-nazi Germany had already been passed (Patriot act, Military Commissions act of 06, etc vs. Reichstag's Fire Decree). It was the generation that were too young to vote (or barely turning 18) that caused the mudslide in civil liberties.

      Apolitical? yes, because this is the first generation ever to rebel against the establishment...

      I don't like the slactivism or stereotype of the millennials either... but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know you are looking for a scapegoat to blame all of societies ills on.

      You're an idiot.

    7. Re:Every new generation thinks it's special by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      FYI, at this point Toyota is as much if not more domestic than Ford/GM/etc.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  15. Want to solve most of the world's problems? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 0

    You want radical and "messy"? Eliminate healthcare. Youth want a big, bright, collective future. Older generations like the status quo, like to believe the world is their's to play like an RTS. Let the old, infirm generations perish and you'll eliminate most of the worlds despots and imperialists.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    1. Re:Want to solve most of the world's problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your grandparents beat you, didn't they?

    2. Re:Want to solve most of the world's problems? by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      The older generations have an excuse, they were poisoned by lead in fuels, they are lead heads, the younger generations that weren't poisoned to such a degree (that lead released is still in the environment, well, at least the lead not stuck in the brains of the older generation), well, what is their excuse for by empty content consumers and not being sufficiently politically active in order to end being screwed over. For the older generation there is no getting over the damage done to their minds by lead poisoning, younger generations will quite simply have to do much more politically if they want change. Don't wait to be selected with political representatives, find your own and support them, watch out for smooth talking charlatans though. You could probably do no worse than looking at the younger generations of qualified educators (more teachers and less lawyers will probably work quite well in politics).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Want to solve most of the world's problems? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Let the old, infirm generations perish and you'll eliminate most of the worlds despots and imperialists.

      Sorry, the world's despots and imperialists mostly took power in their 30s and 40s, when they were still young enough to want to change the world. Most people who want to change the world simply want to impose their will on others through force - left and right, that's the same. That's the upside of hashtag activism: it's meaningless, which is generally for the best.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Want to solve most of the world's problems? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I think you forgot the 40+ demographic running things part. Political action is only useful if the people whom hold proper ideas also represent the majority and are not otherwise disenfranchised. Without the 40+ folks gone, neither qualification stands much of a chance.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    5. Re:Want to solve most of the world's problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want radical and "messy"? Eliminate healthcare. Youth want a big, bright, collective future. Older generations like the status quo, like to believe the world is their's to play like an RTS. Let the old, infirm generations perish and you'll eliminate most of the worlds despots and imperialists.

      Healthcare helps those people who were likely to die at 60 to continue to live until they're 65.

      The old assholes that you're thinking of are the ones that live to 90 anyway. And yes, I know about Dick Cheney's heart transplant. He was already 71.

  16. I'm adopting fatalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eventually someone is going to start selling nukes out of their mom's basement.

  17. I think there is a fundamental problem with this.. by morethanapapercert · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There is a basic, underlying, flaw in this proposal. It's the same flaw in human nature that makes all activism and even the democratic process less effective than it is in theory.

    Studying the history, reading and evaluating the various pundits, activists, experts and talking heads output is hard. Sure; any one of normal intelligence and education should be able (and willing) to do this, but it is human nature to take the easy way out if possible. How many people, even in political organizations, really pay attention to what the other guy is saying, attempt to understand what is being said and why?

    It is the real world equivalent of reading all the foot notes and reading all the citations mentioned in the bibliography. It's tedious and time consuming, even people whose job it is to actually do all of that due diligence stuff tend to skimp and cut corners if they can. Only Russell's teapot knows how many student essays and theses, how many scientific papers, how many campaign and floor speeches reference totally bogus or inapplicable bullshit, counting on the audience to not bother following up on them. I am convinced however, that it is a large number.

    This is just human nature, and I've come to simply accept it for what it is. So; rather than ranting on about how people should be doing X or Y, I try to ask myself Why don't> people do X or Y, How can I make X or Y the more desirable/rewarding choice than what the people are already doing?

    Why don't more people do this? Obviously because doing that is also hard compared to just ranting about what people should be doing. Frankly; I consider myself a smart person, but I haven't been clever enough to figure out a way to make active, diligent participation in the democratic process more desirable/rewarding than just sitting at home complaining about the politicians.

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  18. Hopefully after I am in the ground by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really what kind of idiot wants to dismantle a system that has kept the world peaceful for 70 years.

    1. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      MAD is a post hoc model adopted in the 1960s, more than 15 years into the Cold War. Although a more basic notion is much older, so is the notion and possibility of an unwinnable war.

      MAD may or may not be causative of our relative peace. Even if it were causative, it also doesn't mean that alternative peace-keeping mechanisms aren't possible, nor even preferable. To think otherwise is a logical fallacy (see Is-Ought Problem on Wikipedia).

      The 19th and early 20th century were incredibly bloody in the Western world, but that also coincides with the Industrial Revolution. Basic economic and game theory would postulate that after WWII, with or without nuclear weapons we would have realized how costly war had become. Plus, modern economic knowledge dispensed with the older, zero sum view of the world, such as mercantilism. We learned that obtaining wealth doesn't necessarily require diminishing your enemies. The U.S. and China are perfect examples.

      IMO, MAD is overrated as a concept. In fact, we came incredibly close to a nuclear holocaust on numerous occasions, saved merely by pure chance and/or the quick thinking of singular individuals. And given how poorly guarded and poorly maintained is the Russian nuclear arsenal--and possibly the Chinese arsenal for all I know--I'm not willing to stake my life and the life of my family on MAD.

    2. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> after WWII, with or without nuclear weapons we would have realized how costly war had become

      Then why do Americans still make fun of the WWII-era French (who took that lesson to heart), and why did America get into Vietnam?

      >> modern economic knowledge dispensed with the older, zero sum view of the world, such as mercantilism

      Before they were foes on the battlefield, many of the countries in WWI and WWII were close trading partners, with multinational corporations engaged in rival countries, but they went to war anyway. It has also happened recently (think of oil) and could certainly happen again.

    3. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MAD may or may not be causative of our relative peace. Even if it were causative, it also doesn't mean that alternative peace-keeping mechanisms aren't possible, nor even preferable. To think otherwise is a logical fallacy (see Is-Ought Problem on Wikipedia).

      Mad and the rise of democracies are the only things in the history that have actually worked. That's it, the only thing that actually did the job.

      The league of nations didn't do the job. The large colonial empires didn't do the job. Interlocking alliances gave us WWI and WW2. You mention the 19th and 20th century ? I laugh, the entire millennium was painted red with blood.

      The Bomb is the weapon that made war unthinkable. So you can advocate for whatever pie in the sky, maybe it works maybe it doesn't method of peacekeeping you like, I just want the beta test to happen when it no longer matters to me. Why ? Because I have no doubt there are people out there that will piss on whatever system you propose and gladly wreck half the world if they can be the uncontested rulers of whatever is left.

    4. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by 0123456 · · Score: 0

      Really what kind of idiot wants to dismantle a system that has kept the world peaceful for 70 years.

      I'm pretty sure that, if we had access to the KGB files, we'd see that most of the 'nuclear disarmament, wow, man!' crowd were actually Soviet subversion agents working to disarm the West so their Soviet masters could roll in.

      Commie useful idiots are precisely the kind who'd want to dismantle a system that had kept the world (relatively) peaceful for decades.

    5. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      No need to speculate.

    6. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Decades is a long time, eh? What is the use of a century of peace if we destroy civilization at the end of it?

    7. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While US and USSR/Russia have indeed avoided direct nuclear war with each other, it seems quite a stretch to say that the world has been "peaceful for 70 years". That assertion would come as quite surprise to the many millions of people who've had their lives uprooted or snuffed out by the many various wars of the past 70 years...

    8. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      https://www.hawaii.edu/powerki...

      The rate per population is even lower than the graph implies due to the tripling of the population over the time scale

    9. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bomb is the weapon that made war unthinkable. So you can advocate for whatever pie in the sky, maybe it works maybe it doesn't method of peacekeeping you like, I just want the beta test to happen when it no longer matters to me. Why ? Because I have no doubt there are people out there that will piss on whatever system you propose and gladly wreck half the world if they can be the uncontested rulers of whatever is left.

      Peacetime use of nuclear power plants is going to be one of the key, if not the ONLY key technology that's going to let civilization stick around long enough to do fusion reactors... and subsequently off this planet.

      Without nukes, we are doomed to perpetual conventional war. Without nuclear power, we are doomed to die with the rest of the planet when the sun consumes it in less than a billion years.

    10. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What flavor of peace are you taking about here? The one where the U.S has, for 65 of the last 70 years, been at war with smaller countries unable to defend themselves, to further its own political and global trade ambitions? That kind of peace? You seem like the kind of brainwashed egotistical American who thinks peace is when the U.S can violate other countries and regimes, and war is when those countries decide to do something, instead of submitting.

    11. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

      Sorry, you are a little to ignorant to rate a proper response.

      You might want to start by getting your numbers right.

    12. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decades is a long time, eh? What is the use of a century of peace if we destroy civilization at the end of it?

      It's plenty good use if you happened to be born at the beginning of that century of peace.

    13. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What flavor of peace are you taking about here? The one where the U.S has, for 65 of the last 70 years, been at war with smaller countries unable to defend themselves, to further its own political and global trade ambitions? That kind of peace? You seem like the kind of brainwashed egotistical American who thinks peace is when the U.S can violate other countries and regimes, and war is when those countries decide to do something, instead of submitting.

      That sounds like the best kind of peace there is, from America's point of view. Those countries were asking for it.

      Have you forgotten that this discussion is about nuclear weapons disarmament?
      Consider that nuclear weapons have long been an inhibitor to American ambitions. It's only the threat of a nuclear counter-attack that has held the USA back from slaughtering more countries.
      Or have you forgotten that for 65 of the last 70 years no one has been able to even hint at threatening the USA with conventional forces?

    14. Re:Hopefully after I am in the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Globalization has more to do with peace than nukes... Why?

      "Because I have no doubt there are people out there that will ... gladly wreck half the world if they can be the uncontested rulers of whatever is left."

  19. "bumper sticker activisim" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Megadeth - (may all your nuclear weapons) Rust In Peace

  20. Re:Aggression My Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Carthage was pretty peaceful after Rome was done with it.

  21. Follow your own advice by tomhath · · Score: 1

    He writes: "Allow me to suggest a radical new mindset for my generation...blah, blah, blah....Instead of proposing 'fresh ideas' for their own sake...

    The fresh idea he's proposing is to stop proposing fresh ideas. I stopped reading there.

  22. Whiny gen Y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did he at some point think that writing an article whining about things is exactly what he is whining about? Not to be rude, but who is this guy and why should we care? I mean the tubes are filled with people complaining about activists, etc. If I write a blog post whining about his take on it, will the editors share it?

  23. Re:American agression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What country are you from so we can stop sending all aid to you?

  24. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    What the fuck is this, every day I have to read some bullshit fearmongering article here about so called Chinese or Russian aggression. How are the Chinese aggressive? Fuck you, slashdot fuck you and your fucking US bullshit.

  25. Apparently the submitter can't spell Millennial by nawcom · · Score: 2

    Millenial is completely wrong, and I RTFA and verified that they in fact spelled it correctly there, so what was written here wasn't copy/pasted. Whoever wrote this intentionally mispelled it. WTF Slashdot

  26. I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by nichogenius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The following irony scares the crap out of me:

    Hollywood has exaggerated every explosion or fireball effect that they have ever tried to use in an action film to the point it no longer resembles reality. The opposite is true with every nuclear weapon that Hollywood has ever tried to use in a film.

    My limited knowledge of movies confessed, I can only think of two movies that are even close: Godzilla 1998 has a fantastic opening sequence of nuclear tests, however their accuracy is only there because the footage is of real American nuclear tests. The other movie, where the effects were surprisingly well captured, was (don't laugh) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, though the realistic effects of the blast were completely undone in my mind when Indy's lead lined refrigerator was thrown several miles to safety when it should have been crushed like a tin can by the compression force of the shockwave. Don't get me started on the 4MT bomb that was detonated a full minute (by hovercraft velocity mind you) off of Gotham's coast in the latest batman. The heat damage from that would have melted glass and given 3rd degree burns to anyone exposing bare skin only seconds before the shockwave would have leveled most skyscrapers. Instead, Hollywood gave us a mushroom cloud clipart in the distance that could at best rival Hiroshima (keep in mind a yield difference factor of 200).

    This lack of appreciation for the true power of nuclear weapons is a huge problem with any real effort in nuclear disarmament or non-proliferation. I'm not sure if this is a problem of public ignorance, or if the scale shear scale of the destructive power of thermonuclear weapons is beyond the grasp of most humans. I would guess a combination of both. My recommendation to anyone who wants to get a true feel for their power is to watch the documentary titled 'Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie'.

    I would actually like to see a live action movie where effort is made into the accuracy of the effects of nuclear weapons. Why do people fear the radiation released by nuclear blasts far more than the damn blast itself? If you are caught in a nuclear blast, there's at least 5 likely causes of death that I can think of that would kill you long before the effects of any radioactive fallout are even noticed.

    rant over

    1. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      There was Terminator 2, though with the artistic license that flesh is stripped to the bone leaving a distressed skeleton while the very weak fence it clings to is intact.

      There's even a very good depiction of AI and computers as far as movies go lol.

    2. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by nichogenius · · Score: 1

      For CGI done in 1991, they have my respect... at least for the macro-scale of the damage if not the hard to produce micro-effects. Thanks for that, I'll add it to the incredibly short list.

    3. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "I would actually like to see a live action movie where effort is made into the accuracy of the effects of nuclear weapons."

      I'd say Baltimore's ~20KT explosion in "The sum of all fears" film was quite spot on.

    4. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by nichogenius · · Score: 1

      The shockwave was satisfying, but it would have crushed that helicopter long before it hit the ground and those cars would be crushed by the rapid pressure increase of the shockwave before being lifted up... still a lot better than most though.

    5. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "The shockwave was satisfying, but it would have crushed that helicopter long before it hit the ground and those cars would be crushed by the rapid pressure increase of the shockwave before being lifted up"

      No, it wouldn't and no, they wouldn't. They were about 3 to 5 miles from the (ground-level) explosion by then so both pressure wave and wind speed would be "moderate" (probably well below 3psi/100mph). If any, the effects were too strongly depicted, not too lightly.

    6. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      What about Dr. Strangelove?

      --
      Time to offend someone
    7. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      I can assume you have never watched Terminator 2? You really should, it's a great sci-fi/action movie and has the nuclear blast you are longing for.

    8. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by Digital+Mage · · Score: 1

      Why do people fear the radiation released by nuclear blasts far more than the damn blast itself?

      My mother once told me she would rather be in the blast radius so that she would be instantly killed than suffer a long grueling death due to radiation poisoning.

    9. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Threads. Of course that is a BBC production.

    10. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I recommend you watch "Threads" (made in 1983 when many of us thought nuclear war was imminent, but didn't really understand what it meant). However I wouldn't class it as entertainment, and it was not made by Hollywood (it was made by the BBC). Or "The War Game" (made for the BBC in the 1960s) or QED's "A Guide To Armageddon" (also made by the BBC in the 1980s). "A Guide to Armageddon" is available on YouTube.

    11. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Why do people fear the radiation released by nuclear blasts far more than the damn blast itself?

      Most people are irrationally scared of radiation, full stop. It's not even a rational fear, based in a sound knowledge of radiation--that would mean people were not operating on the quaint notion that they're not being exposed to radiation pretty much all the time, with some sources of radiation more or less entirely unavoidable given that there's this really huge fusion reactor about eight lightminutes away that we kinda need.

    12. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by Zeekort · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the reason why nuclear weapons aren't accurately represented in Hollywood is because there are some bridges that even Hollywood will not cross for entertainment and no I don't think it's because of some moral high ground either since it's been repeatedly shown that there's no such thing in Hollywood.

      I'm thinking that besides the fact that no CG animator actually knows what a real nuclear explosion looks like (it's not like they have current HD footage of it or set one off to see what it looks like and no, simulations and science class do NOT count because you're not going to get the sense of hopelessness from it) it's because afterwards there's no much left to animate or show at ground zero. In Hollywood logic, people ALWAYS survive the big explosions to keep things going. In actuality, there's nothing left at ground zero, no people, no buildings, nothing but rubble and silence. They'd be left with showing how people die slow painful deaths from radiation or inhaling a lot of dust that was kicked up from it and that's not something that can sell movies. People want to see big boom and destruction that's flashy and over and done with quick, not slow tragic suffering that's not in the least bit flashy.

      So basically it amounts to real thing not being able to sell so they tone it down to where they can make a movie with it.

    13. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Why do people fear the radiation released by nuclear blasts far more than the damn blast itself?

      Most people are irrationally scared of radiation, full stop. It's not even a rational fear, based in a sound knowledge of radiation--that would mean people were not operating on the quaint notion that they're not being exposed to radiation pretty much all the time, with some sources of radiation more or less entirely unavoidable given that there's this really huge fusion reactor about eight lightminutes away that we kinda need.

      Stop talking rubbish. There is no connection between the natural radiation from the sun and being given a lethal dose of radiation from an atomic bomb, causing you to die a slow painful death. Fear of the latter is entirely rational.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:I wish Hollywood would get their nukes right by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Why do people fear the radiation released by nuclear blasts far more than the damn blast itself?

      Most people are irrationally scared of radiation, full stop. It's not even a rational fear, based in a sound knowledge of radiation--that would mean people were not operating on the quaint notion that they're not being exposed to radiation pretty much all the time, with some sources of radiation more or less entirely unavoidable given that there's this really huge fusion reactor about eight lightminutes away that we kinda need.

      Stop talking rubbish. There is no connection between the natural radiation from the sun and being given a lethal dose of radiation from an atomic bomb, causing you to die a slow painful death. Fear of the latter is entirely rational.

      Offhand, I'd say it's because like you most people wrongly estimate precisely how easy it is to get sufficient radiation from a nuclear bomb to die from it, though your comparison falls apart given that currently radiation from the sun is more likely to kill you. How many people worrying their little heads over a slight spike in their daily radiation dose don't take basic precautions against the sun's output?

      Not only that, but if we're only talking about receiving a lethal dose of radiation very quickly, the same group of people don't show the proper levels of concern about other events that are as likely--if not more likely--ranging from a dirty bomb (google it) to things like the Goiânia accident. A lot of the data on radiation poisoning from nuclear bombs--which mostly comes from very old versions and the patterns with modern nukes would likely end up being very different because as I recall there was some effort to limit fallout since it's a touch hard to control its geographic spread--seems to indicate that the thermal radiation is still more likely to off you anyway.

  27. Generation X, Y and Zers didn't really get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the full blown "crap your pants" nuclear drills some of the generations before got. While "terrorist" may actually use "a" bomb (as in once) , I sort of think of things right now like the landradd in Dune, any nation that actually uses a nuke would probably risk complete annihilation by the rest of the nations in the world.

  28. It's not the nukes, it the explosions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So the WWII generation got to drop nukes on a couple of cities and none have done so since.

    I'm envious. Why can't our generation also have the thrill of vaporizing a city or two? We could up the record to three, or even three hundred. That would show them who's the greatest generation.

    Think of the excitement! Will we be next?!!
    Think of the guilt! Why, O why, did we do such a terrible thing?

  29. Re:Aggression My Ass by _merlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity, sucker!

    If you know a better way of making more virgins, I'd like to hear it.

  30. So miguided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy wants get above the shortcomings and myopia of his generation, but cant see past his own blindness and brainwashing. Chinese agression? Please.

    The difference between an american and chinese as it relates to their media and propaganda? The chinese knows he has shades on, while the american doesnt know he is blind.

  31. Mao may not be an angel ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Mao certainly did intend to kill everyone and anyone who questioned his leadership in any way

    Mao Ze Dong certainly ain't an angel, but one can certainly state the same about Bush/Cheney on Iraq, Hollander on Libya, or Obama on Syria

    Try not throwing too many rocks around while living inside a glass house

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Mao may not be an angel ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Try not throwing too many rocks around while living inside a glass house"

      The original discussion started with "The Chinese leadership seem a lot more disciplined, analytical and sane when you look at the recent history of American leadership". So the argument wasn't one of the chinese are bad and the americans are good. It was refuting the idea that the americans are bad and the chinese are good.

      The desired point has been made, as you pointed out. Every country has it's fair share of schmucks, especially in powerful places.

    2. Re:Mao may not be an angel ... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Bush/Cheney on Iraq, Hollander on Libya, or Obama on Syria

      One of these things is not like the other. Not that I support Obama in many things, but Syria is the way it is because Obama refused to interfere. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The US has this habit of responding to every cry for help, then getting bitched out by the world for interfering in other country's politics. It is unfortunate that whenever the US helps militarily to stop civil wars and the like, we are the ones blamed for all the bloodshed, and when we don't interfere, we are blamed for the bloodshed.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:Mao may not be an angel ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah the only thing worse than the world bitching because the U.S. has interfered is the world bitching because the U.S. has not interfered.

    4. Re:Mao may not be an angel ... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Syria is the way it is because Obama refused to interfere

      Which was because he didn't want to start World War Three with Russia and China.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  32. Radical new mindset? by r-diddly · · Score: 1

    A radical new mindset could start with rejection of propaganda about "Russian and Chinese aggression." Access to information isn't really much of an asset... might even be a liability, when so much of it is controlled by so few people.

  33. Propaganda again on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything that claims 'Russian and Chinese aggression' is clearly propaganda. Let's remind ourselves who is expanding eastwards, who is bombing other countries, who is blackmailing other countries. That would be the US regime. Clearly an article paid for by the US regime.

  34. Re:I think there is a fundamental problem with thi by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    Studying the history, reading and evaluating the various ... experts.... output is hard.

    It's also really, really fun, once you get the hang of it.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  35. ... that might turn out to be a Good Thing[tm] ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0

    full pre-emptive nuclear strike against any nation with nuclear triad capabilities will only do one thing effectively: get 100's of millions or billions of human beings killed

    Do you know that by 2100 the projected human population on this planet might hit 12 to 13 Billion?

    A wholesale purging / thinning of the burgeoning human population _before_ it explodes further might turn out to be a Good Thing[im]

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  36. What do we want! by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 2

    What do we want!
    Evidence-based policy making!
    When do we want it!
    After a thorough examination of all the available data!

  37. Re:Aggression My Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about the fucker wakes up to the dollar^w economic imperialism and constant interventions and meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

    Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity, sucker!

    You're right dude! it is all the dollar's fault.. I for one am emptying my wallet into my barbecue grill right now and setting all of those evil bastards on fire.. they won't be bombing any innocent virgins any more.

    #IAmASaint

  38. Re:I think there is a fundamental problem with thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... complaining about the politicians.

    It's the politicians telling me that government [policy] is evil, greed is the answer, rich people deserve more riches, prison parolees molesting me and my luggage provides salvation, even voting [for him] is worthless.

    All I know is: It doesn't matter who is in charge, somebody else is making millions while I'm struggling to pay the cost of modern living.

  39. Re:I think there is a fundamental problem with thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It all boils down to this: Most people are greedy idiots. Nobody wants to put in the work and time to solve problems that wouldn't exist if people weren't greedy idiots. The few people who do anyway eventually find that solving these problems mostly helps greedy idiots, so they're actually creating more problems instead of solving them. That's why activism is a thing for young people.

  40. I stopped reading as soon as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw "Russian and Chinese aggression". He's a successully brainwashed American who believes and perpetuates the notion that the whole world is the enemy, all while his own country has been killing people in other countries for 70 years, people who have never set foot on American soil, and most of whom have never even left the borders of their own country. Only his brainwashed peers could take him seriously.

  41. Let's create a petition! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Because that'll stop nutjob regimes like North Korea, or a bunch of terrorists from using nukes to wipe out people.

    Right?

    How the fuck are people nowadays STILL this naive? (I'd use "fucking moronic", but I'm trying to be nice.)

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  42. Desperate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you really *that* desperate for articles, Slashdot, that you're pushing political flamebait? Or are you just so determined to push a political agenda you're willing to ignore the intent of the site as a whole? Go back to posting tech news (not political news with some very minor tech association like "using data") and stop with the political bulls***.

  43. Re:I think there is a fundamental problem with thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is, bar none, the best post of this entire thread, and also what I've observed among my more "progressive" friends.

    It's easy to latch onto what is the "good" thought of the moment. But too often the thought that deviates even slightly from the "good" thought is dismissed because if you don't follow the "good" thought to the letter, it means you've missed the narrow view of correctness that people "should" have.

    Me, I don't try to persuade people who otherwise don't agree with me to think a certain way, as vociferous as I can be on these boards, because I know what kind of push-back I'm going to get. I merely offer my viewpoint and not get hurt that not everyone is going to like what I have to say, or for that matter, me.

    Of course, the thing I always swing around back to when my "progressive" friends always say things like, "oh, well the government needs to stop spending money on defense and start spending it on $my_pet_cause" is "that's cute, but until you explain exactly how $my_pet_cause becomes more profitable than defense, money will be spent on defense".

    And to no one's surprise, those same people can't seem to generate an answer. It never occurs to them that the reward they desire (the "good" or "right" thing) is not the one that someone else would choose, or at least choose for the same reasons. And yet they still complain about how selfish and corrupt politicians are.

    To your credit, OP, at least you're aware that while complaining doesn't get the job done, you're not given to the kind of naivete as others might have.

    -LaurenC

  44. Re:American agression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're exactly the person OP speaks of in his very first sentence. Smart.

  45. Re:Aggression My Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bombing for peace works too. It's amazing how peaceful it is after all of your enemies are dead (so I've been told).

  46. Re:Aggression My Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you know a better way of making more virgins, I'd like to hear it.

    take off the condom and you'll make more virgins..eventually

  47. Re:Aggression My Ass by tmosley · · Score: 1

    Drown in bloody intestines it is, you cowards!

  48. Re:Aggression My Ass by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    Get kids interested into /.

  49. Re:I think there is a fundamental problem with thi by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Checking up on these things is also time-consuming. I've run down references before, and found they didn't say anything like what some people claimed, and it's been fun, but I can't do it for everything.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  50. Germany vs. Russia by John+Bayko · · Score: 1

    80% of German casualties were against the USSR. And they were the ones that made it to Berlin. Once Stalin stopped interfering and let the Generals run the war, either Germany would have lost, or would have had to withdraw from all other fronts anyway and didn't have the resources for a sustained war against Russia, and would have lost (surrendered or negotiated a truce). The Allies just shortened it (not a small accomplishment though).

    1. Re:Germany vs. Russia by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      But, the Germans were not the only nation on the Axis side.

      Could Russia have fought a three front war had the US stayed out and Britain fallen?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  51. Re:American agression by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    One issue with the US is that we're the world's superpower. If we make a bad decision, and people suffer, other people blame us. If we make a good decision, and people suffer, same thing. We've made our share of stupid and/or completely self-centered decisions, of course, but so do other countries.

    I've read enough of the WWI and pre-WWI period to know that Imperial Germany had a worse double standard. The German alliance with Italy and Austria-Hungary was natural and defensive, while the later French alliance with Russia was obviously intended to invade Germany and break it into smaller countries. All major powers have this problem, but rarely as bad as Germany back then.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  52. Corporations don't want cheap commodities. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations don't want cheap commodities.

    Your whole analysis is flawed. Corporations want commodities and other resources that they control. The higher the price the better, because they can lay on the same percentage overhead and make more money.

    They want fat government military-industrial contracts. They want crony-capitalism favorable legislation, passed while the populace is distracted by corrupt wars of choice. They want compliant, slightly scared sheep for a population - sheep that buy as much as they can afford and more to dull the existential angst created by media bullshit about 'omigod the terrirists are killing us all!'

    War is a racket. Read some fucking alternative history for christ's or fsm's or your own sake.

    1. Re:Corporations don't want cheap commodities. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I have read quite a bit of history of various sorts. I repeat: the US fought no major wars in the name of protecting corporate access to natural resources, and therefore has not killed millions.

      You're saying that the US fights wars as a distraction, and to keep the populace fearful, so some corporations can make lots of money. That's not the same thing, and I still don't see it as killing millions of people.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  53. Re:I think there is a fundamental problem with thi by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    That's why you just skip the pundits, activists, and talking heads by default.
    Stick with history and experts, and you'll have better results.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  54. Millenials are 15 or younger by lexman098 · · Score: 1

    Why do people keep using that word?

  55. A former military analyst by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    In a previous life I worked on the SIOP and helped evaluate various (mostly counterforce) strategies. I highly recommend the books, Prisoners Dilemma (Poundstone) and Command and Control (Schlosser, don't get sidetracked by the Damascus incident story). If you have not read these sources, even if you worked on strategy and tactics at SAC (like I did), even if you taught Strategic and Tactical Sciences at the Air Force Institute of Technology (like I did), you are probably not as informed as you should be on these topics. I certainly was not then, but with maturation comes some ability to see the past for what it was.

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
  56. Re:I think there is a fundamental problem with thi by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Who's the experts? I frequently can't know that without research.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  57. Re:I think there is a fundamental problem with thi by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Oh come on, it's usually not that hard. Start by turning off the TV and heading to the library.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  58. Re:Congratulations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it only takes 2 morons to silence what should be apparent to any clear thinker.

    You'd think they'd at least be able to explain what they object to, but again, that would require the ability to express a position clearly or persuasively.

  59. Re:Aggression My Ass by qpqp · · Score: 1

    What, they didn't replace all your greenbacks with binary on a chip yet?

  60. Re:... that might turn out to be a Good Thing[tm] by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    full pre-emptive nuclear strike against any nation with nuclear triad capabilities will only do one thing effectively: get 100's of millions or billions of human beings killed

    Do you know that by 2100 the projected human population on this planet might hit 12 to 13 Billion?

    A wholesale purging / thinning of the burgeoning human population _before_ it explodes further might turn out to be a Good Thing[im]

    And the purging will be in the richest, most technologically advanced countries. You'll be left with palces like Somalia and some lost tribes of the Amazon inheriting the world.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  61. Re:Aggression My Ass by Talderas · · Score: 1

    > Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity, sucker!

    As long as three babies come around you increase the number of virgins.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  62. Re:I think there is a fundamental problem with thi by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    In other words, research. Just what I said.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  63. Re:I think there is a fundamental problem with thi by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    If you're that lazy, think of the topic, head to Wikipedia, and look at the references. That will give you the start of a clue.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."