3 ms·
I am using nuclear war in a literal sense, but I do see how my wording seems sensationalist given historical context.
by estro0182 5y ago
I am using nuclear war in a literal sense, but I do see how my wording seems sensationalist given historical context.
- jessriedel 5y agoIt's not equivalent to nuclear war with Ukraine in either the sense of relative risk (for the reasons I gave) nor in the sense in which the term "nuclear weapons" is actually used. Russia intelligence agents poisoned Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive polonium, but this was not called a nuclear attack because that's not what the term means. One could argue, at most, that this would be equivalent to a radiological weapon ("dirty bomb"). But even then it wouldn't be correct because of the important difference between purposeful radiological dispersal and radiological dispersal as a side-effect of a legitimate military action.
- adastra22 5y agoIt is war, and it involves nuclear things. That’s what he meant by “literal sense,” I think.
- renewiltord 5y agoAh, behold, my fist is an atomic weapon because ultimately the damage it inflicts is because of the Coulomb repulsion force of the fist atoms with other atoms.
- frabbit 5y agoNo. Your fist is a biological weapon.
- Apocryphon 5y agoA kinetic weapon, really.
- 3np 5y agoD) All of the above
- renewiltord 5y agoI am Mars made flesh, a glorious warrior brimming with weapons of mass destruction.
- _dain_ 5y agoThere is a distinction between nuclear warfare and radiological warfare, which is what this would (arguably) be.