myata

It does prove that complexity can be created in the nature by itself, through a sequence of seemingly random events, that require no intelligent, or otherwise, interference. If that is indeed the case, the notion of God becomes redundant, unnecessary from any scientific point of view, as it explains no new concepts. Most certainly one can believe in it, but as a phenomenon of psyche, rather than natural science.

At least the dinosaurs were eliminated by a planetary catastrophe. It'd take some intelligence to achive the same end by our own act!

Except that now we've covered whole planet and there will be no safe heavens to wait over the menace and start anew. If we can't control our "nature" that much, we're doomed as a species, sooner or later (probably much sooner, than we anticipate). Let's enjoy what's left of it, and stop worrying about anything, it's not worth it as our (trigger) happy nature won't ever change.

And to ensure observance we can certainly retain all the observation technology that's been developed, no harm in that. It's impossible to build a large stock of weapons without it being detected, plus it's near suicidal to use them without testing. But indeed, those who want nukes for their own sake, would always find a reason, making their own compliance impractical. Like that terrible existential threat.. Iraq.. North Korea.. Iran. Sounds familiar? That would be one way to build a framework of collective cooperation and security for the future, without which long term survival of humans just cannot be assured. If we just couldn't raise to that challenge, our best bet is indeed to keep the big stick and pray for the best. For however long is allowed, till somebody triggers the disaster, for whatever cause or reason won't matter one bit. Of course. And those geopolitical situations aren't frozen dead and tend to change over time. Any rising power, like name any number, whose interests happen to brush with those of a nuke holder, would want one for themselves. All pebbles are round, after all. Somehow I'm not surprised that after all scientific considerations, it came back down to this model, again. Us, grown ups and them, little mindless "kids", having to clue what they're doing and couldn't be trusted with a match. If that's the pattern of the world we want to live in (and leave to our kids to live in), then, indeed, stuffing it with nukes, thermonukes and other super highly explosive stuff would be our best strategy to surivive. For a while.

If NPT framework calls for a dramatic reduction to a minimal, specific level, like several hundred nukes, as the first step, indeed there's no difference. Note that at this time there's only two countries that exceed that level, so with genuine will and commitment, the thing could be started in a snap. And vice versa, of course: if it's not going anytime soon, wouldn't it indicate a problem with the above (genuinity of will and commitment), rather than passing issues like Iran and N.K? Not really. It takes several hours of massive conventional bombing to destroy a city, and only one medium sized nuke. The world would be much safer without them, in reality. Of course, perception is a highly individual thing, somebody just wouldn't sleep without training submachine guns on the door and windows.

No I'm only saying that major players are setting the path to the world where any player with a reasonable standing has a strong incentive to acquire these arms. This is the environment that promotes prolifiration despite all verbal claims to the contrary. Just watch the trend (50s - 2; 60-70 - 5; now close to 10). Eventually, they will spread beyond any control, and the disaster will be only a matter or time. The only way out is for the big five to combine their efforts, reduce their levels to that of the others, and work on a comprehensive treaty banning any future development - with collective security measures against any renegade(s).

Whatever. They're just words, that make "me" better then "them". And once my superiority has been established (in my own eyes), there's no reason to think that I may be doing something wrong, or even "them" having a valid case.

Of course there's always a strong, compelling reason, why I should be entitled to the right to have the thing, while the other has to be denied.

Let's not forget that we're talking about just a couple of human generations of nuclear history, in the civilization that is hundreds times older. And we already had an episode like Cuba crisis, just inches from the red line. Borders, allegiances and power balances will change. With a dozen of nuclear players, and tens of thousands of bombs around, the clock is ticking, and it would only take one major incident to trigger a disaster that would set humankind back for decades. A safer future would be one based on the collective security and law. There's simply no path from the current MAD situation to that future. Anybody with a few nukes under their belt can ignore anything, and the key players are only setting the example. Unless all major players give up their weapons (their combined conventional power would still be more than enough to dwarf any renegade power), we are set for a future, where any major conflict would carry the risk of triggering Armageddon.

If you mean the concepts of "many worlds in one" and "universe from nothing", I'm not sure they merit the status of hypothesis, or theory at this time. And I'm not aware of any experiments being planned now or in the near future to support them (I would be glad to discuss this in more detail). But in any case, these concepts do not require any intelligent, sentient, active, any other sort of intervention at all, so I don't see how it could have any relevance to this discussion.

I have little doubt that almost any act imaginable in this world can be rationalized with only three arguments: #1 "It's for your own good" #2 "It's for the better good" #3 "It would have been worse if we did not do it" Note that all three have 100% moral foundation, from the standpoint of the executor. If we implicitly assume that somebody (or something?) have appointed us the police of this world? Otherwise, another model would apply: somebody(ies) got to the pie first, and they are extremely unhappy if it had to be shared (the pie = power balance of course). And what could the war resulted from e.g Cuba crisis have been? Are we in any rush to find out? To make my position 100% clear. Other than Russia and the US, nobody appears to have more than a few hundred nukes. How about this: 1) US and Russa agree to reduce their store to below 1,000 of nukes (both active and "decomissioned"). 2) some kind of discussion to assure a safer future for us all, begins.

Good thinking. Somebody who doesn't even have these weapons, is a threat, while others, who got them in their ,000, and tested them numerous times, and demonstrated that they'd use them, and/or actually used them against humans, are the poor threatened bunnies. I believe.

Forget about savages of Mumbo Jumbo, who practice woodoo rituals and so are in an urgent desperate need of being civilized from outside. These folks are right here, around us. They gonna start running regular exorcism sessions as soon as (Pope inspired) training would complete. God be with us!

Still some 20,000 (plus unknown to me number of "decomissioned" ones that can be reverted to active duty, or lost): Wikipedia: nukes. In any case, any effort aimed at reducing the number is laudable, as long as it begins with the chief players (Russia: 8,000; US: 5,000) rather than fringe scapegoats.

75% of Canadians may believe that they'll win big in a lottery next year, so should this also be taught in schools? Creationism is not a science, not a theory, only a belief, by another name. There's not a single experiment, not a known scientific theory that something can be materialized out of thin air. Let's put the question right, should beliefs, superstitions and religious practices be taught in public schools? It would certainly have effect on the kind of society our posterior will live in.

Certainly not A-OK, but these are far more powerful weapons, and they were brought in primarily for the purpose of gaining more power. As an ape would always want to make a bigger stick, to impress the neighbour and maybe grab their food / place / females. So little has changed, really. So, now we're in the same stalemate, as after the WWII, but with some 0,000, if not hundreds of nukes stuck around globe. And there wil be more, eventually. Every aspiring regional player (global already have them) will want them, eventually. As a matter of status. Give it some time. Call it a smart move, for all you like.

Yes, godspeed to them, and I sincerely hope that the courts would slam them with a heavy punitive fine (on top of all the legal fees) to cut this practice in the bud. It really is the bad old throwing their weight around, if by another name.

Not to be missed! CBC report on Exorcism is on right now (The House), CBC Radio 1, 9am EST. Pope wants every catholic diocese to perform exorcism rituals, which is, to remind, expelling demonic spirits from infected individual(s). Wow!!!! What century do these folks live in?? OMG. I'll pray for them.

Yeah I understand that generous "for greater good", "for your own best" notion, but personally will try to stay away from it, where I see, and while I could.

Yes I kind of agree with that, and it's a very sad reflection of the current state of humanity. Only the threat of total annihilation of everybody on the planet can keep us from squabbling and fighting (and when there isn't such threat, nothing can? Certainly not "the law" or "justice" or "peacefulness").

Wow, what a well of wisdom! Of course, if all is related when S.Barper is the Roman Emperor and potato trees are growing on the Moon. And most certainly, fact is opinion, truth is lie, black is white, et cetera, yada, let's all have a learned, highly meaningful phylosophy discussion!

Accepted - partially (change underlined): "that the US was the first country to develop, in cooperation with several allied nations, use, and build a large arsenal of, atomic weapons". Of course we all understand the moral difference between making an instrument that could be used to kill (e.g a spade), and the one the sole of purpose of which is to kill (N-bomb). Not to mention the deliberate decision to actually use it, which caused deaths of thousands of innocent people.

The facts in question are listed above (1,2,3). I'm not sure how anything in here relate to them? You're certainly free to examine the syche of US military and government, why they didn't while they could? Maybe they didn't have enough bombs back then, who knows? These are all opinions, which are, as rightfully mentioned, just ain't the same as good old facts.

I don't think anybody here has disputed the facts: that the US was the first country to develop, use, and build a large arsenal of, atomic weapons. Justifications, speculations, and opinions are of course, different story.

The story has been broadcasted in Ottawa (Resident sued). Highlights of the story: local residents who raised objections to parole office being moved to their community (and across from public school), are being sued by property owner for lost revenue ($4 mln), after government has decided to relocate the office. From the appearance, it has all the signs of gross abuse of legal process by the claimant, with possible purpose to chill any public objections to questionnable decisions, by government and private interests, in the future. My take on it is that the court would never allow it. And I'd suggest, if and then the suit is thrown out, to ask for a reasonable punitive sanction (i.e heavy fine) on the claimant, to demonstrate very clearly that this sort of abuse of legal process won't be tolerated. I'm also expecting that residents versed in law would contribute their efforts to this case.