4 ms·

Are atom bombs of negative value? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_exp

Are atom bombs of negative value? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosions Peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) are nuclear explosions conducted for non-military purposes, such as activities related to economic development including the creation of canals. During the 1960s and 1970s, both the United States and the Soviet Union conducted a number of PNEs.

omarish 18y ago
Maybe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima
- gravitycop 18y ago
  You didn't answer the question. There are other types of explosives and incendiaries. Like atomic explosives, none of them are intrinsically military. Hiroshima was especially vulnerable, being essentially a medieval shantytown of wooden huts. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458599 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458599 http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com+hiroshima http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com... Hiroshima: it was not 'vaporised by 6000 °C within an instant': all the wood-frame buildings burned down in a firestorm that developed 30 minutes later
  - omarish 18y ago
    I'm not sure it's possible to determine whether something is of negative value or not. You don't have to look far to read Kranzberg's Laws of Technology, one of which says "Technology is not good, nor bad, nor neutral." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kranzberg's_laws_of_technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kranzberg's_laws_of_technology I'm not denying that explosives and incendiaries cannot be used for good purposes. Like religion, science and technology have good and bad sides. But to assume only one is not looking at the whole picture.
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      Is military strength and/or its application of negative value? If military strength is of positive value, then better weapons are of positive value. Usually, nuclear weapons are better than conventional weapons. If one fails to adequately defend himself from good weapons, it is not entirely someone else's fault.

omarish 18y ago

Maybe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima

gravitycop 18y ago
You didn't answer the question. There are other types of explosives and incendiaries. Like atomic explosives, none of them are intrinsically military. Hiroshima was especially vulnerable, being essentially a medieval shantytown of wooden huts. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458599 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458599 http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com+hiroshima http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aglasstone.blogspot.com... Hiroshima: it was not 'vaporised by 6000 °C within an instant': all the wood-frame buildings burned down in a firestorm that developed 30 minutes later
- omarish 18y ago
  I'm not sure it's possible to determine whether something is of negative value or not. You don't have to look far to read Kranzberg's Laws of Technology, one of which says "Technology is not good, nor bad, nor neutral." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kranzberg's_laws_of_technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kranzberg's_laws_of_technology I'm not denying that explosives and incendiaries cannot be used for good purposes. Like religion, science and technology have good and bad sides. But to assume only one is not looking at the whole picture.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    Is military strength and/or its application of negative value? If military strength is of positive value, then better weapons are of positive value. Usually, nuclear weapons are better than conventional weapons. If one fails to adequately defend himself from good weapons, it is not entirely someone else's fault.