Yeah, I think most people are in fact concerned about the fact that they can be sued into a thousand lifetimes of debt because they downloaded some music or movies. Did you ever actually TEST your theories, or do you just walk around all day making broad generalizations based on your own interpretation of others?
If lasers make them grow, is there a limit? Can we control their growth such that they grow, say, into a cylinder? Or a bilayer sheet? If so, then can we do it in some other way than with lasers? Is it fast?
This could revolutionize the production of ultra-useful carbon allotropes.
And the proxy masters didn't care about their citizens. If the Vietnamese had had nukes, there never would have been a war. Why is this hard to understand? Proxy wars exist so that major powers can fight without global annihilation. If EVERYONE had nukes, then there could be no wars, proxy or otherwise. World peace follows immediately.
No they aren't. Gun ownership is a guaranteed right, and all males join the militia and are issued an automatic assault rifle to keep at home until the end of their service, at which point the weapon is switched to semi-automatic, and they get to keep it. Ammunition is distributed for free.
Set it in Ireland and make it the British PM's statement relating to Irish sovereignty, and you have a more realistic scenario. But even the Brits didn't wall up the Irish and starve them to death. Only the Germans and the Jews have gone that far. At least the Germans were made to pay for their barbarism.
Yes, the terrible oppression of being stuck inside of a tiny ghetto and subjected to random incursions by a military of a fanatical theocracy that wants you and everyone like you dead because you were on their land before they got there.
Wait, wait, you are saying that the 1000+ devices set off in the 50's and 60's between didn't cause so much as a nuclear cool front, but 50 small devices would?
History doesn't really seem to back that up. Civil war seems just as likely in stable, non-nuclear nations as it does in nuclear ones. Pakistan is probably the closest nuclear power to having a civil war. I guess we will see.
Also, you don't need nukes for no-one to interfere in your intra-border genocide. No-one ever did anything about that before nukes either. Unless there was something to gain by doing so. You know, same as today.
But everything to gain. You think Israel would roll in with tanks, planes, and armored bulldozers if Palestine had a nuke?
Nukes are the great equalizers. There was a time when bandits could victimize the same village over and over, taking food and valuables, raping women, stealing children, etc. But the rifle put an end to all that. Now you might have a few thugs break in, but it is unlikely that they will do so over and over, and in the same place. Eventually, their victims will get wise and they will meet a hail of gunfire next time they try to come in.
Determine the rate of victimization of people who open carry to answer that question. The US deterrent doesn't prevent wars between small, strategically unimportant countries.
Consider that without nukes, we would have immediately gone to war with Stalin, and that that war would have been just as bloody as WWII. Then there likely would have been another one twenty years later, and another, and another, and we would probably be fighting another one now.
The Cold War had the chance to escalate like it did because it occurred during the transition from the pre nuclear world to the nuclear one. You should notice that there is no nation in the world that we now threaten with nukes, and none of the nuclear powers threaten anyone else using their nukes save as a measure of self defense. This is likely the new standard. Future wars, like past ones, will be determined to a great extent by financial strength, but now there will be no blood spilled. This is a good thing. A financial war doesn't really leave the deep abiding resentments that tend to cause neighbors to go to war over and over--the resentment caused by bloodshed.
Nuclear brinksmanship is a thing of the past, in my opinion.
If you are going to make statements about the statistical significance of 67 years worth of data, please find out how many other 67 year periods of peace there have been.
Might also run the numbers with consideration of the fact that non-nuclear nations continue to have wars and suffer invasions at the hands of nuclear armed nations, something which belies any argument that nuclear armed nations just happen to be more "civilized".
Right, because it is so simple for a crazy person to set off a nuke, much less transport one without detection. Yes, a world locked in unending war between major states is certainly a superior option to the slim to none possibility of a crazy person with a nuke.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I think most people are in fact concerned about the fact that they can be sued into a thousand lifetimes of debt because they downloaded some music or movies. Did you ever actually TEST your theories, or do you just walk around all day making broad generalizations based on your own interpretation of others?
Then why was there ever a time when the poor paid taxes?
Remember, 100 years ago, there was no income tax in peacetime.
It's already long dead. If you want Communism, I'm afraid it is Fascism you are going to have to kill or co-opt first.
Are you seriously arguing that posting a wanted poster that includes the home address of two dissidents is funny?
If lasers make them grow, is there a limit? Can we control their growth such that they grow, say, into a cylinder? Or a bilayer sheet? If so, then can we do it in some other way than with lasers? Is it fast?
This could revolutionize the production of ultra-useful carbon allotropes.
And the proxy masters didn't care about their citizens. If the Vietnamese had had nukes, there never would have been a war. Why is this hard to understand? Proxy wars exist so that major powers can fight without global annihilation. If EVERYONE had nukes, then there could be no wars, proxy or otherwise. World peace follows immediately.
Millions of casualties is a reduction of 1-2 orders of magnitude from the pre-atomic era.
Really? Bush II started two wars. How many has Ammy started?
No they aren't. Gun ownership is a guaranteed right, and all males join the militia and are issued an automatic assault rifle to keep at home until the end of their service, at which point the weapon is switched to semi-automatic, and they get to keep it. Ammunition is distributed for free.
You should you aren't thinking of Sweden?
Viewed through the prism of propaganda of enemy nations, ALL nations are lead by the insane.
So I have a right to all of Ireland, and can wall up the people there in a ghetto because they are the wrong religion?
Awesome. I'll see you guys later, imma go commit some holy genocide up in this motha.
Set it in Ireland and make it the British PM's statement relating to Irish sovereignty, and you have a more realistic scenario. But even the Brits didn't wall up the Irish and starve them to death. Only the Germans and the Jews have gone that far. At least the Germans were made to pay for their barbarism.
Yes, the terrible oppression of being stuck inside of a tiny ghetto and subjected to random incursions by a military of a fanatical theocracy that wants you and everyone like you dead because you were on their land before they got there.
Words speak louder than actions? Iran hasn't started a war in more than a hundred years. It's started something like one or two in the last 500.
Wait, wait, you are saying that the 1000+ devices set off in the 50's and 60's between didn't cause so much as a nuclear cool front, but 50 small devices would?
Very effectively for 67 years?
History doesn't really seem to back that up. Civil war seems just as likely in stable, non-nuclear nations as it does in nuclear ones. Pakistan is probably the closest nuclear power to having a civil war. I guess we will see.
Also, you don't need nukes for no-one to interfere in your intra-border genocide. No-one ever did anything about that before nukes either. Unless there was something to gain by doing so. You know, same as today.
But everything to gain. You think Israel would roll in with tanks, planes, and armored bulldozers if Palestine had a nuke?
Nukes are the great equalizers. There was a time when bandits could victimize the same village over and over, taking food and valuables, raping women, stealing children, etc. But the rifle put an end to all that. Now you might have a few thugs break in, but it is unlikely that they will do so over and over, and in the same place. Eventually, their victims will get wise and they will meet a hail of gunfire next time they try to come in.
Determine the rate of victimization of people who open carry to answer that question. The US deterrent doesn't prevent wars between small, strategically unimportant countries.
Consider that without nukes, we would have immediately gone to war with Stalin, and that that war would have been just as bloody as WWII. Then there likely would have been another one twenty years later, and another, and another, and we would probably be fighting another one now.
The Cold War had the chance to escalate like it did because it occurred during the transition from the pre nuclear world to the nuclear one. You should notice that there is no nation in the world that we now threaten with nukes, and none of the nuclear powers threaten anyone else using their nukes save as a measure of self defense. This is likely the new standard. Future wars, like past ones, will be determined to a great extent by financial strength, but now there will be no blood spilled. This is a good thing. A financial war doesn't really leave the deep abiding resentments that tend to cause neighbors to go to war over and over--the resentment caused by bloodshed.
Nuclear brinksmanship is a thing of the past, in my opinion.
I would suggest a search to see what is the longest amount of time that there has not been a war between, say, the top ten powers anywhere on Earth.
Might want to re-examine that, as there have been 2000 nuclear tests in our history. Quite a bit more than any regional war would ever produce.
If you are going to make statements about the statistical significance of 67 years worth of data, please find out how many other 67 year periods of peace there have been.
Might also run the numbers with consideration of the fact that non-nuclear nations continue to have wars and suffer invasions at the hands of nuclear armed nations, something which belies any argument that nuclear armed nations just happen to be more "civilized".
Right, because it is so simple for a crazy person to set off a nuke, much less transport one without detection. Yes, a world locked in unending war between major states is certainly a superior option to the slim to none possibility of a crazy person with a nuke.
Yes, Pakistan, China, and Russia all value human life very highly.
Why do you feel the need to invade other countries? "Maintain order" is bullshit. War is chaos, the opposite of order.