6 ms·
No, that is not true. Look at the atomic bomb for example. The technology here is not just nuclear fission – the bomb itself has a lot of unique technology. Th
by chronial 11y ago
No, that is not true. Look at the atomic bomb for example. The technology here is not just nuclear fission – the bomb itself has a lot of unique technology.
There can be a lot inherently wrong with technology, and there quite often is.
- kjs3 11y agoName one technology used in a fission device that doesn't have other, non-weapon application.
- chronial 11y agoWeapons-grade uranium.
- kjs3 11y agoStop enriching before it gets to weapons grade purity and it's fuel for a reactor. Fail.
- chronial 11y agoI'm no expert on the topic, but I think you need essentially different tools and technology to reach the purity necessary for weapons. So using these way more expensive tools to create fuel would be just stupid.
- kjs3 11y agoThey use exactly the same process and technology (these days either gas diffusion or gas centrifuge). These are iterative processes; you keep running them until you get the level of enrichment you want (<20% for fuel, >80% for weapons). Quit speculating on how you can get the answer you want and try the facts.
- idlewords 11y agoYou can make a campfire out of plastic explosives, too. You got an answer to your question and then moved the goalposts. Move on.
- kjs3 11y agoI asked what technology in a fission bomb did have non-military applications. He answered with a product (not a technology) for which the technology to produce has other, obvious, non-military applications. He is wrong, your point about plastic explosives is irrelevant sophistry, and no goalposts have been moved.
- hobs 11y agoWhat about all the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE)? The nuke is extremely destructive and extremely dangerous, but its not inherently wrong, they have been used to close gas wells by the Russians, and I am pretty sure the US had the plowshares program. There are definitely some arguments that we could have used conventional explosives for those purposes, but my point is that a nuke is just a tool, its the people who decide to use it admirably or despicably.
- chronial 11y agoWe might just fundamentally disagree an the whole tool ideology. Imagine this device: It only has button, pressing it will torture every human beeing in earth for 100 years and then wipe out what's left. Trying to disassemble or analyze it will do the same. Would this still classify as "just a tool"? (peaceful uses: explaining the importance of restraint etc.) This is not supposed to be an analogy, but a serious question, because I don't believe that guns dont't kill people. And if we disagree on such a fundamental question, I don't think an internet debate could have a sensible outcome .
- pablovidal85 11y agoGuns alone don't kill people (at least if they're not programmed to do so automatically), but as humans sometimes act irrationally, one could say if the population had less guns then there will be less deaths by gun shot.
- Datsundere 11y agoThe sole purpose of a gun is the kill/destroy more efficiently because knives and forks were not.
- fridsun 11y agoBut...watergun?
- pablovidal85 11y ago
- andrepd 11y agoBut nukes are the reason there haven't been any direct wars between major powers since WWII. Isn't that a good thing?
- chronial 11y agoThat is way to utilitarian for my liking. I am also personally convinced that Hitler (sorry ) was good for the western world in the long run (I think the lesson learnt will have more impact in the long run than the damage done), but you won't ever see me defending anything like the third reich.
- mfgolden 11y agoDon't worry. In a thread w/300+ comments a hitler reference was inevitable. Real question is whether humanity is capable of learning the lesson about war in the modern age. Nukes make it so that no leader can start a war without risking their own life. Sending others to their doom is much easier, especially when there's the potential to profit. Censorship on the other hand is a sign of weakness/fear and is eventually self defeating.
- wyldfire 11y ago> In a thread w/300+ comments a hitler reference was inevitable Indeed -- it's Godwin's Law[1]! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
- mseebach 11y agoI like how the guy who thinks Hitler was a good thing because the war he caused spurred a great number of technological (including, incidentally, the nuclear bomb) and societal advances found something that was too utilitarian for his taste after all.
- et1337 11y agoI think by "lessons learnt" he meant learning about the dangers of fascim, racism, nationalism, etc. Not necessarily technological advances.
- briandear 11y agoWithout the Atomic bomb, millions of more people would have died. Thus the Atomic bomb saved lives as well as created a disincentive for Communist expansion during the Cold War. Western Europe would have been a war zone in 1960 if it weren't for the nuclear threat. Just a caveman assessment of "atom bomb bad, flower good" is intellectually weak. The atomic bomb created a balance of power, the destruction of which would have resulted in countless wars and deaths.
- kjs3 11y agoJust a caveman assessment of "atom bomb bad, flower good" is intellectually weak. A wannabe cold warrior fantasy of "without the nuke, the godless Commies would have put the boot to the civilized world" is just as intellectually weak. I thought this furious jerking off over Regan-era revisionist talking points was passé in the current century.