4 ms·
This knee-jerk reaction to the subject doesn’t add much to the discussion. This is the result of a study aimed specifically at analyzing the safety of those nuc
by ricardobeat 3y ago
This knee-jerk reaction to the subject doesn’t add much to the discussion. This is the result of a study aimed specifically at analyzing the safety of those nuclear installations. An argument with substance for an opposing point of view would be a lot more welcome than a cheap jab.
- jiriro 3y agoNot at all knee-jerk nor cheap job. The article does not address the option of not having those missiles. And this “not addressing” seems highly deliberate.
- ricardobeat 3y agoIf I do a piece on river pollution being caused by a steel plant, do I have to "address" the scenario where the plant doesn't exist to be "balanced"?
- causi 3y agoSteel plants polluting nearby rivers is an optional aspect of steel plants. Potentially being hit by attacks is not an optional part of having nuclear weapons.
- sobellian 3y agoDo you want GP to use more words to say the same thing? He's right. Just to pick out their leading argument, they simulate a nuclear attack on the silos. AFAICT they do not simulate alternative nuclear war scenarios where the silos do not exist. That seems like an important omission.
- benterix 3y agoWhat do you mean by "an argument with substance"? The reason to have nuclear silos is to have them act as a nuclear sponge. Make them conspicuous, well-known, that's the whole point. We don't have nukes to attack other but to deter wars and minimize casualties should someone be stupid enough to attack a nuclear superpower.
- enterprise_cog 3y agoThat idea is absurd. No matter how big your “sponge”, all it takes is a few dozen to land on major cities for the US and its economy to be devastated.
- benterix 3y agoThe idea of a nuclear war is absurd. But should someone be stupid enough to start it, any means of reducing damage and minimizing casualties are good.