ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th March 2019, 09:23 AM   #41
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,435
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Er... were that true, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been rebuilt so quickly. I've been there, they were rebuilt very quickly. No, radiation from nuclear weapons goes away pretty quickly.
There have been phenomenal improvements to the destructive power of nuclear weapons since those days. Even the famous Neutron Bomb produces a good bit of radioactive debris, just not as much radioactive debris as does the usual fission or fusion bombs.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 BobTheCoward said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 09:57 AM   #42
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
There have been phenomenal improvements to the destructive power of nuclear weapons since those days. Even the famous Neutron Bomb produces a good bit of radioactive debris, just not as much radioactive debris as does the usual fission or fusion bombs.
More destructive <> more radiation.

Go ahead, go to Hiroshima. You can even stand under the exact spot where the bomb blew up. Go with a geiger counter. Come back with your findings.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:01 AM   #43
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45,467
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
He would be assassinated inside the White House before pushing the button.

One single good guy with a gun would be a hero to all.
Makes a good story but would it actually happen? I makes a good story that US troops would refuse orders to torture detainees but it didn't exactly happen.

Depending on a presidential assassination seems suspect.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:01 AM   #44
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
I think if you start a thread with a premise borrowed from from some imagined third party with no input of your own, you're likely just fishing for gotchas. Is this something you are concerned about?
When I started the thread, I considered citing other threads here where talk about Trump's unprecedented extremity and hazard could be found. But I figured that effort wasn't necessary, since everyone here would know what I was talking about. And it looks like I was right, except in your case-

Quote:
But as it happens, your premise isn't a new one.
-Oh. Never mind. Even in your case.

I'm not that concerned about the possibility. But I've had that slapfight about as often as I'd like, so I figured it might be interesting to grant the premise and solicit input from people who *are* concerned. Or who I thought would be concerned. There's a lot of people in the "dangerous mental illness" thread who are apparently committed to the idea that Trump poses a unique and extreme danger. But nobody seems prepared to explain what exactly that danger is, nor how to mitigate it. If nothing else, this thread seems on track to establish that whatever the danger, it isn't nuclear war (and if it were, the fifth estate would handle it).

I'm not that concerned about the possibility. I think that Donald Trump is certainly unique and even extreme in some ways. I also think that most of the complaints about the Trump administration from the left are either wild hyperbole, or special pleading. But whenever I try to argue this point, people complain that I'm normalizing the president.

Meanwhile, we get deranged stuff like this:

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Trump is definitely a lunatic, but not that particular kind of lunatic. The real potential starter of a nuclear war is North Korea. They don't have deployable nuclear weapons yet, but they're still working on it, so they will sooner or later. Nothing is going to stop them other than a successful internal rebellion or an air strike (which would need to be the biggest ever, based on the need to also get the artillery aimed at Seoul at the same time so they don't get a chance to start firing). We can't cause the former and our current "President" won't be willing to do the latter because of his love of dictators (especially the worst ones he can find).
Here, Delvo is claiming that the only reason Trump isn't starting a war with North Korea is because he loves dictators. Even though "not bombing North Korea before they develop nuclear weapons" has been the US policy going back at least to the Clinton administration. The Obama administration had eight years and a pressing reason to strike at North Korea. They didn't strike, because there are also pressing reasons not to strike*. Nothing has really changed since then except who's in the Oval Office. The basic US policy remains the same. But what was normal statecraft when Barack Obama was president becomes abnormal dictator-love when Donald Trump is president. This isn't me normalizing Donald Trump. This is Delvo abnormalizing him.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:04 AM   #45
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,480
Originally Posted by Parsman View Post
To be fair, much as I dislike Trump and much as I think he must have some sort of mental derangement I am far less scared of a possible nuclear conflict than I was during the cold war. The UK government sent out "Protect and Survive" booklets that told us the way to survive was take a door off its hinges, paint it white and place it across the bottom of your stairs. Seriously.

It looks like there was more to it than that. The idea was to seal yourself into an indoor "refuge" until fallout dissipates. In the U.S. in the '60s people were building bomb shelters in their basements.
https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110193

Last edited by Bob001; 7th March 2019 at 10:20 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:13 AM   #46
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
More destructive <> more radiation.

Go ahead, go to Hiroshima. You can even stand under the exact spot where the bomb blew up. Go with a geiger counter. Come back with your findings.
The early design used at Hiroshima was extremely inefficient. Upwards of 95% of the total uranium mass was blown apart before it could participate in the reaction, and was scattered across the region.

A lot of the improvement in nuclear weapon design focused on getting more of the reaction mass to participate in the reaction, instead of being wasted. The resulting efficiency gains resulted in bombs that were significantly smaller, and also significantly more powerful.

Also, the techniques used to make the bombs more efficient also allowed the yield of the bomb to be selected after primary assembly. You can adjust the efficiency of a bomb and thus its overall destruction power, in response to the nature of the target that bomb is aimed at.

---

The problem is essentially one of not having enough neutrons at the start of the reaction. Neutrons from the uranium mass interact with the mass and drive the chain reaction. But the reaction proceeds to an explosion before much of the mass gets involved. So the bomb gets blown apart before it's really started blowing up.

The solution is to boost the initial reaction with an additional neutron source. One implementation is a bimetallic core that is compressed during the initial implosion (the same implosion that compresses the uranium mass to criticality). During compression, the two metals mix, releasing a large burst of neutrons and juicing the chain reaction in the uranium.

Another implementation uses an injection of tritium gas into the core at implosion, with similar results. By regulating the amount of tritium injected, you can regulate the overall efficiency of the reaction and the destructive power of the bomb.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:22 AM   #47
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The early design used at Hiroshima was extremely inefficient. Upwards of 95% of the total uranium mass was blown apart before it could participate in the reaction, and was scattered across the region.

A lot of the improvement in nuclear weapon design focused on getting more of the reaction mass to participate in the reaction, instead of being wasted. The resulting efficiency gains resulted in bombs that were significantly smaller, and also significantly more powerful.

Also, the techniques used to make the bombs more efficient also allowed the yield of the bomb to be selected after primary assembly. You can adjust the efficiency of a bomb and thus its overall destruction power, in response to the nature of the target that bomb is aimed at.

---

The problem is essentially one of not having enough neutrons at the start of the reaction. Neutrons from the uranium mass interact with the mass and drive the chain reaction. But the reaction proceeds to an explosion before much of the mass gets involved. So the bomb gets blown apart before it's really started blowing up.

The solution is to boost the initial reaction with an additional neutron source. One implementation is a bimetallic core that is compressed during the initial implosion (the same implosion that compresses the uranium mass to criticality). During compression, the two metals mix, releasing a large burst of neutrons and juicing the chain reaction in the uranium.

Another implementation uses an injection of tritium gas into the core at implosion, with similar results. By regulating the amount of tritium injected, you can regulate the overall efficiency of the reaction and the destructive power of the bomb.
But we're not discussing yield; rather whether it makes it more radioactive for longer periods of time.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:33 AM   #48
Cabbage
Muse
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The basic US policy remains the same. But what was normal statecraft when Barack Obama was president becomes abnormal dictator-love when Donald Trump is president.

You seem to be ignoring a fundamental difference between Obama and Trump: Obama never fawned over Kim and said "We fell in love".


There are valid reasons to accuse Trump of "abnormal dictator-love" despite your choice to ignore them.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:41 AM   #49
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
You seem to be ignoring a fundamental difference between Obama and Trump: Obama never fawned over Kim and said "We fell in love".


There are valid reasons to accuse Trump of "abnormal dictator-love" despite your choice to ignore them.
Like I said, I think Trump is unique and extreme in many ways. But his actual policy towards North Korea is well in line with that of his predecessors.

ETA: You say Trump won't bomb North Korea because he's in love with Kim Jong Un. Okay, fine. So what was Obama's excuse? Was he also in love with Kim, but as a normal politician he was better at keeping his mouth shut about it? Was he a coward? Too much of a terrible diplomat to convince China to allow the strike? Just an ignoramus? Or is simply that President Trump is continuing America's normal policy towards North Korea?

Last edited by theprestige; 7th March 2019 at 10:46 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:43 AM   #50
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
But we're not discussing yield; rather whether it makes it more radioactive for longer periods of time.
As I understand it, the solutions for increasing yield also substantially reduce the amount of "hot" uranium in the fallout.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:48 AM   #51
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As I understand it, the solutions for increasing yield also substantially reduce the amount of "hot" uranium in the fallout.
So if I understand it, your point actually works against Crossbow's, then.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:50 AM   #52
Cabbage
Muse
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Like I said, I think Trump is unique and extreme in many ways. But his actual policy towards North Korea is well in line with that of his predecessors.
But public comments made by the president count for a lot, too, and it's precisely there where there IS a huge divergence between Trump and his predecessors.

Additionally, I don't recall any previous president shutting down South Korean military exercises while getting nothing in return. (This is not intended to be for or against that choice, just pointing out another significant difference between Trump and predecessors).

People accuse you of normalizing the president because when someone points out "X is not normal about the president" you immediately deflect to "But president Trump's Y IS normal". That doesn't change the fact that X isn't normal.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:52 AM   #53
Cabbage
Muse
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Like I said, I think Trump is unique and extreme in many ways. But his actual policy towards North Korea is well in line with that of his predecessors.

ETA: You say Trump won't bomb North Korea because he's in love with Kim Jong Un. Okay, fine. So what was Obama's excuse? Was he also in love with Kim, but as a normal politician he was better at keeping his mouth shut about it? Was he a coward? Too much of a terrible diplomat to convince China to allow the strike? Just an ignoramus? Or is simply that President Trump is continuing America's normal policy towards North Korea?
I didn't say that. You must be confusing me with someone else.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:53 AM   #54
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So if I understand it, your point actually works against Crossbow's, then.
I think I'm actually in agreement with Crossbow.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 10:54 AM   #55
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I didn't say that. You must be confusing me with someone else.
Rhetorical you. Delvo made the initial implication. You're getting brought along for the ride because you hopped on to defend the "dictator love" proposition.

You didn't say it. That's fine. Do you agree with it?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 11:03 AM   #56
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think I'm actually in agreement with Crossbow.
Then I don't get it. In response to my point about radiation falling off rapidly after a nuke, he talked about higher yields and you said higher yields produce less material... so, huh?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 11:05 AM   #57
Cabbage
Muse
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Rhetorical you. Delvo made the initial implication. You're getting brought along for the ride because you hopped on to defend the "dictator love" proposition.

You didn't say it. That's fine. Do you agree with it?
No. I thought it was an utterly asinine series of questions, too. And I wasn't the one that said Trump was in love with Kim. I was simply quoting the Donald himself.

Last edited by Cabbage; 7th March 2019 at 11:08 AM.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 11:24 AM   #58
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,810
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What if he doesn't see it as suicide? What if he sees nuking North Korea simply as a matter of stroking his ego, proving his dominance, and keeping all the attention on him?

I mean, you're sketching out a vaguely rational train of thought, there. Is that really the kind mind Trump has? Vaguely rational?

Also is it likely that he's gotten this far in life if suicidal tendencies were part of his psychological makeup? If that were the case wouldn't he have killed himself several bankruptcies ago?
I can't see trump as suicidal. He always blames his problems on others. He would only start a nuclear war if he had something to gain from it. The thing is that nobody has.

Trump is rational. It's just that his rationale is a bit removed from that of everybody else.

Finally, nuking NK would not start a nuclear holocaust. There are very few, if any, outside NK who would go as much as a mile for NK, much less get seriously involved. If there were, NK would already be history.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 11:28 AM   #59
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
But public comments made by the president count for a lot, too, and it's precisely there where there IS a huge divergence between Trump and his predecessors.
Sure. But actions speak louder than words. Take away the rhetoric, and what do you have? Actual policy that swings rightward, but still lands well within the mainstream of normal American policy.

Quote:
Additionally, I don't recall any previous president shutting down South Korean military exercises while getting nothing in return. (This is not intended to be for or against that choice, just pointing out another significant difference between Trump and predecessors).
While the details vary from attempt to attempt, the US and South Korea have a long history of granting concessions to North Korea and getting nothing in return.

Quote:
People accuse you of normalizing the president because when someone points out "X is not normal about the president" you immediately deflect to "But president Trump's Y IS normal". That doesn't change the fact that X isn't normal.
I brought up X versus Y in this thread specifically to explain that while I agree that Trump's is abnormal in some ways, he's not abnormal in other ways. Some of the important ways that he's actually pretty normal, are exactly the ways in which other people use hyperbole and special pleading to claim he's not normal.

Seriously, who cares how abnormally over-the-top Trump's rhetoric is, if the policies he's driving with that rhetoric are actually pretty mainstream?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 11:29 AM   #60
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Then I don't get it. In response to my point about radiation falling off rapidly after a nuke, he talked about higher yields and you said higher yields produce less material... so, huh?
We all agree, I guess?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 11:35 AM   #61
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Sidebar:

---

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I can't see trump as suicidal. He always blames his problems on others. He would only start a nuclear war if he had something to gain from it. The thing is that nobody has.
Depends on the war. I think a lot of people would have a lot to gain from a nuclear war with North Korea right now, for example. It would be entirely one-sided. It would be over within a matter of days (hours, probably). The human suffering from the destruction, the fallout, and the humanitarian crisis would likely be less than the human suffering from allowing the regime to persist in its current form. It would remove an important tool from China's war chest, further reducing the potential for human suffering in the region.

I guess it also depends on what you imagine a nuclear war to be.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 11:39 AM   #62
Cabbage
Muse
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sure. But actions speak louder than words. Take away the rhetoric, and what do you have? Actual policy that swings rightward, but still lands well within the mainstream of normal American policy.
Ah yes, the predicted deflection, right on schedule. Words matter, and resorting to the cliched (and certainly not self-evident) claim that "actions speak louder than words" does not change that fact.


Quote:
Seriously, who cares how abnormally over-the-top Trump's rhetoric is, if the policies he's driving with that rhetoric are actually pretty mainstream?
That's a positively adorable euphemism for the ~8000 lies Trump has told as President. Regardless of what his policies are, his wanton lying should be a matter of great concern.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 11:41 AM   #63
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
We all agree, I guess?
Yay!

__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 01:46 PM   #64
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,401
I don't think The PDJT would ever consider nuking North Korea. Too many "beautiful beaches" where he can build his real estate properties, once he gets the deals taken care of.

He'll bomb the Middle East somewhere. Or Yemen. Whoever heard of Yemen?
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 02:07 PM   #65
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,873
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I don't think The PDJT would ever consider nuking North Korea. Too many "beautiful beaches" where he can build his real estate properties, once he gets the deals taken care of.
And remember: "Charlie don't surf."
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 02:11 PM   #66
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I don't think The PDJT would ever consider nuking North Korea. Too many "beautiful beaches" where he can build his real estate properties, once he gets the deals taken care of.

He'll bomb the Middle East somewhere. Or Yemen. Whoever heard of Yemen?
He should consider nuking North Korea, though. It would only take about five low-yield nukes, none of them really threatening any of the peninsula's beautiful beaches. If the Joint Chiefs decided to pitch it as a business opportunity, we might actually have a president in office who's prepared to lance this boil.

---

One benefit to the improvements in missile accuracy over the past several decades is that you can make nukes much smaller and less destructive. The point of a nuke isn't actually to cause widespread devastation. The point - as with every other weapon - is to break the thing that needs to be broken. The degree of collateral damage depends on the constraints imposed by your technology and the realities of the situation.

All you need to break a hardened command bunker is a suitcase nuke, assuming you could get it close enough. Used to be, we'd have to lob a giant city-killer somewhere near the bunker, smash half the countryside, and hope the bunker was close enough to ground zero to complete the mission. Nowadays, we can put a much smaller bomb right on the bunker, and spare the countryside. In theory, anyway.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 02:28 PM   #67
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,810
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sidebar:

---



Depends on the war. I think a lot of people would have a lot to gain from a nuclear war with North Korea right now, for example. It would be entirely one-sided. It would be over within a matter of days (hours, probably). The human suffering from the destruction, the fallout, and the humanitarian crisis would likely be less than the human suffering from allowing the regime to persist in its current form. It would remove an important tool from China's war chest, further reducing the potential for human suffering in the region.

I guess it also depends on what you imagine a nuclear war to be.
AH, ain't a simple as that. North Korea is not in a box. It is close to China, and of course South Korea. There are trade relations, family relations. It is not just a bad sector you can blast with no repercussions.

Also, of course, the act of nuking some state you don't like would set very unpleasant precedents.

Finally, very few persons on Earth, if any at all, would be insensitive to killing millions of innocent people.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 02:33 PM   #68
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
AH, ain't a simple as that. North Korea is not in a box. It is close to China, and of course South Korea. There are trade relations, family relations. It is not just a bad sector you can blast with no repercussions.

Also, of course, the act of nuking some state you don't like would set very unpleasant precedents.

Finally, very few persons on Earth, if any at all, would be insensitive to killing millions of innocent people.
That's the thing, though: It wouldn't kill millions of innocent people. Mostly it would kill people in the North Korean military establishment. It's true that some innocents would probably die. And in the ensuing humanitarian crisis, millions of innocent people would undoubtedly suffer. But the problem of North Korea is that millions of innocent people are suffering and dying there anyway.

And yes, there will be repercussions, which is why everybody has been unwilling to take that step so far. Which brings us back to Delvo's insinuation that Trump is somehow abnormal for not attacking North Korea.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 02:44 PM   #69
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,603
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Makes a good story but would it actually happen? I makes a good story that US troops would refuse orders to torture detainees but it didn't exactly happen.

Depending on a presidential assassination seems suspect.

As it happens, I was in exactly that situation once. The President of the U.S. was contemplating attempting to destroy an approaching alien invasion fleet by triggering an untested doomsday weapon. However, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I had intelligence that the weapon would vaporize the earth as well. President Woodhead* thought if would be okay to set it off near the far side of the moon, so the moon's mass would shield the earth. Though no one was certain, our technical advisors doubted that would be sufficient.

Fortunately, as the President had a reputation going in of being a loose cannon, I had conspired with the military, Secret Service, and technical personnel on the scene to give me a de facto veto over any extremely risky Presidential action. I used it to nullify his order to trigger the doomsday weapon ("I'm sorry, Mr. President. I can't do that."), saving the planet. The invasion fleet was dealt with by other means.

Good times. I don't think anyone runs LARPs like that any more, the full-blown weekend long ones with dozens to hundreds of player-characters.


*Not the actual character name, which I don't remember. The player was computer game designer Robert Woodhead.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:09 PM   #70
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,480
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's the thing, though: It wouldn't kill millions of innocent people. Mostly it would kill people in the North Korean military establishment.
.....

Why do you imagine that? What makes you think many thousands, likely millions, of SOUTH Koreans wouldn't die during the attacks and in the aftermath? What makes you think the surviving leadership (and you really think nobody would survive?) wouldn't initiate a spasm of revenge? What can you possibly be talking about?

Food for thought:
Quote:
Burrowed into hard granite mountain faces and protected behind blast doors, 15,000 North Korean cannons and rocket launchers are aimed at the glass skyscrapers, traffic-choked highways and blocks of apartment buildings 35 miles away in Seoul ― and the U.S. military bases beyond.

In a matter of minutes, these heavy, low-tech weapons could begin the destruction of the South Korean capital with blizzards of glass shards, collapsed buildings and massive casualties that would decimate this vibrant U.S. ally and send shock waves through the global economy.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0b9e9848eb990
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:13 PM   #71
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,346
I think that the India/Pakistan situation is a lot more likely to go nuclear then North Korea.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:20 PM   #72
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Why do you imagine that? What makes you think many thousands, likely millions, of SOUTH Koreans wouldn't die during the attacks and in the aftermath? What makes you think the surviving leadership (and you really think nobody would survive?) wouldn't initiate a spasm of revenge? What can you possibly be talking about?
Smash the command and control infrastructure, and the survivors will be hard pressed to initiate a spasm of anything.

Quote:
That's why you have to use nukes. I've actually given this a lot of thought over the years. The truth is (as I see it), there is no good or easy solution to this problem. There's no way to leave it alone without enabling ongoing and horrific human suffering. There's no way to put a stop to it without causing more suffering - especially in the short term. That's why nobody has done it, and why probably nobody will do it. We'll just keep crossing our fingers and hoping it sorts itself out somewhat peacefully sooner or later.

Which brings us back to Delvo's insinuation that Donald Trump is somehow abnormal for not attacking North Korea.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:24 PM   #73
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I think that the India/Pakistan situation is a lot more likely to go nuclear then North Korea.
I dunno. North Korea is backed pretty far into a corner. India and Pakistan both have a lot more to live for. I don't think either of them is interested in going nuclear, not unless they could see a clear path to a favorable end state for them. Like, if there was a paradigm shift if the global balance of power, and China stepped forward to underwrite Pakistan's occupation and annexation of large chunks of India, maybe India would be forced to use nukes defensively, or Pakistan would use them preemptively to pave the way. But that seems pretty unlikely.

North Korea seems like a good candidate to start using nuclear extortion the moment it gets a nuke, and then using a nuke to prove it's serious.

Last edited by theprestige; 7th March 2019 at 03:25 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:28 PM   #74
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,988
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
They say that Donald Trump poses a unique and unprecedented danger. They say that he is deranged to a degree never before seen in of someone in high office.
-- Mr. Fox

Quote:
Now his wall isn't getting built like he promised. His own party* is cockblocking him on his presidential emergency. His big summit/distraction with North Korea was a failure. Mueller's investigation keeps picking off his henchmen. How much more of this can he take, before he snaps?
I don't think her actually cares. His whole life is full of failures and he doesn't seem to care, why would he care now?
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:32 PM   #75
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
-- Mr. Fox



I don't think her actually cares. His whole life is full of failures and he doesn't seem to care, why would he care now?
That's pretty much where I'm at. But as I explained earlier, I thought I'd grant the premise and let the "dangerous mental illness" wing of the Membership weigh in.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:34 PM   #76
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,480
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Smash the command and control infrastructure, and the survivors will be hard pressed to initiate a spasm of anything.
.....
The troops manning 15,000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul wouldn't need much in the way of "command and control" to open fire. A mushroom cloud over the horizon would be an unmistakable signal.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:37 PM   #77
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,480
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's pretty much where I'm at. But as I explained earlier, I thought I'd grant the premise and let the "dangerous mental illness" wing of the Membership weigh in.
You don't have to believe that Trump would deliberately blow up the world to recognize that Trump's ignorance, stupidity and belligerence could lead to a catastrophic miscalculation, like his chatter about giving NK a "bloody nose." He's accustomed to bullying people into giving him what he wants. That won't always work.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:46 PM   #78
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The troops manning 15,000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul wouldn't need much in the way of "command and control" to open fire. A mushroom cloud over the horizon would be an unmistakable signal.
The idea is that those troops would be eating their own mushroom clouds at the same time.

One of the things that occurred to me in my years of thinking about the issue is that the US can probably launch more than one strike on more than one target, simultaneously. Once you realize that this is possible, it changes your entire risk/reward calculus.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:49 PM   #79
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
You don't have to believe that Trump would deliberately blow up the world to recognize that Trump's ignorance, stupidity and belligerence could lead to a catastrophic miscalculation, like his chatter about giving NK a "bloody nose." He's accustomed to bullying people into giving him what he wants. That won't always work.
Okay, fair enough. It seems that between the "crazy but not that crazy" folks and the "don't worry the fifth estate will take care of it" folks, we've pretty much ruled out the concern that this president will start a nuclear war on purpose.

There can still be other concerns, of course. Maybe I'll start a thread on one of those in a few days. Or someone else can. Someone who actually has that concern, perhaps.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 03:56 PM   #80
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,988
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's pretty much where I'm at. But as I explained earlier, I thought I'd grant the premise and let the "dangerous mental illness" wing of the Membership weigh in.
I've stayed out of that thread for the most part, but I think it is worth noting that not caring can be dangerous, too. Just not in the way you laid out.

A bit OT, though.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:54 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.