Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
So are nuclear weapons a good thing?
Yes, if they have prevented many wars and saved millions of lives 11%
No, I quite enjoy the occasional world war 23%
Im just a liberal hippy who likes the anti-nuke rehtoric 0%
I didnt read the article because I hate PotatoError 11%
I just hate PotatoError - mainly, because he, cant use commas, properly 35%
I AM PotatoError 17%

Votes: 17

 I think nuclear weapons are good

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Apr 12, 2002
 Comments:
In my opinion one of the best tools ever created by man has to be the atomic bomb. It is given a bad name by many people due to its destructive nature but if they looked at it as a political weapon rather than a military one they might glimpse the good side of nukes.
diaries

More diaries by PotatoError
Hackers: Misunderstood
To all you Windows Criminals
The financial time bomb
Too controversial for Adequacy
A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
Linux Zealot Tells a Story
Why the GNU licence is a good thing
Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.
Okay I'll pay for music
Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
Human behaviour - my thinking on it
Patenting of hyperlinks
Question
The little things
What is god?
awww
Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
The consequences of Determinism
What IS adequacy all about????
Where are we going?
Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
Diary Entry 24/05/02
The Internet - where is it heading?
Terrifying and Shocking news
w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
An Introduction to Online Gaming
Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC
Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
How many Adequacy members are there?
Why Internet Piracy is Moral
Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.
Why US bombs should be banned
The Hunt for God
My vacation to America and what I found there
Are you an Enemy Combatant?
Rock vs Pop
Why we should make all guns illegal
Invasion: America
One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed
Nuclear weapons have always been given a bad name. Even Einstein who's actions ensured the first atomic bomb was built during World War II had grave doubts about this new weapon.
Einstein was one of the greatest pacifists of the 20th century - He never agreed with wars and weapon development at all but he reluctantly decided that the atomic bomb had to be built by the US before Germany built it. I find it hugely ironic how a German Pacifist came to be helping to build humanities most powerful weapon which at that time looked likely to be used against Germany.

Anyhow, the atomic bomb was built and a few busy decades later we had developed many other nuclear weapons and were stockpiling them, our leaders parading them about to show us how big they were.

Im sure you have heard from the media, of the effects of nuclear weapons and their high level of destruction - of life and structures. Im sure you know, that all the nuclear weapons on this planet could wipe it out many times over. Im also sure that you've heard all the fanatics screaming that the end is nigh and that the world must disarm all its nukes at once - for if they dont we will end up destroying ourselves.

Well that is all very pessimistic stuff. Im sure that many of you will have strong negative feelings about nuclear weapons after hearing that sort of stuff all your lives. But have you ever heard the good side to nukes?

When is a war not a war? When its the cold war.

It might have slipped some peoples minds that the cold war was one of the most amazing events in history. We had two hostile powers eyeing each other up and yet never actually entering full blown conflict. Has that ever happened before?
You see nukes might have the potential to kill us all but so far all they have done is saved millions of lives. If the US and the Soviet Union hadn't possessed arsnals of "evil" nukes you can guarantee that the cold war would have turned into world war III.

All over the globe we now have a moderate peace - Unlike throughout the rest of history we do not fear major wars between large powers. China, Russia, Europe and the US - none of these are likely to declare war on each other in the forseable future. The only countries we fear now are relatively smaller and less developed ones. This is a major shift.

Many people have deluded themselves into thinking that this level of peace is how its always been or that its down to modern age diplomacy and communications. But the truth is that its down to nukes and MADness.

Nukes prevent wars through deterence. Nukes lead opposing countries into standoff - no moron is going to start a war they cant win. This gives enough time for diplomacy to bring an end to the prospect of war. If we developed nukes in the 1930's would world war II have happened? I doubt it.

Now what about all these morons like the Campain for Nuclear Disarment who want countries to disarm their nukes? What happens if what they want comes true and ALL the nukes in the world were disarmed tommorow? World War III happens! Some dipshit would get the idea that invasion by conventional means was now possible. Maybe it would be China attempting to overrun Japan and Russia or maybe Russia trying to revive itself.

So a big fuck you to the CND and a big fat cheer for nukes!! *cheer* *cheer*


Indeed. (none / 0) (#1)
by JoePain on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 09:12:56 AM PST



 
Einstein (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 09:19:12 AM PST
Once wrote a letter in which he expressed that he thought building the bomb before Germany did might be a good idea. That was the beginning and end of his contribution. I fail to see how he in particular is in any way relevant to this poorly written essay, or how you can reasonably say that he 'helped'.

(Admittedly, his scientific work was also relevant in its construction, but since said work was completed well before anyone, including Einstein, had any conception of the possibility of building any weaponry with it, that link is incidental.)

--Anonymous Reader #24601


*sigh* i knew this would happen (none / 0) (#3)
by PotatoError on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 09:49:14 AM PST
Didnt you read the first sentence of the main article?
"Even Einstein, who's actions ensured the first atomic bomb was built during World War II"

Does that sound like I believed that he in any way took part in building it?
Or does it sound like I was talking about his actions (the letter) which made sure the bomb was built during World War II?

I guess your main problem was when I wrote that he "came to be helping build the atomic bomb".

Keep it simple, keep it short I thought. Its so much easier to write that Einstein helped build the atomic bomb than to write a long paragraph about how actually, he only wrote a letter to Roosevelt urging him to start production of the atomic bomb but that this was an important factor in the bombs production. All that einstein stuff was off topic anyway so I kept it short.

At the time of writing I thought someone would pick me up on it but then I thought no, noone would be that trivial. But YES!! ARGGH.

Funnily enough if I had used the phrase "helped to build" instead of "helping build" you wouldnt have had a problem as you would have assumed I was refering to his past work on energy.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

My point (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 09:57:23 AM PST
is that Einstein is completely irrelevant to the article. Your response seems to agree with this. Obviously, Newton's work was necessary in the bomb's construction. So was Maxwell's, and Euclid's, and Descartes'. Why didn't you mention any of them?

The whole article is just as poorly organized, I shan't belabour the point further.


You only have yourself to blame (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by PotatoError on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 10:31:41 AM PST
You chose to read my diary entry and you suffered accordingly. Most people have learnt to avoid my posts like the plague but noooooo, you had to go and get curious didnt you?

Did you actually expect to find a half-decent written article? heh on this site? HAHAHAHAA Written by *ME*? HAHAHAHAHAHAH

You're more insane than that one called Elenchos.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Anal-retentive points out minor flaw. (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 10:00:58 PM PST
Didnt you read the first sentence of the main article?
"Even Einstein, who's actions ensured the first atomic bomb was built during World War II"

It appears to be the second sentence, actually.

Or, if you count the introduction, the fourth. If you count the title as a sentence, then the fifth.

-- Uncanny Vortex (posting as AR because I left my assword at the office.)




left my assword at the office. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by because it isnt on Mon Apr 15th, 2002 at 03:52:49 AM PST
Shame that, that's where most Adequacy.org discussion comes from.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Deep Thoughts (none / 0) (#6)
by Uncanny Vortex on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 01:50:53 PM PST
Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have. (Jack Handy)

Jack is a wise man.

-- Uncanny Vortex



Bigger is obsolete. (none / 0) (#7)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 05:36:20 PM PST
...Maybe except in Texas, though.

Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction...

...we should focus on newer and smaller ones.

The paradigm of modern warfare is shifting away from Big Ships, Big Planes, and Big Tanks. The weapons of the future will be more insect-like - lots and lots of small, cheap, and disposable robots-weapons. The pilotless planes we were able to see on some Afghanistan footages are the beginning.


No. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by tkatchev on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 12:15:20 AM PST
The paradigm of future warfare is getting your ass kicked by Asian Hordes with their power of raw animal hate.

Which we're already starting to see in Israel. Have fun.


--
Peace and much love...




 
yea (none / 0) (#9)
by PotatoError on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 03:42:15 PM PST
Imagine an army of small robotic wasp like creatures which flew over the battlefield in swarms, carrying a leathal venom. Im sure that would be the end of the soldier in warfare.

In my opinion the unmanned spy planes used arent really remarkable. I dont know what the military are researching but they arent packing enough computer into their stuff. Its all low technology research into tough materials and structural design rather than implementing some real technological gems. The work they've done into the head up displays and targetting systems in jet fighters and the apache is quite good but a rarity.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Reliability (none / 0) (#10)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 04:21:04 PM PST
I dont know what the military are researching but they arent packing enough computer into their stuff.

They apparently know what they are doing.

Its all low technology research into tough materials and structural design rather than implementing some real technological gems.

Before implementing a tech gem you should really thoroughly test it. If you don't want to get some rude surprises. This is how the R&D should work, and how it works (or at least worked) in space and military research, not the crapitalistic market-driven way of shoveling us all with unfinished half-baked "new" products, and then "new and improved" versions of the same when they finally get it at least to beta stage. Blyeah. If half the money that go to the advertisement would go to something useful, ie. testing, we'd have less than a tenth of the problems with technology we have now.

The work they've done into the head up displays and targetting systems in jet fighters and the apache is quite good but a rarity.

And in more or less all more sophisticated control systems. Check out OICW, alias Alliant Techsystems Objective Individual Combat Weapon for what you will see in the hands of future GI Joes.

And when the battlefields get populated densely enough with electronics, both nuclear and non-nuclear EMP bombs will appear. There was a reason why the avionics of at least the early MiGs was based on tubes - tubes are very resistant to EMPs, semiconductors aren't.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.