[Overbear]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

You do know that using "low yield devices" will simply require using more devices, and that given the same required destructive energy to level that particular area of land you will generate the same amount of nuclear fallout, right? It is basic physics after all.

Of course you did, as your plan is well thought out and reasonable...

Please bring up how you maintained steam boilers heated by nuclear reactors maintained by people smarter than yourself as evidence of your understanding of nuclear reactions and their effects. That is always amusing.

I never maintained steam boilers my ignorant friend. They (the Navy) intrusted me with the understanding, and teaching of how to work on the very weapons we are talking about using here. I suspect all the "no nukes!" idiots like you, have never even seen a warhead up close and personal, let alone comprehend what makes one work and why it does what it does.

[F1VENOM]

That doesn't make sense OB.

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Hi tafari.

The use of Nukes as a weapon, not a deterrent, would provoke international incident. Nobody wants this, nor does anyone want to be the cause of nuclear conflict. If Overbear was actually given such authority, he wouldn't do it. Want to know how I know? Hitler had a healthy stockpile of biological weapons but never used them, why? The answer is because the allies also had them, the use of which would have caused a conceivably large loss of life.

International incident, by who? If you look at my option plan close, the only ones who might raise a stink, are the big 3, that are part of said plan.

A universal plan of cooperation and mutual benifit. Sure in the short term people are going to be upset, but 20 years later no one will care, the world will be a better place. The very reason for fighting (resorces, land) will have been taken away.

So you are wrong, I would without question, if I had the backing of the 2 other countries in question, use this option.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Overbear

International incident, by who? If you look at my option plan close, the only ones who might raise a stink, are the big 3, that are part of said plan.

A universal plan of cooperation and mutual benifit. Sure in the short term people are going to be upset, but 20 years later no one will care, the world will be a better place. The very reason for fighting (resorces, land) will have been taken away.

So you are wrong, I would without question, if I had the backing of the 2 other countries in question, use this option.

We have had genocidal men in power with weapons of magnitude before and they were never used. I have no reason to believe you would. None whatsoever. Do you think you could honestly get another nation, let alone yours to back your plan?

People still care very much for atrocities. The Chinese and Japanese STILL have animosity over what happened with imperial japan.

[Space Pope]

Originally Posted by Overbear

I never maintained steam boilers my ignorant friend. They (the Navy) intrusted me with the understanding, and teaching of how to work on the very weapons we are talking about using here. I suspect all the "no nukes!" idiots like you, have never even seen a warhead up close and personal, let alone comprehend what makes one work and why it does what it does.

If you did anything beyond "follow the manual" type handling of the non nuclear components of such weapons, you you have an understanding that with a particular yield come a particular destructive capacity and a proportional amount of fall out. You would understand that using "low yield" weapons in place of larger one would not result in any less fall out, as it would simply requires more devices be used to achieve the same destructive capacity, and result in equivalent level.

Of course you don't have an understanding of any of this, because you don't know anything.

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

We have had genocidal men in power with weapons of magnitude before and they were never used. I have no reason to believe you would. None whatsoever. Do you think you could honestly get another nation, let alone yours to back your plan?

As I said, if I could get the other countries to go along with it. I believe it would lead to a better world in the long term. A world with a lot less reason to fight in it, a world were we could turn our eyes to science, to space, and to bettering ourselves and not be bogged down by dogma and religious nonsence.

Do I think it would happen overnight, nope, but 20-30 years after it all went down. I sure as hell think we would all be better, or all be dead, but we would no longer be in the static state we are in now as a species and a society.

[F1VENOM]

No one's going to launch nuclear weapons against another country. They don't even do large scale testing because it's not a good idea.

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

If you did anything beyond "follow the manual" type handling of the non nuclear components of such weapons, you you have an understanding that with a particular yield come a particular destructive capacity and a proportional amount of fall out. You would understand that using "low yield" weapons in place of larger one would not result in any less fall out, as it would simply requires more devices be used to achieve the same destructive capacity, and result in equivalent level.

Of course you don't have an understanding of any of this, because you don't know anything.

*pats you on the head* kid, you might want to go back to school, and read how low yield devices work, what they do to "kill" and why they are a superior choice in heavy urban settings vs. large yield devices.

I suspect what you know of anything short of growing pot and thinking you know all about the world, would fit in a thimble.

[Space Pope]

Why do you make baseless assertions about people so frequently? You just call anyone who disagrees with you a "bible thumper", "anti-gay", "hippie" , "kid" or whatever and act like they only disagree because of that. Perhaps it is because you have no substance to your positions and are incapable of provided any real justification for what you think, and find a dismissing arguments easier to do?

It would seam, based on what you have posted, that your understanding of "low-yield" nuclear devices is what is lacking.

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

No one's going to launch nuclear weapons against another country. They don't even do large scale testing because it's not a good idea.

He doesn't understand why it isn't a good idea. He has a grossly over simplified view of everything, which is indicative of lacking mental capacity. I feel bad for him more than anything.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Overbear

As I said, if I could get the other countries to go along with it. I believe it would lead to a better world in the long term. A world with a lot less reason to fight in it, a world were we could turn our eyes to science, to space, and to bettering ourselves and not be bogged down by dogma and religious nonsence.

Do I think it would happen overnight, nope, but 20-30 years after it all went down. I sure as hell think we would all be better, or all be dead, but we would no longer be in the static state we are in now as a species and a society.

Your goals are laughable and unrealistic. No country would go along with this, so there is little point in pursuing this any further.

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Your goals are laughable and unrealistic. No country would go along with this, so there is little point in pursuing this any further.

lesser men than me, have inacted larger events. All one has to be, is in the right place, at the right moment, and give momentum the right nudge.

I am curious, why would the goal of the betterment of the human race, be a laughable goal?

[ElJefe13]

He's seriously condoning genocide? I wouldn't even consider genocide of Nazis or child molestors an option.

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by ElJefe13

He's seriously condoning genocide? I wouldn't even consider genocide of Nazis or child molestors an option.

If 2 billion humans could be removed from the earth, and by their removal, we had all the resorces we needed, and a chance, a REAL chance to have peace across the planet. Are you saying its not worth it?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Overbear

lesser men than me, have inacted larger events. All one has to be, is in the right place, at the right moment, and give momentum the right nudge.

I am curious, why would the goal of the betterment of the human race, be a laughable goal?

That is precisely why I mentioned Hitler. Even communist Russia and China had/have nukes.

The idea that you can bomb religion out of existence is absurd. The idea that turning a few regions into craters will magically allow the world to prosper under some scientific golden age of secular utopian ideals is nothing short of hilarious and absurd.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Overbear

If 2 billion humans could be removed from the earth, and by their removal, we had all the resorces we needed, and a chance, a REAL chance to have peace across the planet. Are you saying its not worth it?

You keep making this point about the population of the earth without any form of argument behind it. Why do you feel the removal of 2 billion people would be of such benefit that it would justify genocide? What would prevent us from just repopulating the earth again leading to another genocide?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

You keep making this point about the population of the earth without any form of argument behind it. Why do you feel the removal of 2 billion people would be of such benefit that it would justify genocide? What would prevent us from just repopulating the earth again leading to another genocide?

He wants to lower the population of the planet under the pretense that we can make a more peaceful planet. Ironically, this would also result in unrestrained population growth.

[Ford]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

What would prevent us from just repopulating the earth again leading to another genocide?

This is a good point. Taking bear's thinking to the next logical step we would need to regulate the number of children anyone could have...OOPS! you've landed on communist China. Do not pass go, do not collect $200...

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

He wants to lower the population of the planet under the pretense that we can make a more peaceful planet. Ironically, this would also result in unrestrained population growth.

It seems as if he is also alluding to the idea that our planet is overpopulated without really addressing it. If the genocide is simply for peace (ironic much), are there not much simplier ways than killing entire groups of people.

We are getting to the logic of two boys getting into a fight at school and the principal simply kill one so they can't fight any more.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Overbear

If 2 billion humans could be removed from the earth, and by their removal, we had all the resorces we needed, and a chance, a REAL chance to have peace across the planet. Are you saying its not worth it?

Would we have more or less resources? You seem to think that nuclear weapons have no drawbacks.

[Umami]

People have fought since long before resources were short (ignoring for a moment that they're still not) and would continue to do so under any circumstances.

This is a stupid argument, let's move on.

Edit: This is interesting.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...cials-1.478861

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

It seems as if he is also alluding to the idea that our planet is overpopulated without really addressing it. If the genocide is simply for peace (ironic much), are there not much simplier ways than killing entire groups of people.

We are getting to the logic of two boys getting into a fight at school and the principal simply kill one so they can't fight any more.

Violence is a means to an end. I'm not sure there is an irony in that, but most importantly, I consider his ends to be completely absurd and unrealistic. Two world wars decimated significant portions of the population. We bounced back hard and fast from each.