Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

Post by krisoft » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 2:19 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #111

krisoft wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> instead of turning the human body into what could be considered "nothing" You can't turn material into "nothing". At best you can turn it into equivalent amount of energy if you collide it with antimatter. That being said I don't really feel the difference between "vaporisation" and "disintegration". In both cases you stop being biology and start being physics in a subjective instant. (at least from the perspective…

the specific definition is that vaporization turns solids and liquids into gas or plasma, while disintegration means being broken into pieces. the difference between a gas and a solid, and also fine solids suspended in a gas, is fairly well defined.

Post by tomp » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 2:22 PM UTC

exmadscientist wrote: post #120

tomp wrote: post #97

[flagged]

It is, as so often the case, a classic prisoner's dilemma problem [0]: "no nukes" is pretty clearly superior to "any nukes at all", but "they have nukes but we don't" is game over, so... nukes for all (major world powers)! It's awful, but that's the prisoner's dilemma for you. I have a hard time respecting any anti-nuclear activist who doesn't at least acknowledge this facet of things, even if "no one has nukes and n…

Post by w4 » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 2:24 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #32

vasco wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I put a hammer over your head that can fall any minute you'll be worrying, but if you're born with the hammer over your head and your parents before you as well, it becomes less of a thing.

On an individual level, we all have a variety of hammers over our heads. Cancer has killed far more people prematurely than nuclear weapons. Something like 500,000 people a year are murdered. Traffic/bicycle/pedestrian accidents also kill more than nuclear weapons. Even compared to a once-in-a-century nuclear war that perhaps kills a billion people, cancer will kill roughly a billion in the next century anyway. So, f…

Post by tgv » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 2:39 PM UTC

thimabi wrote: post #55

cbolton wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter? It was probably obvious to the scientists working on the bomb that other countries would get it too sooner or later, including countries at odds with each other.

But was it really obvious? From what I can tell, much of the nuclear arms race happened thanks to espionage. Had information on warheads and the like been properly contained, maybe other countries would not have so easily developed the bomb.

Post by philistine » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 2:51 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #141

piva00 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm claiming that a compromised peace in the Donbas with the annexation of territories of the Donbas and Crimea will further strengthen that if you have nukes you have a massive lever to use against non-nuclear nations. And Russia wants the Donbas, Crimea and the land bridge all the way around the Sea of Azov, that's a massive plot of land. You are only considering a narrow point in time, think ahead in terms of…

> based on wishful thinking of what you project Trump will do, it's all from your head, not from his words. Since we're off-topic already can I just emphasize this point? Pretty much everybody I know who has or will vote for Trump is like this. For example, I knew one guy who voted for Trump because he thought Trump would legalize marijuana.