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."
That will help.
Great Idea! +1 Like
#nomorehashtags
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.
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.
Data driven politics has a name. No need to reinvent it. Unfortunately, it's always struggled to get a strong following.
-Chris
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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!
Really what kind of idiot wants to dismantle a system that has kept the world peaceful for 70 years.
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?
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.
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.
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"
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
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.
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"?
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
How so?
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?
If you know a better way of making more virgins, I'd like to hear it.
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."
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.
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."
What do we want!
Evidence-based policy making!
When do we want it!
After a thorough examination of all the available data!
"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.
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.
"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.
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!!!
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.
Drown in bloody intestines it is, you cowards!
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.
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?
Get kids interested into /.
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.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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
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
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?
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
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
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).
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
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."
Fairly sure my rates are beyond your ability to pay Dave, so feel free to hit Google and educate yourself.
Why do people keep using that word?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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."
What, they didn't replace all your greenbacks with binary on a chip yet?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
> 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
In other words, research. Just what I said.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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
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
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."
wrong,. news for you, nuclear weapons also have the blast, shrapnel, heat...everything a chemical bomb does plus added bonus of gamma radiation
really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...