Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed

Post by dsfyu404ed » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 5:51 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #20

>> without hitting the missile and causing an explosion. >> caused a short circuit that resulted in an explosion. >> Luckily, the cone did not do enough damage to the missile to cause the missile to explode. To clarify: There was absolutely no chance at any point of a nuclear explosion. The article suggests that some big explosion was on the edge of possibility which, given the context, one might think would be a nuc…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 5:54 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #42

joshlegs wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that nuclear non-proliferation is important. But I think the arguments you're using are kind of a bit of false logic. Essentially your argument boils down to "this thing X is hard to do safely. Therefore only people who have done X should do it [because they've failed a lot of times before]." And I don't think that is a legitimate argument for any topic, really.

This is completely a valid argument when the "learning mistakes" of X have disastrous consequences.

Post by taurath » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #26

vkou wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arms reduction is even more important. I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each. A weapon detonating by accident is terrible. Thousands of weapons on hair-trigger alert is civilization-ending. It's absolutely insane that we're conditioned to believe that this is not only normal - but the best possible state of affairs.

> I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each. I absolutely would not. Those 2 countries know far more about the process then those other countries, and they have the budget to do it right. You would have to duplicate labs, and computers, and other efforts 20 times in your scenario, and each of those labs will not be as good as the 2 highe…

Post by mantas » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 6:04 PM UTC

clarkmoody wrote: post #33

vkou wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arms reduction is even more important. I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each. A weapon detonating by accident is terrible. Thousands of weapons on hair-trigger alert is civilization-ending. It's absolutely insane that we're conditioned to believe that this is not only normal - but the best possible state of affairs.

Wouldn't you rather live in a world where all governments had zero nuclear weapons each? A nuclear bomb serves no other purpose than killing huge numbers of civilians in a short period of time. Shouldn't we strive for a world where nobody has that capability? Not to mention that in the United States, one man has unilateral and final authority to launch a nuclear first strike. Edit: countries -> governments

Post by cmurf » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 6:07 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #20

>> without hitting the missile and causing an explosion. >> caused a short circuit that resulted in an explosion. >> Luckily, the cone did not do enough damage to the missile to cause the missile to explode. To clarify: There was absolutely no chance at any point of a nuclear explosion. The article suggests that some big explosion was on the edge of possibility which, given the context, one might think would be a nuc…