Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

nobelprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 389 posts

Re: Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

#281

Post by anigbrowl »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #243
EasyMark wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So like usual I offer up "what's your alternative" ? Is it to ignore Russian's invasion of countries? Ignore Iran's chaos it wants to sew constantly in the Middle East? It's easy to say "just be peaceful" but history shows that countries are not peaceful towards one another, they constantly want to take other's resources, or force their way of life on others, or settle some vague issue they have with another country…

You realize achieving a compromise is not simply "ignoring" or surrendering to Russia? Putin and Biden haven't spoken in years. I would say you're proposing ignoring the situation until it becomes even more of a powder keg in a decade or two. Alternative is accepting some territorial losses, compromising, soldiers go home. Doomsday clock ticks back to 5 minutes to midnight. You're acting as if this is the first time…

Alternative is accepting some territorial losses, compromising, soldiers go home.

This is just machtpolitik.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

#282

Post by anigbrowl »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #193
fifilura wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was you who said that.

You responded “Yes but how?” to my question. Did I misunderstand and you meant wars between nuclear powers is not foolish?

Can you please stop with these tacky rhetorical moves, it's inimical to good conversation.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

#283

Post by jszymborski »

mistermann wrote: post #268
jszymborski wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this apathy is an important coping mechanism to some degree, it's important not to become complacent. It's precisely this apathy and hopelessness that authoritarian regimes cultivate to prevent action.

This makes it sound like regimes like ours necessarily do not also engage in it, which seems "a bit off" to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ours" as this is the internet, but yes, to the extent that there are authoritarian elements in every government, most governments do this to some degree. It's important to fight against these authoritarian elements as best as one can, especially if you are in a position of influence.

It's also important, however, not to equivocate between totalitarian regimes like Russia and (albeit imperfectly) open democracies like the USA in instances like this. Just because no government is without sin does not mean they are all the same.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

#284

Post by throw0101c »

lutorm wrote: post #199
throw0101c wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally think we're a button click away from going back to the stone age. One reason to use less oil now is to perhaps preserve it in case we need to 'reboot' civilization in the future in case of a future cataclysm. We were only able to reach beyond (near-)subsistence living because of cheap energy, first coal and later petroleum. All the easily accessible stuff is now kind of gone, so if there's another coll…

There is so much coal... I wouldn't worry about running out of that.

> There is so much coal... I wouldn't worry about running out of that.

It's not just about quantity, but accessibility: early coal was on the surface in the UK, and when they depleted that they had to create pumps to drain the mines—which led to all sorts of discoveries when it comes to pressure, which got translated into steam engine advancements.

In the past you could almost literally stick a straw in the ground in parts of the US and suck oil out of the ground. You have to go further afield in many cases now.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

#286

Post by porbelm »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #265
Manuel_D wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people understand just how un-feasible life on Mars would be. It's got 1% of the atmospheric pressure as Earth. It's -65 degrees Celsius. It'd be more feasible to try colonizing the Moon or Antarctica.

We have permanent presence in Antarctica. Depends on your exact definition of "colony", but a narrow definition of it is barred by international treaty, I think. Moon is definitely a great first step. I originally said "other heavenly bodies". You sound like someone in 1900 saying "We can't fly, we're too heavy" or "We can't be in space it's got 0% atmospheric pressure".

We have an atmosphere.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

#287

Post by jszymborski »

dfxm12 wrote: post #238
jszymborski wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this apathy is an important coping mechanism to some degree, it's important not to become complacent. It's precisely this apathy and hopelessness that authoritarian regimes cultivate to prevent action.

I don't think this registers as apathy in this context. Maybe you live in a country that has nuclear weapons and can vote for one leader or another. This may or may not have some impact on things. Certainly, we cannot influence what other countries do with their arsenals. Our mental stacks can only run so deep & I'd wager for most of us, the things that are in our sphere of influence simply take priority.

> This may or may not have some impact on things. Certainly, we cannot influence what other countries do with their arsenals.

It demonstrably does. Nuclear arms reduction treaties have been enacted in the past and it is hard to believe that it would have happened without the popular support it enjoyed.

Just because we are at a time in history where many of those treatise have been weakened or left by the wayside shouldn't be a reason for us to forget them and the good they did.

> Our mental stacks can only run so deep & I'd wager for most of us, the things that are in our sphere of influence simply take priority.

It's a challenge to look beyond ourselves, but we must have the courage to do so. Many people here have the resources to act in the interest of their family, their neighborhood, their community, and their country. It's hard not to be selfish. We can't all afford not to be. Most of us can, however.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

#288

Post by smsm42 »

082349872349872 wrote: post #35
tgv wrote: post #25

In "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Rhodes, a poignant point was made, originating from people like Bohr, who were definitely on the peaceful side: without demonstrating the effect of the atomic bomb, the "nuclear taboo" would not have come into existence, and the first large conflict between nuclear powers would have seen a terrible outcome. The use of the bomb was inevitable, so it was sadly better to use it in a…

That might have been a better argument if the USSR[0] had had the bomb in 1945[1]? Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw#t=15s [0] first test: 29.08.1949 [1] a year in which the US and USSR were, however tenuously, still allied

They were allies by necessity, but I don't think there were a lot of illusions about where things age heading. After all, the official doctrine of the Communist Party has always been that every non-communist regime has to be violently overthrown and replaced by a communist one. USSR didn't have the bomb not because they didn't want one, but because they were incapable of building one by themselves, and stealing all the details by means of vast spy network they had in the US, and then recreating them on their side, took time. If they had the capacity, they'd do it as fast as possible.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

#290

Post by parl_match »

hereme888 wrote: post #285

[flagged]

> Also, those bombs saved a lot of lives. I know many will disagree, but it's true.

This is a hotly, perhaps one of the most hotly contended, modern questions of World War II. To say what you said so blithely betrays your ignorance on the subject.

General modern consensus suggests that the first is up for debate for various reasons, but that the second one really didn't do much to change the Japanese government's course.

Regardless if you disagree with that above statement or not, positioning your uninformed opinion as fact is a bad look.

Post reply on HN