<p>CU</p>
<p>Manhattan Project....sadly nuclear weapons suck, but nuclear power is a relatively clear source of energy when done correctly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sadly nuclear weapons suck
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no. The possession of nuclear weapons by peaceful and civilized nations is essential. Think deeper, please.</p>
<p>Yeah, and AIDS is just natural selection in action....</p>
<p>Huh? Try to stay focused on the topic at hand.</p>
<p>Besides, you do realize that AIDS is disproportionately killing off the most poor and uneducated people in this world?</p>
<p>C02, you're on dangerous turf. i'd abandon the analogy.</p>
<p>The manhattan project stopped the war and ensured that we would win it. At the time, I can think of no objective that would trump those two. What happened after that, while less than optimal, nevertheless has resulted in nuclear weapons never again being used for war.</p>
<p>Am I scared about pakistan and iran having a bomb? Since I work in downtown manhattan, i'd stammer out a h-h-ell y-y-yes. But if we hadn't invented it first, god knows who would've had something terrible to leverage against us.</p>
<p>This is like criticizing Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves. Product of his time.</p>
<p>i think most of the criticism comes from fathering a child with one of them, not just the ownership.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is like criticizing Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves. Product of his time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not sure I buy this analogy. Slavery was widely accepted at one point, but llater recognized to be morally wrong. The possession and development of nuclear weapons by the peaceful nations has been -- and still is -- a good thing.</p>
<p>That is an oxymoron. PEACEFUL nations owning NUCLEAR WEAPONS. However, I digress.</p>
<p>quick question: What do peaceful nations need nuclear weapons for?... i mean, if they're peaceful...
and CO2, ur mean... like, disproportionately mean... (I find the shorthand version of ur name, CO2, fits u)
and suppose no one had even invented nuclear weapons... (this includes quote, peaceful nations, unquote)</p>
<p>
[quote]
What do peaceful nations need nuclear weapons for?... i mean, if they're peaceful...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You do realize the difference between a peaceful nation and a pacifist nation, right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
and suppose no one had even invented nuclear weapons... (this includes quote, peaceful nations, unquote)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hihongo ga wakarimasu ka?</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is an oxymoron. PEACEFUL nations owning NUCLEAR WEAPONS. However, I digress.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>More like paradox.</p>
<p>I don't know ANY pacifist nation in the world today CO2 that holds nuclear weapons - if you think you know even one of them you're seriously deluded.
And by the way, the term is oxymoron, NOT paradox.</p>
<p>The irony lies in ostensibly pacifist powers that have nuclear weapons and try to disarm all others! (see Six-party agreement)</p>
<p>Yes! I wasn't wrong...</p>
<p>"I don't know ANY pacifist nation in the world today CO2 that holds nuclear weapons - if you think you know even one of them you're seriously deluded."</p>
<p>i think C2002 might have meant that pacifist nations don't own nuclear weapons but peaceful ones can. Nukes can be a stabilizing force if kept in the right hands. There is a well supported theory that india and pakistan would have gone to war a few more times if they didn't develop nuclear weapons, the threat of being nuked was too large and that forced differences to be resolved through negotiation. No government in their right mind, would ever directly attack another that has nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>^^ I believe that is correct. During the Cold War the US and SU primarily did not start a war, because they knew that with the weapons the others had, they probably wouldn't survive. If they hadn't faced annihilation because of nuclear weapons, the Cold War could have caused a lot more damage.</p>
<p>BTW, I think it's a paradox, since an oxymoron would rather be 'alone together' or 'deafening silence', i.e. rather a substantive with a contradictory adjective than a seemingly contradicting statement with two elements (peaceful nation vs. nuclear weapons), which characterizes a paradox.</p>
<p>Also, I have just reached the celestial number of 333 (posts, that is).</p>
<p>I think history would suggest that the United States is not, nor ever has been, a pacifist nation (unless you count 1915-1916).</p>
<p>All pacifism gets you is run over by less ethical nations. It takes more character to be both strong and just. I think the nation of Japan has much to thank us for, for stopping the war when we did, and assisting with their rebuilding. MacArthur should probably be in their pantheon given where their economy was for the first few years after the war, and how quickly everything got back together.</p>
<p>MAD was stupid, but it worked. Maybe it worked in spite of the plan rather than because of it, but it's a results-based business, and there was no nuclear war.</p>
<p>I don't see what we have to apologize for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I don't know ANY pacifist nation in the world today CO2 that holds nuclear weapons - if you think you know even one of them you're seriously deluded."</p>
<p>i think C2002 might have meant that pacifist nations don't own nuclear weapons but peaceful ones can. Nukes can be a stabilizing force if kept in the right hands. There is a well supported theory that india and pakistan would have gone to war a few more times if they didn't develop nuclear weapons, the threat of being nuked was too large and that forced differences to be resolved through negotiation. No government in their right mind, would ever directly attack another that has nuclear weapons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correct as to what I meant and as to the content of your post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^ I believe that is correct. During the Cold War the US and SU primarily did not start a war, because they knew that with the weapons the others had, they probably wouldn't survive. If they hadn't faced annihilation because of nuclear weapons, the Cold War could have caused a lot more damage.</p>
<p>BTW, I think it's a paradox, since an oxymoron would rather be 'alone together' or 'deafening silence', i.e. rather a substantive with a contradictory adjective than a seemingly contradicting statement with two elements (peaceful nation vs. nuclear weapons), which characterizes a paradox.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also correct.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think history would suggest that the United States is not, nor ever has been, a pacifist nation (unless you count 1915-1916).</p>
<p>All pacifism gets you is run over by less ethical nations. It takes more character to be both strong and just. I think the nation of Japan has much to thank us for, for stopping the war when we did, and assisting with their rebuilding. MacArthur should probably be in their pantheon given where their economy was for the first few years after the war, and how quickly everything got back together.</p>
<p>MAD was stupid, but it worked. Maybe it worked in spite of the plan rather than because of it, but it's a results-based business, and there was no nuclear war.</p>
<p>I don't see what we have to apologize for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also correct.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know ANY pacifist nation in the world today CO2 that holds nuclear weapons - if you think you know even one of them you're seriously deluded.
And by the way, the term is oxymoron, NOT paradox.</p>
<p>The irony lies in ostensibly pacifist powers that have nuclear weapons and try to disarm all others! (see Six-party agreement)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dead wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes! I wasn't wrong...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No! Sorry! You were wrong!</p>